[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6226-S6243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Stevens and Mr. Simon):
  S. 1869. A bill to make certain technical corrections in the Indian 
Health Care Improvement Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Indian Affairs.


  THE INDIAN HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 1996

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
Senators Kassebaum, Murkowski, Stevens, and Simon to introduce 
legislation to make various technical amendments to the Indian Health 
Care Improvement Act.
  The bill we are introducing today will simply make technical changes 
to certain provisions of the act and extend the authorization for 
several Indian health care demonstration programs.
  Mr. President, the Congress passed the Indian Health Care Improvement 
Act in 1976 to raise the level of health care provided to American 
Indians and Alaska Native communities. While the health status of 
Indian people has generally improved since its enactment, it still lags 
far behind any other segment of our population. Health crises in every 
possible problem area continue to afflict many reservation communities 
at alarming rates. The mortality rate for diabetes exceeds the national 
average by 139 percent. American Indians are four times more likely to 
die from alcoholism than other Americans. The incidence rates for fetal 
alcohol syndrome among native Americans is six times the national 
average.
  The Indian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted to meet the 
fundamental trust obligation of the United States to ensure that 
comprehensive health care would be provided to American Indians and 
Alaska Natives as it is provided to all other Americans. The act was 
amended in 1992 to extend most of the authorized programs through the 
year 2000, at which time the Indian Health Service is required to 
report to Congress on the progress of meeting the health objectives 
outlined in the act. Until such time, we are seeking to make minor 
changes to certain provisions of the act to allow maximum flexibility 
in the delivery of health services to American Indians and Alaska 
Natives and to ensure that several important tribal programs can 
continue through the year 2000.
  First, the bill amends section 4(n), the Indian health scholarship 
and loan repayment fund, by modifying the definition of the term 
``Health Profession.'' This modification will provide greater 
flexibility to the IHS to determine eligibility for financial 
assistance to Indians enrolled in health degree programs. Second, the 
bill amends section 104(b), the Indian health professions scholarship, 
to maximize opportunities for scholarship recipients to meet their 
service obligations to the IHS. It also authorizes the Secretary to 
waive or suspend a service or payment obligation upon death, extreme 
hardship conditions or bankruptcy. Next, the bill amends section 206 
regarding reimbursement from certain third parties of costs of health 
services to clarify the provisions for individuals in collection 
actions for services provided by IHS or tribal health facilities. These 
provisions were previously adopted by the Senate on October 31, 1995 as 
part of S. 325, the Native American Technical Corrections Act. However, 
the House has not yet acted upon S. 325 because the bill contained 
provisions resulting in joint referrals to a number of House 
committees. The bill I am introducing today has been drafted to permit 
referral to just one House Committee.

  The bill also amends section 405 to continue the Medicare/Medicaid 
Demonstration Program for direct billing of Medicaid, Medicare and 
other third party payers. The demonstration program authorizes up to 
four tribally-operated IHS hospitals or clinics to participate directly 
in the billing and receipt of Medicare/Medicaid payments rather than 
through the current system of channeling payments through the IHS. The 
four participating tribes including Mississippi Choctaw Health Center, 
Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Choctaw Tribe of Oklahoma and 
South East Alaska Regional Health Consortium, unanimously report 
successful results and satisfaction with the program. Collections for 
some of these tribes have since doubled due to the implementation of 
the program. I have also received a strong interest from other Indian 
tribes in expanding this program so that other eligible tribal 
operators may participate in this direct billing process.
  The Medicare/Medicaid Demonstration Program is set to expire on 
September 30, 1996 at which time the Secretary of the Department of 
Health and Human Services will evaluate the program and provide a 
recommendation on whether the program should be made a permanent 
program. However, without this proposed extension, the four tribal 
participants will be forced to shut down their direct billing/
collection departments and return to the old system of IHS-managed 
collections.
  Given the highly favorable reports of the participating tribal 
programs, we are proposing to continue the program through the year 
2000 and expand the number of eligible tribal facilities from four to 
twelve. The Congress will evaluate the future of the program when the 
Secretary has submitted the final report on the project.
  Finally, the act extends the authorization for several innovative 
health care demonstration projects that were established as model 
programs to be replicated on other Indian reservations. Several of 
these demonstration projects, including the California Contract Health 
Services Demonstration Program, the Gallup Alcohol and Substance Abuse 
Demonstration Program, the Substance Abuse Counselor Education 
Demonstration Program and the Home and Community Based Care 
Demonstration Program, are due to sunset in this fiscal year.
  While the programs expire in fiscal year 1997, the Secretary is not 
required to provide a report on these programs until 1999. I believe 
that these programs should be reauthorized through the year 2000 in 
order to continue the important health care services provided by these 
programs and to achieve consistency with other portions of the act. The 
bill will simply extend the authorization for these programs through 
the year 2000 until such time that the Secretary prepares his report on 
the entire Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
  Mr. President, this legislation is necessary to ensure the 
continuation of these important health care programs for Indian people. 
It is my hope that we can move this bill quickly and favorably. I urge 
my colleagues to support the immediate passage of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill and the 
section-by-section summary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1869

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Indian 
     Health Care Improvement Technical Corrections Act of 1996''.
       (b) References.--Whenever in this Act an amendment or 
     repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of 
     a section or other provision, the reference shall be 
     considered to be made to a section or other provision of the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

     SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN THE INDIAN HEALTH CARE 
                   IMPROVEMENT ACT.

       (a) Definition of Health Profession.--Section 4(n) (25 
     U.S.C. 1603(n)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``allopathic medicine,'' before ``family 
     medicine''; and
       (2) by striking ``and allied health professions'' and 
     inserting ``an allied health profession, or any other health 
     profession''.
       (b) Indian Health Professions Scholarships.--Section 104(b) 
     of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 
     1613a(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking the matter preceding clause (i) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3)(A) The active duty service obligation under a written 
     contract with the Secretary under section 338A of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l) that an individual has 
     entered into under that section shall, if that individual is 
     a recipient of an Indian Health Scholarship, be met in full-
     time practice, by service--'';
       (ii) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii);
       (iii) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and

[[Page S6227]]

       (iv) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) in an academic setting (including a program that 
     receives funding under section 102, 112, or 114, or any other 
     academic setting that the Secretary, acting through the 
     Service, determines to be appropriate for the purposes of 
     this clause) in which the major duties and responsibilities 
     of the recipient are the recruitment and training of Indian 
     health professionals in the discipline of that recipient in a 
     manner consistent with the purpose of this title, as 
     specified in section 101.'';
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively;
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) At the request of any individual who has entered into 
     a contract referred to in subparagraph (A) and who receives a 
     degree in medicine (including osteopathic or allopathic 
     medicine), dentistry, optometry, podiatry, or pharmacy, the 
     Secretary shall defer the active duty service obligation of 
     that individual under that contract, in order that such 
     individual may complete any internship, residency, or other 
     advanced clinical training that is required for the practice 
     of that health profession, for an appropriate period (in 
     years, as determined by the Secretary), subject to the 
     following conditions:
       ``(i) No period of internship, residency, or other advanced 
     clinical training shall be counted as satisfying any period 
     of obligated service that is required under this section.
       ``(ii) The active duty service obligation of that 
     individual shall commence not later than 90 days after the 
     completion of that advanced clinical training (or by a date 
     specified by the Secretary).
       ``(iii) The active duty service obligation will be served 
     in the health profession of that individual, in a manner 
     consistent with clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph 
     (A).'';
       (D) in subparagraph (C), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``prescribed under section 338C of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 254m) by service in a program specified in 
     subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``described in subparagraph 
     (A) by service in a program specified in that subparagraph''; 
     and
       (E) in subparagraph (D), as so redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``Subject to subparagraph (B),'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to subparagraph (C),''; and
       (ii) by striking ``prescribed under section 338C of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254m)'' and inserting 
     ``described in subparagraph (A)'';
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the matter preceding 
     clause (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(B) the period of obligated service described in 
     paragraph (3)(A) shall be equal to the greater of--''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``(42 U.S.C. 
     254m(g)(1)(B))'' and inserting ``(42 U.S.C. 254l(g)(1)(B))'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) Upon the death of an individual who receives an 
     Indian Health Scholarship, any obligation of that individual 
     for service or payment that relates to that scholarship shall 
     be canceled.
       ``(D) The Secretary shall provide for the partial or total 
     waiver or suspension of any obligation of service or payment 
     of a recipient of an Indian Health Scholarship if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       ``(i) it is not possible for the recipient to meet that 
     obligation or make that payment;
       ``(ii) requiring that recipient to meet that obligation or 
     make that payment would result in extreme hardship to the 
     recipient; or
       ``(iii) the enforcement of the requirement to meet the 
     obligation or make the payment would be unconscionable.
       ``(E) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any 
     case of extreme hardship or for other good cause shown, the 
     Secretary may waive, in whole or in part, the right of the 
     United States to recover funds made available under this 
     section.
       ``(F) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with 
     respect to a recipient of an Indian Health Scholarship, no 
     obligation for payment may be released by a discharge in 
     bankruptcy under title 11, United States Code, unless that 
     discharge is granted after the expiration of the 5-year 
     period beginning on the initial date on which that payment is 
     due, and only if the bankruptcy court finds that the 
     nondischarge of the obligation would be unconscionable.''.
       (c) Reimbursement From Certain Third Parties of Costs of 
     Health Services.--Section 206 (16 U.S.C. 1621e) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Except as provided'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Right of Recovery.--Except as provided'';
       (ii) by striking ``the reasonable expenses incurred'' and 
     inserting ``the reasonable charges billed'';
       (iii) by striking ``in providing'' and inserting ``for 
     providing''; and
       (iv) by striking ``for such expenses'' and inserting ``for 
     such charges''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``such expenses'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``such charges'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``(b) Subsection (a)'' 
     and inserting ``(b) Recovery Against State With Workers' 
     Compensation Laws or No-Fault Automobile Accident Insurance 
     Program.--Subsection (a)'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c) No law'' and 
     inserting ``(c) Prohibition of State Law or Contract 
     Provision Impediment to Right of Recovery.--No law'';
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``(d) No action'' and 
     inserting ``(d) Right to Damages.--No action'';
       (5) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``(e) The United States'' and inserting ``(e) Intervention or 
     Separate Civil Action.--The United States''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(2) while making all reasonable efforts to provide notice 
     of the action to the individual to whom health services are 
     provided prior to the filing of the action, instituting a 
     civil action.'';
       (6) in subsection (f), by striking ``(f) The United 
     States'' and inserting ``(f) Services Covered Under a Self-
     Insurance Plan.--The United States''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(g) Costs of Action.--In any action brought to enforce 
     this section, the court shall award any prevailing plaintiff 
     costs, including attorneys' fees that were reasonably 
     incurred in that action.
       ``(h) Right of Recovery for Failure To Provide Reasonable 
     Assurances.--The United States, an Indian tribe, or a tribal 
     organization shall have the right to recover damages against 
     any fiduciary of an insurance company or employee benefit 
     plan that is a provider referred to in subsection (a) who--
       ``(1) fails to provide reasonable assurances that such 
     insurance company or employee benefit plan has funds that are 
     sufficient to pay all benefits owed by that insurance company 
     or employee benefit plan in its capacity as such a provider; 
     or
       ``(2) otherwise hinders or prevents recovery under 
     subsection (a), including hindering the pursuit of any claim 
     for a remedy that may be asserted by a beneficiary or 
     participant covered under subsection (a) under any other 
     applicable Federal or State law.''.
       (d) California Contract Health Services Demonstration 
     Program.--Section 211(g) (25 U.S.C. 1621j(g)) is amended by 
     striking ``1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997'' and inserting 
     ``1996 through 2000''.
       (e) Medicare and Medicaid Demonstration Program.--Section 
     405(c) (42 U.S.C. 1395qq note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(D), by striking ``prior to October 1, 
     1990'' and inserting ``on or before the date which is 1 year 
     after the date of submission of the plan''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``, prior to October 1, 1989, select no 
     more than 4'' and inserting ``select no more than 12''; and
       (B) by striking ``September 30, 1996'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2000''.
       (f) Gallup Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment Center.--
     Section 706(d) (25 U.S.C. 1665e(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated, for each of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2000, such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     subsection (b).''.
       (g) Substance Abuse Counselor Education Demonstration 
     Program.--Section 711(h) (25 U.S.C. 1665j(h)) is amended by 
     striking ``1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997'' and inserting 
     ``1996 through 2000''.
       (h) Home and Community-Based Care Demonstration Program.--
     Section 821(i) (25 U.S.C. 1680k(i)) is amended by striking 
     ``1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997''and inserting ``1996 
     through 2000''.
                                                                    ____


 Section-by-Section Summary--Indian Health Care Improvement Technical 
                        Corrections Act of 1996

       Section 1(a) sets forth the short title of the Act.
       Section 1(b) provides that wherever a section or other 
     provision is amended or repealed in this Act, such amendment 
     shall be considered made to the referenced section or 
     provision of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 
     U.S.C. 1601 et. seq.).
       Section 2(a) amends Section 4(n) of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act to modify the definition of ``Health 
     Profession'' to specify that ``allopathic medicine'' shall be 
     added as an eligible degree program for individuals to 
     qualify for scholarships and loan repayment programs. This 
     section also modifies the definition by striking the current 
     language of ``and allied health professions'' and inserting 
     ``an allied health profession, or any other health 
     profession'' to allow the IHS additional flexibility to 
     determine eligibility for scholarships and loan repayments 
     for individuals enrolled in health professions not specified 
     under this section.
       Section 2(b) amends Section 104(b) of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act to add a new provision that clarifies 
     that an individual serving in an academic setting that is 
     funded under sections 102, 112, or 114 of the Act who is 
     responsible for the recruitment and training of Indian Health 
     Professionals shall be considered to be meeting their service 
     obligations under section 338A of the Public Health Service 
     Act. This provision will allow an individual to meet their 
     service obligation to the IHS by working at a university or 
     other academic setting which is responsible for recruiting 
     and training American Indians in the health professions. This

[[Page S6228]]

     is also intended to clarify that the Secretary may defer an 
     individual's service obligation during the term of an 
     internship, residency or other advanced clinical program. 
     Section 104(b) is further amended by adding new subsections 
     to address unique circumstances under which the Secretary to 
     authorized to waive or suspend service or payment obligations 
     due to death or the Secretary's determination that it would 
     cause extreme hardship or to enforce such a requirement would 
     be unconscionable. An additional subsection is added to 
     clarify the terms under which an individual's payment 
     obligation may be discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding.
       Section 2(c) amends Section 206 of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act to clarify the notice provisions for 
     individuals in collection actions for services provided by 
     IHS or tribal health facilities and recoverable costs in such 
     a collection action and the right of the United States and 
     Indian tribes to recover against an insurance company or 
     employee benefit plan.
       Section 2(d) amends Section 211(g) of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act to extend the authorization for the 
     California Contract Health Services Demonstration Program 
     until the year 2000.
       Section 2(e) amends Section 405(c) of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act to provide that applicants for the 
     Medicare and Medicaid Demonstration Program must be 
     accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of 
     Hospitals within one year of submission of an application. 
     Section 405(c) is amended to increase the number of eligible 
     tribal health facilities from four to twelve. The 
     authorization for the Medicare and Medicaid Demonstration 
     Program is extended until the year 2000.
       Section 2(f) amends Section 706(d) of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act to strike out 706(d) in its entirety and 
     add a new subsection that will extend the authorization for 
     the Gallup Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment Center until 
     the year 2000.
       Section 2(g) amends Section 711(h) of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act to extend the authorization for the 
     Substance Abuse Counselor Education Demonstration Program 
     until the year 2000.
       Section 2(h) amends Section 821(I) of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act to extend the authorization for the Home 
     and Community-Based Care Demonstration Program until the year 
     2000.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 1870. A bill to establish a medical education trust fund, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


              THE MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST FUND ACT OF 1996

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that 
would establish a Medical Education Trust Fund to support America's 124 
medical schools and 1,250 teaching hospitals. These institutions are 
national treasures; they are the very best in the world. Yet today they 
find themselves in a precarious financial situation as market forces 
reshape the health care delivery system in the United States. Explicit 
and dedicated funding for these institutions, which this legislation 
will provide, will ensure that the United States continues to lead the 
world in the quality of its health care system.
  This legislation requires that the public sector, through the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the private sector, through an 
assessment on health insurance premiums, will contribute broad-based 
and fair financial support. Over the 5-year period, 1997 to 2001, the 
Medical Education Trust Fund established under this legislation would 
provide average annual payments of about $17 billion, roughly doubling 
the funding that we currently provide for medical education.


