[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1300-S1319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Nickles, Mr.
Ford, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bond, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burns, Mr. Coats, Mr. Craig, Mr.
DeWine, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr.
Helms, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lott,
Mr. Mack, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Smith of Oregon, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and Mr.
Thurmond):
S. 304. A bill to clarify Federal law with respect to assisted
suicide, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE ASSISTED SUICIDE FUNDING RESTRICTION ACT
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation,
along with Senator Ashcroft and 28 of our colleagues from both sides of
the aisle, that will prohibit Federal funds from being used to pay for
the costs associated with assisted suicide.
I want to say right off that the Dorgan-Ashcroft bill does not
attempt to address the broad and complex issue of whether there is a
constitutional right to die. That job belongs to the Supreme Court, and
as you all know, the High Court is expected to issue a decision later
this year to answer this fundamental question.
It is the job of Congress, however, to determine how our Federal
resources will be allocated. I do not believe Congress ever intended
for Federal funding to be used for assisted suicide, and my bill will
ensure that such funding does not occur.
I understand that the decisions that confront individuals and their
families when a terminal illness strikes are among the most difficult a
family will ever have to make. At times like this, each of us must rely
on our own religious beliefs and conscience to guide us.
But regardless of one's personal views about assisted suicide, I feel
strongly that Federal tax dollars should not be used for this
controversial practice, and the vast majority of Americans agree with
me. In fact, when asked in a poll in November of last year whether tax
dollars should be spent for assisting suicide, 87 percent of Americans
feel tax money should not be spent for this purpose.
The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act prevents any Federal
funding from being used for any item or service which is intended to
cause, or assist in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing
of any individual.
This bill does make some important exceptions. First, this bill
explicitly provides that it does not limit the withholding or
withdrawal of medical treatment or of nutrition or hydration from
terminally ill patients who have decided that they do not want their
lives sustained by medical technology. Most people and States recognize
that there are ethical, moral, and legal distinctions between actively
taking steps to end a patient's life and withholding or withdrawing
treatment in order to allow a patient to die naturally. Every State now
has a law in place governing a patient's right to lay out in advance,
through an advanced directive, living will, or some other means, his or
her
[[Page S1301]]
wishes related to medical care at the end of life. Again, this
legislation would not interfere with the ability of patients and their
families to make clear and carry out their wishes regarding the
withholding or withdrawal of medical care that is prolonging the
patient's life.
This bill also makes clear that it does not prevent Federal funding
for any care or service that is intended to alleviate a patient's pain
or discomfort, even if the use of this pain control ultimately hastens
the patient's death. Large doses of medication are often needed to
effectively reduce a terminally ill patient's pain, and this medication
may increase the patient's risk of death. I think we all would agree
that the utmost effort should be made to ensure that terminally ill
patients do not spend their final days in pain and suffering.
Finally, while I think Federal dollars ought not be used to assist a
suicide, this bill does not prohibit a State from using its own dollars
for this purpose. However, I do not think taxpayers from other States,
who have determined that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal,
should be forced to pay for this practice through the use of Federal
tax dollars.
I realize that the legality of assisted suicide has historically been
a State issue. There are 35 States, including my State of North Dakota,
which have laws prohibiting assisted suicide and at least 8 other
States consider this practice to be illegal under common law. Only one
State, Oregon, has a law legalizing assisted suicide.
However, two circumstances have changed that now make this an issue
of Federal concern. First, the Supreme Court's decisions in Washington
versus Glucksberg and Quill versus Vacco could have enormous
consequences on our public policy regarding assisted suicide. In these
two cases, the Federal Ninth Second Circuit Courts of Appeal have
struck down Washington and New York State statutes outlawing assisted
suicide. Although the circuit courts varied in their legal reasoning,
both recognized a constitutional right to die.
Second, we are on the brink of a situation where Federal Medicaid
dollars may soon be used to reimburse physicians who help their
patients die. In another case, Lee versus Oregon, a Federal district
court judge has ruled that Oregon's 1994 law allowing assisted suicide
is unconstitutional and he has blocked its implementation. However, his
decision has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
has already recognized a constitutional right to die.
Once the legal challenges to Oregon's law have been resolved, the
State's Medicaid director has already stated that Oregon will begin
using its Federal Medicaid dollars to reimburse physicians for their
costs associated with assisting in suicide. Should this occur, Congress
will not have considered this issue. I do not think it was Congress'
intention for Medicaid or other Federal dollars to be used to assist in
suicide, and I hope we will take action soon to stop this practice
before it starts.
It is important to point out that the Supreme Court decisions will
not resolve the important issue of funding for assisted suicides. Even
if the Supreme Court finds that there is not a constitutional right to
assisted suicide, the ruling likely will not negate Oregon's statute
permitting assisted suicide. As a result, the Ninth Circuit Court could
well uphold the Oregon statute and Oregon could, in turn, bill Medicaid
for the costs associated with assisted suicide. If Congress does not
act to disallow Federal funding, a few States, or a few judges, may
very well take this decision out of our hands.
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to
Life Committee have endorsed this legislation. The American Medical
Association and the American Nurses Association have issued position
statements opposing assisted suicide, and President Clinton has also
indicated his opposition to assisted suicide.
I hope you agree with me and the vast majority of Americans who
oppose using scarce Federal dollars to pay for assisted suicide. I
invite you to join me, Senator Ashcroft and 28 of our colleagues in
this effort by cosponsoring the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction
Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 304
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 ``Assisted Suicide Funding
Restriction Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. GENERAL PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
appropriated by the Congress shall be used to provide,
procure, furnish, fund, or support, or to compel any
individual, institution, or government entity to provide,
procure, furnish, fund, or support, any item, good, benefit,
program, or service, the purpose of which is to cause, or to
assist in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing
of any individual.
SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or in an amendment made by this Act,
shall be construed to create any limitation relating to--
(1) the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or
medical care;
(2) the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or
hydration;
(3) abortion; or
(4) the use of an item, good, benefit, or service furnished
for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort, even if
such use may increase the risk of death, so long as such
item, good, benefit, or service is not also furnished for the
purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing,
death, for any reason.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION UNDER
MEDICAID FOR ASSISTED SUICIDE OR RELATED
SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Section 1903(i) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (14);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (15) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (15) the following:
``(16) with respect to any amount expended for any item or
service furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose
of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as
by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
(b) Treatment of Advance Directives.--Section 1902(w) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(w)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
create any requirement with respect to a portion of an
advance directive that directs the purposeful causing, or the
purposeful assisting in causing, of the death of any
individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy
killing.
``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
require any provider or organization, or any employee of such
a provider or organization, to inform or counsel any
individual regarding any right to obtain an item or service
furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of
assisting in causing, the death of the individual, such as by
assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
SEC. 5. RESTRICTING TREATMENT UNDER MEDICARE OF ASSISTED
SUICIDE OR RELATED SERVICES.
(a) Prohibition of Expenditures.--Section 1862(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (14);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (15) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (15) the following:
``(16) where such expenses are for any item or service
furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of
assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by
assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
(b) Treatment of Advance Directives.--Section 1866(f) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
create any requirement with respect to a portion of an
advance directive that directs the purposeful causing, or the
purposeful assisting in causing, of the death of any
individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy
killing.
``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
require any provider of services or prepaid or eligible
organization, or any employee of such a provider or
organization, to inform or counsel any individual regarding
any right to obtain an item or service, furnished for the
purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing,
the death of the individual, such as by assisted suicide,
euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR
SOCIAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE ITEMS OR SERVICES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTENTIONALLY CAUSING DEATH.
Section 2005(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397d(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (8);
[[Page S1302]]
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) for the provision of any item or service furnished
for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in
causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted
suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
SEC. 7. INDIAN HEALTH CARE.
Section 201(b) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
(25 U.S.C. 1621(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Funds appropriated under the authority of this
section may not be used for the provision of any item or
service (including treatment or care) furnished for the
purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing,
the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide,
euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
SEC. 8. MILITARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
(a) Members and Former Members.--Section 1074 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Under joint regulations prescribed by the
administering Secretaries, a person may not furnish any item
or service under this chapter (including any form of medical
care) for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting
in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted
suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
(b) Prohibited Health Care for Dependents.--Section 1077(b)
of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(4) Items or services (including any form of medical
care) furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of
assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by
assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
(c) Prohibited Health Care Under CHAMPUS.--
(1) Spouses and children of members.--Section 1079(a) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(18) No contract for the provision of health-related
services entered into by the Secretary may include coverage
for any item or service (including any form of medical care)
furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of
assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by
assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
(2) Other covered beneficiaries.--Section 1086(a) of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'' the first place it
appears; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) No contract for the provision of health-related
services entered into by the Secretary may include coverage
for any item or service (including any form of medical care)
furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of
assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by
assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
SEC. 9. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.
Section 8902 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(o) A contract may not be made or a plan approved which
includes coverage for any benefit, item or service that is
furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of
assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by
assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
SEC. 10. HEALTH CARE PROVIDED FOR PEACE CORPS VOLUNTEERS.
Section 5(e) of the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2504(e)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)(A)'' after ``(e)'';
(2) by striking ``Subject to such'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Subject to such''; and
(3) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) (as so designated
by paragraph (1)), the following:
``(B) Health care provided under this subsection to
volunteers during their service to the Peace Corps shall not
include any item or service furnished for the purpose of
causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of
any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or
mercy killing.''.
SEC. 11. MEDICAL SERVICES FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS.
Section 4005(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Services provided under this subsection shall not
include any item or service furnished for the purpose of
causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of
any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or
mercy killing.''.
SEC. 12. PROHIBITING USE OF ANNUAL FEDERAL PAYMENT TO
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR ASSISTED SUICIDE OR
RELATED SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Title V of the District of Columbia Self-
Government and Governmental Reorganization Act is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``ban on use of funds for assisted suicide and related services
``Sec. 504. None of the funds appropriated to the District
of Columbia pursuant to an authorization of appropriations
under this title may be used to furnish any item or service
for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in
causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted
suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of the
District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act is amended by adding at the end of the
items relating to title V the following:
``Sec. 504. Ban on use of funds for assisted suicide and related
services.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments to the District of Columbia for
fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1998.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am grateful for this opportunity to
speak to my colleagues and to the American public about an item which
is important and which demands our attention. It is an item of urgency.
And because it is, I think it is important that we develop a sense of
cooperation and that we act expeditiously.
A lot of comment is being heard these days about bipartisanship, the
need to cooperate and to be partners and participants rather than being
opponents and partisans. The measure about which I will speak today is
one that has broad bipartisan support, and I think is something upon
which cooperation is not only taking place, but one which will provide
the basis for the ultimate passage of the legislation.
Members on both sides of the aisle agree that Federal health programs
such as Medicare and Medicaid should provide a means to care for and to
protect our citizens--not become vehicles for the destruction or
impairment of our citizens.
The Declaration of Independence reads: ``We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' It is Congress'
responsibility to defend the foremost of our inalienable rights--that
of life.
In this spirit and understanding, I rise today to introduce with
Senators Dorgan, Nickles, Ford, and others, the Assisted Suicide
Funding Restriction Act of 1997, a modest and a timely response to the
threat that taxes paid by American citizens would be used to finance
assisted suicide. What this bill simply says is that Federal tax
dollars shall not be used to pay for and promote assisted suicide or
euthanasia. We introduced such a bill in the 104th Congress, and have
wide bipartisan support for this legislation, with 30 Members of the
U.S. Senate as original cosponsors on the bill.
This bill is urgently needed to preserve the intent of our Founding
Fathers and the integrity of Federal programs that serve the elderly
and the seriously ill, programs which were intended to support and
enhance human health and life, not to promote the destruction of human
life.
Government's role in our culture should be to call us to our highest
and best, to expand our capacity to take advantage of the opportunities
of life, and to build our capacity for achievement. I do not believe
that Government has a place in hastening Americans to their graves.
Our court system is, however, on the brink of allowing Federal-
taxpayer-assisted suicide funding. This bill is intended to preempt and
to prevent proactively such a morally contemptible practice as taking
tax money from one American and using it to assist in the suicide of
another American.
Let me be clear that this bill only affects Federal funding for
actions whose direct purpose is to cause or to assist in causing
suicide--actions that are clearly condemned as unethical by the
American Medical Association and illegal in the vast majority of
States. Again, this bill simply prohibits any Federal funding for
medical actions that assist suicide.
Some might ask why we need such a law. It is because two Federal
courts of appeals recently contradicted the positions of 49 States when
they found that there is a Federal constitutional ``right'' to
physician-assisted suicide. These cases involved New York and
Washington State laws which prohibit physician-assisted suicide.
The State of Oregon recently passed Measure No. 16. That was the
first law in the country that authorized the dispensing of lethal drugs
to terminally ill patients to assist in suicide. Although a Federal
court in Oregon struck down that law, the case has been to the ninth
circuit, one of the appeals courts that has already signaled a strong
indication that there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide.
[[Page S1303]]
Oregon's Medicaid director and the chairman of the Oregon Health
Services Commission have both said that in the event that the ninth
circuit would clear the way for Oregon's law to take effect, the
federally funded Medicaid Program in Oregon would begin to pay for
assisted suicide with public funds in that State. According to the
Oregon authorities, the procedure would be listed on Medicaid
reimbursement forms under the grotesque euphemism of ``comfort care.''
Unless we pass the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, Oregon
could soon be drawing down Federal funds through its Medicaid Program
to help pay for assisted suicides. Neither Medicaid, nor Medicare, nor
any other Federal health program has explicit statutory language to
prohibit the use of Federal funds to dispense lethal drugs for suicide
primarily because no one in the history of these programs ever thought
that they would be used to end the lives of individuals. We have always
focused in these programs on seeking to extend rather than end the
lives of Americans.
In fact, the Clinton administration's brief filed in the Supreme
Court of the United States opposing physician-assisted suicide pointed
out that:
The Department of Veterans Affairs, which operates 173
medical centers, 126 nursing homes, and 55 inpatient
hospices, has a policy manual that . . . forbids ``the active
hastening of the moment of death.''
``The active hastening of the moment of death'' sounds a lot like
assisted suicide to me.
Such guidelines also apply to the VA's hospice program, the military
services, the Indian Health Service, and the National Institutes of
Health.
Nonetheless, if the ninth circuit reinstates Oregon's Measure 16,
Federal funds will be used for the so-called comfort care, also known
as assisted suicide.
I believe we would be derelict in our duty if we were to ignore this
problem and allow a few officials in one State to decide that the
taxpayers of the other 49 States must help subsidize a practice that
they have never authorized and that millions of Americans find to be
morally abhorrent.
It is crystal clear that the American people do not want their tax
dollars spent on assisting the suicide of individuals. Recently, a
national Wirthlin poll showed that 87 percent of Americans oppose the
use of public funds for this purpose. Even the voters of Oregon, who
narrowly approved Measure 16 by a 51- to 49-percent margin, did not
consider the question of public funding. The voters of two other west
coast States, California and Washington, soundly defeated similar
measures to authorize assisted suicide. Since November 1994, when
Oregon passed its law, 15 other States have considered and rejected
bills to legalize the practice. However, this bill does not talk about
authorizing or prohibiting assisted suicide. It merely states that no
Federal funds could be used to promote or assist suicide.
Let me just say a few words about the way the legislation is crafted.
It is very limited. It is very modest, and I think that provides the
basis for its bipartisan support.
It does not forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide, and it does
not forbid using State funds for the practice. It merely prevents
Federal funds and Federal programs from being drawn into promoting it.
The bill also does not attempt to resolve the constitutional issue
that the Supreme Court considered last month when it heard the cases of
Washington versus Glucksberg and Vacco versus Quill. These are right-
to-suicide cases, and the bill does not attempt to answer this complex
question. Nor would this legislation be affected by what the Supreme
Court decides on the issue. Congress would still have the right to
prevent Federal funding of such a practice even if the practice itself
had the status of a constitutional ``right.''
As the bill's rule of construction clearly provides, this legislation
does not affect any other life issue that some might have strong
feelings about. The bill does not affect abortion, or complex issues
such as the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment,
even of nutrition or hydration. Nor does it affect the dispersing of
large doses of morphine or other drugs to ease the pain of terminal
illness, even when this may carry the risk of hastening death as a
side-effect--a practice that is legally accepted in all 50 States, and
ethically accepted by the medical profession and even by pro-life and
religious organizations. This bill is focused exclusively on
prohibiting Federal funding for assisting suicide.
Finally, I am pleased to mention those organizations that have joined
with us in endorsing this legislation. These include the American
Medical Association, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research
Council, Free Congress, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops,
National Right to Life, and the Traditional Values Coalition. I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of support
from the American Medical Association.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
American Medical Association,
Chicago, IL, February 12, 1997.
Hon. John Ashcroft,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ashcroft: The American Medical Association
(AMA) is pleased to support the ``Assisted Suicide Funding
Restriction Act of 1997'' which you are introducing in
collaboration with Senator Dorgan. We believe that the
prohibition of federal funding for any act that supports
``assisted suicide'' sends a strong message from our elected
officials that such acts are not to be encouraged or
condoned. The power to assist in intentionally taking the
life of a patient is antithetical to the central mission of
healing that guides physicians. While some patients today
regrettably do not receive adequate treatment for pain or
depression, the proper response is an increased effort to
educate both physicians and their patients as to available
palliative measures and multidisciplinary interventions. The
AMA is currently designing just such a far-reaching,
comprehensive effort in conjunction with the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation.
The AMA is particularly pleased to note that your bill
acknowledges--in its ``Rules of Construction'' section--the
appropriate role for physicians and other caregivers in end-
of-life patient care. The Rules properly distinguish the
passive intervention of withholding or withdrawing medical
treatment or care (including nutrition and hydration) from
the active role of providing the direct means to kill
someone. Most important to the educational challenge cited
above is the Rule of Construction which recognizes the
medical principle of ``secondary effect,'' that is, the
provision of adequate palliative treatment, even though the
palliative agent may also foreseeably hasten death. This
provision assures patients and physicians alike that
legislation opposing assisted suicide will not chill
appropriate palliative and end-of-life care. Such a chilling
effect would, in fact, have the perverse result of increasing
patients' perceived desire for a ``quick way out.''
The AMA continues to stand by its ethical principle that
physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with
the physician's role as healer, and that physicians must,
instead, aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the
end of life. We are pleased to support this carefully crafted
legislative effort, and offer our continuing assistance in
educating patients, physicians and elected officials alike as
to the alternatives available at the end of life.
Sincerely,
P. John Seward, MD.
Mr. ASHCROFT. President Jefferson wrote in words that are now
inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial here in Washington that the ``care
and protection of human life, and not its destruction,'' are the only
legitimate objectives of good government. Thomas Jefferson believed
that our rights are God given and that life is an inalienable right.
With this understanding and belief, I urge the Congress and the
President to support this bill. It is a modest but necessary effort to
uphold our basic principles by forbidding the Federal funding of
assisted suicide.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his
excellent work, his cooperation in this respect, and his emphasis on
what this bill does and what it does not do. There is a narrow focus in
this measure. We do not seek to preempt the ability of States to make
decisions regarding their own laws, or individuals to make their own
decisions. We are merely making reference to the fact that the Federal
Government should not be financing assisted suicides.
I thank him for his outstanding work and for his excellent effort in
developing this legislation, to narrowly focus it and target it in such
a way that makes it possible for us to work together. I commend him.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for
the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. In so doing I side with
the 87 percent of Americans who oppose the use
[[Page S1304]]
of tax dollars to pay for the cost of assisting suicide or euthanasia.
I find it deeply distressing, Mr. President, that we are in the
throes of a legal and public policy debate over whether physicians
should be given the power to end the lives of their patients. This
controversy raises many troublesome questions concerning the duties of
a physician, the nature of the doctor-patient relationship, the
possibility of coerced suicide, and the very sanctity of life.
Some may find these questions difficult or even impossible to answer.
But of one thing I am certain: the government has no right to use
public moneys, the tax dollars paid by the American people, to support
physician assisted suicide. Whatever their views on the rectitude of
allowing doctors to assist their patients in ending their lives, I hope
my colleagues will join with me in saying that such a controversial
practice, which so many Americans find morally troubling, should not be
the object of Federal largesse.
I congratulate my friends the Senator from North Dakota and the
Senator from Missouri on their courage and conviction in submitting
this bill, and urge my colleagues to join them in its support.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Assisted
Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, I rise in strong support of
this bill.
Mr. President, this bill simply prohibits Federal tax funds from
being used to pay for or promote assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Specifically, the bill will prevent Federal funding for items or
services ``the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing, the
suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual.'' The
prohibition will encompass Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employees
Health Program, medical services for prisoners, and the military health
care system.
This bill does not create any limitation with regard to the
withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or of nutrition or
hydration, or affect funding for abortion or for alleviating pain or
discomfort for patients.
The American people oppose taxpayer funding of assisted suicide by an
overwhelming margin. In addition, the American Medical Association has
endorsed this bill. Yet States are free to legalize assisted suicide,
as Oregon has by referendum, and this raises the prospect of Federal
Medicaid dollars being used to facilitate suicide. The Federal
Government must not be in the business of promoting death. Let's listen
to the American people and settle the question of publicly funding
assisted suicide once and for all. I urge my colleague to join us in
supporting the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to express my
support of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of which I am a
cosponsor. This bill would ensure that no Federal tax dollars are used
to pay for or promote assisted suicide or euthanasia. In addition, it
identifies those Federal programs which may not be sued to pay for
assisted suicide. These programs include Medicare, Medicaid, Federal
Employees Health Benefits plans, medical services for Federal
prisoners, and the military health care system.
This bill also makes clear that Federal law will not require health
care facilities, in States where assisted suicide has been legalized,
to advise patients at the time of admission about their ``right'' to
get lethal drugs for suicide.
This legislation is needed due to recent Federal court rulings which
have declared a constitutional right to assisted suicide. The U.S.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases on January 8 of this
year to determine the constitutionality of those rulings. In addition,
some States, such as Oregon, have legalized assisted suicide by
referendum. These States may be tempted to consider using Federal funds
and facilities to pay for these procedures. For this reason, we must
send a clear message. The American people do not want their tax dollars
used to pay for assisted suicides. In fact, a majority of Americans are
strongly opposed to the very notion of assisted suicide. Counted among
those in opposition are the American Medical Association whose
physician members would be asked to play the role of moral arbitrator
in the decision to end one's life.
The purpose of this bill and its guidelines are concise and clear. No
limitations will be placed on the withholding or withdrawing of medical
treatment. In addition, it does not affect funding for alleviating
patient pain or discomfort.
An overwhelming majority of the American people believe their taxes
should not be used to pay for assisted suicide or euthanasia. A
national Wirthlin poll taken in November 1996 found that 87 percent of
Americans did not believe their tax dollars should be used to pay for
these procedures.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill which
guarantees every American that their tax dollars will not be used to
pay for or promote assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today, and begin with these words:
``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness.''
These profound words are possibly the most known words from our
Declaration of Independence. They state a principle that is fundamental
to who we are as a nation; life itself is a gift from our Creator, and
it is a right that can not be taken away. We are a nation whose core
philosophy is to care for its people.
As public servants, we deal with issues that affect the lives of
people every day. Caring for people is the underlying aspect of almost
every piece of legislation dealt with in the Senate, and nearly every
issue we confront as a country.
But while we work to build up America, something is at work in the
country, eating away at fundamentals we used to take for granted: in
this case, the sanctity of life. It is no secret that I place a high
value on life at its conception. But a disturbing trend has developed
over the past few years, a devaluation of life as it nears its end.
Two years ago, I offered legislation banning the use of Medicaid and
Medicare funds for assisted suicide in the 1995 balanced budget act.
Unfortunately the President vetoed this legislation.
Today, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation offered by
Senators Ashcroft and Dorgan, which prohibits any Federal funds from
being used for assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. This
means that hospitals, medical institutions, or health care providers
are not required to participate in procedures they morally or ethically
oppose.
The large majority of people oppose assisted suicide. In a Wirthlin
poll taken November 5, 1996, 87 percent of the people asked said tax
dollars should not be spent to pay for the cost of assisting suicide or
euthanasia. A recent study by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in
Boston, found that seriously ill cancer patients in severe pain are
unlikely to ``approve of, or desire'' euthanasia or physician-assisted
suicide, instead they desire ``only relief from their pain''.
Even the medical profession is opposed to assisted suicide. An amicus
brief filed by the American Medical Association to the Supreme Court on
November 12, 1996, contends assisted suicide ``will create profound
danger for many ill persons with undiagnosed depression and
inadequately treat pain, for whom assisted suicide rather than good
palliative care could become the norm. At greatest risk would be those
with the least access to palliative care--the poor, the elderly and
members of minority groups.'' The brief concludes, ``Although, for some
patients it might appear compassionate to hasten death,
institutionalizing physician-assisted suicide as a medical treatment
would put many more patients at serious risk for unwanted and
unnecessary death.''
Dr. Joanne Lynn, board member of the American Geriatrics Society and
director of the Center to Improve Care of the Dying at George
Washington University said--Health Line, Jan. 8, 1997--``No one needs
to be alone or in pain or beg a doctor to put an end to misery. Good
care is possible.''
As Tracy Miller, former head of the New York Task Force on Life and
Law said, ``It is far easier to assist patients in killing themselves
than it is to care for them at life's end.''
[[Page S1305]]
The bill before us today is a major step in continuing to provide the
care our elderly, poor, and seriously ill need and deserve. The bill
would assure that the programs designed to support human life and
health would not be transformed into implements of death. I commend the
work of Senator Ashcroft and Senator Dorgan in writing this
legislation, compliment them upon its introduction today, and pledge to
work with them to see it to passage in the 105th Congress. Our country
deserves no less.
______
By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Robb, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Biden, Mr. Craig, Mr. Allard, Mr. Mack, Mr. Grassley,
Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Bond, Mr. Burns, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Torricelli, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Specter, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Cleland, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Lott, Mr. Gorton,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Grams, Mr. Lugar, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Shelby, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 305. A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on
behalf of the Congress to Francis Albert ``Frank'' Sinatra in
recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions through his
entertainment career and humanitarian activities, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
gold medal legislation
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce
legislation on behalf of 48 Senators. I know and feel very strongly
that when all of my colleagues are informed of the legislation that it
will be unanimous and that all will join to authorize a congressional
gold medal for Frank Sinatra. The time has come for Congress to
acknowledge this great American and his contributions to the world of
entertainment and society as a whole.
It is fitting that we honor this man in the autumn of his years, as
we have honored Bob Hope, John Wayne, Marian Anderson and other great
performers, not only for the fact of their entertainment and the
wonderful gift that God bestowed upon them, but for so many other
aspects in terms of their bond with America, its people, and their
contributions.
Mr. President, this bill would authorize the U.S. Mint to commemorate
the humanitarian and professional accomplishments of Frank Sinatra with
a gold medal to be presented by the President on behalf of the
Congress. In addition, bronze replicas of the original gold medal will
be available to the general public for their private collection.
It is estimated that not only will we be doing great honor to Frank
Sinatra, but, in addition, it will result in a very substantial profit
to the Treasury because many will buy these replicas, and indeed
millions of dollars can and will be raised by our Government.
Mr. President, Frank Sinatra has become one of the most, if not the
most, recognizable vocalists in America and in the world. This talented
man has singularly defined America's love affair with popular music for
over five generations and has remained to this day a man of the people,
a man who has brought pleasure to countless persons.
The tremendous, positive impact Frank Sinatra has on people
throughout the world is truly phenomenal. His songs have become a
standard for young and old alike. Indeed, this impact goes beyond song
and it goes beyond adversity. Frank Sinatra knew adversity and he
overcame it in his own career rising to great heights. He overcame the
trials and tribulations during his life and became a great
humanitarian.