                             Brief History

  My particular interest in this subject began in 1994, when the 
Finance Committee took up the President's Health Security Act. I was 
Chairman of the Committee at the time. In January of that year, I asked 
Paul Marks, M.D., President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 
in New York City, if he would arrange a ``seminar'' for me on health 
care issues. He agreed, and gathered a number of medical school deans 
together one morning in New York.
  Early on in the meeting, one of the seminarians remarked that the 
University of Minnesota might have to close its medical school. In an 
instant I realized I had heard something new. Minnesota is a place 
where they open medical schools, not close them. How, then, could this 
be? The answer was that Minnesota, being Minnesota, was a leading state 
in the growth of Health Maintenance Organizations, and HMO's do not 
send patients to teaching hospitals, absent which you cannot have a 
medical school.
  We are in the midst of a great age of discovery in medical science. 
It is certainly not a time to close medical schools. This great era of 
medical discovery is occurring right here in the United States, not in 
Europe like past ages of scientific discovery. And it is centered in 
New York City. This heroic age of medical science started in the late 
1930's. Before then, the average patient was probably as well off, 
perhaps better, out of a hospital as in one. Progress from that point 
60 years ago has been remarkable. The last few decades have brought us 
images of the inside of the human body based on the magnetic resonance 
of bodily tissues; laser surgery; micro surgery for reattaching limbs; 
and organ transplantation, among other wonders. I can hardly imagine 
what might be next. Physicians are now working on a gene therapy that 
might eventually replace bypass surgery.
  After months of hearings and debate on the President's Health 
Security Act, I became convinced that special provisions would have to 
be made for medical schools, teaching hospitals, and medical research 
if we were not to see this great moment in medical science suddenly 
constrained. To that end, when the Committee on Finance voted 12 to 8 
on July 2, 1994, to report the Health Security Act, it included a 
graduate medical education and academic health centers trust fund. The 
trust fund provided an 80-percent increase in Federal funding for 
academic medicine; as importantly, it represented stable, long-term 
funding. While nothing came of the effort to enact universal health 
care coverage, the medical education trust fund enjoyed widespread 
support. An amendment by then-Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming to kill 
the trust fund by striking the source of its revenue--a 1.75-percent 
assessment on health insurance premiums--failed on a 7 to 13 vote in 
the Finance Committee.
  I continued to press the issue in the first session of the 104th 
Congress. On September 29, 1995, during Finance Committee consideration 
of the budget reconciliation legislation, I offered an amendment to 
establish a similar trust fund. With a new majority in control and the 
committee in the midst of considering a highly partisan budget 
reconciliation bill, my amendment failed on a tie vote, 10 to 10. 
Notably, however, the House version of the reconciliation bill did 
include a graduate medical education trust fund. That provision 
ultimately passed both Houses as part of the conference agreement, 
which was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton.

  The conference agreement on the budget resolution, being considered 
by the Senate and House this week, also apparently assumes that this 
year's Medicare reconciliation bill will include a similar trust fund.
  That is the history of this effort, briefly stated.


                          Need for Legislation

  Medical education is one of America's most precious public resources. 
It should be explicitly financed with contributions from all sectors of 
the health care system, not just the Medicare Program as is the case 
today. The fiscal pressures of a competitive health care market are 
increasingly closing off traditional implicit revenue sources--such as 
additional payments from private payers--that have in the past 
supported medical schools, graduate medical education, and research. 
This legislation provides alternative funding to prevent the 
deterioration of these institutions and the invaluable services they 
provide.
  Events in Rochester, NY, a community with a long and proud tradition 
of quality, cost-effective health care, provide a good example of how 
market forces are reshaping the health care delivery system. Last year, 
the only option available to retirees of Kodak at no additional cost 
was a managed care plan. Unfortunately, that managed care plan excluded 
Strong Memorial, Rochester's prestigious teaching hospital. Strong 
Memorial was established in 1920 with the help of George Eastman and 
was named for Henry Strong, a financier of Eastman. Yet ironically, 75 
years later, Eastman Kodak's retirees could not get care at Strong 
Memorial Hospital.
  After much protest, the managed care plan brought Strong Memorial 
into its provider network, but only after Kodak agreed to make separate 
payments for 1 year to support the costs of graduate medical education 
at

[[Page S6229]]

Strong. The Rochester community worked out a solution, however 
temporary, to the problems faced by its primary teaching hospital, but 
we cannot, and should not, rely on the Kodaks of the world to finance 
medical education. We must adopt a comprehensive Federal strategy.
  Other teaching hospitals are facing similar difficulties. In its June 
1995 ``Report to Congress,'' the Prospective Payment Assessment 
Commission [ProPAC], the Commission which advises Congress on Medicare 
hospital insurance part A payment, summarized the situation of teaching 
hospitals as follows:

       As competition in the health care system intensifies, the 
     additional costs borne by teaching hospitals will place them 
     at a disadvantage relative to other facilities. The role, 
     scale, function, and number of these institutions 
     increasingly will be challenged. . .. Accelerating price 
     competition in the private sector . . . is reducing the 
     ability of teaching hospitals to obtain the higher patient 
     care rates from other payers that traditionally have 
     contributed to financing the costs associated with graduate 
     medical education.

  ProPAC's June 1996 ``Report to Congress,'' issued just last week, 
confirmed that ``major teaching hospitals have the dual problems of 
higher overall losses from uncompensated care and less above cost 
revenue from private insurers.''
  It is obvious that teaching hospitals can no longer rely on higher 
payments from private payers to cover the costs of their teaching 
programs. Nor should they. The establishment of this trust fund, which 
reimburses teaching hospitals for the costs of graduate medical 
education, will ensure that teaching hospitals can pursue their vitally 
important patient care, training, and research missions in the face of 
an increasingly competitive health system.
  Medical schools also face an uncertain future. There are many policy 
issues that need to be examined regarding the role of medical schools 
in our health system, but two threats faced by medical schools now 
require immediate attention. This legislation addresses both. First, 
many medical schools are immediately threatened by the dire financial 
condition of their affiliated teaching hospitals. Medical schools rely 
on teaching hospitals to provide a place for their faculty to practice 
and perform research, a place to send third- and fourth-year medical 
school students for training, and for some direct revenues. By 
improving the financial condition of teaching hospitals, this 
legislation significantly improves the outlook for medical schools.

  The second immediate threat faced by medical schools stems from their 
reliance on a portion of the clinical practice revenue generated by 
their faculties to support their operations. As competition within the 
health system intensifies and managed care proliferates, these revenues 
are shrinking. This legislation provides payments to medical schools 
from the trust fund that are designed to partially offset this loss of 
revenue.
  None of the foregoing is meant to suggest that the new competitive 
forces reshaping health care have brought only negative results. To the 
contrary, the onset of competition has had many beneficial effects, the 
dramatic curtailing of growth in health insurance premiums being the 
most obvious. But as Msgr. Charles J. Fahey of Fordham University 
warned in testimony before the Finance Committee in 1994, we must be 
wary of the ``commodification of health care,'' by which he meant that 
health care is not just another commodity. We can rely on competition 
to hold down costs in much of the health system, but we must not allow 
it to bring a premature end to this great age of medical discovery, an 
age made possible by this country's exceptionally well-trained health 
professionals and superior medical schools and teaching hospitals. This 
legislation complements a competitive health market by providing tax-
supported funding for the public services provided by teaching 
hospitals and medical schools.


                       Description of Legislation

  The medical education trust fund established in the legislation I 
have just introduced would receive funding from three sources broadly 
representing the entire health care system: A 1.5-percent tax on health 
insurance premiums, the private sector's contribution; Medicare, and 
Medicaid, the latter two sources comprising the public sector's 
contribution. The relative contribution from each of these sources will 
be in rough proportion to the medical education costs attributable to 
their respective covered populations.
  Over the 5-year period 1997 to 2001, the medical education trust fund 
will provide average annual payments of about $17 billion. The tax on 
health insurance premiums, including self-insured health plans, raises 
approximately $4 billion per year for the trust fund. Federal health 
programs contribute about $13 billion per year to the trust fund: $9 
billion in transfers of Medicare graduate medical education payments 
and $4 billion in Federal Medicaid spending.
  This legislation is only a first step. It establishes the principle 
that, as a public good, medical education should be supported by 
dedicated, long-term Federal funding. To ensure that the United States 
continues to lead the world in the quality of its medical education and 
its health system as a whole, the legislation would also create a 
medical education advisory commission to conduct a thorough study and 
make recommendations, including the potential use of demonstration 
projects, regarding the following: alternative and additional sources 
of medical education financing; alternative methodologies for financing 
medical education; policies designed to maintain superior research and 
educational capacities in an increasingly competitive health system; 
the appropriate role of medical schools in graduate medical education; 
and policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate medical 
education payments to institutions other than teaching hospitals.
  Mr. President, the services provided by this Nation's teaching 
hospitals and medical schools--groundbreaking research, highly skilled 
medical care, and the training of tomorrow's physicians--are vitally 
important and must be protected in this time of intense economic 
competition in the health system. I therefore urge Senators to support 
the Medical Education Trust Fund Act of 1996.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary and a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1870

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medical 
     Education Trust Fund Act of 1996''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this title 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Medical Education Trust Fund.
Sec. 3. Amendments to medicare program.
Sec. 4. Amendments to medicaid program.
Sec. 5. Assessments on insured and self-insured health plans.
Sec. 6. Medical Education Advisory Commission.
Sec. 7. Demonstration projects.

     SEC. 2. MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST FUND.

       The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding after title XX the following new title:

               ``TITLE XXI--MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST FUND


                      ``table of contents of title

``Sec. 2101. Establishment of Trust Fund.
``Sec. 2102. Payments to medical schools.
``Sec. 2103. Payments to teaching hospitals.

     ``SEC. 2101. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) In General.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the Medical Education 
     Trust Fund (in this title referred to as the `Trust Fund'), 
     consisting of the following accounts:
       ``(1) The Medical School Account.
       ``(2) The Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account.
       ``(3) The Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account.
       ``(4) The Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account.
       ``(5) The Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account.

     Each such account shall consist of such amounts as are 
     allocated and transferred to such account under this section, 
     sections 1876(a)(7), 1886(j) and 1931, and section 4503 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Amounts in the accounts of 
     the Trust Fund shall remain available until expended.
       ``(b) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--Amounts in the 
     accounts of the Trust Fund are available to the Secretary for 
     making payments under sections 2102 and 2103.
       ``(c) Investment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     invest amounts in the accounts of the Trust Fund which the 
     Secretary determines are not required to meet

[[Page S6230]]

     current withdrawals from the Trust Fund. Such investments may 
     be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United 
     States. For such purpose, such obligations may be acquired on 
     original issue at the issue price, or by purchase of 
     outstanding obligations at the market price.
       ``(2) Sale of obligations.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     may sell at market price any obligation acquired under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Availability of income.--Any interest derived from 
     obligations held in each such account, and proceeds from any 
     sale or redemption of such obligations, are hereby 
     appropriated to such account.
       ``(d) Monetary Gifts to Trust Fund.--There are appropriated 
     to the Trust Fund such amounts as may be unconditionally 
     donated to the Federal Government as gifts to the Trust Fund. 
     Such amounts shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     accounts described in subsection (a) in the same proportion 
     as the amounts in each of the accounts bears to the total 
     amount in all the accounts of the Trust Fund.

     ``SEC. 2102. PAYMENTS TO MEDICAL SCHOOLS.

       ``(a) Federal Payments to Medical Schools for Certain 
     Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a medical school that in 
     accordance with paragraph (2) submits to the Secretary an 
     application for fiscal year 1997 or any subsequent fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall make payments for such year to the 
     medical school for the purpose specified in paragraph (3). 
     The Secretary shall make such payments from the Medical 
     School Account in an amount determined in accordance with 
     subsection (b), and may administer the payments as a 
     contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.
       ``(2) Application for payments.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), an application for payments under such paragraph for a 
     fiscal year is in accordance with this paragraph if--
       ``(A) the medical school involved submits the application 
     not later than the date specified by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) the application is in such form, is made in such 
     manner, and contains such agreements, assurances, and 
     information as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     carry out this section.
       ``(3) Purpose of payments.--The purpose of payments under 
     paragraph (1) is to assist medical schools in maintaining and 
     developing quality educational programs in an increasingly 
     competitive health care system.
       ``(b) Availability of Trust Fund for Payments; Annual 
     Amount of Payments.--
       ``(1) Availability of trust fund for payments.--The 
     following amounts shall be available for a fiscal year for 
     making payments under subsection (a) from the amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Medical School Account under 
     sections 1876(a)(7), 1886(j), 1931, 2101(c)(3) and (d), and 
     section 4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
       ``(A) In the case of fiscal year 1997, $200,000,000.
       ``(B) In the case of fiscal year 1998, $300,000,000.
       ``(C) In the case of fiscal year 1999, $400,000,000.
       ``(D) In the case of fiscal year 2000, $500,000,000.
       ``(E) In the case of fiscal year 2001, $600,000,000.
       ``(F) In the case of each subsequent fiscal year, the 
     amount specified in this paragraph in the previous fiscal 
     year updated through the midpoint of the year by the 
     estimated percentage change in the general health care 
     inflation factor (as defined in subsection (d)) during the 
     12-month period ending at that midpoint, with appropriate 
     adjustments to reflect previous underestimations or 
     overestimations under this subparagraph in the projected 
     health care inflation factor.
       ``(2) Amount of payments for medical schools.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the annual amount available 
     under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the amount of payments 
     required under subsection (a) to be made to a medical school 
     that submits to the Secretary an application for such year in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(2) is an amount equal to an 
     amount determined by the Secretary in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Development of formula.--The Secretary shall develop 
     a formula for allocation of funds to medical schools under 
     this section consistent with the purpose described in 
     subsection (a)(3).
       ``(c) Medical School Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `medical school' means a school of medicine 
     (as defined in section 799 of the Public Health Service Act) 
     or a school of osteopathic medicine (as defined in such 
     section).
       ``(d) General Health Care Inflation Factor.--The term 
     `general health care inflation factor' means the consumer 
     price index for medical services as determined by the Bureau 
     of Labor Statistics.