Many people who adore Frank Sinatra and his music are not aware of
that other side of the man--his generosity. Truly he could be called
Mr. Anonymous because, Mr. President, unlike many who trumpet their
generosity, who trumpet their gift giving, Mr. Sinatra did not do this.
Indeed, he has raised literally hundreds of millions of dollars--not
tens of millions--hundreds of millions of dollars for children, in
particular, throughout the world, for those who were in need of help,
whether it be for cancer, for AIDS, for retinitis pigmentosa--just name
the charity and you will see that Francis Albert Sinatra most likely
has been there, quietly giving of his time and his energy in caring for
his fellow human being, giving back to the people of this country,
throughout the length and breadth, establishing scholarships for young
people, going back to his hometown and to his old high school to give
of his time and his money. He took his wonderful gift of song and used
it as a vehicle of benevolence.
Let me just touch on one of these as an example. Mr. Sinatra has
raised $9 million for just one institution, a great cancer center,
Sloan-Kettering, by holding five concerts. I do not know how many know
that. He did not ask his publicist to go out and speak to that. The
money raised by Frank Sinatra began programs whereby those who are in
need of treatment and do not have the financial wherewithal will not be
turned away. This is because of the generosity of Frank Sinatra.
Indeed, New Jersey can be rightfully proud of him, born in Hoboken in
1915 to parents of modest means. I am pleased that both of the Senators
from New Jersey have joined in cosponsoring this legislation. Those of
us in New York are so proud, and we also claim him as a son of New
York. He has given us the gift of his great performances, and we
particularly love his rendition of ``New York, New York.'' But look
throughout the country, the great Windy City of Chicago, and how
fitting that the senior Senator from Illinois has also joined in this
tribute which is long overdue.
Mr. President, it cannot be denied that Frank Sinatra has had a
remarkable career. Not long after reaching adolescence, he developed a
keen love of music and the desire to perform. In high school he was
responsible for screening and scheduling dance bands for Demarest High
School's Wednesday night dances. In exchange for hiring musicians, he
was permitted to sing a few songs with the different bands.
A dream was growing in the young Frank Sinatra--his dream of becoming
a successful entertainer. By the age of 21, Frank Sinatra was a
professional singer. His first group was the Three Flashes, a singing
and dancing trio which later became the Hoboken Four. A few years
later, Frank Sinatra's investment in vocal lessons would prove to be
invaluable as his singing career propelled him into stardom.
In 1939, Frank Sinatra was hired by Harry James who had recently
formed an orchestra of his own. The earliest performance reviews were
not favorable, but Frank Sinatra persevered. Seven months later, he was
hired away to join Tommy Dorsey's orchestra where he would formulate
the essence of his signature singing style.
After a successful, 2-year tour with Tommy Dorsey, Frank Sinatra made
the move to go out on his own in 1942. He recorded the first of
numerous hit singles titled ``Night and Day.'' A year later he made his
motion picture debut and had appeared in several movies by 1950. But,
as quickly as Frank Sinatra found himself ``king of the hill, at the
top of the heap,'' he found the constant demand on his time and talent
contributing to a decline in his vocal quality.
By the end of 1952, he had lost his agent and his film and recording
contracts. The ``voice'' was nearly lost as well. Frank Sinatra was
once eloquently quoted saying: ``You have to scrape bottom to
appreciate life and start living again.''
This personally and professionally trying time ended in 1953 with
Frank Sinatra's award winning performance playing the role of Maggio in
the production ``From Here to Eternity.'' The rebirth of his career was
finally at hand. Frank Sinatra's new stardom quickly surpassed that
which he had realized in the 1940's.
Beginning in the 1960's, Frank Sinatra's flourishing acclaim as a
preeminent performer earned him the title ``Chairman of the Board.'' He
established his own recording company, Reprise, and began recording
again, this time with more conviction than ever before. Frank Sinatra
orchestrated television specials which featured little-known musical
talents, performed live for huge, adoring audiences and began
[[Page S1306]]
to evolve as a legend. By 1984, his singing repertoire included well
over 50 albums and record sales in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Throughout his entertainment career and rise to fame, Frank Sinatra
worked tirelessly and steadfastly to cure some of the ills of society.
In one of the most outstanding examples of his generosity, Frank
Sinatra personally, and entirely, I might add, financed and donated his
talent and superstardom along with other renowned performers for a
world tour benefitting children's hospitals, orphanages, and schools in
six countries. This whirlwind jaunt included 30 concerts in 10 weeks.
And never once did Frank Sinatra seek glory from this feat through
publicity or any other means.
Frank Sinatra's generosity has touched the lives of the
underprivileged, the terminally and chronically ill, children,
minorities and students not only in this country, but in Latin America,
Israel, Europe, and Mexico. His works of goodwill have financed entire
wings in hospitals, numerous scholarships, educational programs, and
student centers. He has selflessly served as chairman on numerous
boards for charities and councils borne out of sincerity, humility, and
the goal of equality. If I could stand here and recite all of the
things Frank Sinatra has done from his heart for his fellow man and
woman, poor, old, young, sick and the like, and recited all of the
awards this giant among us has received, I would be here all day.
Mr. President, since 1945 Frank Sinatra's national and international
humanitarian activities have been recognized. Just as a small sampling,
he has been awarded with the Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP,
the Achievement Award from the Screen Actors Guild, the New York City
Columbus Citizens Committee Humanitarian Award, the Kennedy Center
Honors, the Scopus Award from the American Friends of Hebrew
University, the Philadelphia Freedom Medal and the highest civilian
honor in out country, the Medal of Freedom given to him by another
American hero, President Ronald Reagan.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a selection of charities Mr. Sinatra graciously donated to and honors
he received be printed in the record.
Mr. President, I must say to you that the idea and the driving force
behind Congressional recognition of Francis Albert Sinatra in the
autumn of his life came from a Congressman born in Puerto Rico. This
Congressman recently told me the touching and true story of how he
learned English at the age of five from Frank Sinatra. That Congressman
is Congressman Jose Serrano. His father, a World War II veteran, came
home from the war with a group of 78 RPM records. On those records was
the melodic voice of Frank Sinatra. Congressman Serrano said to me,
``Senator, I learned to speak English. I didn't know any English. When
my father came home, as a youngster, I would play these records. Frank
Sinatra has been my idol.'' Mr. Sinatra's voice filled the Serrano
household then as it does today. I thank my colleague for his diligence
in working to have Frank Sinatra placed in a league with other
deserving performers and philanthropists.
Mr. President, let me conclude my remarks by citing a great song that
Frank Sinatra popularized, ``My Way.'' I am not going to attempt the
lyrics. I have sung on the Senate floor before and I promised Senator
Ford I would not do so again, after his admonition. He was about to
rise up and object. My mother cautioned me against attempting to sing
again. But let me say when Frank Sinatra sings ``My Way,'' those words
embody the spirit of this country, the spirit of giving people having
the opportunity to do it their way, to rise, to climb to the heights
that only America ensures.
My true hope is that before this legislation is enacted, we will have
100 cosponsors honoring a talented American, a gifted American, who has
given so generously of himself not only in his performances but in
terms of making this a better country and a better world for so many
who are less fortunate.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 305
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) Francis Albert ``Frank'' Sinatra has touched the lives
of millions around the world and across generations through
his outstanding career in entertainment, which has spanned
more than 5 decades;
(2) Frank Sinatra has significantly contributed to the
entertainment industry through his endeavors as a producer,
director, actor, and gifted vocalist;
(3) the humanitarian contributions of Frank Sinatra have
been recognized in the forms of a Lifetime Achievement Award
from the NAACP, the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award from the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Presidential
Medal of Freedom Award, and the George Foster Peabody Award;
and
(4) the entertainment accomplishments of Frank Sinatra,
including the release of more than 50 albums and appearances
in more than 60 films, have been recognized in the forms of
the Screen Actors Guild Award, the Kennedy Center Honors, 8
Grammy Awards from the National Academy of Recording Arts and
Science, 2 Academy Awards from the Academy of Motion Picture
Arts and Sciences, and an Emmy Award.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.
(a) Presentation Authorized.--The President is authorized
to present, on behalf of the Congress, a gold medal of
appropriate design to Francis Albert ``Frank'' Sinatra in
recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions
through his entertainment career and numerous humanitarian
activities.
(b) Design and Striking.--For the purpose of the
presentation referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of
the Treasury (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Secretary'') shall strike a gold medal with suitable
emblems, devices, and inscriptions, to be determined by the
Secretary.
SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.
The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of
the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such
regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price
sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor,
materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the
cost of the gold medal.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL MEDALS.
The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals
for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby
authorized to be charged against the Numismatic Public
Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for
the cost of the medal authorized by this Act.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sales of
duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in
the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund.
____
Selection of general international awards for humanitarian
and philanthropic contributions: Italian Star of Solidarity,
Government of Italy `62, Commandeur De La Sante Publique,
France '65 Medallion of Valor, State of Israel '72, Jerusalem
Medal, City of Jerusalem, Israel '76, Primum Vivere (life
first) Award, World Mercy Fund '79, Grand Ufficiale Dell'
Ordine al Merito Della Repubblica Italiana, Italy '79
(presented by President Charles DeGaulle) Humanitarian Award,
Variety Clubs International '80, Order of the Leopard,
President of Bophuthatswana '81 (first white person to
receive), and Knight of the Grand Cross, Knights of Malta,
Sovereign Order of the Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem
'85.
Selection of awards for national humanitarian and
philanthropic contributions: American Unity Award for
advancing the cause of better Americans '45, Commendation by
Bureau of Inter-Cultural Education '45, Commendation by
National Conference of Christians and Jews '45, Democratic
America Award, Courageous Fight On Behalf Of All Minorities
'46, Jefferson Award, Council Against Intolerance in America
'46, Hollizer Memorial Award, LA Jewish Community '49,
Distinguished Service Award, LA '71, Humanitarian Award,
Friar's Club '72, Splendid American Award, Thomas A. Dooley
Foundation '73, Man of the Year Award, March of Dimes '73,
Man of the Year Award, Las Vegas '74, Certificate of
Appreciation, NYC '76, Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters,
University of Nevada '76, Freedom Medal, Independence Hall,
PA '77, International Man of the Year Award, President Ford
'79, Humanitarian Award, Columbus Citizens Committee, NY '79,
First Member, Simon Weisenthal Center Fellows Society '80,
Multiple Sclerosis Special Award, National Hope Chest
Campaign '82, Kennedy Center Honors Award for Lifetime
Achievement, '83, Boy Scouts of America Distinguished
American Award, '84, Medal of Freedom, President Reagan '85,
Lifetime of Achievement Award, National Italian-American
Foundation '85, Coachella Valley Humanitarian Award, '86, and
Lifetime Achievement Award, NAACP '87.
Selection of Charities and Foundations: Frank Sinatra Wing,
Atlantic City Medical Center, New Jersey, Frank Sinatra Fund
for outpatients with inadequate or exhausted medical
insurance coverage, Sloan-Kettering
[[Page S1307]]
Cancer Center, New York Martin Anthony Sinatra Medical
Education Center Desert Hospital, California, Frank Sinatra
Child Care Unit, St. Jude's Children's Research Center,
Tennessee, Sinatra Family Children's Unit for the Chronically
Ill, Seattle Children's Orthopedic Hospital, Frank Sinatra
Student Scholarship Fund, Hoboken, New Jersey, Frank Sinatra
In School Scouting Program, Grape Street Elementary, Los
Angeles, Frank Sinatra International Student Center, Hebrew
University, Jerusalem, Frank Sinatra Youth Center for
Christians, Moslems and Jews, Israel, San Diego State
University Aztec Athletic Foundation, Variety Club
International, World Mercy Fund, and National Multiple
Sclerosis Campaign.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague and friend,
Senator D'Amato, as a cosponsor of his bill to award a Congressional
Gold Medal to Francis Albert Sinatra. Frank Sinatra is one of the most
famous singers in the history of popular music. He is known as ``The
Voice,'' ``Old Blue Eyes,'' and ``The Chairman of the Board.'' These
nicknames attest as clearly as anything to his talent, his popular
appeal, and his impact on American music.
Mr. Sinatra began his career with local bands in New Jersey. He
joined Harry James' band in 1939, but began to achieve his great
popularity touring with Tommy Dorsey from 1940 to 1942. His solo career
began in 1943 and never ceased.
After conquering the musical world Mr. Sinatra began a film career
that quickly earned him an academy award, in 1953, for his supporting
role in ``From Here to Eternity.'' He went on to appear in some 50
movies.
Mr. President, New York has no official State song. For six decades
now Frank Sinatra has entertained New Yorkers in music and film. His
impact has been tremendous. But more than anything else his version of
``New York, New York'' has given us cheer, enjoyment, and pride. It is
certainly the unofficial song for millions. Therefore, I am delighted
to cosponsor this bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Frank
Sinatra. I encourage my colleagues to join us.
______
By Mr. FORD:
S. 306. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a decrease in the maximum rate of tax on capital gains which is based
on the length of time the taxpayer held the capital asset; to the
Committee on Finance.
CAPITAL GAINS LEGISLATION
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing capital gains
legislation which I believe has the possibility of breaking through the
impasse we have had on this issue for the last several years. My
proposal is based not on political rhetoric, but on conversations I
have had with constituents who support a commonsense approach on this
issue.
My legislation would provide a sliding scale for capital gains
relief, lowering the rate at which capital gains are taxed, based on
how long the assets have been held. For every year an asset has been
held, the applicable rate would be reduced by 2 percentage points.
Assets held for more than 1 year would be taxed at no higher than the
current 28 percent. Assets held for 2 years would be taxed at no higher
than 26 percent. And so on, down to a rate of 14 percent. Assets held
for more than 8 years would be taxed at a maximum rate of 14 percent.
I am introducing the legislation with three objectives in mind.
First, I believe our efforts should be directed toward helping family
farms and small family businesses. We do not need additional proposals
to assist real estate speculators or those who specialize in putting
Wall Street deals together. Most capital gains proposals we have
considered in recent years provide a disproportionate benefit to those
making six-figure salaries and above. It should be clear by now that we
cannot pass a capital gains proposal that primarily benefits the
wealthy. In my experience, those middle-class families that should be
the focus of the debate get lost in the shuffle.
Second, using this proposal, I intend to work with others interested
in the issue to attempt to develop a bipartisan coalition with middle
class families in mind. There are few lasting legislative changes that
have not been developed in a bipartisan way. This is particularly true
in the area of tax policy. Capital gains reform has been a hot button
campaign issue for several years, often being used in an attempt to
secure partisan advantage. I think it is time to move beyond this
stage. There are plenty of Members on both sides of the aisle
interested in providing capital gains relief. I think we should attempt
to find middle ground that takes into account the views of both
Democrats and Republicans interested in this issue.
Third, we must face budget realities. It appears likely that any
capital gains proposal which can pass this Congress must be included in
an overall balanced budget package as part of a reasonable level of tax
relief. Some of the capital gains proposals considered during the last
Congress were estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to result in
more than $40 billion being added to the Federal deficit over 7 years,
requiring enormous offsets. Even the modified proposal included in the
reconciliation package vetoed by the President was scored by CBO at
more than $35 billion. I believe this is more than we can afford in the
context of balancing the budget. It also seems to be far more than what
is needed to target relief to middle-class families, and especially
farmers and small businesses.
I am also aware of the criticism by some on the other side of the
aisle that certain Democratic capital gains proposals are picking and
choosing among certain types of assets, and therefore picking and
choosing winners and losers. My proposal avoids that criticism. It
would apply to all types of assets that are covered under current law.
It is nondiscriminatory. However, because of the sliding-scale benefit
based on the holding period, I believe the impact will be to provide
the greatest benefit to middle-class families like those farm families
and small businesses I have in mind.
So, Mr. President, it is my hope that this concept will be taken
seriously in the spirit of reaching a bipartisan compromise on this
issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a chart which demonstrates the operation of this capital gains
proposal.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 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. 306
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DECREASE IN MAXIMUM CAPITAL GAINS RATE BASED ON
TAXPAYER'S HOLDING PERIOD.
(a) In General.--Section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to maximum capital gains rate) is amended
to read as follows:
``(h) Maximum Capital Gains Rate.--
``(1) In general.--If a taxpayer has a net capital gain for
any taxable year, then the tax imposed by this section shall
not exceed the sum of--
``(A) a tax computed at the rates and in the same manner as
if this subsection had not been enacted on the greater of--
``(i) taxable income reduced by the amount of the net
capital gain, or
``(ii) the 15-percent bracket amount, plus
``(B) a tax equal to the sum of the amounts determined by
applying the applicable percentage to long-term capital gain
taken into account in computing net capital gain.
``(2) 15-Percent bracket amount.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `15-percent bracket amount'
means the amount of taxable income taxed at a rate below 28
percent, determined without taking into account long-term
capital gain attributable to a capital asset for which the
taxpayers' holding period exceeds 8 years.
``(B) LIFO ordering rule.--For purposes of applying
paragraph (1)(B), the determination as to which long-term
capital gain (if any) was taken into account in determining
the 15-percent bracket amount shall be made on the basis of
the holding period of the capital assets to which such gain
is attributable, beginning with assets with the shortest
holding period.
``(3) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)--
``(A) In general.--The term `applicable percentage' means,
with respect to any long-term capital gain, 28 percent
reduced (but not below 14 percent) by 2 percentage points for
each year (or fraction thereof) by which the taxpayer's
holding period for the capital asset to which the gain is
attributable exceeds 2 years.
``(B) Limitation on gain to which percentage applies.--
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to long-term capital gain on
any sale or exchange to the extent the gain exceeds the
excess (if any) of--
``(i) net capital gain for the taxable year, over
[[Page S1308]]
``(ii) the sum of--
``(I) that portion of the 15-percent bracket amount which
is attributable to net capital gain, plus
``(II) other long-term capital gain to which paragraph
(1)(B) applies and which is attributable to capital assets
for which the taxpayer's holding period is longer.
``(C) Application to classes of gain.--Subject to such
rules as the Secretary may prescribe, all long-term capital
gain from the sale or exchange of capital assets with the
same holding period (determined on the basis of the number of
years or fractions thereof) shall be treated as gain from the
sale or exchange of a single capital asset.
``(4) Investment income.--For purposes of this subsection,
the net capital gain for any taxable year shall be reduced
(but not below zero) by the amount which the taxpayer elects
to take into account as investment income for the taxable
year under section 163(d)(4)(B)(iii).''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1996.
____
FORD SLIDING SCALE CAPITAL GAINS PROPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be
subject to
the lower
of the
current law
Assets held for the following period capital
gains rate
or the rate
listed
below (in
percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than:
1 year................................................. 28
2 years................................................ 26
3 years................................................ 24
4 years................................................ 22
5 years................................................ 20
6 years................................................ 18
7 years................................................ 16
8 years................................................ 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. McConnell, and Mr.
Leahy):
S. 307. A bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 to authorize the transfer to States of surplus
personal property for donation to nonprofit providers of assistance to
impoverished families and individuals, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
The Federal Surplus Property Donation Act
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I use today to introduce the Federal
Surplus Property Donations Act. This bill corrects an oversight by
allowing nonprofit charitable organizations that primarily serve low-
income people, to be eligible to receive Federal surplus personal
property.
Under current law, Federal surplus property can be donated to State
and local governments, schools, hospitals, and nonprofit organizations
that serve the homeless. My bill would expand the eligibility to food
banks, construction oriented charities, building material recycling
warehouses, and similar nonprofit tax-exempt organizations that serve
the poor. The bill does not give preference to these organizations, but
simply adds them to the list of eligible recipients.
Charities that provide food and shelter assistance are major
contributors to the safety net for the poor. As we look to charities to
provide these important services to our Nation's low-income population,
it is reasonable that we include them as eligible to receive surplus
property. Excess property can be used creatively by these groups to
lower expenses, thereby allowing charities to become more efficient.
These nonprofit charitable organizations serving the poor are in great
need of materials and equipment to build and repair homes, store food
items, and deliver goods and services to those in need. We have already
acknowledged that nonprofit charities serving the homeless should be
eligible to receive these goods. This bill would recognize those
charitable institutions which are providing shelter, food, and services
to low-income Americans who may not be homeless.
Mr. President, this legislation would provide donated equipment and
goods at lower costs than alternative approaches such as grants to
charities. Furthermore, it is a wise use of moneys either paid in taxes
or donated by generous citizens. Domestic charities will make good use
of Federal surplus and invest moneys saved in expanded efforts to
further help those in need.
The bill has bipartisan support. Cosponsoring the bill with me today
are the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry Committee, Senator Tom Harkin, as well as the chairman and
ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, Senator McConnell and
Senator Leahy. In addition, I am pleased to say that my Indiana
colleague in the House, Congressman Lee Hamilton, is introducing the
same bill today.
Mr. President, I have personally supported various food banks in
Indiana over the years. I am now proud to introduce a bill that will
assist them in their continued efforts of serving the poor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 307
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR DONATION
TO PROVIDERS OF ASSISTANCE TO IMPOVERISHED
FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS.
Section 203(j)(3)(B) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484(j)(3)(B))
is amended by inserting after ``homeless individuals'' the
following: ``, providers of assistance to families or
individuals with annual income below the poverty line (as
defined in section 673 of the Community Services Block Grant
Act (42 U.S.C. 9902)),''.
______
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 308. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
study concerning grazing use of certain land within and adjacent to
Grand Teton National Park, WY, and to extend temporarily certain
grazing privileges; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
THE GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK ACT OF 1997
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation
designed to protect open space near and around Grand Teton National
Park. Currently, open space near the park, with its majestic, signature
vistas and abundant wildlife, continues to decline. As the population
grows in Teton County, WY, undeveloped land near the park becomes more
scarce. This loss of open space negatively impacts wildlife migration
routes in the area and diminishes the experience of visitors to the
region. The repercussions due to the loss of open space can be felt
throughout the entire area. As stewards, we must act now to preserve
the view and make such a value a component of our environmental agenda.
A few working ranches make up Teton Valley's remaining open space.
These ranches depend on grazing in Grand Teton National Park for summer
range to maintain their operations. The original act creating the park
allowed several permittees to continue grazing in the area for the life
of a designated heir in the family. Unfortunately, the last remaining
heirs have died and their family's grazing privileges are going to be
terminated. As a result, the open space around the park, which remains
available due to the viability of these ranch operations, will most
likely be subdivided and developed.
The legislation I am introducing today is designed to help continue
to protect open space in Teton Valley. In order to develop the best
solution to protect open space near Teton Park, my legislation directs
the National Park Service to conduct a 3-year study of grazing in the
area and its impact on open space in the region. This report should
develop workable solutions that are fiscally responsible and conscious
of the preservation of open space. The study will be conducted by the
National Park Service with input from citizens, local government
officials, and the landowners in the area.
With the approach of the spring and summer grazing season, it is
vital for the Congress to act on this legislation as quickly as
possible. I look forward to working with the National Park Service on
this important matter to preserve and protect open space in Teton
Valley. Grand Teton National Park is truly one of the treasures of our
Nation and this legislation will help preserve this wonderful area for
many years to come.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 309. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the
establishment or collection of parking fees by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs at any parking facility connected with a Department of
Veterans Affairs medical facility operated under a health-
[[Page S1309]]
care resources sharing agreement with the Department of Defense; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS LEGISLATION
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I offer a bill to allow the
Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to waive fees at joint parking
facilities with the Department of Defense [DOD].
Currently, the VA is required to charge its users and employees to
park at facilities built with special revolving funds. There is no
exemption to this fee requirement for joint VA/DOD facilities, which
results in an administrative nightmare for a parking facility in
Hawaii.
The VA parking structure at Tripler Army Medical Hospital will be
shared by VA and DOD. While the law currently requires VA visitors and
medical staff to pay for parking, DOD visitors and personnel are exempt
from such a charge.
Determining who is a VA or DOD visitor to the facility will be
difficult to administer without creating a bureaucratic ordeal. Under
the current situation, only VA medical employees at Tripler will be
required to pay for parking. Visitors, DOD personnel, and VA regional
employees would not be charged for parking.
In addition, any VA medical employee who is also a DOD retiree would
be exempt from the parking charge, because DOD retirees receive free
parking at DOD facilities.
Thus, only VA medical personnel who are not DOD retirees will be
required to pay for parking. The cost to administer this parking fee
will far outweigh the revenues received. Since parking fees are
determined by surrounding area facilities and since Tripler is located
in a residential area, parking fees for the Tripler facility would be
nominal. Therefore, I am submitting legislation which will allow joint
VA/DOD parking facilities to be exempt from the current
statute.
______
By Mr. FORD:
S. 312. A bill to revise the boundary of the Abraham Lincoln
Birthplace National Historic Site in Larue County, KY, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
KNOB CREEK FARM LEGISLATION
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on this the 188th anniversary of the birth
of Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America and
one of Kentucky's greatest native sons, I am introducing legislation to
expand the boundaries of the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National
Historic Site to include Knob Creek Farm, Lincoln's boyhood home from
the ages of 2 to nearly 8. Located in Larue County near Hodgenville,
KY, Knob Creek Farm is where President Lincoln learned some of his
earliest lessons of life; lessons which helped mold the man who would
go on to lead our Nation through one of the most important and trying
periods in American history. I feel it is appropriate to honor the
legacy of this great leader by including Knob Creek Farm in the
National Historic Site.
Under this legislation, the cost of acquiring Knob Creek Farm would
not fall to the American taxpayer, but would instead be borne by the
private sector. The National Park Trust, a private land conservancy
dedicated to protecting America's natural and historical treasures, has
been raising private funds and is currently negotiating to purchase the
228-acre family-owned farm, located approximately 10 miles from the
existing Historic Site. After acquiring the farm, which is listed on
the National Register of Historic Places, the trust would donate the
land to the Park Service.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``A morsel of genuine history is a thing
so rare as to be always valuable.'' Well, Mr. President, I think Knob
Creek Farm represents just such a morsel, and including it in the
Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site will allow current
and future generations of Americans to share in the rare educational
value of this historical property.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 312
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REVISION OF BOUNDARY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN BIRTHPLACE
NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.
(a) In General.--On acquisition of the land known as Knob
Creek Farm pursuant to subsection (b), the boundary of the
Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site,
established by the Act of July 17, 1916 (39 Stat. 385,
chapter 247; 16 U.S.C. 211 et seq.), is revised to include
the land.
(b) Acquisition of Knob Creek Farm.--The Secretary of the
Interior may acquire, by donation only, the approximately 228
acres of land known as Knob Creek Farm in Larue County,
Kentucky.
SEC. 2. STUDY OF SURROUNDING RESOURCES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall study the area
between and surrounding the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace
National Historic Site and the Knob Creek Farm in Larue
County, Kentucky.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the study shall be to--
(1) protect the resources of the Knob Creek Farm from
incompatible adjacent land uses; and
(2) identify significant resources associated with the
early boyhood of Abraham Lincoln.
(c) Considerations of Area Studied.--In examining the area
under study, the Secretary shall consider--
(1) whether the area--
(A) possesses nationally significant natural, cultural, or
recreational resources;
(B) represents an important example of a particular
resource type in the country;
(C) is a suitable and feasible addition to the National
Park System; and
(D) is appropriate to ensure long-term resource protection
and visitor use;
(2) the public use potential of the area;
(3) the potential outdoor recreational opportunity provided
by the area;
(4) the interpretive and educational potential of the area;
(5) costs associated with the acquisition, development, and
operation of the area;
(6) the socioeconomic impacts of a designation of the area
as part of the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic
Site; and
(7) the level of local and general public support for
designating the area as part of the Abraham Lincoln
Birthplace National Historic Site.