     ``SEC. 2103. PAYMENTS TO TEACHING HOSPITALS.

       ``(a) Formula Payments to Eligible Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any fiscal year beginning 
     after September 30, 1996, the Secretary shall make payments 
     to each eligible entity that, in accordance with paragraph 
     (2), submits to the Secretary an application for such fiscal 
     year. Such payments shall be made from the Trust Fund, and 
     the total of the payments to the eligible entity for the 
     fiscal year shall equal the sum of the amounts determined 
     under subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e).
       ``(2) Application.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an 
     application shall contain such information as may be 
     necessary for the Secretary to make payments under such 
     paragraph to an eligible entity during a fiscal year. An 
     application shall be treated as submitted in accordance with 
     this paragraph if it is submitted not later than the date 
     specified by the Secretary, and is made in such form and 
     manner as the Secretary may require.
       ``(3) Periodic payments.--Payments under paragraph (1) to 
     an eligible entity for a fiscal year shall be made 
     periodically, at such intervals and in such amounts as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate (subject to applicable 
     Federal law regarding Federal payments).
       ``(4) Administrator of programs.--The Secretary shall carry 
     out responsibility under this title by acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration.
       ``(5) Eligible entity.--For purposes of this title, the 
     term `eligible entity', with respect to any fiscal year, 
     means--
       ``(A) for payment under subsections (b) and (c), an entity 
     which would be eligible to receive payments for such fiscal 
     year under--
       ``(i) section 1886(d)(5)(B), if such payments had not been 
     terminated for discharges occurring after September 30, 1996;
       ``(ii) section 1886(h), if such payments had not been 
     terminated for cost reporting periods beginning after 
     September 30, 1996; or
       ``(iii) both sections; or
       ``(B) for payment under subsections (d) and (e)--
       ``(i) an entity which meets the requirement of subparagraph 
     (A); or
       ``(ii) an entity which the Secretary determines should be 
     considered an eligible entity.
       ``(b) Determination of Amount From Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Indirect Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Medicare Teaching Hospital 
     Indirect Account under sections 1876(a)(7) and 1886(j)(1), 
     and subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2101 for such 
     fiscal year.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year is equal 
     to the percentage of the total payments which would have been 
     made to the eligible entity in such fiscal year under section 
     1886(d)(5)(B) if--
       ``(A) such payments had not been terminated for discharges 
     occurring after September 30, 1996; and
       ``(B) such payments included payments for individuals 
     enrolled in a plan under section 1876, except that for fiscal 
     years 1997, 1998, and 1999, only the applicable percentage 
     (as defined in section 1876(a)(7)(B)) of such payments shall 
     be taken into account.
       ``(c) Determination of Amount From Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Direct Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Medicare Teaching Hospital 
     Direct Account under sections 1876(a)(7) and 1886(j)(2), and 
     subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2101 for such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year is equal 
     to the percentage of the total payments which would have been 
     made to the eligible entity in such fiscal year under section 
     1886(h) if--
       ``(A) such payments had not been terminated for cost 
     reporting periods beginning after September 30, 1996; and
       ``(B) such payments included payments for individuals 
     enrolled in a plan under section 1876, except that for fiscal 
     years 1997, 1998, and 1999, only the applicable percentage 
     (as defined in section 1876(a)(7)(B)) of such payments shall 
     be taken into account.
       ``(d) Determination of Amount From Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Indirect Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Indirect Account for such fiscal year under section 
     1931, subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2101, and section 
     4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year for an 
     eligible entity is equal to the percentage of the total 
     payments which, as determined by the Secretary, would have 
     been made in such fiscal year under section 1886(d)(5)(B) 
     if--
       ``(A) such payments had not been terminated for discharges 
     occurring after September 30, 1996; and
       ``(B) non-medicare patients were taken into account in lieu 
     of medicare patients.
       ``(e) Determination of Amount From Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Direct Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Direct Account for such fiscal year under section 
     1931, subsections

[[Page S6231]]

     (c)(3) and (d) of section 2101, and section 4503 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year for an 
     eligible entity is equal to the percentage of the total 
     payments which, as determined by the Secretary, would have 
     been made in such fiscal year under section 1886(h) if--
       ``(A) such payments had not been terminated for cost 
     reporting periods beginning after September 30, 1996; and
       ``(B) non-medicare patients were taken into account in lieu 
     of medicare patients.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 1886 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(5)(B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``The Secretary shall provide'' and 
     inserting the following: ``For discharges occurring before 
     October 1, 1996, the Secretary shall provide'';
       (2) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``the Secretary shall provide'' and inserting ``the Secretary 
     shall, subject to paragraph (6), provide''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The authority to make payments under 
     this subsection shall not apply with respect to--
       ``(i) cost reporting periods beginning after September 30, 
     1996; and
       ``(ii) any portion of a cost reporting period beginning on 
     or before such date which occurs after such date.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--This paragraph may not be 
     construed as authorizing any payment under section 1861(v) 
     with respect to graduate medical education.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Transfers to Medical Education Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) Indirect costs of medical education.--
       ``(A) Transfer.--
       ``(i) In general.--From the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund, the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 1997 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year, transfer to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund an amount equal to the amount estimated 
     by the Secretary under subparagraph (B).
       ``(ii) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under clause 
     (i)--

       ``(I) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account an amount which bears the same ratio 
     to the total amount available under section 2102(b)(1) for 
     the fiscal year (reduced by the balance in such account at 
     the end of the preceding fiscal year) as the amount 
     transferred under clause (i) bears to the total amounts 
     transferred to the Medical Education Trust Fund under title 
     XXI (excluding amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) 
     and (d) of section 2101) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(II) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account.

       ``(B) Determination of amounts.--The Secretary shall make 
     an estimate for each fiscal year involved of the nationwide 
     total of the amounts that would have been paid under 
     subsection (d)(5)(B) to hospitals during the fiscal year if 
     such payments had not been terminated for discharges 
     occurring after September 30, 1996.
       ``(2) Direct costs of medical education.--
       ``(A) Transfer.--
       ``(i) In general.--From the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Fund, the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 1997 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year, transfer to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund an amount equal to the amount estimated 
     by the Secretary under subparagraph (B).
       ``(ii) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under clause 
     (i)--

       ``(I) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account an amount which bears the same ratio 
     to the total amount available under section 2102(b)(1) for 
     the fiscal year (reduced by the balance in such account at 
     the end of the preceding fiscal year) as the amount 
     transferred under clause (i) bears to the total amounts 
     transferred to the Medical Education Trust Fund under title 
     XXI (excluding amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) 
     and (d) of section 2101) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(II) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account.

       ``(B) Determination of amounts.--For each hospital, the 
     Secretary shall make an estimate for the fiscal year involved 
     of the amount that would have been paid under subsection (h) 
     to the hospital during the fiscal year if such payments had 
     not been terminated for cost reporting periods beginning 
     after September 30, 1996.
       ``(C) Allocation between funds.--In providing for a 
     transfer under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall provide for an allocation of the amounts 
     involved between part A and part B (and the trust funds 
     established under the respective parts) as reasonably 
     reflects the proportion of direct graduate medical education 
     costs of hospitals associated with the provision of services 
     under each respective part.''.
       (b) Medicare HMO's.--Section 1876(a) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm(a)) is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
       ``(7)(A) In determining the adjusted average per capita 
     cost under paragraph (4) for fiscal years after 1996, the 
     Secretary shall not take into account the applicable 
     percentage of costs under sections 1886(d)(5)(B) (indirect 
     costs of medical education) and 1886(h) (direct graduate 
     medical education costs).
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable 
     percentage is--
       ``(i) for fiscal year 1997, 25 percent;
       ``(ii) for fiscal year 1998, 50 percent;
       ``(iii) for fiscal year 1999, 75 percent; and
       ``(iv) for fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent fiscal 
     year, 100 percent.
       ``(C)(i) There is appropriated and transferred to the 
     Medical Education Trust Fund each fiscal year an amount equal 
     to the aggregate amounts not taken into account under 
     paragraph (4) by reason of subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Of the amounts transferred under clause (i)--
       ``(I) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account an amount which bears the same ratio 
     to the total amount available under section 2102(b)(1) for 
     the fiscal year (reduced by the balance in such account at 
     the end of the preceding fiscal year) as the amount 
     transferred under clause (i) bears to the total amounts 
     transferred to the Medical Education Trust Fund under section 
     2101 (excluding amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) 
     and (d) of such section) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(II) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account under such 
     section and the Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account 
     under such section in the same proportion as the amounts 
     attributable to the costs under sections 1886(d)(5)(B) and 
     1886(h) were of the amounts transferred under clause (i).
       ``(iii) The Secretary shall make payments under clause (i) 
     from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, in the 
     same manner as the Secretary determines under section 
     1886(j).''.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO MEDICAID PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 1931 as section 1932; and
       (2) by inserting after section 1930, the following new 
     section:


                    ``transfer of funds to accounts

       ``Sec. 1931. (a) Transfer of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--For fiscal year 1997 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall transfer to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund an amount equal to the amount determined 
     under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account an amount which bears the same ratio 
     to the total amount available under section 2102(b)(1) for 
     the fiscal year (reduced by the balance in such account at 
     the end of the preceding fiscal year) as the amount 
     transferred under paragraph (1) bears to the total amounts 
     transferred to the Medical Education Trust Fund under title 
     XXI (excluding amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) 
     and (d) of section 2101) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(B) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account and the 
     Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account, in the same 
     proportion as the amounts transferred to each account under 
     section 1886(j) relate to the total amounts transferred under 
     such section for such fiscal year.
       ``(b) Amount Determined.--
       ``(1) Outlays for acute medical services during preceding 
     fiscal year.--Beginning with fiscal year 1997, the Secretary 
     shall determine 5 percent of the total amount of Federal 
     outlays made under this title for acute medical services, as 
     defined in paragraph (2), for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) Acute medical services defined.--The term `acute 
     medical services' means items and services described in 
     section 1905(a) other than the following:
       ``(A) Nursing facility services (as defined in section 
     1905(f)).
       ``(B) Intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded 
     services (as defined in section 1905(d)).
       ``(C) Personal care services (as described in section 
     1905(a)(24)).
       ``(D) Private duty nursing services (as referred to in 
     section 1905(a)(8)).
       ``(E) Home or community-based services furnished under a 
     waiver granted under subsection (c), (d), or (e) of section 
     1915.
       ``(F) Home and community care furnished to functionally 
     disabled elderly individuals under section 1929.
       ``(G) Community supported living arrangements services 
     under section 1930.
       ``(H) Case-management services (as described in section 
     1915(g)(2)).
       ``(I) Home health care services (as referred to in section 
     1905(a)(7)), clinic services, and rehabilitation services 
     that are furnished to an individual who has a condition or 
     disability that qualifies the individual to receive any of 
     the services described in a previous subparagraph.
       ``(J) Services furnished in an institution for mental 
     diseases (as defined in section 1905(i)).

[[Page S6232]]

       ``(c) Entitlement.--This section constitutes budget 
     authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents 
     the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the 
     payment to the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect 
     Account, the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account, 
     and the Medical School Account of amounts determined in 
     accordance with subsections (a) and (b).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective on and after October 1, 1996.

     SEC. 5. ASSESSMENTS ON INSURED AND SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

       (a) General Rule.--Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to miscellaneous excise taxes) is amended 
     by adding after chapter 36 the following new chapter:

                ``CHAPTER 37--HEALTH RELATED ASSESSMENTS

``Subchapter A. Insured and self-insured health plans.

         ``Subchapter A--Insured and Self-Insured Health Plans

``Sec. 4501. Health insurance and health-related administrative 
              services.
``Sec. 4502. Self-insured health plans.
``Sec. 4503. Transfer to accounts.
``Sec. 4504. Definitions and special rules.

     ``SEC. 4501. HEALTH INSURANCE AND HEALTH-RELATED 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.

       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed--
       ``(1) on each taxable health insurance policy, a tax equal 
     to 1.5 percent of the premiums received under such policy, 
     and
       ``(2) on each amount received for health-related 
     administrative services, a tax equal to 1.5 percent of the 
     amount so received.
       ``(b) Liability for Tax.--
       ``(1) Health insurance.--The tax imposed by subsection 
     (a)(1) shall be paid by the issuer of the policy.
       ``(2) Health-related administrative services.--The tax 
     imposed by subsection (a)(2) shall be paid by the person 
     providing the health-related administrative services.
       ``(c) Taxable Health Insurance Policy.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the term `taxable health insurance policy' means any 
     insurance policy providing accident or health insurance with 
     respect to individuals residing in the United States.
       ``(2) Exemption of certain policies.--The term `taxable 
     health insurance policy' does not include any insurance 
     policy if substantially all of the coverage provided under 
     such policy relates to--
       ``(A) liabilities incurred under workers' compensation 
     laws,
       ``(B) tort liabilities,
       ``(C) liabilities relating to ownership or use of property,
       ``(D) credit insurance, or
       ``(E) such other similar liabilities as the Secretary may 
     specify by regulations.
       ``(3) Special rule where policy provides other coverage.--
     In the case of any taxable health insurance policy under 
     which amounts are payable other than for accident or health 
     coverage, in determining the amount of the tax imposed by 
     subsection (a)(1) on any premium paid under such policy, 
     there shall be excluded the amount of the charge for the 
     nonaccident or nonhealth coverage if--
       ``(A) the charge for such nonaccident or nonhealth coverage 
     is either separately stated in the policy, or furnished to 
     the policyholder in a separate statement, and
       ``(B) such charge is reasonable in relation to the total 
     charges under the policy.

     In any other case, the entire amount of the premium paid 
     under such policy shall be subject to tax under subsection 
     (a)(1).
       ``(4) Treatment of prepaid health coverage arrangements.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any arrangement described 
     in subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) such arrangement shall be treated as a taxable health 
     insurance policy,
       ``(ii) the payments or premiums referred to in subparagraph 
     (B)(i) shall be treated as premiums received for a taxable 
     health insurance policy, and
       ``(iii) the person referred to in subparagraph (B)(i) shall 
     be treated as the issuer.
       ``(B) Description of arrangements.--An arrangement is 
     described in this subparagraph if under such arrangement--
       ``(i) fixed payments or premiums are received as 
     consideration for any person's agreement to provide or 
     arrange for the provision of accident or health coverage to 
     residents of the United States, regardless of how such 
     coverage is provided or arranged to be provided, and
       ``(ii) substantially all of the risks of the rates of 
     utilization of services is assumed by such person or the 
     provider of such services.
       ``(d) Health-Related Administrative Services.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term `health-related administrative 
     services' means--
       ``(1) the processing of claims or performance of other 
     administrative services in connection with accident or health 
     coverage under a taxable health insurance policy if the 
     charge for such services is not included in the premiums 
     under such policy, and
       ``(2) processing claims, arranging for provision of 
     accident or health coverage, or performing other 
     administrative services in connection with an applicable 
     self-insured health plan (as defined in section 4502(c)) 
     established or maintained by a person other than the person 
     performing the services.

     For purposes of paragraph (1), rules similar to the rules of 
     subsection (c)(3) shall apply.

     ``SEC. 4502. SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--In the case of any applicable 
     self-insured health plan, there is hereby imposed a tax for 
     each month equal to 1.5 percent of the sum of--
       ``(1) the accident or health coverage expenditures for such 
     month under such plan, and
       ``(2) the administrative expenditures for such month under 
     such plan to the extent such expenditures are not subject to 
     tax under section 4501.

     In determining the amount of expenditures under paragraph 
     (2), rules similar to the rules of subsection (d)(3) apply.
       ``(b) Liability for Tax.--
       ``(1) In general.--The tax imposed by subsection (a) shall 
     be paid by the plan sponsor.
       ``(2) Plan sponsor.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `plan sponsor' means--
       ``(A) the employer in the case of a plan established or 
     maintained by a single employer,
       ``(B) the employee organization in the case of a plan 
     established or maintained by an employee organization, or
       ``(C) in the case of--
       ``(i) a plan established or maintained by 2 or more 
     employers or jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more 
     employee organizations,
       ``(ii) a voluntary employees' beneficiary association under 
     section 501(c)(9), or
       ``(iii) any other association plan,

     the association, committee, joint board of trustees, or other 
     similar group of representatives of the parties who establish 
     or maintain the plan.
       ``(c) Applicable Self-Insured Health Plan.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `applicable self-insured health plan' 
     means any plan for providing accident or health coverage if 
     any portion of such coverage is provided other than through 
     an insurance policy.
       ``(d) Accident or Health Coverage Expenditures.--For 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The accident or health coverage 
     expenditures of any applicable self-insured health plan for 
     any month are the aggregate expenditures paid in such month 
     for accident or health coverage provided under such plan to 
     the extent such expenditures are not subject to tax under 
     section 4501.
       ``(2) Treatment of reimbursements.--In determining accident 
     or health coverage expenditures during any month of any 
     applicable self-insured health plan, reimbursements (by 
     insurance or otherwise) received during such month shall be 
     taken into account as a reduction in accident or health 
     coverage expenditures.
       ``(3) Certain expenditures disregarded.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to any expenditure for the acquisition or 
     improvement of land or for the acquisition or improvement of 
     any property to be used in connection with the provision of 
     accident or health coverage which is subject to the allowance 
     under section 167, except that, for purposes of paragraph 
     (1), allowances under section 167 shall be considered as 
     expenditures.

     ``SEC. 4503. TRANSFER TO ACCOUNTS.

       ``For fiscal year 1997 and each subsequent fiscal year, 
     there are hereby appropriated and transferred to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund amounts equivalent to taxes received in 
     the Treasury under sections 4501 and 4502, of which--
       ``(1) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account an amount which bears the same ratio 
     to the total amount available under section 2102(b)(1) for 
     the fiscal year (reduced by the balance in such account at 
     the end of the preceding fiscal year) as the amount 
     transferred to the Medical Education Trust Fund under title 
     XXI of the Social Security Act under this section bears to 
     the total amounts transferred to such Trust Fund (excluding 
     amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) and (d) of 
     section 2101 of such Act) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(2) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account and the 
     Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account, in the same 
     proportion as the amounts transferred to such account under 
     section 1886(j) relate to the total amounts transferred under 
     such section for such fiscal year.
     Such amounts shall be transferred in the same manner as under 
     section 9601.

     ``SEC. 4504. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
       ``(1) Accident or health coverage.--The term `accident or 
     health coverage' means any coverage which, if provided by an 
     insurance policy, would cause such policy to be a taxable 
     health insurance policy (as defined in section 4501(c)).
       ``(2) Insurance policy.--The term `insurance policy' means 
     any policy or other instrument whereby a contract of 
     insurance is issued, renewed, or extended.
       ``(3) Premium.--The term `premium' means the gross amount 
     of premiums and other consideration (including advance 
     premiums, deposits, fees, and assessments) arising from 
     policies issued by a person acting as the primary insurer, 
     adjusted for any return or additional premiums paid as a 
     result of endorsements, cancellations, audits, or 
     retrospective rating. Amounts returned where the amount is 
     not fixed in the contract but depends on the experience of 
     the insurer or the

[[Page S6233]]

     discretion of management shall not be included in return 
     premiums.
       ``(4) United states.--The term `United States' includes any 
     possession of the United States.
       ``(b) Treatment of Governmental Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this subchapter--
       ``(A) the term `person' includes any governmental entity, 
     and
       ``(B) notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, 
     governmental entities shall not be exempt from the taxes 
     imposed by this subchapter except as provided in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Exempt governmental programs.--In the case of an 
     exempt governmental program--
       ``(A) no tax shall be imposed under section 4501 on any 
     premium received pursuant to such program or on any amount 
     received for health-related administrative services pursuant 
     to such program, and
       ``(B) no tax shall be imposed under section 4502 on any 
     expenditures pursuant to such program.
       ``(3) Exempt governmental program.--For purposes of this 
     subchapter, the term `exempt governmental program' means--
       ``(A) the insurance programs established by parts A and B 
     of title XVIII of the Social Security Act,
       ``(B) the medical assistance program established by title 
     XIX of the Social Security Act,
       ``(C) any program established by Federal law for providing 
     medical care (other than through insurance policies) to 
     individuals (or the spouses and dependents thereof) by reason 
     of such individuals being--
       ``(i) members of the Armed Forces of the United States, or
       ``(ii) veterans, and
       ``(D) any program established by Federal law for providing 
     medical care (other than through insurance policies) to 
     members of Indian tribes (as defined in section 4(d) of the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act).
       ``(c) No Cover Over to Possessions.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, no amount collected under this 
     subchapter shall be covered over to any possession of the 
     United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for subtitle 
     D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to chapter 36 the following 
     new item:

``Chapter 37. Health related assessments.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to premiums received, and expenses 
     incurred, with respect to coverage for periods after 
     September 30, 1996.

     SEC. 6. MEDICAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established an advisory 
     commission to be known as the Medical Education Advisory 
     Commission (in this section referred to as the ``Advisory 
     Commission'').
       (b) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Advisory Commission shall--
       (A) conduct a thorough study of all matters relating to--
       (i) the operation of the Medical Education Trust Fund 
     established under section 2;
       (ii) alternative and additional sources of graduate medical 
     education funding;
       (iii) alternative methodologies for compensating teaching 
     hospitals for graduate medical education;
       (iv) policies designed to maintain superior research and 
     educational capacities in an increasing competitive health 
     system;
       (v) the role of medical schools in graduate medical 
     education; and
       (vi) policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate 
     medical education payments to institutions other than 
     teaching hospitals;
       (B) develop recommendations, including the use of 
     demonstration projects, on the matters studied under 
     subparagraph (A) in consultation with the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services and the entities described in paragraph 
     (2);
       (C) not later than January 1998, submit an interim report 
     to the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services; and
       (D) not later than January 2000, submit a final report to 
     the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (2) Entities described.--The entities described in this 
     paragraph are--
       (A) other advisory groups, including the Council on 
     Graduate Medical Education, the Prospective Payment 
     Assessment Commission, and the Physician Payment Review 
     Commission;
       (B) interested parties, including the Association of 
     American Medical Colleges, the Association of Academic Health 
     Centers, and the American Medical Association;
       (C) health care insurers, including managed care entities; 
     and
       (D) other entities as determined by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.
       (c) Number and Appointment.--The membership of the Advisory 
     Commission shall include 9 individuals who are appointed to 
     the Advisory Commission from among individuals who are not 
     officers or employees of the United States. Such individuals 
     shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, and shall include individuals from each of the 
     following categories:
       (1) Physicians who are faculty members of medical schools.
       (2) Officers or employees of teaching hospitals.
       (3) Officers or employees of health plans.
       (4) Such other individuals as the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate.
       (d) Terms.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     members of the Advisory Commission shall serve for the lesser 
     of the life of the Advisory Commission, or 4 years.
       (2) Service beyond term.--A member of the Advisory 
     Commission may continue to serve after the expiration of the 
     term of the member until a successor is appointed.
       (e) Vacancies.--If a member of the Advisory Commission does 
     not serve the full term applicable under subsection (d), the 
     individual appointed to fill the resulting vacancy shall be 
     appointed for the remainder of the term of the predecessor of 
     the individual.
       (f) Chair.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall designate an individual to serve as the Chair of the 
     Advisory Commission.
       (g) Meetings.--The Advisory Commission shall meet not less 
     than once during each 4-month period and shall otherwise meet 
     at the call of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or 
     the Chair.
       (h) Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses.--Members of 
     the Advisory Commission shall receive compensation for each 
     day (including travel time) engaged in carrying out the 
     duties of the Advisory Commission. Such compensation may not 
     be in an amount in excess of the maximum rate of basic pay 
     payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (i) Staff.--
       (1) Staff director.--The Advisory Commission shall, without 
     regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to competitive service, appoint a Staff Director who 
     shall be paid at a rate equivalent to a rate established for 
     the Senior Executive Service under 5382 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Additional staff.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall provide to the Advisory Commission such 
     additional staff, information, and other assistance as may be 
     necessary to carry out the duties of the Advisory Commission.
       (j) Termination of the Advisory Commission.--The Advisory 
     Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on which 
     the Advisory Commission submits its final report under 
     subsection (b)(1)(D).
       (k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     the purposes of this section.

     SEC. 7. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall establish, by regulation, guidelines for the 
     establishment and operation of demonstration projects which 
     the Medical Education Advisory Commission recommends under 
     subsection (b)(1)(B) of section 6.
       (b) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--For any fiscal year after 1996, amounts in 
     the Medical Education Trust Fund under title XXI of the 
     Social Security Act shall be available for use by the 
     Secretary in the establishment and operation of demonstration 
     projects described in subsection (a).
       (2) Funds available.--
       (A) Limitation.--Not more than \1/10\ of 1 percent of the 
     funds in such trust fund shall be available for the purposes 
     of paragraph (1).
       (B) Allocation.--Amounts under paragraph (1) shall be paid 
     from the accounts established under paragraphs (2) through 
     (5) of section 2101(a) of the Social Security Act, in the 
     same proportion as the amounts transferred to such accounts 
     bears to the total of amounts transferred to all 4 such 
     accounts for such fiscal year.
       (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to authorize any change in the payment methodology for 
     teaching hospitals and medical schools established by this 
     Act.
                                                                    ____


        Summary of the Medical Education Trust Fund Act of 1996


                                OVERVIEW

       The legislation establishes a Medical Education Trust Fund 
     to support America's 124 medical schools and 1,250 teaching 
     hospitals. These institutions are in a precarious financial 
     situation as market forces reshape the health care delivery 
     system. Explicit and dedicated funding for these institutions 
     will guarantee that the United States continues to lead the 
     world in the quality of its health care system.
       The Medical Education Trust Fund Act of 1996 recognizes the 
     need to begin moving away from existing medical education 
     payment policies. Funding would be provided for demonstration 
     projects and alternative payment methods, but permanent 
     policy changes would await a report from a new Medical 
     Education Advisory Commission established by the bill. The 
     primary, and immediate, purpose of the legislation is to 
     establish as Federal policy that medical education is a 
     public good which should be supported by all sectors of the 
     health care system.
       To ensure that the burden of financing medical education is 
     shared equitably by all sectors, the Medical Education Trust 
     Fund

[[Page S6234]]

     will receive funding from three sources: a 1.5 percent 
     assessment on health insurance premiums (the private sector's 
     contribution), Medicare, and Medicaid (the public sector's 
     contribution). The relative contribution from each of these 
     sources is in rough proportion to the medical education costs 
     attributable to their respective covered populations.
       Over the five year period 1997-2001, the Medical Education 
     Trust Fund will provide average annual payments of about $17 
     billion, roughly doubling federal funding for medical 
     education. The assessment on health insurance premiums 
     (including self-insured health plans) contributes 
     approximately $4 billion per year to the Trust Fund. Federal 
     health programs contribute about $13 billion per year to the 
     Trust Fund: $9 billion in transfers of current Medicare 
     graduate medical education payments and $4 billion in federal 
     Medicaid spending.

    Estimated Average Annual Trust Fund Revenue By Source, 1997-2001

                        (In billions of dollars)

1.5% Assessment.......................................................4
Medicare..............................................................9
Medicaid..............................................................4
                                                               ________

  Total..............................................................17


                     INTERIM PAYMENT METHODOLOGIES

                      Payments to Medical Schools

       Medical schools rely on a portion of the clinical practice 
     revenue generated by their faculties to support their 
     operations. As competition within the health system 
     intensifies and managed care proliferates, these revenues are 
     being constrained. Payments to medical schools from the Trust 
     Fund are designed to partially offset this loss of revenue. 
     Initially, these payments will be based upon an interim 
     methodology developed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services.