(d) Resources of Area Studied.--In examining a resource of
the area under study, the Secretary shall consider--
(1) the rarity and integrity of the resource;
(2) the threats to the resource, and
(3) whether similar resources are already protected in the
National Park System or in other Federal, State, or private
ownership.
(e) Management.--
(1) In general.--The study shall consider whether direct
National Park Service management or alternative protection by
other agencies or the private sector is appropriate for the
area under study.
(2) Identification of alternatives.--The study shall
identify which alternative or combination of alternatives
would be most effective and efficient in protecting
significant resources and providing for public enjoyment.
(f) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit the study to
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
State.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
S. 313. A bill to repeal a provision of the International Air
Transportation Competition Act of 1979 relating to air transportation
from Love Field, TX; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
THE WRIGHT AMENDMENT REPEAL ACT OF 1997
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Kansas
[Mr. Roberts] joins with me today in offering this bill to address an
injustice that has developed out of current law.
Under current law, commercial air carriers are prohibited from
providing service between Dallas' Love Field and points located outside
of Texas or its four surrounding States. This effectively limits travel
into and out of this airport to destinations only in Texas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, and New Mexico. Flights originating from any other
State must fly into the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport in order to have
access to the highly traveled Dallas area.
The original intent of the Wright amendment was to protect the then
relatively new Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. It is now the third busiest
airport in the country and no longer needs to be protected from
competition. The amendment distorts the free market and condones
anticompetitive law; it also limits travel and forces passengers to pay
artificially and unreasonably high airfare. Furthermore, it causes
unnecessary delay and inconvenience
[[Page S1310]]
for passengers, especially the disabled, elderly, and those traveling
with small children. Finally, Dallas is the top destination for
passengers flying from Wichita and this restriction denies Kansas lower
fares.
This restriction not based on any standards appropriate for the
airline industry. It is not based on mileage flown, size of the city
serviced, or noise generated by the aircraft. Instead, it is an
outdated restriction based on political boundaries which were in place
before the advent of airplanes.
As a law that is based on political concerns rather than practical
realities, this is a prime example of unwarranted and unnecessary
government regulation. It is a prime example of a lack of common sense
and it is a prime example of why so many Americans have lost confidence
in their Government.
The Wright amendment is wrong for America, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in correcting this biased situation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 313
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROVISION RELATING TO LOVE FIELD, TEXAS.
Section 29 of the International Air Transportation
Competition Act of 1979 (94 Stat. 48) is repealed.
______
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Brownback, and Mr. Craig):
S. 314. A bill to require that the Federal Government procure from
the private sector the goods and services necessary for the operations
and management of certain Government agencies, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
THE FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT COMPETITION ACT OF 1997
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is one of
my top priorities for this Congress. It is called the Freedom from
Government Competition Act. It is I think a common sense, good
Government reform bill. I am joined in the effort by Senators Hagel,
Kyl, Enzi, Brownback, and Craig.
This legislation has the potential to open up a $30 billion market
for the Nation's small and large businesses. It is designed to level
the playing field for thousands of businesses that span the economic
spectrum of this country from the mundane to the high tech. It will
also provide a more efficient Government, one that works better and
costs less.
Government competition with the private sector is a growing problem.
Over the last 40 years, it has been the Federal policy of saying let us
do those things that are commercial in the private sector, but it has
not worked. We have not moved toward that goal. The bureaucracy has not
found ways and means to procure goods and services from the private
sector. For example, CBO has estimated that 1.4 million employees work
in areas that are commercial in nature. We need a statutory provision
to correct this problem.
In order to reach the goal of a balanced budget, we need to rely, I
believe, on the private sector for many of the Federal Government's
needs. Various studies indicate that we can save up to $30 billion
annually doing this. This competition, of course, not only wastes
taxpayers' money but it stunts job growth in the private sector,
stifles economic growth, erodes the tax base and hurts small
businesses. And it has been one of the top priorities in the three
meetings of the White House Conference on Small Business.
The bill basically codifies the 40-year-old Federal policy and that
is to use the private sector. There are exceptions to this policy laid
out in the bill: those functions that are inherently governmental,
those goods and services that are in the interest of national security,
goods or services that the Federal Government can provide better at a
better value than the private sector, and goods and services, of
course, that the private sector cannot provide.
This bill establishes a system where OMB can identify those functions
to properly stay within the Federal establishment and those that can
better be done by the private sector. This legislation establishes an
office of commercial activities within OMB to do that. No longer is the
agency that is charged with doing the contracting the one that makes
decisions of whether it will be contracted or not.
Certainly we are all sensitive to Federal employees' concerns should
they be impacted. For those who are displaced, we have included
provisions that facilitate transition to the private sector if they
choose to follow that path.
The intention of the legislation is to get agencies to focus on their
core missions. This focus will ensure a better value to American
taxpayers. I do not wish to abolish all Government functions. But I am
saying that there is private sector expertise waiting to be utilized.
Congressman Duncan in the House has introduced a companion bill. It
also was introduced today.
The U.S. Senate is already on record as supporting this concept. Last
year you may recall the Senate voted 59 to 39 in favor of an amendment
I offered on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill that would have
prevented unfair Government competition with the private sector.
However, it was dropped from the omnibus spending package. This
comprehensive legislation builds on that success.
Also, last year the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a
hearing on this bill. We received some good input and have made some
changes in the bill based on it. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this legislation. I think the
political climate is right for enacting this concept.
Finally, it is a fairly simple bill. It says that we still believe in
the philosophy of having the private sector do those things that are
commercial in nature. This legislation lays out a system for doing
that, identifying those things that are inherently governmental and
those goods and services that can be done in the private sector. It's
an idea this Congress really ought to consider. It would be a money
saver. It is philosophically right, it will help the private sector a
great deal and give taxpayers a bigger bang for their buck.
I ask unanimous consent that the following materials be printed in
the Record: A copy of the bill, a section-by-section analysis, a list
of groups endorsing the bill, a letter of endorsement from the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, and a letter of endorsement from the Business
Coalition for Fair Competition.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 314
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 ``Freedom From Government
Competition Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds and declares that--
(1) private sector business concerns, which are free to
respond to the private or public demands of the marketplace,
constitute the strength of the American economic system;
(2) competitive private sector enterprises are the most
productive, efficient, and effective sources of goods and
services;
(3) government competition with the private sector of the
economy is detrimental to all businesses and the American
economic system;
(4) government competition with the private sector of the
economy is at an unacceptably high level, both in scope and
in dollar volume;
(5) when a government engages in entrepreneurial activities
that are beyond its core mission and compete with the private
sector--
(A) the focus and attention of the government are diverted
from executing the basic mission and work of that government;
and
(B) those activities constitute unfair government
competition with the private sector;
(6) current laws and policies have failed to address
adequately the problem of government competition with the
private sector of the economy;
(7) the level of government competition with the private
sector, especially with small businesses, has been a priority
issue of each White House Conference on Small Business;
(8) reliance on the private sector is consistent with the
goals of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(Public Law 103-62);
(9) reliance on the private sector is necessary and
desirable for proper implementation of the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-226);
[[Page S1311]]
(10) it is in the public interest that the Federal
Government establish a consistent policy to rely on the
private sector of the economy to provide goods and services
that are necessary for or beneficial to the operation and
management of Federal Government agencies and to avoid
Federal Government competition with the private sector of the
economy; and
(11) it is in the public interest for the private sector to
utilize employees who are adversely affected by conversions
to use of private sector entities for providing goods and
services on behalf of the Federal Government.
SEC. 3. RELIANCE ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
(a) General Policy.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, except as provided in subsection (c), each agency shall
procure from sources in the private sector all goods and
services that are necessary for or beneficial to the
accomplishment of authorized functions of the agency.
(b) Prohibitions Regarding Transactions in Goods and
Services.--
(1) Provision by government generally.--No agency may begin
or carry out any activity to provide any products or services
that can be provided by the private sector.
(2) Transactions between governmental entities.--No agency
may obtain any goods or services from or provide any goods or
services to any other governmental entity.
(c) Exceptions.--Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to
goods or services necessary for or beneficial to the
accomplishment of authorized functions of an agency under the
following conditions:
(1) Either--
(A) the goods or services are inherently governmental in
nature within the meaning of section 6(b); or
(B) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
determines that the provision of the goods or services is
otherwise an inherently governmental function.
(2) The head of the agency determines that the goods or
services should be produced, provided, or manufactured by the
Federal Government for reasons of national security.
(3) The Federal Government is determined to be the best
value source of the goods or services in accordance with
regulations prescribed pursuant to section 4(a)(2)(C).
(4) The private sector sources of the goods or services, or
the practices of such sources, are not adequate to satisfy
the agency's requirements.
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) Regulations.--
(1) OMB responsibility.--The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall prescribe regulations to carry
out this Act.
(2) Content.--
(A) Private sector preference.--Consistent with the policy
and prohibitions set forth in section 3, the regulations
shall emphasize a preference for the provision of goods and
services by private sector sources.
(B) Fairness for federal employees..--In order to ensure
the fair treatment of Federal Government employees, the
regulations--
(i) shall not contravene any law or regulation regarding
Federal Government employees; and
(ii) shall provide for the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, in consultation with the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management, to furnish information on
relevant available benefits and assistance to Federal
Government employees adversely affected by conversions to use
of private sector entities for providing goods and services.
(C) Best value sources.--
(i) Standards and procedures.--The regulations shall
include standards and procedures for determining whether it
is a private sector source or an agency that provides certain
goods or services for the best value.
(ii) Factors considered.--The standards and procedures
shall include requirements for consideration of analyses of
all direct and indirect costs (performed in a manner
consistent with generally accepted cost-accounting
principles), the qualifications of sources, the past
performance of sources, and any other technical and noncost
factors that are relevant.
(iii) Consultation requirement.--The Director shall consult
with persons from the private sector and persons from the
public sector in developing the standards and procedures.
(D) Appropriate governmental activities.--The regulations
shall include a methodology for determining what types of
activities performed by an agency should continue to be
performed by the agency or any other agency.
(b) Compliance and Implementation Assistance.--
(1) OMB center for commercial activities.--The Director of
the Office of Management and Budget shall establish a Center
for Commercial Activities within the Office of Management and
Budget.
(2) Responsibilities.--The Center--
(A) shall be responsible for the implementation of and
compliance with the policies, standards, and procedures that
are set forth in this Act or are prescribed to carry out this
Act; and
(B) shall provide agencies and private sector entities with
guidance, information, and other assistance appropriate for
facilitating conversions to use of private sector entities
for providing goods and services on behalf of the Federal
Government.
SEC. 5. STUDY AND REPORT ON COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
(a) Annual Performance Plan.--Section 1115(a) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) include--
``(A) the identity of each program activity that is
performed for the agency by a private sector entity in
accordance with the Freedom From Government Competition Act
of 1997; and
``(B) the identity of each program activity that is not
subject to the Freedom From Government Competition Act of
1997 by reason of an exception set forth in that Act,
together with a discussion specifying why the activity is
determined to be covered by the exception.''.
(b) Annual Performance Report.--Section 1116(d)(3) of title
31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``explain and describe,'' in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A);
(2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``explain and
describe'' after ``(A)'';
(3) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by inserting ``explain and describe'' after ``(B)'';
and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(4) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by inserting ``explain and describe'' after
``infeasible,''; and
(B) by inserting ``and'' at the end; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) in the case of an activity not performed by a private
sector entity--
``(i) explain and describe whether the activity could be
performed for the Federal Government by a private sector
entity in accordance with the Freedom From Government
Competition Act of 1997; and
``(ii) if the activity could be performed by a private
sector entity, set forth a schedule for converting to
performance of the activity by a private sector entity;''.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Agency.--As used in this Act, the term ``agency'' means
the following:
(1) Executive department.--An executive department as
defined by section 101 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Military department.--A military department as defined
by section 102 of such title.
(3) Independent establishment.--An independent
establishment as defined by section 104(1) of such title.
(b) Inherently Governmental Goods and Services.--
(1) Performance of inherently governmental functions.--For
the purposes of section 3(c)(1)(A), goods or services are
inherently governmental in nature if the providing of such
goods or services is an inherently governmental function.
(2) Inherently governmental functions described.--
(A) Functions included.--For the purposes of paragraph (1),
a function shall be considered an inherently governmental
function if the function is so intimately related to the
public interest as to mandate performance by Federal
Government employees. Such functions include activities that
require either the exercise of discretion in applying Federal
Government authority or the making of value judgments in
making decisions for the Federal Government, including
judgments relating to monetary transactions and entitlements.
An inherently governmental function involves, among other
things, the interpretation and execution of the laws of the
United States so as to--
(i) bind the United States to take or not to take some
action by contract, policy, regulation, authorization, order,
or otherwise;
(ii) determine, protect, and advance its economic,
political, territorial, property, or other interests by
military or diplomatic action, civil or criminal judicial
proceedings, contract management, or otherwise;
(iii) significantly affect the life, liberty, or property
of private persons;
(iv) commission, appoint, direct, or control officers or
employees of the United States; or
(v) exert ultimate control over the acquisition, use, or
disposition of the property, real or personal, tangible or
intangible, of the United States, including the control or
disbursement of appropriated and other Federal funds.
(B) Functions excluded.--For the purposes of paragraph (1),
inherently governmental functions do not normally include--
(i) gathering information for or providing advice,
opinions, recommendations, or ideas to Federal Government
officials;
(ii) any function that is primarily ministerial or internal
in nature (such as building security, mail operations,
operation of cafeterias, laundry and housekeeping, facilities
operations and maintenance, warehouse operations, motor
vehicle fleet management and operations, or other routine
electrical or mechanical services); or
(iii) any good or service which is currently or could
reasonably be produced or performed, respectively, by an
entity in the private sector.
____
Freedom From Government Competition Act--Section-by-Section Analysis
Sec. 1. Bill entitled ``Freedom from Government Competition
Act.''