                     Payments to Teaching Hospitals

       To cover the costs of education, teaching hospitals have 
     traditionally charged higher rates than other hospitals. As 
     private payers become increasingly unwilling to pay these 
     higher rates, the future of these important institutions, and 
     the patient care, training, and research they provide, is 
     placed at risk. Payments from the Trust Fund reimburse 
     teaching hospitals for both the direct and indirect costs of 
     graduate medical education.
       Payments for direct costs are based on the actual costs of 
     employing medical residents. Payments for indirect costs are 
     based on the number of patients cared for in each hospital 
     and the severity of their illnesses as well as a measure of 
     the teaching load in that hospital. For the purposes of 
     payments to teaching hospitals, the allocation of Medicare 
     funds is based on the number of Medicare patients in each 
     hospital; the allocation of the tax revenue and Medicaid 
     funds is based on the number of non-Medicare patients in each 
     hospital.
       The legislation also includes a ``carve out'' of graduate 
     medical education payments from Medicare's payment to HMOs. 
     Under current law, this payment is based on Medicare's 
     average fee-for-service costs--including graduate medical 
     education costs. Therefore, every time a Medicare beneficiary 
     enrolls in an HMO, money that was being paid to teaching 
     hospitals for medical education in the form of additional 
     payments for direct and indirect costs, is paid instead to an 
     HMO as part of a monthly premium. There is no requirement 
     that HMOs use any of this payment to support medical 
     education. Over a 4-year period, the legislation removes 
     graduate medical education payments from HMO payment 
     calculation. These funds are deposited into the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund and paid directly to teaching hospitals.


                 medical education advisory commission

       The legislation also establishes a Medical Education 
     Advisory Commission to conduct a study and make 
     recommendations, including the potential use of demonstration 
     projects, regarding the following:
       operations of the Medical Education Trust Fund; alternative 
     and additional sources of medical education financing; 
     alternative methodologies for distributing medical education 
     payments; policies designed to maintain superior research and 
     educational capacities in an increasingly competitive health 
     system; the role of medical schools in graduate medical 
     education; and policies designed to expand eligibility for 
     graduate medical education payments to institutions other 
     than teaching hospitals.
       The Commission, comprised of nine individuals appointed by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, will be required 
     to issue an interim report no later than January 1, 1998, and 
     a final report no later than January 1, 2000.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CHAFEE:
  S. 1871. A bill to expand the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife 
Refuge, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


 the pettaquamscutt cove national wildlife refuge expansion act of 1996

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill to 
enhance legislation I authored in 1988 that established the 
Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge in Rhode Island.
  Pettaquamscutt Cove--a cove which divides the towns of Narragansett 
and South Kingstown, RI--is one of the State's natural jewels. The 
tidal marshes and mudflats in Pettaquamscutt Cove are home to a diverse 
species of waterfowl, wading birds and shore birds, and numerous small 
mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.
  Pettaquamscutt Cove has been identified as the most important 
migration and wintering habitat in Rhode Island for the black duck 
population under the North American waterfowl management plan. I might 
mention that this plan has been a tremendous success, capitalizing on 
the cooperative efforts of the Federal Government working with 
nonprofit groups and local governments. These efforts to protect 
wetlands--through establishment of national wildlife refuges such as 
Pettaquamscutt, through conservation efforts to implement the North 
American Wetlands Conservation Act, and through other statutes like the 
Wetlands Reserve Program that was recently expanded in the farm bill 
that protect our Nation's wetlands--have been a great success. Add to 
this some decent rainfall, and the waterfowl populations have rebounded 
tremendously. Not since 1955 have we witnessed such a spectacular 
migration of waterfowl as this past year.
  Rhode Island has lost almost 40 percent of its original wetlands. It 
is essential that we do all we can to hold the line on continued losses 
of wetlands through preservation of ecosystems such as Pettaquamscutt 
Cove. By expanding Pettaquamscutt Cove Refuge, this bill will protect 
the fertile marsh habitat that supports a multitude of fish and 
wildlife and plants along Rhode Island's coast and provide more 
recreational opportunities for Rhode Islanders and other visitors.
  Currently, the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge boundary 
encompasses 460 acres of salt marsh and surrounding forest habitat. One 
hundred seventy-five acres of habitat have already been acquired by the 
Service. This bill expands the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife 
Refuge boundary to include a 100-acre parcel, known as foddering farm 
acres and; allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the refuge 
boundary to include other important habitat if and when suitable 
properties become available in the future.
  Mr. President, the expansion of Pettaquamscutt Cove Refuge to include 
the foddering farm acres property provides a wonderful example of 
cooperation between the Fish and Wildlife Service and private citizens. 
The 100-acre foddering farm property--adjacent to long pond--contains 
valuable wetland habitat for waterfowl and other species. The Rotelli 
family who owns the property has been working with, and waiting 
patiently for, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for several years. 
The Rotellis have indicated their willingness to donate a portion of 
the value of the property to the Service. Through their partial 
donation, the National Wildlife Refuge System gains valuable habitat at 
a bargain price. Three cheers for the Rotellis. It is just this kind of 
private conservation effort and public spiritedness that has enabled us 
to preserve important open space throughout Rhode Island.
  This bill will enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to continue their 
efforts to work with Rhode Islanders like the Rotellis to protect the 
beautiful and important natural resources along Rhode Island's coast.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and 
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. 1871

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

     SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF PETTAQUAMSCUTT COVE NATIONAL WILDLIFE 
                   REFUGE.

       Section 204 of Public Law 100-610 (16 U.S.C. 668dd note) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Expansion of Refuge.--
       ``(1) Acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire for addition 
     to the refuge the area in Rhode Island known as `Foddering 
     Farm Acres', consisting of approximately 100 acres, adjacent 
     to Long Cove and bordering on Foddering Farm Road to the 
     south and Point Judith Road to the east, as depicted on a map 
     entitled `Pettaquamscutt Cove NWR Expansion Area,' dated May 
     13, 1996, and available for inspection in appropriate offices 
     of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

[[Page S6235]]

       ``(2) Boundary adjustment.--After making the acquisition 
     described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall revise the 
     boundaries of the refuge to reflect the acquisition.
       ``(f) Future Expansion.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire for addition 
     to the refuge such lands, waters, and interests in land and 
     water as the Secretary considers appropriate and shall adjust 
     the boundaries of the refuge accordingly.
       ``(2) Applicable laws.--Any acquisition described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be carried out in accordance with all 
     applicable laws.''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 206(a) of Public Law 100-610 (16 U.S.C. 668dd note) 
     is amended by striking ``designated in section 4(a)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``designated or identified under section 204''.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       Public Law 100-610 (16 U.S.C. 668dd note) is amended--
       (1) in section 201(1)--
       (A) by striking ``and the associated'' and inserting 
     ``including the associated''; and
       (B) by striking ``and dividing'' and inserting 
     ``dividing'';
       (2) in section 203, by striking ``of this Act'' and 
     inserting ``of this title'';
       (3) in section 204--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``of this Act'' and 
     inserting ``of this title''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``purpose of this Act'' 
     and inserting ``purposes of this title'';
       (4) in the second sentence of section 205, by striking ``of 
     this Act'' and inserting ``of this title''; and
       (5) in section 207, by striking ``Act'' and inserting 
     ``title''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMON:
  S. 1872. A bill to amend section 922(x)(5) of title 18, United States 
Code, relating to the prohibition of possession of a handgun by a 
minor, to change the definition of minor from under 18 years of age to 
under 21 years of age: to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               Amendments to the Youth Handgun Safety Act

  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I know that all of my colleagues share my 
concern about the increasing violence committed by and against young 
people in our Nation. There are many factors contributing to youth 
crime and violence and, as legislators, it is essential that we 
consider them not only as a whole but also individually. One of the 
contributing factors is clearly the easy access to handguns by young 
people. According to ``Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly 
Nexus?'' by Prof. Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University, the 
number of murders committed by juveniles involving a gun has doubled 
since 1985, while there has been no such shift in the number of non-gun 
homicides. Guns are therefore playing a disproportionate role in the 
juvenile murder rate.
  The legislation I am introducing amends the Youth Handgun Safety Act. 
Senator Kohl sponsored this important act, which was passed as part of 
the 1994 crime bill, to establish a minimum age requirement of 18 years 
old for the possession of a handgun. Specifically, the act makes it 
illegal for anyone under age 18 to possess a handgun and for anyone to 
knowingly transfer a handgun to a juvenile. There are exceptions for 
ranching or farming, and when the juvenile has written consent from a 
parent and is in compliance with all State and local laws. The act 
makes handgun possession and transferring a handgun to a juvenile a 
misdemeanor crime punishable by fines and up to 1 year imprisonment. Of 
course, Congress intends this measure to apply to handguns that have 
traveled in interstate commerce.
  Before the act became law, it was illegal for a licensed dealer to 
sell a handgun to anyone under age 21 and a long gun to anyone under 
age 18. However, there were no Federal penalties for the under-age 
person who bought the gun or for private transfers of a handgun. I 
applaud Senator Kohl for his sponsorship of this important initiative.
  As it now stands, however, the Youth Handgun Safety Act defines the 
term ``juvenile'' as a person who is less than 18 years of age. My 
proposal would amend the definition of ``juvenile'' in this measure to 
mean a person who is less than 21 years of age.
  Unfortunately, more and more frequently we hear stories about 
juvenile brawls which turn into deadly battles. Increasing the age 
limit for possession of a handgun to 21 is one step we can take to try 
to reduce this bloody cycle. Recognizing that alcohol and teenagers can 
be a deadly combination, Congress wisely amended the highway fund to 
include penalties for States that did not raise the drinking age to 21. 
We should follow this example when it comes to guns and teens as well. 
By introducing this measure I hope to encourage my colleagues to think 
about how we might help our teens to grow into responsible young 
adults. As limiting access to alcohol has certainly saved lives, so too 
will limiting access to handguns.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1872

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE YOUTH HANDGUN SAFETY LAW.

       Section 922(x)(5) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``18 years'' and inserting ``21 years''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Faircloth, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Reid, and Mr. 
        Lugar):
  S. 1873. A bill to amend the National Environmental Education Act to 
extend the programs under the act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


      the national environmental education amendments act of 1996

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to reauthorize the 
National Environmental Education Act. I am joined by my colleagues, 
Senators Chafee, Lieberman, Faircloth, Kempthorne, Moynihan, Reid, and 
Lugar. And I am joined on the House side by my colleague, Congressman 
Scott Klug of Wisconsin, who is introducing an identical bill in the 
House today.
  This bill will reauthorize the educational efforts at the National 
Environmental Education and Training Foundation and the EPA's Office of 
Environmental Education. These programs support environmental education 
at the local level. They provide grant money and seed money to 
encourage local primary and secondary schools and universities to 
educate children on environment issues.
  With the importance of the environment and the continuing debate on 
how best to protect it, it is vital to educate our children so that 
they truly understand how the environment functions.
  Over the last few years environmental education has been criticized 
for being one-sided and heavy-handed. People have accused environmental 
advocates of trying to brainwash children and of pushing an 
environmental agenda that is not supported by the facts or by science. 
They also accuse the Federal Government of setting one curriculum 
standard and forcing all schools to subscribe to their views. This is 
not how these two environmental education programs have worked, and I 
have taken specific steps to ensure that they never work this way.
  The programs that this act reauthorizes have targeted the majority of 
their grants at the local level, allowing the teachers in our community 
schools to design their environmental programs to teach our children, 
and this is where the decisions should be made. In addition, the 
grants have not been used for advocacy or to lobby the Government, as 
other grant programs have been accused of doing.

  This legislation accomplishes two important functions. First, it 
cleans up the current law to make the programs run more efficiently. 
And second, it places two very important safeguards in the program to 
ensure its integrity in the future.
  I have placed in this bill language to ensure that the EPA programs 
are balanced and scientifically sound. It is important that 
environmental education is presented in an unbiased and balanced 
manner. The personal values and prejudices of the educators should not 
be instilled in our children. Instead we must teach them to think for 
themselves after they have been presented with all of the facts and 
information. Environmental ideas must be grounded in sound science and 
not emotional bias. While these programs have not been guilty of this 
in the past, this is

[[Page S6236]]

an important safeguard to protect the future of environmental 
education.
  Second, I have included language which prohibits any of the funds to 
be used for lobbying efforts. While these programs have not used the 
grant process to lobby the Government, there are other programs which 
have been accused of this and this language will ensure that this 
program never becomes a vehicle for the executive branch to lobby 
Congress.
  This bill also makes a number of housekeeping changes to the programs 
which are supported by both the EPA and the Education Foundation which 
will both streamline and programs and make them more efficient.
  The grants that have been awarded under this program have gone to a 
number of local groups. In Oklahoma alone such organizations as the 
Stillwater 4-H Foundation; Roosevelt Elementary School in Norman, OK; 
Oklahoma State University; the Kaw Nation of Oklahoma; and the Osage 
County Oklahoma Conservation District have received grants for 
environmental education under these programs.
  This is an important piece of legislation, and I hope both the Senate 
and the House can act quickly to reauthorize these programs.
                                 ______

      By Mr. JOHNSTON:
  S. 1874. A bill to amend sections of the Department of Energy 
Organization Act that are obsolete or inconsistent with other statutes 
and to repeal a related section of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          the department of energy standardization act of 1996

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the bill that I have just introduced, 
which is strongly supported by the administration, amends or repeals a 
number of sections in the Department of Energy Organization Act and the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 that are obsolete or that are 
duplicative or inconsistent with other, Governmentwide statutes 
governing rulemaking and advisory committee management.
  Over the past 3 years, I have proposed, on a number of occasions, 
amendments to remove administrative requirements of the Department of 
Energy Organization Act that are more onerous than similar 
Governmentwide requirements contained in more general statutes. For 
example, with the support of the Department of Energy [DOE] and the 
Office of Government Ethics, I have successfully promoted the repeal of 
financial disclosure and divestiture requirements affecting DOE 
employees that were more stringent than the comparable requirements of 
the Ethics in Government Act and that provided potent recruitment 
disincentives for outstanding potential employees for the Department.
  This bill continues the process of placing DOE on a similar footing 
in administrative law to other Federal agencies. The first subsection 
in section 2 of the bill repeals redundant and obsolete requirements 
affecting DOE rule making under the Administrative Procedure Act, and 
places DOE procurement rulemaking under the same statutory basis, that 
is, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as all other Federal 
agencies. The second subsection repeals a restriction on DOE advisory 
committees that effectively prevents DOE from using committees under 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act for peer review of scientific and 
technical proposals and the selection of awardees for such departmental 
scientific honors as the Fermi Award and the E.O. Lawrence Award.
  The proposals are noncontroversial, the Department of Energy has 
rendered technical assistance in their drafting, and the administration 
has indicated its strong support for these provisions in a letter dated 
June 10, 1996. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1996.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Ranking Democrat Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston: This responds to your request for 
     Department of Energy views on proposed amendments to the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Organization Act). 
     These amendments would repeal subsections 624(b) and 501(b) 
     and (d) of the Act. The Department strongly supports these 
     amendments.
       The first amendment would repeal section 624(b) of the DOE 
     Organization Act (DOE Act) and section 17 of the Federal 
     Energy Administration Act. The amendment would place DOE 
     advisory committees on the same legal and procedural basis as 
     all committees covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 
     Under current law DOE advisory committees are required to 
     meet in public session, while other agencies may close 
     meetings to protect information exempt from disclosure under 
     the Administrative Procedure Act. DOE's more stringent 
     requirement was justified at the time of its enactment by the 
     economic regulatory role of the Department's predecessor, the 
     Federal Energy Administration.
       The second amendment would repeal subsections 501(b) and 
     (d) of the DOE Organization Act. Subsections 501(b) and (d) 
     elaborate on requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act 
     interpreted by the Supreme Court to require agencies to 
     provide the basis or purpose of the rule in their rulemaking 
     (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, 463 
     U.S. 29, 43 (1983). With repeal of subsections 501(b) and 
     (d), the Department would be governed by the same standard 
     procedural requirements as other agencies in conducting 
     notice-and-comment rulemakings. The Department supports this 
     change.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection from the standpoint of the President's program 
     to submission of this report for the Committee's 
     consideration.
       If you have further questions, please contact me, or have a 
     member of your staff contact Douglas W. Smith, Deputy General 
     Counsel for Energy Policy, at (202) 586-3410.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Hazel R. O'Leary.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself and Mr. WYDEN):
  S. 1875. A bill to designate the U.S. Courthouse in Medford, OR, as 
the ``James A. Redden Federal Courthouse''; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