Sec. 2. Establishes findings and declarations, including--
The private sector constitutes the strength of the American
economy; Private sector is the most efficient provider of
goods and services; Government
[[Page S1312]]
competition is harmful to the private sector, including small
business and has been identified as such by the three
sessions of the White House Conference on Small Business
(1980, 1986, 1994); Entrepreneurial government diverts
agencies from their core missions and results in unfair
government competition with the private sector; Current laws
and policies have failed to address the problem; Reliance on
the private sector is consistent with recently enacted
government reform legislation, including the Government
Performance and Results Act and Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act; and It is in the public interest to rely
on the private sector for commercially available goods and
services and to assist those government employees adversely
affected by conversions of government activities to the
private sector.
Sec. 3. Establishes a general policy of reliance on the
private sector.
Provides that the government should rely on the private
sector for goods and services except under certain conditions
(listed below). The government may not obtain goods and
services from or provide goods and services to any other
governmental entity.
Provide exceptions to this general policy for--Goods or
services that are ``inherently governmental'' in nature as
defined in the bill or as determined by OMB; Goods or
services that must be provided by the government for reasons
of national security; Goods or services for which the Federal
government is the ``best value'' source; and Goods or
services for which private sector capabilities or practices
are not adequate to satisfy the government's requirements.
Sec. 4. Provides administrative provisions to implement the
Act.--Authorizes OMB to prescribe regulations to implement
the Act; Requires regulations to be consistent with the
policy of preference for the private sector as established in
section 3; Establishes regulations to preserve existing
Federal employee benefits and requires OMB consultation with
OPM on providing information to Federal employees on relevant
benefits and assistance for those affected by a conversion of
an activity from government to private sector performance;
Requires OMB regulations to create level playing field for
determination of the ``best value'' (see Sec. 3 above),
including all direct and indirect costs (in accordance with
accepted cost-accounting principles), qualifications, past
performance and other technical and non-cost factors,
developed in consultation with the public and private sector;
Requires OMB to establish a process for determining
activities that should continue to be performed by the
government; and Establishes a ``Center for Commercial
Activities'' in OMB to implement the Act, assure proper
compliance, and provide guidance, information and assistance
to agencies and the private sector on converting activities
from the government to the private sector.
Sec. 5. Requires studies and reports on implementation of
the Act.--Rather than creating new reporting requirements,
the bill amends the Government Performance and Results Act to
include annual reports on agency activities converted to
contract and those maintained in-house by the agency. Also
requires establishment of a schedule for converting to the
private sector those activities that can be performed by the
private sector.
Sec. 6. Provides definitions of terms used in the Act.--
Defines ``agency'' consistent with existing law; and Defines
``inherently governmental'' consistent with the existing
Office of Federal Procurement Policy definition. (OFPP Letter
92-1).
____
Groups Supporting the ``Freedom From Government Competition Act''
National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, American Consulting Engineers Council
(ACEC), ACIL (Formerly the American Council of Independent
Laboratories), Business Coalition for Fair Competition
(BCFC), Business Executives for National Security (BENS),
Contract Services Association, Design Professionals
Coalition, Management Association for Private Photogrammetric
Surveyors (MAPPS), Procurement Roundtable, Professional
Services Council (PSC), and Small Business Legislative
Council.
____
Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America,
Washington, DC, February 5, 1997.
Members of the United States Senate:
The ``Freedom from Government Competition Act of 1997''
(FFGCA), to be introduced by Senator Thomas, is a common
sense bill that requires federal agencies and departments to
procure goods and services from the private sector whenever
possible. The bill precludes federal offices from starting or
carrying on any activity if that product or service can be
provided by a commercial source. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
strongly urges you to co-sponsor this legislation.
A balanced federal budget is a bipartisan goal that is the
Chamber's top priority. Reducing government infrastructure
and overhead is a necessary step in reaching a balanced
budget, yet federal agencies and departments continue to
perform countless services and functions that could be
performed more efficiently and cost effectively by
competitive private sector enterprises, saving billions of
dollars annually. Additionally, government competition with
the private sector is at an unacceptably high level, both in
scope and in dollar volume.
The Freedom from Government Competition Act establishes a
consistent government policy that relies upon the private
sector to provide goods and services necessary for the
operation and management of federal agencies and departments.
This policy will serve as an important tool to ensure the
reduction of unnecessary infrastructure and overhead that is
critical to balanced budget initiatives.
The FFGCA provides exceptions to the bill, however, for
goods or services that are inherently governmental, necessary
for national security, or are so unique or of such a nature
that they must be performed by the government. The bill
requires equal cost comparison of public and private
functions and exempts goods and services performed by the
government if the production or manufacture by a government
source represents the best overall value.
The U.S. Chamber believes broad Congressional support for
legislation such as the Freedom from Government Competition
Act is vital to achieving a balanced budget and urges your
co-sponsorship of this bill as an important indication of
your support of small business. For further information
please contact Chris Jahn of Senator Thomas' staff at 224-
6441 or Jody Olmer of the U.S. Chamber at (202) 463-5522.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
____
Business Coalition for
Fair Competition,
Annandale, VA, February 12, 1997.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Washington, DC.
Senator Thomas: We write to support the Freedom From
Government Competition Act of 1997.
When the delegates to the White House Conference on Small
Business (June 1995) made unfair competition by governments
and nonprofits one of their top issues they had in mind the
dramatic way in which the U.S. government competes unfairly
with small businesses.
Of 434 issues, the following recommendation by 1,800
elected and appointed delegates was one of their top fifteen:
Government and Nonprofit Competition.-- Support fair
competition: Congress should enact legislation that would
prohibit agencies, tax-exempt and antitrust-exempt
organizations from engaging in commercial activities in
direct competition with small businesses. (Foundation for a
New Century: A Report to the President and Congress, by the
White House Conference on Small Business, September 1995.)
This recommendation originated at the state level where
delegates complained that a major competitor for many small
businesses is the Federal government.
freedom from government competition act
Currently, hundreds of thousands of Federal employees are
producing billions of dollars worth of products and services.
This bill establishes as new national policy full and
uncompromised reliance on the private sector for goods and
services.
This historic and precedent-setting legislation would for
the first time eliminate government competition as a matter
of national policy.
The Business Coalition for Fair Competition, a coalition of
national associations, supports the Freedom From Government
Competition Act which states that government may conduct only
operations that are so ``inherently governmental'' that the
public interest requires production or performance by a
Government employee. For example, the definition of
``inherently'' would only apply to such narrowly defined
areas as specific parts of law enforcement and armed forces
missions. The bill allows the government to do the work if
``there is no private source capable of providing the good or
service.'' In the case of commercial activities, private
industry can do almost everything any government needs done.
executive branch proposals
In 1993, Vice President Gore stated: ``Every federal agency
needs support services--accounting, property management,
payroll processing, legal advice, and so on. Currently, most
managers have little choice about where to get them; they
must use what's available in house. But no manager should be
confined to an agency monopoly.''
The Administration then created new authorities and
opportunities for the Executive Branch to do commercial work
by issuing a ``Revised Supplemental Handbook on Performance
of Commercial Activities, Circular No. A-76.'' We warned the
Administration December 15, 1995 that their revisions would
not meet with support from the delegates to the White House
Conference on Small Business.
The OMB revisions do not provide any encouragement to small
businesses. For example, the revisions:
1. Allow any work that can be done by ten or fewer Federal
employees to be kept in-house.
2. Encourage agencies to keep ``core'' teams intact so the
agency always has the capability of doing bigger things when
more funding is available.
3. Discourage any small business from proposing to do a
government job.
4. Discourage agencies from giving serious consideration to
any proposal from a small business.
5. Allow government agencies to spend up to 10 percent more
than the private sector for the same work.
[[Page S1313]]
6. Encourage government agencies to do more contracting
with each other.
Many agencies complained to OMB in December 1995 that the
A-76 system is awkward and cumbersome, inhibiting rather than
empowering.
In fact, the whole A-76 system is built around ``cost
comparisons'' which exceed the depth and length of a Ph.D
dissertation. The system advocated by the Executive Branch is
fatally flawed.
On the one hand the Supplemental Handbook attempts to make
the cost comparison system more rigorous. But, on the other
hand, the Supplemental Handbook implements a recommendation
of the National Performance Review helping agencies market
themselves to other agencies, thus by-passing the need to
rely on the private sector.
Supporting an amendment you offered in the 104th Congress,
the Senate voted 59-39 to request restrictions on the
unchecked proliferation of ``Interservice Support
Agreements.'' Despite the Senate vote, the Administration has
done nothing to restrain the growth of such agreements.
Today some Federal agencies provide business services to
state and local governments and to private entities. This
activity has neither been authorized by Congress nor is it
regulated by A-76.
private sector reliance works
Can Federal managers be more effective outsourcing
contracts than supervising thousands of Federal employees
doing commercial work? Outsourcing works for private industry
where managers are doing more outsourcing than ever. DOD says
it works for them. NASA outsources almost the entire space
program using thousands of private sector contracts.
By getting the government out of business, as proposed by
the Freedom From Government Competition Act, Congress can
return agencies to their core functions such as establishing
safety rules. To achieve this change, public administrators
will need more training and supervision in the management of
outsourcing. Passage of this bill will result in a dramatic
and long-overdue change in the way the government operates.
Freedom from Government competition act: saves money and time
We need a fresh start on this problem. This bill is that
fresh start. Whereas DOD did many cost comparisons in the
1980s, they do few today. If the A-76 system has failed at
DOD, why does the Administration continue to impose the
system on the whole government? The Freedom From Government
Competition Act is a far better approach.
In comparison to the OMB's expensive 36-month cost-study
approach, the bill's approach is far preferable; the costs
and time wasted in thousands of studies need not occur. Under
this legislation, the Federal policy would be to rely on the
private sector. The government would get out of certain
businesses. Federal employees would manage but not perform
various contracts awarded to the private sector.
Agency employees would shift from being direct service
providers to managers of service contracts. Federal personnel
management training would shift from supervision of extensive
commercial activities to management of contracts. These
changes have already begun to work for the DOD and NASA. It
can work for the whole Executive Branch.
department of defense
During the U.S. military operations in Bosnia, the
Department used private firms to provide health care,
payroll, accounting, data management, supply management,
logistics, transportation, security, maintenance and
modernization of weapons, and management of military bases.
The Washington Post reported ``The Defense Department has
said it can save billions of dollars by contracting out, or
`outsourcing' a wide range of military functions. . . . That
way, the Pentagon reasons, it will have more money for its
combat and humanitarian duties.''
On the other hand the Army Corps of Engineers is
extensively in the campground business. The Army plans a
hotel on Ft. Myer to complete with the 9,110 hotel rooms
already available from commercial companies in Arlington,
Virginia. And the Air Force proposes to repair the jet
engines of commercial airlines.
On the one hand, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General John M. Shalikashivili told the Senate Armed Services
Committee: ``We must continue to push with all energy
acquisition reforms, commercial off-the-shelf opportunities,
privatization, outsourcing of non-core activities, and
further reductions of our infrastructure.''
On the other hand, a war could have come and gone by the
time DOD does a cost comparison. In its recommendations to
the Office of Management and Budget, the Department reported
it needs not 36 months but 48 months to conduct cost studies
before contracting out. Studies of this length are excessive
and underscore the impracticability of the Administration's
position.
the u.s. forest service: head-to-head competition
A small campground business was forced out of business by
the Federal government in 1996. When the U.S. Forest Service
began a new campground in Payson, Arizona, at the Tonto
National Forest, they went into business right across the
highway from a for-profit small campground business. Using $3
million of taxpayers money, they went directly ``in your
face,'' despite admonishment from the Forest Service Policy
Manual which discourages competition with the private sector.
While the Business Coalition for Fair Competition and the
National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds (ARVC) have
opposed this new campground. The Forest Service plunged
ahead. The private campground was forced to close.
This is an example of why A-76 does not work: the Forest
Service argues that they don't have to adhere to OMB Circular
A-76 except in the selection of vendors. The build-or-not-
build decision is unaffected by the Circular. Establishing a
government-owned campground is a policy matter not a
procurement or acquisition matter, in the eye of the Federal
government. There is no Federal policy or regulation forcing
the Forest Service to study the impact of their construction
on small business. Nor is there any Federal rule that
requires the Forest Service to listen to the appeal of any
small businessperson who appeals or makes a counter proposal.
surveying and mapping: $1 billion federal business
The Federal Government spends $1 billion annually on
surveying and mapping in some 39 agencies, employing nearly
7,000 Federal workers. Less than 10% of the $1 billion of
Federal expenditure is contracted to the private sector for
these services. A private sector comprised of more than 6,000
surveying and 250 mapping firms have capabilities to meet and
exceed those of the government agencies.
Military Exchanges: Taking Over Retail Markets
Members of the North American Retail Dealers Association
document direct competition from military exchanges in the
sale of consumer electronics products and other items.
Military exchanges are among top 10 retailers in the US
measured by sales volume. They compete unfairly because they
do not collect sales taxes, do not pay for land and are not
subject to federal antitrust laws.
Contract Services: Private Sector Offers the Best Value
Members of the Contract Services Association of America who
provide services of every conceivable type, from low to high
technologies, point to studies and analyses which show that
outsourcing of commercial activities will result in
substantially reduced costs to the government with at least
equal quality, but more often, improve quality of service.
The outsourcing of commercial activities must be seen not
only as a matter of logic and fairness to the private sector,
but also as a guarantor of the American taxpayer obtaining
the best value for his or her tax dollar.
Laundry Services: VA Bids For Private Sector Work
A laundry in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, found that the
Department of Veteran Affairs bid against him on a contract
to provide laundry services to a children's home. When he
questioned the VA about competing directly with the private
sector, he was told that VA needed to increase its revenues.
Hearing Aids: Government Competition
The International Hearing Society, whose members dispense
the majority of hearing aids in the United States, report
that government competition erodes the client base of
taxpaying hearing aid specialists. Unfettered government
competition with hearing aid specialists and other taxpaying
small business men and women undermines the free market. IHS
urges swift enactment of this legislation, which will help to
level the competitive playing field and generate increased
opportunity for private sector business concerns, including
hearing aid specialists.