               The James A. Redden Federal Courthouse Act

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to introduce today 
legislation to name a Federal courthouse in my State after a fine 
lawyer, judge and Oregon citizen, U.S. District Judge James Anthony 
Redden. My legislation would rename the currently unnamed Federal 
courthouse in Medford, OR, the James A. Redden Federal Courthouse.
  Over the years Judge Redden's many accomplishments have made him 
worthy of this tribute. Judge Redden practiced law in Medford, OR, from 
1956-72. While practicing law he was elected to the Oregon State House 
of Representatives, in which he served from 1963-69. During the 1967 
session he served as the minority leader of the Oregon House of 
Representatives.
  Judge Redden left private practice in 1973 to serve as the Oregon 
State treasurer. In 1977, he began serving as Oregon attorney general. 
He served as Oregon's attorney general until 1980, when President Jimmy 
Carter appointed him to the position of U.S. District Judge. He was 
also appointed to serve on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee in 
1990 and reappointed to another 3 year term in 1993.
  Judge Redden is a charter member of the American Board of Trial 
Advocates. In 1954, he was admitted to the Massachusetts State bar 
followed by the Oregon Bar in 1955. In 1955, he was also admitted to 
the bars of the U.S. District Court of Oregon and Court of Appeals, and 
finally, in 1979, to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  The most important of Judge Redden's accomplishments is that he 
practiced law for 20 years in the Federal courthouse my legislation 
proposes to name in his honor. This courthouse is located in Judge 
Redden's beloved Jackson County. During his political life, he 
represented the people of Jackson County for 6 years, and now as a 
senior judge, he plans to try cases in Jackson County again. He has 
also taken a special interest in the ongoing renovation of the fine old 
building.
  Once again I believe that it would be a highly appropriate honor to 
name this courthouse after an individual who has done so much, and who 
has had such a successful career.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee to advance this important 
proposal through the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page S6237]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1875

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

       The United States courthouse at 310 West Sixth Street in 
     Medford, Oregon, shall be known and designated as the ``James 
     A. Redden Federal Courthouse''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     other record of the United States to the United States 
     courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the ``James A. Redden Federal Courthouse''.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to cosponsor legislation 
to name a Federal courthouse in my State after a fine soldier, lawyer, 
and judge, U.S. District Judge James Anthony Redden. This legislation 
would name the Federal courthouse in Medford, OR, the ``James A. Redden 
Federal Courthouse.''
  Judge Redden has made public service the centerpiece of his life. He 
served his country in the U.S. Army from 1946 to 1948. He honed his 
legal skills practicing law from 1956 to 1972 in Medford, OR. He then 
left his private practice to serve the people of Oregon as the Oregon 
State treasurer in 1973 and as the Oregon attorney general in 1977. In 
1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed him to the position of U.S. 
District Judge.
  For 20 years, Judge Redden practiced law in the courthouse that 
Senator Hatfield and I propose to rename today. Judge Redden and 
Senator Hatfield have worked together over the years to renovate this 
courthouse, and now I, as a Member of the Senate, am pleased to join in 
the effort to rename this courthouse after Judge Redden, a great 
Oregonian and a great American.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Baucus);
  S. 1876. A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, 
to end health insurance portability for Members of Congress and 
eliminate continued coverage for departing Members of Congress until 
health insurance portability for other U.S. citizens is enacted into 
law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


               the move it or lose it health coverage act

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Move It or Lose 
It Health Coverage Act. This is a straightforward bill that says if 
Members of Congress fail to move health insurance portability for 
Americans in a way that can be signed into law, then they will lose the 
health insurance portability that they now enjoy. If we don't pass it 
for America, we lose it for ourselves.
  My legislation is designed with one goal in mind: to build up the 
pressure to provide greater health security for millions of American 
families.
  Mr. President, when many Members of Congress leave office today, they 
can take their health care with them. No need to worry about 
preexisting condition exclusions or waiting periods or cancellations of 
policy if they become sick. It's all taken care of. Everything's 
covered.
  Not so for far too many working families. Millions of Americans today 
face preexisting condition exclusions because they change jobs, lose 
jobs, or work for employers who change insurance policies.
  The legislation I offer today says plain and simple--as long as 
health insurance portability is denied to working Americans, it ought 
to be denied to Members of Congress as well. Holding office shouldn't 
insulate anyone from all the health insurance concerns that face 
working families in America every day.
  And I am hopeful that this bill I offer today will provide the 
incentive needed for all of us to come together and pass responsible 
health insurance reform legislation for all Americans.
  So my bill says that until Congress passes the Kassebaum-Kennedy 
health insurance measure or similar legislation, the coverage provided 
to Members of Congress through the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program [FEHBP] will be modified in several ways so that we know what 
so many others are facing.
  First, health insurers participating in the FEHBP would be allowed to 
include preexisting condition exclusions in health plans covering 
Members of Congress. Second, insurers would be free to refuse to issue 
coverage or renew coverage provided to a Member because of current 
health, or preexisting medical condition. Carriers would be free to 
include these restrictions and limitations in any health plan covering 
a current or retired Member of Congress.
  And, third, current Members of Congress would no longer receive 
taxpayer-subsidized health coverage after leaving office.
  Mr. President, the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reform bill 
passed this body 100 to 0. Not one Senator voted against it. But now 
that legislation--and those important reforms--are languishing.
  It is time to unite together to give the American people some of the 
same protections and health security that we have. If health insurance 
portability is good enough for Members of Congress, it ought to be good 
enough for working Americans, too.
  And we must go about passing the Kassebaum-Kennedy reform in the same 
spirit that it was introduced and approved by the Senate the first time 
around--with strong bipartisan support and without controversial 
provisions that will keep it from being signed into law.
  Let us pass what the American people want: a clean bill of health. A 
clean bill of security for American families.
  And make no mistake, Mr. President. If the Kassebaum-Kennedy 
legislation is reduced from the commonsense bill that it was when it 
left the Senate to merely a partisan, political bill, then there will 
be no winners and American families will lose.
  There is plenty of room to reach common ground by using common sense. 
It was in that spirit that I acted over 1 month ago to call for a 
carefully designed pilot project for medical savings accounts. And it 
is in that spirit that I offer my legislation today.
  The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill which passed the Senate unanimously is 
truly a modest proposal. It does not fix many of the flaws in the 
current health care system. But it represents an important step toward 
reforming health care and injecting some fairness into the system. It 
would offer some welcome relief for American families worried about 
losing their health insurance.
  Specifically, it would allow families to switch health plans without 
facing preexisting conditions. And it would assure that they won't be 
dropped and their coverage will be renewed even if they become sick.
  The General Accounting Office estimates that 25 million Americans 
would be helped by portability reforms contained in the Kassebaum-
Kennedy health insurance bill.
  We can not afford to deny this basic reform to the American people. 
We have passed common sense change before. We must do so again. The 
American people demand and deserve no less. It is time to deliver.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1876

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

     SECTION 1. LIMITATIONS OF HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR MEMBERS OF 
                   CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) an estimated 81,000,000 United States citizens suffer 
     from some type of preexisting medical condition that could 
     make it difficult to obtain health coverage, especially for 
     that condition;
       (2) millions of citizens are at risk of being subjected to 
     preexisting condition exclusions under current law because 
     they change jobs, lose jobs, or work for employers who change 
     insurance policies;
       (3) Members of Congress may--
       (A) choose to receive a health plan through the Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits Program; and
       (B) enroll in a plan without facing restrictions because of 
     health status or preexisting medical conditions;
       (4) health care coverage for Members of Congress under such 
     program--
       (A) is portable because Members can change plans without 
     worry of preexisting condition exclusions or waiting periods; 
     and
       (B) cannot be canceled and is required to be renewed;
       (5) Members of Congress are often eligible to continue to 
     receive health care through the Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Program after they leave Congress; and

[[Page S6238]]

       (6) Congress should pass legislation to ensure health 
     insurance portability for United States citizens.
       (b) Ending Health Insurance Portability and Other 
     Protections for Members of Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8902 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(o)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (f) or (h), or any 
     other provision of this chapter, a contract for a plan under 
     this chapter shall provide that a carrier may--
       ``(A) include in a plan offered to an individual described 
     under paragraph (2) preexisting condition exclusions and 
     impose a limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to 
     treatment of a preexisting condition based on the fact that 
     the condition existed prior to enrollment;
       ``(B) exclude from enrollment an individual described under 
     paragraph (2) due to health status or preexisting condition; 
     or
       ``(C) refuse to renew the health plan of an individual 
     described under paragraph (2) due to health status or 
     preexisting condition.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to the health 
     status or preexisting condition of a member of family of an 
     individual described under paragraph (3).
       ``(3) An individual referred to under paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) is--
       ``(A) a Member of Congress; or
       ``(B) an annuitant who on the date immediately preceding 
     the date of retirement described under section 8901(3)(A) was 
     a Member of Congress.
       ``(4) This subsection shall cease to be effective on and 
     after the date on which the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management has received certification from the 
     Secretary of Labor that a statute has been enacted into law 
     that--
       ``(A) makes health coverage for United States citizens 
     portable by limiting exclusions for preexisting conditions;
       ``(B) guarantees availability of health insurance to United 
     States citizens; and
       ``(C) guarantees renewability of health coverage to 
     employers and individuals as long as premiums are paid.''.
       (2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this section.
       (c) Elimination of Coverage for Departing Members of 
     Congress.--Section 8905 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by striking ``An annuitant'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to subsection (g), an annuitant''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g)(1) This section shall not apply to any annuitant 
     who--
       ``(A) on the date immediately preceding the date of 
     retirement described under section 8901(3)(A) was a Member of 
     Congress; and
       ``(B) becomes an annuitant on or after the date which 
     occurs 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) This subsection shall cease to be effective on and 
     after the date on which the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management has received certification from the 
     Secretary of Labor that a statute has been enacted into law 
     that--
       ``(A) makes health coverage for United States citizens 
     portable by limiting exclusions for preexisting conditions;
       ``(B) guarantees availability of health insurance to United 
     States citizens; and
       ``(C) guarantees renewability of health coverage to 
     employers and individuals as long as premiums are paid.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1877. A bill to ensure the proper stewardship of publicly owned 
assets in the Tongass National Forest in the State of Alaska, a fair 
return to the United States for public timber in the Tongass, and a 
proper balance among multiple use interests in the Tongass to enhance 
forest health, sustainable harvest, and the general economic health and 
growth in southeast Alaska and the United States; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


  THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT TIMBER CONTRACT EXTENSION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today along with Senator 
Stevens and Congressman Young, I am introducing the Environmental 
Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act of 1996. This bill would 
extend for 15 additional years the long-term timber sale contract on 
the Tongass National Forest between the Forest Service and the 
Ketchikan Pulp Corp. [KPC]. The extension would provide KPC with a 
stable timber supply over a sufficient length of time to amortize the 
cost of new environmental improvements and energy efficiency equipment. 
KPC's situation is unique because all of its timber comes from the 
Forest Service. There is no State or private timber available to the 
company.
  I am introducing this bill as a result of: First, the important role 
that KPC plays in the social, economic, and environmental vitality of 
southeast Alaska; second, the strong, bipartisan support within the 
State for this action; third, the record from field hearings I held 
last month in southeast Alaska which overwhelmingly supports 
introduction; and fourth, the performance of the Forest Service which 
strongly indicates that, without congressional intervention, the KPC 
mill cannot survive. Let me elaborate on each of these factors.
  First, let me describe the nature of the forest in southeast Alaska. 
Thirty percent of the trees are dead or dying. The fiber is suitable 
only for pulp. Without a pulp mill, lumber mills would be less 
profitable and the pulp would have to be exported, creating no domestic 
jobs. Let me also share with my colleagues what the Forest Service told 
us about the evolution and importance of KPC's long-term contract to 
southeast Alaska. Here is what the Agency told us at a May 28 oversight 
hearing in Ketchikan, AK:

       The long-term contracts in Alaska which required the 
     construction and operation of manufacturing facilities such 
     as sawmills and pulp mills facilitated the establishment of a 
     timber industry in southeast Alaska.
       Prior to the 1950's, economic conditions in southeast 
     Alaska were characterized as boom-bust. Federal Government 
     employment, mining and salmon processing were the economic 
     mainstays. After World War II, mining was essentially gone, 
     leaving a small local timber industry and commercial fishing 
     in the natural resources sector. Both the timber and 
     commercial fishing industries were subject to market swings 
     from year to year and were seasonal in terms of employment. 
     The United States favored the expansion of the timber 
     industry through several long-term timber sales on the 
     Tongass National Forest to stabilize employment in southeast 
     Alaska.
       Making the best use of the timber on the Tongass required 
     having suitable markets for both high and low quality timber 
     and species. The markets were largely export markets in the 
     Pacific Rim and were somewhat limited by the need to use most 
     of the timber for pulp. The Forest Service advocated the use 
     of long-term sales to establish a pulp industry that would 
     bring greater economic diversity to the region and more year-
     round employment. If successful, more service and trade 
     establishments were expected to follow--creating greater tax 
     bases, which would provide opportunities for improved 
     services, such as schools, water, fire protection, and the 
     like. For all of this to come together, however, the Forest 
     Service had to guarantee a long-term, stable timber supply to 
     attract outside capital investment.

  I found this testimony compelling. The Forest Service witnesses 
recounted the decisions of their predecessors--far-sighted people 
recognizing the nature and importance of the resource and planning for 
an environmentally and economically secure future. The Forest Service 
recognized that, as the sole owner of land and timber, it controlled 
the economic and environmental vitality of the region.
  Well what is the situation today? Today, KPC's operations directly or 
indirectly provide 25 percent of the total annual employment wages in 
Ketchikan. KPC's municipal real estate and sales taxes generated $13.6 
million in revenues in 1992.
  More broadly, the southeast Alaska timber industry is the dominant 
contributor to real estate development in Ketchikan. More than 25 
percent of all households are timber dependent, and the typical timber 
employee can purchase more than 90 percent of the existing housing 
units. KPC comprises more than 50 percent of the total borough's 
industrial assessed valuation.
  Tourism and fishing are also important to the economy of Ketchikan 
and southeast Alaska. We need all three of our basic industries--
timber, fishing, and tourism--to be healthy if we are to have a healthy 
economy in the region. But quite simply, without some stability of 
timber supply, the economies of the region generally, and Ketchikan 
specifically, are doomed.
  Perhaps that is why the proposal to extend the KPC contract has 
received broad, bipartisan support from elected officials throughout 
the State. Earlier this year, the Alaska Senate voted 18 to 1 to 
support a resolution urging the Congress to extend the contract. The 
Alaska House voted 34 to 3 to support the same measure. These are 
extraordinary margins of support. I will submit the resolution for the 
record.
  Then, the Governor joined in, offering his support for congressional 
action to extend the contract. In a May 23 letter to me, Gov. Tony 
Knowles informed me that:

       The State of Alaska supports a KPC contract extension, 
     contingent on KPC's agreement with the following five 
     principles: To protect the environment, Alaska jobs, and

[[Page S6239]]

     other forest users; and to utilize the Tongass Land 
     Management Planning [TLMP] process and value-added processing 
     techniques.