Executive Order Inspiring the Entrepreneurial Drive
When we investigated why so many Federal agencies are
increasing their competition with the private sector, it
became clear that Executive Orders from the White House and
directions from the National Performance Review are inspiring
Federal workers toward being more entrepreneurial. Agencies
are justifying their new commercial drive by referring to the
new Administration policy.
In contrast to the work of the Congress in downsizing
government, this new entrepreneurial spirit is a loophole
giving Federal employees an alternative for saving their job:
if their agency can win a contract for providing a service to
another agency or with someone in the private sector, work
will continue. In this way, the will of the Congress to
reduce government will be thwarted.
In a meeting with the White House, we were told the
Administration urges agencies such as all the Federal labs to
(1) save themselves despite Congressional budget reductions
(2) seek business from agencies and the private sector and
(3) do as much work as possible in-house (vs. outsourcing).
The Administration's position drives us to conclude that
only the Freedom From Government Competition Act will work.
Defense Reliance on the Private Sector
Thanks to the 104th Congress and an initiative by
Congressman John Duncan of Tennessee the Defense
Authorization bill called on the Defense Department to
promptly provide information on the government's commercial
activities: a solid step in the right
[[Page S1314]]
direction. Section 357 of Public Law 104-106 stated: ``The
Secretary shall identify activities of the Department . . .
that are carried out by employees of the Department to
provide commercial-type products or services for the
Department. . . .''
The passage of this measure caused the Department of
Defense to issue a report titled ``Improving the Combat Edge
Through Outsourcing'' (March 1996) which shows that leaders
in DOD want the extensive savings they can achieve through
outsourcing.
Privatization Task Force
Narrowed from a list of a dozen recommendations submitted
by President Clinton, the 104th Congress passed legislation
to privatize the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, the Naval
Petroleum Reserve, the Alaska Power Marketing Administration
and the National Helium Reserve. The sale of these Federal
assets will (1) generate to the US Treasury several billion
dollars and (2) save annual costs of staffing, maintenance
and operations.
Congress has also authorized the outsourcing of forecasting
functions of the National Weather Service, commercial real
estate brokerage at the General Services Administration, debt
collection at the Internal Revenue Service, and experimental
privatization of several airports.
Defense Sciences Board and the Heritage Foundation Recommend
Contracting OUt and Privatization
At the beginning of the 104th Congress, the Heritage
Foundation issued two reports: Showing that Congress could
cut Federal spending by $9 billion per year by contracting
out routine support services to the private sector. Showing
that Congress could save $11 billion in a single year by
privatizing nine Federal activities and by eliminating
various barriers to privatization established by Congress.
In late 1996, the Defense Science Board Task Force released
its report ``Outsourcing and Privatization'' to the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology.
The Task Force included military, private sector and
academic participants and was chaired by Philip A. Odeen,
President and CEO, BDM International, Inc.
The Task Force predicts that the Department of Defense can
save 30-40% of costs ``by outsourcing services for their own
use. Local commanders that achieve an aggressive DoD
outsourcing initiative could generate annual savings of $7 to
$12 billion by FY 02. . . . Local commanders that achieve
outsourcing objectives should be rewarded with promotions and
desirable assignments.''
The report concludes by stating ``DoD is left with only one
practical alternative to meet its future modernization
requirements: sharply reduce DoD support costs, and apply the
savings to the procurement account. The Task Force firmly
believes that extensive savings can be achieved--if DoD is
willing to abandon its traditional reliance on in-house
support organizations in favor of a new support paradigm that
capitalizes upon the efficiency and creativity of the private
sector.''
The report estimates ``the number of DoD personnel actually
engaged in commercial-type activities greatly exceeds the
640,000 total . . . contractors could perform most of the
work currently executed by these civilian employees.''
The Task Force was opposed to the current system of
reliance on OMB Circular A-76. ``A-76 public/private
competitions are extremely time-consuming, biased in favor of
the government entity, and concentrated in narrow, labor-
intensive support functions involving relatively small
numbers of government employees.''
The Task Force said A-76 competitions ``fail to fully
consider other important factors such as the bidder's
capability to improve the quality and responsiveness of
service delivery. . . . By outsourcing broad business areas,
DoD can provide vendors with greater opportunity to
reengineer processes--and greater potential to achieve major
improvements in service quality and cost.''
Despite its shortcomings, the A-76 system has saved DoD
$1.5 billion per year. ``A more aggressive DoD initiative
will yield proportionally greater benefits,'' the report
states.
The Task Force summarized data from private enterprise
indicating that companies save 10-15 percent when outsourcing
$100 billion worth of functions. Ninety percent of company
executives report that outsourcing is successful, according
the Outsourcing Institute's ``Purchasing Dynamics,
Expectations, and Outcomes, 1995.''
general accounting office supported congressional action as long ago as
1981
``Although it has been the executive branch's general
policy since 1955 to rely on contractors for these commercial
goods and services, agency compliance with this policy has
been inconsistent and relatively ineffective,'' the GAO
reported to Congress June 19, 1981.
Little has changed. Agency compliance with this policy
continues to be lax. Much of what GAO wrote about this
subject in the last two decades still applies.
Here is what GAO said in 1981: ``Circular A-76 provides
that it is the executive branch's general policy to rely on
the private sector for goods and services unless it is more
economical to provide them in-house. Federal purchases of
goods and services from the private sector cost about $117
billion in fiscal year 1980. Although this policy to rely on
the private sector has existed for over 25 years, OMB
information shows that as many as 400,000 Federal employees
are currently operating more than 11,000 commercial or
industrial activities at almost $19 billion annually. These
employees represent almost one-fourth of the total executive
branch civilian work force.''
In 1981, GAO advised Congress as follows: ``We believe the
Congress should act on our earlier recommendation to
legislate a national policy of reliance on the private sector
for goods and services.''
GAO's advice in 1981 is still appropriate today. Therefore,
the only recourse is for adoption by Congress of a new
national policy of reliance on the private sector as proposed
by the Freedom From Government Competition Act.
Kenton Pattie,
Executive Director.
____
Business Coalition for Fair Competition 1997
ACIL (Formerly the American Council of Independent
Laboratories)
American Bus Association
American Society of Travel Agents
Colorado Coalition for Fair Competition
Helicopter Association International
IHRSA (The International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub
Association)
International Association of Environmental Testing
Laboratories
International Hearing Society
Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors
National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds
National Association of Women Business Owners
National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association
National Child Care Association
National Community Pharmacists Association
National Tour Association
Professional Services Council
Small Business Legislative Council
Society of Travel Agents in Government
Textile Rental Services Association
United Motorcoach Association
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 315. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce
tax benefits for foreign corporations, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
THE CORPORATE WELFARE REDUCTION ACT
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there's a story that's told about
the film actor and comedian W.C. Fields. He was hardly religious, but
on his deathbed a friend discovered him reading the Bible. So he asked
Fields what we he was doing--and the actor responded with
characteristic dry wit, ``I'm looking for loopholes.''
For too long, many multinational firms and foreign corporations
operating in this country have done the same thing with the United
States Tax Code. They have searched our tax laws for loopholes--and
carved out special-interest breaks to avoid paying their fair share.
And they've done it with great success. Today, for example, over
seventy percent of foreign-based corporations in the United States pay
no Federal income tax. Meanwhile working families who play by the rules
struggle just to make ends meet. This is simply wrong and as a matter
of basic fairness, it must end.
So today, Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Corporate Welfare
Reduction Act of 1997 which will save taxpayers over $20 billion over
the next 6 years. Companion legislation has been introduced in the
other body by my friend and colleague Representative Lane Evans. Now is
the time to act on this measure.
In the coming days, we will take up a constitutional amendment to
balance the Government's budget. I will vote for it. I believe we must
get our financial house in order if we are to pass on to future
generations a legacy of hope, and not a legacy of debt.
But if we are going to balance our Government's budget--and keep it
balanced in the years to come--every taxpayer will have to do their
part. There's no doubt that working families and small businesses on
Main Street already are contributing significantly. But foreign-based
and multinational corporations simply have not paid their fair share.
One of the central goals of Government policy--particularly tax
policy--ought to be promoting investment in our people and in our
businesses here at home. For too long, though, our tax policies have
had it backwards--rewarding U.S. companies that move overseas and
granting unfair tax giveaways to foreign subsidiaries in this country.
American businesses shouldn't be forced to compete against foreign
subsidiaries here that don't pay their fair
[[Page S1315]]
share of taxes. And American workers shouldn't be left out in the cold
because our tax laws encouraged companies to ship jobs away and ship
products back.
That is why I am introducing the Corporate Welfare Reduction Act.
This legislation contains six main provisions.
First, it ends the use of transfer pricing rules by multinational
corporations to lower their U.S. tax liability. Multinational companies
often sell a product to their subsidiaries at a discounted price--
effectively increasing a company's income while decreasing its U.S. tax
liability. This bill would restrict a company's interagency pricing
policies and, instead, tax the sale of products at their fair market
value.
Second, the bill disallows the practice of ``sourcing'' income from
the sale of inventory property. In many cases, multinational
corporations pass the title of sale to a foreign-owned subsidiary in
order to avoid paying U.S. taxes even though the sale is completed in
the United States.
Third, it limits the excessive use of tax credits taken by
multinational corporations on foreign oil and gas extraction income
[FOGEI] and foreign oil related income [FORI]. U.S. tax credits should
only be applied against foreign taxes, not the fees and royalties
assessed by foreign nations.
Fourth, it narrows section 911 of the tax code that exempts the first
$70,000 of earned income from U.S. taxes for American citizens living
and working abroad. However, this bill would allow those persons who
work for non-profit organizations to still claim this exemption and
would allow all U.S. citizens working abroad to deduct their children's
education expenses up through high school.
Fifth, it ends the tax-exempt status of foreign investors who buy
private-issued debt by requiring these persons to pay a 30-percent
withholding tax on the interest they earned on the bonds.
Finally, this legislation would end the exemption of foreign
individuals from capital gains taxes on the sale of stock in a U.S.
corporation--unless they spend more than half the year in the United
States.
The revenue raised in this legislation from closing these loopholes
will go solely to deficit reduction. As I said, in a time when we are
trying to reach a balanced budget, everyone must pay their fair share.
Mr. President, this is a common sense bill that will provide some
fairness to working families and integrity to our Tax Code. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this common sense measure.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Cochran, and Mr.
Bennett):
S. 317. A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping
Act of 1992; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the national geologic mapping reauthorization act of 1997
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing on behalf of
myself and my cosponsors Senators Bryan, Cochran, and Bennett, a bill
to reauthorize the highly successful National Geologic Mapping Act of
1992. The act established a cooperative geologic mapping program among
the U.S. Geological Survey, State geological surveys, and geological
programs at institutions of higher education in the United States. The
goal of this program is to accelerate and improve the efficiency of
detailed geologic mapping of critical areas in the Nation by
coordinating and using the combined talents of the three participating
groups.
Detailed geologic mapping is an indispensable source of information
for a broad range of societal activities and benefits, including the
delineation and protection of sources of safe drinking water;
assessments of coal, petroleum, natural gas, construction materials,
metals, and other natural resources; understanding the physical and
biological interactions that define ecosystems, and that control, and
are a measure of environmental health; identification and mitigation of
natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides,
subsidence, and other ground failures; and many other resource and
land-use planning requirements.
Only about 20 percent of the Nation is mapped at a scale adequate to
meet these critical needs. Additional high-priority areas for detailed
geologic mapping have been identified at State level by State-map
advisory committees, and include Federal, State, and local needs and
priorities.
Funding for the program has been incorporated in the budget of the
U.S. Geological Survey. State geological surveys and university
participants receive funding from the program through a competitive
proposal process that requires 1:1 matching funds from the applicant.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me to ensure the continued
efficient collection and availability of this fundamental earth-science
information.
______
By Mr. D'AMATO:
S. 318. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to require automatic
cancellation and notice of cancellation rights with respect to private
mortgage insurance which is required by a creditor as a condition for
entering into a residential mortgage transaction, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
the homeowners' protection act of 1997
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that seeks
to protect our Nation's homeowners, particularly low-income and first-
time home buyers, from having to pay for unnecessary and costly private
mortgage insurance. Thousands of hard working Americans who strive
every day to afford a house of their own are unfairly paying for
private mortgage insurance which is not required and is no longer
necessary. We must not have current and future homeowners paying up to
hundreds of millions of dollars a year for insurance that serves no
useful purpose. This is a practice which must be stopped. Today, it is
unethical. Tomorrow, after this bill becomes law, it will be illegal.
This legislation is intended to stop this injustice, while still
providing lenders with fair protection against default.
In 1995, almost 6 million Americans bought homes. Approximately 2
million of those homeowners also purchased private mortgage insurance.
Today, over 40 percent of new homeowners purchase private mortgage
insurance. Thousands of American homeowners--perhaps as many as 20
percent of homeowners who have private mortgage insurance--are
overinsuring their homes simply because they are not informed of
whether they have the right to cancel private mortgage insurance.
Many homeowners are being forced to make payments for private
mortgage insurance even after they have accumulated substantial equity
in their homes; they continue to pay for private mortgage insurance
long after the loan-to-value ratio is sufficient to protect lenders
against default. Private mortgage insurance rates average between $20
and $100 per month, depending on the home purchase price, the amount of
downpayment and other factors. These consumers are unknowingly paying
from $240 a year to $1,200 a year for absolutely no reason--no
potential benefit can accrue to the homeowner who is unnecessarily
paying for this insurance. When the legitimate need for private
mortgage insurance ends, the payments should stop immediately.
My legislation, the Homeowners' Protection Act, would ensure that
this unfair practice is discontinued by giving future homeowners the
right to cancel private mortgage insurance when it is no longer needed
to protect the homeowner--in most cases, when they accumulate equity
equal to 20 percent of their original loan value. With respect to
existing mortgages, the Homeowners' Protection Act would mandate
disclosure of cancellation rights to the homeowner on an annual basis.
This important legislation potentially could save current and future
homeowners millions of dollars.