  I am pleased to say that these conditions have been agreed to by KPC 
and are included in the compromise legislation I am introducing today. 
I will include the Governor's letter for the Record.
  After receiving these views from the legislature and the Governor, I 
scheduled two oversight hearings on May 28 and May 29 in Ketchikan and 
Juneau, respectively. What I heard at these hearings was overwhelming 
support for the legislature's resolution, the Governor's action, and 
the extension of the KPC contract. I heard from tourism interests, 
bankers, and fishermen who supported the contract extension. While not 
unanimous, the preponderance of testimony offered over the 2 days--and 
all of the demonstrators who marched in Ketchikan, as well as most or 
them in Juneau--called for congressional action to extend the contract. 
These people recognize that there is no alternative source of timber 
available.
  Last, I am introducing this legislation today because I have finally 
lost confidence in the ability of the Forest Service to provide a 
stable and sustainable supply of timber for southeast Alaska. Over the 
past few years, the agency has fallen further behind in keeping a 
working timber sale pipeline. This problem has worsened despite the 
efforts of Senator Stevens to provide the agency with additional 
funding for timber sale preparation. Consequently, more than half of 
the operating mills in southeast Alaska have closed their doors during 
the last few years during this administration's watch. KPC is the last 
remaining pulp mill in the State.
  This situation is absolutely tragic. The Tongass is our Nation's 
largest national forest. Yet the level of economic activity associated 
with the production of forest products is very small, and sinking. We 
have only one pulpmill and a few scattered sawmills left. Employment in 
the industry has fallen 40 percent since 1990. New Yorkers burn more 
wood in their fireplaces and stoves than we harvest in southeast Alaska 
each year.
  In its May 25 testimony, the Forest Service acknowledged that ``the 
contract with Ketchikan Pulp Co. [KPC] has played an important role in 
the development of Alaska's resources in southeast.'' Given this 
admission, one would think that the Forest Service would want to see 
the mill stay. One would expect the Forest Service to weigh-in in favor 
of a contract extension. But not so.
  In very disappointing testimony, the agency maintained that ``the 
terms of the existing contract provide that all obligations and 
requirements of the long-term contract must be satisfied on or before 
June 30, 2004.'' In response to questions about any future obligations 
past that date, the agency insisted that it has none--none. This 
testimony was offered even though the preamble to the contract 
discusses a commitment to a permanent economic base.
  On the question of whether Congress should extend the contract, the 
Forest Service testified that ``a long-term commitment of resources 
through a timber contract could further affect the flexibility of 
management on the Tongass,'' and that ``we are committed to completing 
the Revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan before we begin any 
discussion of future long-term commitments to timber related industries 
in Southeast.'' Yet, in response to questions, the agency witnesses 
could not tell me: First, whether such commitments could be made within 
the latitude provided by the range of alternatives in the draft TLMP; 
second, whether additional National Environmental Policy Act analysis 
would be required; or third, whether such commitments would actually be 
precluded by the selected alternative of the final plan. The testimony 
was extremely unsettling. It convinced me that either the Forest 
Service and/or the administration would like to see the KPC mill go 
away.
  They have apparently no interest in seeing KPC invest $200 million to 
pioneer chlorine-free manufacturing technology that could benefit 
environmental control efforts nationwide. That is also tragic.
  Mr. President, the simple facts are that--without the contract 
extension--KPC will be unable to amortize the required capital 
investments for environmental improvements, and it will go away. The 
company's new CEO also testified on May 28. He was refreshingly, if not 
reassuringly, frank. He said:

       In the very near future, we have to decide whether to 
     continue the large investments required to make KPC viable or 
     whether the losses currently being inflicted by the 
     appropriate implementation of the contract can be carried any 
     longer. Now, we are going to make that decision relatively 
     soon. This is not an issue for the year 2003. This is a 1996 
     issue and decision.
       We will make that decision, first of all, based on just to 
     keep running today we must have the Forest Service meet the 
     intent of the long-term bilateral contract, including the 
     volume and pricing provisions. And, then, secondly, to 
     continue to invest at the rapid rate that we are right now, 
     millions of dollars per quarter, this revised version of the 
     long-term contract must be extended a minimum of 15 years at 
     an offering level of 192 million board feet per year.
       The people of KPC and the thousands of people who have 
     worked with us have met its--their contractual obligations to 
     develop the economy and provide permanent, year-round 
     employment for southeast Alaska. We want the government to 
     meet its contractual obligation to provide a sufficient 
     volume of economically viable timber in a timely fashion.

  Some in southeast Alaska suggest that the region does not need the 
KPC pulpmill to have a successful and sustainable timber industry. What 
is needed they opine, is to eliminate the monopoly contract and develop 
more small, value-added manufacturing facilities.
  This is wishful thinking. The independent mill witnesses at our 
hearings indicated that the lack of a stable timber supply will 
preclude any additional investments in southeast Alaska. The 
manufacture of pulp is a higher value added process than any of the 
alternatives suggested by opponents of the pulpmill. The loss of the 
pulpmill will destabilize the industry and the infrastructure of the 
region, and have a chilling effect on future industry investments. 
Available capital will migrate to other regions.
  Mr. President, I cannot stand idly by and watch the town of Ketchikan 
die. I will not. I am introducing, and ask respectful consideration of, 
the Environmental Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1877

       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 ``Environmental Improvement 
     Timber Contract Extension Act.''

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF LONG-TERM CONTRACT REGARDING TONGASS 
                   NATIONAL FOREST.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``board feet'' means net scribner long-log 
     scale for all sawlogs and all hemlock and spruce utility 
     grade logs.
       (2) The term ``contract'' means the timber sale contract 
     numbered A10fs-1042 between the United States and the 
     Ketchikan Pulp Company.
       (3) The term ``contracting officer'' means the Regional 
     Forester of Region 10 of the United States Forest Service.
       (4) The term ``mid-market criteria'' means an appraisal 
     that ensures an average timber operator will have a weighted 
     average profit and risk margin of at least 60 percent of 
     normal in a mid-market situation, representative of the most 
     recent 10 years of actual market data.
       (5) The term ``proportionality'' means the proportion of 
     high volume stands (stands of 30,000 or more board feet per 
     acre) to low volume stands (stands of 8,000 to 30,000 board 
     feet per acre.)
       (6) The term ``purchaser'' means the Ketchikan Pulp 
     Company.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) On July 26, 1951, the Forest Service, on behalf of the 
     United States, and the purchaser entered into a contract to 
     harvest 8,250,000,000 board feet of timber from the Tongass 
     National Forest in the State of Alaska. While the contract is 
     scheduled to end June 30, 2004, it acknowledges an intention 
     on the part of the Forest Service to supply adequate timber 
     thereafter for permanent operation of the purchaser's 
     facilities on a commercially sound and permanently economical 
     basis. This legislation is necessary to effectuate that 
     intent.
       (2) A pulp mill or similar facility is necessary in 
     southeast Alaska to optimize the level of year-round, high-
     paying jobs in the area, to provide high value added use of 
     low-

[[Page S6240]]

     grade wood and by-product material from sawmilling 
     operations, and to maintain a stable regional economy.
       (3) The purchaser plans to make environmental and 
     operational improvements to its pulp mill, including 
     conversion to an elementally chlorine free bleaching process, 
     expansion of wastewater treatment facilities, relocation of 
     the existing wastewater outfall, and improvements to chemical 
     recovery and power generation improvements to chemical 
     recovery and power generation equipment. Total capital 
     expenditures are estimated to be $200,000,000, $25,000,000 of 
     which the purchaser has already invested.
       (4) Extension of the contract for 15 years is the minimum 
     reasonable extension period to allow amortization of these 
     environmental improvement and energy efficiency projects.
       (5) Ketchikan is the fourth largest city of Alaska. Its 
     economic and job base are extremely dependent upon the 
     continuation of the contract, which provides the principal 
     source of year-round employment in the area. The purchaser 
     has stated among its goals and objectives the following:
       (A) Continuation of a long-term commitment to Ketchikan and 
     southeast Alaska, including maintenance of a stable Alaskan 
     workforce, utilization of Alaskan contractors, vendors, and 
     suppliers to permit those businesses to hire and maintain 
     Alaskan employees.
       (B) Participation in the Forest Service's land management 
     planning process with other users so that the process may be 
     completed expeditiously with maximum information.
       (C) Adherence to sound principles of multiple-use and 
     sustained yield of forest resources providing for the 
     production of sustainable contract volumes for the purchaser 
     and the other timber operators in southeast Alaska and the 
     protection and promotion of other forest uses, including 
     tourism, fishing, subsistence, hunting, mining, and 
     recreation.
       (D) Protection of air, water, and land, including fish and 
     wildlife habitat, through compliance with applicable Federal, 
     State, and local laws.
       (E) Commitment to continue to explore new processes and 
     technology to maximize the use of timber harvested and 
     increase the value of products manufactured in southeast 
     Alaska.
       (6) The national interest is served by a policy that 
     accomplishes the proper stewardship of publicly owned assets 
     in the Tongass National Forest, a fair return to the United 
     States for public timber in the Tongass National Forest, and 
     a proper balance among multiple use interests in the Tongass 
     National Forest to enhance forest health, sustainable 
     harvest, and the general economic health and growth in 
     southwest Alaska and the United States in order to improve 
     national economic benefits. The national interest is best 
     achieved by fostering domestic forest product markets and by 
     modifying the terms of the contract pursuant to subsection 
     (c).
       (c) Contract Fairness Changes.--The contract is hereby 
     modified as follows:
       (1) Extension.--The term of the contract is extended by 15 
     years from June 30, 2004.
       (2) Sale offering plan.--The contract shall include a plan 
     describing the amount of volume, location, and the schedule 
     by which the purchaser shall receive the timber required by 
     paragraph (3) for the remainder of the contract term. The 
     plan shall be coordinated with the Tongass Land Management 
     Plan.
       (3) Volume requirements.--The volume of timber required 
     under the contract shall be provided in 5-year increments of 
     962,500,000 board feet, which the purchaser shall be 
     obligated to harvest in an orderly manner, subject to the 
     following:
       (A) Until March 1, 1999, when the next 5-year increment is 
     provided to the purchaser, the Forest Service shall provide 
     the purchaser with at least 192,500,000 board feet per year 
     of available timber at a date certain each year and shall 
     maintain a supply of timber adequate to insure the purchaser 
     can reasonably harvest 192,500,000 board feet each year.
       (B) To ensure harvest in an orderly manner, the contracting 
     officer shall provide for the construction by the purchaser 
     of roads in portions of the 5-year increment area of timber 
     in advance of the 5-year operating period by including such 
     roads in the environmental impact statement prepared for the 
     5-year operating period.
       (C) Timber selected for inclusion in the 5-year increment 
     shall meet the mid-market criteria.
       (4) Appraisals and rates.--The contracting officer shall 
     perform appraisals using normal independent national forest 
     timber sale procedures and designate rates for the increments 
     of timber to be provided. The rates shall not be designated 
     at a level that places the purchaser at a competitive 
     disadvantage to a similar enterprise in the Pacific Northwest 
     and those rates shall be the sole charges the purchaser shall 
     be required to pay for timber provided.
       (5) Measurement of proportionality.--The Forest Service 
     shall measure proportionality using the following criteria:
       (A) Measure for groups of all contiguous management areas.
       (B) Measure proportionality by acres.
       (C) Measure proportionality over the entire rotation age.
       (6) Conversion or replacement of pulp mill.--The purchaser 
     may convert or replace, in part or in whole, its pulp mill 
     with a facility that manufactures any other value added 
     product that utilizes pulp logs as a raw material component.
       (7) Unilateral termination.--The unilateral termination 
     clause of the contract is eliminated.
       (8) Subsequent modifications.--Any clause in the contract, 
     as modified by this subsection, may be further modified only 
     by mutual agreement of the Forest Service and the purchaser 
     and may be so modified without further Act of Congress.
       (d) Effective Date for Contract Modification.--
       (1) Effective date.--The modifications made by subsection 
     (c) shall take effect 45 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2) Ministerial duty to modify the contract.--Not later 
     than such effective date, the contracting officer shall 
     revise, as a ministerial function, the text of the contract 
     to conform with the modifications made by subsection (c) and 
     implement the modified contract. The contracting officer 
     shall make conforming changes to provisions of the contract 
     that were not modified by subsection (c) in order to ensure 
     that the modifications made by such subsection are 
     implemented.
       (e) Transition Timber Supply.--Timber volume available or 
     scheduled to be offered to the purchaser under the contract 
     in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act shall continue to be offered and scheduled under the 
     contract as modified by subsection (c) along with such 
     additional timber volume as is necessary to satisfy the 
     timber volume requirement of 192,500,000 board feet per year.
                                                                    ____


   Senate Joint Resolution No. 40 in the Legislature of the State of 
                                 Alaska

       Whereas, for the last 40 years, the timber industry 
     operating on national forest land in Southeast Alaska has 
     been the largest private employer in Southeast Alaska; and
       Whereas the United States Forest Service strategy for 
     creating permanent year-round employment through a timber 
     industry in Southeast Alaska has been to offer long-term 
     contracts to attract pulp mills to use, and add value to, 
     low-grade and by-product materials from timber harvesting; 
     these pulp mills serve as a market for pulp logs and chips 
     from the sawmills in Southeast Alaska; and
       Whereas pulp mills assure full utilization and protect 
     forest health by using that significant portion of the 
     Tongass National Forest that consists of dead, dying, and 
     over-mature timber; and
       Whereas, since passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 
     1990 (TTRA), a pulp mill and a major sawmill have closed, and 
     more than 40 percent of the timber industry has been lost 
     due, in part, to the failure of the United States Forest 
     Service to make available the approximately 420,000,000 board 
     feet per year needed to meet the jobs protection promises 
     made by those who sought passage of the TTRA, all of which 
     has created severe social and economic harm to the timber 
     industry, its workers, and timber-dependent communities in 
     Southeast Alaska; and
       Whereas another of the reasons for the closure of the Sitka 
     pulp mill was the adverse economic impacts of unilateral 
     changes to its long-term contract made by the TTRA, those 
     unilateral changes also adversely impact the economics of the 
     Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPD) contract; and
       Whereas KPC, which obtained a long-term contract to help 
     create year-round jobs in Southeast Alaska, is the sole 
     remaining pulp mill in Alaska, a mjor employer in Southeast 
     Alaska, and the market for pulp logs and chips from all the 
     other sawmills in Southeast Alaska; and
       Whereas the loss of the KPC pulp mill would lead to the 
     loss of the entire industry now operating on the Tongass 
     National Forest with devastating social and economic effects 
     on families and communities throughout Southeast Alaska; and
       Whereas, KPC pulp mill faces an uncertain future, not of 
     its own making, as a result of the continuing log shortage 
     created by the failure of the United States Forest Service to 
     meet its volume requirements under KPC's contract and the 
     TTRA, as a result of the adverse economic impacts to its 
     long-term contract caused by the unilateral TTRA changes, and 
     as a result of the requirement that more than $155,000,000 in 
     capital expenditures be made over the next few years to meet 
     new and ever changing federal environmental standards and 
     operating needs; and
       Whereas, as a matter of economic common sense, KPC cannot 
     make all the necessary expenditures without the federal 
     government extending its contract for a sufficient period to 
     amortize those expenditures, without an adequate supply of 
     timber, and without modifying those portions of the 
     unilateral TTRA contract changes that have adversely impacted 
     the contract's economics; and
       Whereas the legislature finds that an additional 15 years 
     is a minimum reasonable period to extend the KPC's timber 
     sale contract to allow such amortization and to provide 
     opportunities for value-added alternatives that maximize the 
     number of jobs and assures environmentally sound operations; 
     and
       Whereas the legislature finds that sufficient timber must 
     be made available to maintain the KPC contract, to provide 
     100,000,000 board feet for the contracts to small business, 
     and to reopen the Wrangell facility and a by-product facility 
     in Sitka; be it
       Resolved, That the Alaska State Legislature respectfully 
     urges the Alaska delegation

[[Page S6241]]

     in Congress and the Governor to take all steps necessary, 
     this year, to extend the Ketchikan Pulp Company long-term 
     contract for an additional 15 years and modify those portions 
     of the contract which the TTRA unilaterally impacted, because 
     such an extension and modification are critical to the 
     environmental, social, and economic well-being of the Tongass 
     National Forest timber workers, their families, and timber-
     dependent communities in Southeast Alaska and because such an 
     extension is in the public interest of the State of Alaska; 
     and be it further
       Resolved, That the Tongass National Forest should be 
     managed for a healthy and diversified economy for the benefit 
     of all users, including value-added forest products, 
     commercial and sport fishing, seafood processing, tourism, 
     subsistence, sport hunting, and local businesses that provide 
     goods and services; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Alaska State Legislature also 
     respectfully urges the Alaska Congressional Delegation, the 
     Governor, and the United States Forest Service to take action 
     this year to assure that sufficient timber be made available 
     as part of any revision of the Tongass Land-Use Management 
     Plan to maintain the Ketchikan Pulp Company contract, to 
     provide 100,000,000 board feet for small business contracts, 
     and to reopen the Wrangell facility and a by-product facility 
     in Sitka.
       Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable 
     Bill Clinton, President of the United States; the Honorable 
     Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture; the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the 
     U.S. Department of the Interior; the Honorable Newt Gingrich, 
     Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable 
     Strom Thurmond, President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate; and 
     to the Honorable Ted Stevens and the Honorable Frank 
     Murkowski, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. 
     Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                  State of Alaska,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 1996.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: On behalf of Governor Tony Knowles, 
     I hereby submit, for the hearing record, the attached letter 
     from the Governor to Mr. Mark Suwyn, Chairman of Louisiana-
     Pacific Corporation, concerning a possible contract extension 
     for the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC).
       As the attached letter indicates, the State of Alaska 
     supports a KPC contract extension, contingent on KPC's 
     agreement with the following five principles: to protect the 
     environment, Alaska jobs, and other forest users; and to 
     utilize the Tongass Land Management Planning (TLMP) process 
     and value-added processing techniques. The State's support 
     for a contract extension, however, leaves for the federal 
     public process to resolve the issues of volume, contract 
     duration, and pricing structure.
       With respect to the TLMP process, which we understand you 
     are also having hearings on, the State continues to provide 
     information and comments to the United States Forest Service 
     in an effort to develop a management plan for the Tongass 
     that is based on sound science, prudent management, and 
     meaningful public participation.
       In addition to this letter for the record, the State plans 
     to be represented at the hearings by Veronica Slajer, of the 
     Department of Commerce and Economic Development, who will be 
     in attendance to listen to the testimony of the witnesses. As 
     we informed your staff earlier, Ms. Slajer will not be 
     testifying at the hearings, but the State is interested in 
     learning about what others think about these issues so that 
     the State can incorporate these thoughts in the formulation 
     of State policy.
       Thank you for considering the State's views.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John W. Katz,
       Director of State/Federal Relations and Special Counsel to 
     the Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                                  State of Alaska,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                           Juneau, April 26, 1996.
     Mr. Mark Suwyn,
     Chairman and CEO, Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Portland, 
         OR.
       Dear Mark: Thank you for our recent discussions about the 
     future of the Kctchikan Pulp Company (KPC).
       As you know, my Administration has consistently supported a 
     sustainable timber industry in the Tongass, including a 
     predictable timber supply to meet the terms of the KPC 
     contract and 100 million board feet for small operators 
     through Small Business Administration sales. Thousands of 
     Alaskan families depend on the Tongass for their livelihoods, 
     subsistence hunting and fishing, recreation, and other uses.
       With this letter, I want to inform you my Administration 
     supports a KPC contract extension, contingent on the five 
     principles outlined below. As you mentioned during our recent 
     meeting, a decision to extend KPC's current contract is a 
     federal one. While the state has no authority to grant an 
     extension, the long-term partnership between the people of 
     Southeast Alaska and the timber industry and between the City 
     of Kctchikan and KPC gives us an important interest in the 
     extension issue. This partnership has benefited the jobs and 
     families of Southeast Alaska and has helped maintain healthy, 
     safe, and stable communities.
       Inherent in this long-term partnership are five principles:
       1. Environmental Protection. Protection of air, water, and 
     land, including fish habitat through compliance with 
     applicable federal, state, and local laws. This means KPC 
     should develop a plan to achieve full compliance with 
     environmental laws within three years. This would include a 
     meaningful public process that resolves public health and 
     environmental issues.
       2. Commitment to Ketchikan. A long-term commitment to 
     Ketchikan and the maintenance of a stable workforce, 
     including the hiring and training of resident Alaskans and a 
     willingness to hire Alaska contractors. KPC should have 
     longer terms contracts with Alaska timber businesses to 
     provide them the certainly to hire permanent employees from 
     Alaska. KPC should support a policy for directing 50 percent 
     of the timber from SBA sales to in-state secondary processing 
     through contracts with SBA timber businesses.
       3. Multiple Use. Adherence to sound principles of multiple 
     use and sustained yield of forest resources. This means the 
     production of sustainable contract volumes for KPC and the 
     small timber operators in southeast and the protection and 
     promotion of other forest uses and users, including tourism, 
     fishing, subsistence, hunting, mining, and recreation.
       The planning process is of little value if individual sales 
     remain mired in controversy and litigation. Therefore, timber 
     offerings in areas of high community interest and important 
     fish habitat, such as Cleveland Peninsula, Honker Divide, 
     East Kuiu, and Poison Cove, should be avoided. In addition, 
     every effort should be made to bring about a transition from 
     the harvest of old growth to second growth timber.
       4. TLMP Process. The Tongass Land Management Plan, 
     including full participation by the timber industry and other 
     forest users, must be completed expeditiously. The timber 
     volume available for harvest must be determined through the 
     TLMP planning process.
       5 Value-Added. The timber industry should continue to 
     explore new processes and technology to maximize the use of 
     timer harvested and increase the value of products.
       As we discussed, the matter of volume, contract duration, 
     and price must be determined by the federal public process.
       I look forward to our continued cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tony Knowles,
                                                Governor. 
                                 ______

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1878. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to 
prohibit the licensing of a permanent or interimnuclear waste storage 
facility outside the 50 States or the District of Columbia, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


       the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 amendment act of 1996

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing an amendment to the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to prohibit an interim or permanent nuclear 
waste storage facility outside of the 50 States. My bill would prevent 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from issuing a license to store 
nuclear waste in any of the territories, or on U.S. possessions such as 
Midway Island or Palmyra Atoll.
  Some of my Senate colleagues may wonder whether this is a bill in 
search of a problem that does not exist. Until a few weeks ago, I would 
have never imagined that legislation such as this was necessary. 
However, based on information I have compiled, it is clear that the 
bill I am proposing is urgently needed.
  Earlier this year, the Honolulu papers reported that Palmyra Island, 
a Pacific atoll located 900 miles southwest of Hawaii, was sold to a 
New York investment firm known as KVR, Inc. The reason KVR purchased 
Palmyra has always been vague and uncertain. However, 2 weeks ago 
details of a scheme for Palmyra were uncovered when the island's new 
owners quietly circulated legislation that would direct the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to issue a license for high-level nuclear fuel 
storage on Palmyra. The State of Hawaii and its delegation in Congress 
strongly oppose this proposal.
  I have recently discovered that Palmyra was not the only island 
targeted for nuclear storage. Midway Island and sites in the Republic 
of the Marshall Islands were also proposed for nuclear waste storage by 
the owners of Palmyra and their associates.
  As more and more information surfaces about the activities of 
Palmyra's new owners, their business associates, and the web of 
corporations they control, the true picture of their scheme emerges. 
When you fit all the pieces of

[[Page S6242]]

the puzzle together, you find that a group of nuclear entrepreneurs 
have been combing the Pacific for the past 2 years, searching for a 
home for their nuclear waste dump. It is an affront to Hawaii and the 
Pacific that they would hatch this scheme and operate in the shadows 
for so long.
  Let me present the facts in greater detail. In October 1994, the 
developers of this nuclear waste initiative wrote the President of the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands to propose that high-level nuclear 
waste be stored in the Marshall Islands. Prior to sending their letter, 
representatives from both sides met in Washington to discuss the 
proposal. In exchange for providing exclusive use of an island for 
storing nuclear fuel, the Republic of the Marshall Islands Government 
would receive $160 million in concession payments as well as a share of 
any profits from the venture.
  Fortunately this initiative did not succeed. The plan to store 
nuclear materials in the Republic of the Marshall Islands was opposed 
by the Clinton administration and prompted Congress to enact 
legislation prohibiting the Department of Energy from negotiating such 
an arrangement with the Republic of the Marshall Islands Government.
  At this point the scheme to build a nuclear waste dump on a low-lying 
Pacific atoll appeared dead. But the proposal resurfaced when a group 
of Washington lobbyists and Wall Street financiers purchased Palmyra 
Atoll earlier this year.
  The bill drafted by the new owners of Palmyra is one of the most 
remarkable legislative proposals I have seen in my 20 years in 
Congress. It is a legislative blank check, granting carte blanche 
authority to the owners of Palmyra to become the world's only, 
privately owned nuclear fuel storage and reprocessing enterprise. This 
proposal would vastly increase the risk of nuclear proliferation by 
placing the critical elements of weapons of mass destruction--plutonium 
and uranium--in private hands.
  The bill directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a license 
to store 200,000 tons of nuclear fuel on Palmyra. The license shall be 
granted for the maximum period permitted by law. By directing the NRC 
to license nuclear waste storage on Palmyra, the draft legislation 
would circumvent NRC licensing standards and waive environmental, 
engineering, and safety requirements that normally apply to the storage 
of spent nuclear fuel.
  One of the boldest elements of the bill grants the owners of Palmyra 
the exclusive right to determine the scope of activities on the atoll. 
Why should anyone, whether a private individual or an arm of 
government, be granted unfettered authority over an island where 
200,000 tons of nuclear fuel is being stored and reprocessed? This 
would be nuclear madness.
  Another flaw of this proposal is that atolls like Palmyra are 
environmentally sensitive and prone to erosion and extreme weather 
conditions. Eastern Island, the highest point on the atoll, is less 
than 6 feet above sea level.

  Any nuclear material stored at Palmyra would eventually have to be 
relocated. The National Academy of Sciences and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission have determined that above-ground storage of nuclear 
materials can only be an interim solution. Spent nuclear fuel stored at 
Palmyra would eventually have to be relocated to a permanent storage 
site. If this proposal succeeds, ships carrying spent nuclear fuel from 
all corners of the globe will transect the Pacific to deposit nuclear 
material at Palmyra, only to transport this fuel once again to a 
permanent storage site at another location. If the plan for nuclear 
reprocessing goes forward, the traffic in nuclear cargo would increase 
dramatically.
  The bill further declares that the owners of Palmyra shall have title 
to any nuclear fuel, commencing at the time waste is transferred to 
containers bound for Palmyra. It would summarily select a site for 
storing nuclear waste without scientific or technical evaluation of the 
geologic, hydrologic, seismic or other conditions of the atoll. It 
negates decades of research, planning, and development we have invested 
in achieving an acceptable approach to our nuclear waste problem.
  Of course, in order to achieve this remarkable plan, the bill waives 
the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. These 
laws are the hallmark of our Nation's commitment to protecting the 
environment and enjoy broad, bipartisan support. The notion that these 
fundamental environmental laws should be waived during the licensing of 
a high-level nuclear waste storage site is simply irresponsible. The 
American people will never accept such a proposal, no matter how well 
it is sugarcoated.
  The revelation this week that Midway, an island that is part of the 
Hawaiian chain, was also sought by the owners of Palmyra is an 
especially frightening development for the people of Hawaii. In 
December 1995, the chairman of U.S. Fuel and Security requested that 
the Navy allow high-level nuclear fuel storage on Midway Island. U.S. 
Fuel and Security is a company affiliated with the new purchasers of 
Palmyra. The company has a business plan that calls for storing nuclear 
materials on a privately owned island in the Pacific Ocean, which we 
now know to be Palmyra.
  Fortunately, the request was denied and the Navy transferred 
operational control of Midway to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 
May of this year. The purchase of Palmyra was consummated only after it 
became clear that the Navy would not approve the proposal for Midway 
storage.
  Weeks ago, when details first surfaced about establishing a nuclear 
waste dump on Palmyra, it was difficult to believe that there was any 
truth to these proposals. But as I uncovered more and more information, 
I began to realize that this story was fact, and not fiction. This tale 
of nuclear intrigue is like a bad onion. Each time you peel away 
another layer it smells even more. You begin to wonder what else this 
group is up to that we do not know about.
  That is why I am introducing legislation to prohibit the storage of 
nuclear waste in any of the Pacific territories or on U.S. islands such 
as Midway or Palmyra. My bill is a preemptive strike against proposals 
to store nuclear waste on Palmyra. It would shut the door on any 
possibility of turning these Pacific islands into a nuclear waste dump.
  I also want to put the Senate on notice that I am examining 
legislation to transfer jurisdiction of Palmyra, Midway, and five other 
U.S. possessions to the State of Hawaii. This proposal would give 
Hawaii legal authority over, but not title to, these islands.
  When a similar proposal surfaced last year in the House of 
Representatives, legitimate concerns were raised about the potential 
liability associated with such a transfer. In light of efforts to store 
nuclear fuel on some of these islands, I believe that we should revisit 
the idea of placing these Pacific islands, which are geographically 
close to Hawaii, under the State's jurisdiction. I will closely examine 
the question of liability and take steps to ensure that the Federal 
Government is responsible for cleanup of any hazardous or toxic 
substances on these islands, and that the State of Hawaii is 
indemnified from future liability.
  Transferring jurisdiction of islands like Palmyra and Midway to the 
State of Hawaii would mean that our Governor, the State legislature, 
and ultimately the people of Hawaii would have a greater say in 
determining the future of these islands. This legislation could be a 
substitute for, or an addition to, the bill I have introduced today.
  My colleagues, the nuclear era began in the Pacific when the first 
atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Since that time, more than 150 
nuclear devices have been detonated in the region. The United States 
conducted 66 tests in the Marshall Islands and Johnston Atoll during 
the 1940's and 1950's. The British conducted 21 tests on Christmas 
Island and in Australia during the 1950's. The French detonated more 
than 180 devices on Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls under a nuclear 
testing program that began in 1974 and ended in February 1996. The 
environmental consequences of this nuclear legacy are evident 
throughout the Pacific to this day.
  Given the international outpouring of criticism during the recent 
French testing, it is inconceivable that anyone would consider 
establishing the world's largest spent nuclear fuel dump at Palmyra. 
The Pacific has been under assault since the dawn of the nuclear era

[[Page S6243]]

and should not become a future dumping ground for the world's nuclear 
problems. Half a century of nuclear testing is enough.

                          ____________________