Now let me make one thing clear--private mortgage insurance does
serve a purpose. Typically, lenders require home buyers to purchase
private mortgage insurance if the borrower makes a downpayment of less
than 20 percent of the purchase price. The purpose of the insurance is
to provide lenders, and subsequent purchasers of the mortgage, with
protection in the event of default on the mortgage. It is in the best
interest of all Americans that lenders have fair protection against
default, so as to
[[Page S1316]]
ensure their continued safety and soundness. Together, we can encourage
the pursuit of the American dream of home ownership without allowing
the fleecing of homeowners in the process.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in support in this
legislation which will help to make sure that money for unnecessary
insurance premiums stays where it belongs--in homeowners' pockets.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 318
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 ``Homeowners Protection Act of
1997''.
SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF CANCELLATION RIGHTS FOR PRIVATE
MORTGAGE INSURANCE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act (15
U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
125 the following:
``SEC. 126. CANCELLATION RIGHTS FOR PRIVATE MORTGAGE
INSURANCE.
``(a) Insurance Ratio Standard.--
``(1) In general.--No consumer, in connection with a
residential mortgage transaction, shall be required by the
creditor to obtain or maintain private mortgage insurance if
that consumer has, or will have at the time that the
transaction is consummated, equity in the property that is
the subject of the transaction in excess of the private
mortgage insurance ratio.
``(2) Regulatory requirement.--The Board--
``(A) shall issue rules to implement paragraph (1); and
``(B) may issue rules exempting certain classes of
transactions from the provisions of paragraph (1) if the
Board finds that such exemption is necessary--
``(i) to ensure sound underwriting standards; or
``(ii) to further the availability of credit to persons who
might otherwise be denied credit if paragraph (1) was applied
to residential mortgage transactions involving such persons.
``(b) Notice of Right or Lack of Right To Cancel.--If a
consumer is required to obtain and maintain private mortgage
insurance as a condition for entering into a residential
mortgage transaction, the creditor shall disclose to the
consumer the current private mortgage insurance ratio for the
subject property, in writing, at the time that the
transaction is entered into.
``(c) Information Required To Be Disclosed.--With respect
to each residential mortgage transaction, the creditor shall
disclose to the consumer, in writing, the following
information at the time the transaction is entered into:
``(1) Identifying information.--Such information as may be
necessary to permit the consumer to communicate with the
creditor or any subsequent servicer of the mortgage,
concerning the private mortgage insurance of that consumer.
``(2) Cancellation procedures.--The procedures required to
be followed by the consumer in canceling the private mortgage
insurance.
``(d) Information Required To Be Disclosed With Each
Periodic Statement.--If a consumer is required to obtain and
maintain private mortgage insurance as a condition for
entering into a residential mortgage transaction, the person
servicing the mortgage shall include in or with each written
statement of account provided to the consumer, beginning with
the first such statement following the date of enactment of
the Homeowners Protection Act of 1997, while such insurance
is in effect, but not less than annually--
``(1) the information required to be disclosed under
subsections (b) and (c); or
``(2) a clear and conspicuous written statement
containing--
``(A) a statement that the consumer may cancel the private
mortgage insurance and a description of the circumstances
under which such a cancellation may be made; and
``(B) an address and telephone number that the consumer may
use to contact the creditor or the person servicing the
mortgage.
``(e) Notices Furnished Without Cost to the Consumer.--
``(1) In general.--No fee or other cost may be imposed on
any consumer with respect to the provision of any notice or
information to the consumer pursuant to this section.
``(2) Reimbursement.--A creditor or subsequent servicer of
the mortgage may seek reimbursement from the issuer of the
private mortgage insurance, with respect to any cost incurred
by that creditor or subsequent servicer in providing any
notice or information to the consumer pursuant to this
section.
``(f) Existing Mortgages.--If a consumer was required to
obtain and maintain private mortgage insurance as a condition
for entering into a residential mortgage transaction
occurring before the date of enactment of the Homeowners
Protection Act of 1997--
``(1) not later than 180 days after that date of enactment,
the creditor shall disclose, in writing, to each such
consumer--
``(A) the information described in paragraphs (1) and (2)
of subsection (c); and
``(B) that the private mortgage insurance may, under
certain circumstances, be canceled by the consumer at any
time while the mortgage is outstanding; and
``(2) the person servicing the mortgage shall include in or
with each written statement of account provided to the
consumer, beginning with the first such statement following
the date of enactment of that Act, while such insurance is in
effect, but not less than annually--
``(A) the information required to be disclosed under
subsection (c); or
``(B) a clear and conspicuous written statement
containing--
``(i) a statement that the consumer may be able to cancel
the private mortgage insurance (if such is the case); and
``(ii) an address and telephone number that the consumer
may use to contact the creditor or the person servicing the
mortgage to determine whether the consumer has the right to
cancel the private mortgage insurance and, if so, the
conditions and procedures for canceling such insurance.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(1) Mortgage insurance.--The term `mortgage insurance'
means insurance, including any mortgage guaranty insurance,
against the nonpayment of, or default on, a mortgage or loan
involved in a residential mortgage transaction.
``(2) Private mortgage insurance.--The term `private
mortgage insurance' means mortgage insurance other than
mortgage insurance made available under the National Housing
Act, title 38 of the United States Code, or title V of the
Housing Act of 1949.
``(3) Private mortgage insurance ratio.--The term `private
mortgage insurance ratio' means a principal balance
outstanding on a residential mortgage equal to less than 80
percent of the original value (at the time at which the
consumer entered into the original residential mortgage
transaction) of the property securing the loan.
``(h) Applicability.--This section, other than as provided
in subsection (d), shall apply with respect to residential
mortgage transactions entered into beginning 90 days after
the date of enactment of the Homeowners Protection Act of
1997.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
2 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is
amended by striking the item relating to section 126 and
inserting the following:
``126. Cancellation rights for private mortgage insurance.''.
______
By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN:
S. 319. A bill to designate the national cemetery established at the
former site of the Joliet Arsenal, IL, as the ``Abraham Lincoln
National Cemetery''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
the abraham lincoln national cemetery act
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today, on the 188th
anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, our Nation's 16th and 1st
Republican President, to introduce the Abraham Lincoln National
Cemetery bill. Congressman Jerry Weller, in whose district the newest
national veterans cemetery is located, will introduce an identical bill
in the House of Representatives today.
The National Cemetery System was established by President Lincoln in
1862 to provide for the proper burial and registration of graves of
soldiers who died in the Civil War. Since its inception, the National
Cemetery System has grown to include 130 military burial grounds and
provides places of private meditation and reflection for all who visit
its hallowed grounds. None of these cemeteries, however, including the
six in Illinois, are named after President Lincoln.
As you know, President Lincoln had great affection for ``him who
[had] borne the battle''. Perhaps Lincoln's admiration for our Nation's
veterans is rooted in the fact that Lincoln--a man of peace--had his
Presidency marked by the scourge of war. He knew all too well the
sacrifices and hardships that the defenders of our Nation's freedom had
to bear and the ``cause for which they [may be called to give their]
last full measure of devotion.'' President Lincoln demonstrated his
deep affection for our Nation's veterans in many ways. During the Civil
War, he often visited the sick and wounded stationed in and around
Washington, DC. His administration created what is now the Department
of Veterans Affairs and the VA hospital system. Perhaps the greatest
demonstration of his love for our Nation's veterans was his strong
leadership and unwavering support for the creation of the National
Cemetery System, which not only provides dignified final resting places
for our Nation's soldiers but also ensures that
[[Page S1317]]
neither the Nation nor its citizens will forget those who served in our
Armed Forces.
Last year, Congress approved of the transfer of 982 acres of the
former Joliet Army Ammunition Plant from the Department of the Army to
the Department of Veterans Affairs for the development of a new
national veterans cemetery. The President's budget included $19.9
million for the construction of the first phase of the cemetery, which
is scheduled to open in late 1998 or early 1999.
Mr. President, this legislation to name our Nation's newest national
cemetery after President Lincoln deserves strong bipartisan support. By
naming the new veterans national cemetery in honor of President
Lincoln, we not only acknowledge the pivotal role he played in the
development of one of our national treasures--the national veterans
cemetery system--we also honor the memory of the millions of courageous
men and women who served in war and peacetime to preserve our Nation's
democracy, freedom, and national values. Men and women, who like my
grandfather, father, and uncle, who fought in World War I and World War
II, notwithstanding the fact that the full promise of America was
denied them because of the color of their skin. Their patriotism grew
out of an abiding respect for American values, and out of the hope for
our country. We can do no less in peacetime than to honor not only
their sacrifice, but the reasons for it. Naming a national cemetery
after President Lincoln is in recognition that that faith and hope
abide with us still.
Illinois is now--and will always be the Land of Lincoln. His legacy
is a living testament to the values--honesty, hard work and
perseverance in the face of adversity--that characterize residents of
America's heartland. No place has a greater claim to the Lincoln
heritage than his beloved Springfield, IL, but his memory and what he
stood for belong to all of us in the Land of Lincoln and across these
United States. As Secretary of War Edward M. Stanton prophetically put
it while keeping vigil at Lincoln's deathbed, ``Now he belongs to the
ages.''
As such, I can think of no more fitting gift or more appropriate way
to celebrate the birthday of our Nation's greatest President, than to
support and pass this legislation to name our newest and second-largest
national veterans cemetery, in the State he so dearly loved, after him.
In Lincoln's immortal words, ``it is altogether fitting and proper that
we do this.''
His guidance that a house divided cannot stand is as valid today as
it was when given. We leave partisan differences aside when we are
called upon to respond to today's challenges as Americans. This
legislation is a bipartisan effort to bring all of us together in honor
of one of the greatest Americans ever to have lived. As we honor him,
and his leadership, we honor the true legacy of his service to our
country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 319
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL CEMETERY.
(a) Designation.--The national cemetery established at the
former site of the Joliet Arsenal, Illinois, shall be known
and designated as the ``Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
paper, or other record of the United States to the national
cemetery referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery''.
______
By Mr. Ashcroft (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Abraham, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Bond, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Frist,
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Mack, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire,
Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Thomas):
S.J. Res. 16. A joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment
to limit congressional terms; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
TERM LIMITS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the document that emerged from the
Philadelphia convention has become the longest lived national
constitution in the world. It was the product of a sense of urgency, of
mission, of common purpose. And years from now, after we have long
since passed, it will endure, standing unchallenged by the varied
crises of human affairs.
The Philadelphia delegates crafted this document on what they
believed to be fundamental principles: Majority rule, dual sovereignty,
one man, one vote. The Framers also recognized, however, that a lasting
government would have to be not only durable and stable, but flexible
enough to evolve with the emerging Nation. For this reason, they
included an article for amendment that would allow the document to be
changed over time.
Since 1787, more than 10,600 constitutional amendments have been
introduced. Only 27 have been adopted. Many of the proposed amendments
have bordered on the ridiculous. One called for the creation of four
regional Presidents. Others have called for the legalization of
dueling, or changing the Nation's name to the United States of the
World.
The amendment I introduce today, however, is neither ridiculous nor
unimportant. In fact, I would suggest that is one of the defining
issues which this Congress will face. For it cuts to the very heart of
who we are as a party, as a polity, as a people. It is a term-limits
constitutional amendment. If enacted, the resolution would limit
Members of Congress to three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives
and two terms in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, term limits are a tried and tested reform that the
American people have seen operate firsthand: For the President since
1951, for 41 Governors, for 20 State legislatures, and for hundreds of
local officials nationwide. Indeed, this is at least one reason why
congressional term limits enjoy such widespread support: Voters have
witnessed their ameliorative effects and want them extended to the
national legislature.
Some will undoubtedly argue that the 1996 election and the notable
increase in new Members weakens the case for term limits. Nothing could
be further from the truth. Ninety-four percent of all the Members who
sought reelection last year were returned to Washington. The turnover
that did occur was largely the result of voluntary departures, not
competitive elections.
Why do reelection rates continue at all-time highs? Because
incumbency is, and always has been, the single greatest perk in
politics. Committee assignments translate into campaign contributions.
Bills mean bucks. The simple fact remains, the average incumbent spends
more of the taxpayers' money on franked mail than the average
challenger spends on his entire campaign.
Reapportionment's role in ensuring long-term incumbency must also be
considered. Many State officials are acutely aware of the benefits
derived from high reelection rates. Consequently, they manipulate
districts in a way which maximizes the potential for incumbents to
return to Washington. This is not only an argument for limited tenure,
it is an argument for adopting House limits of less than 10 years.
As with all good ideas, this reform has occasioned some controversy.
Primarily, opposition has come from careerists in the Congress whose
livelihood is at stake. These self-proclaimed keepers of the public
faith worry aloud about the impact of lost legislative wisdom. And, in
the cloakrooms and Capitol corridors, they whisper about ``protecting
the people from themselves.''
Opponents seem to believe that only seasoned legislators in a
professional Congress can effectively deal with the issues of the day.
Mr. President, it is the height of arrogance and elitism to suggest
that any one Senator is essential to our Government. The strength of
American democracy is that the people are the source of Government's
legitimacy. Because, as Alexander Hamilton aptly noted more than two
centuries ago, ``Here, Sir, the people govern.''
These assertions also stand at odds with the great triumph of
individualism that is America. For they are based on the flawed
supposition that only a limited number of citizens are
[[Page S1318]]
qualified to serve. Richard Henry Lee put it best. ``I would not urge
the principle of rotation,'' said Lee, ``if I believed the consequence
would be a uniformed Federal legislature; but I have no apprehension of
this in this enlightened country.'' Indeed, no more than a cursory look
at the writings of Adams, Jefferson, Mason, and Paine reveals the
healthy respect they had for the average citizen.
Mr. President, I share the Founders' belief that there is wisdom in
the people. The resolution I bring before the body today is a
commonsense reform that the citizenry undeniably wants, a remedy our
Republic desperately needs, a reform whose time has come.
Rotation in office has worked for the President, scores of Governors,
and countless others across this great land. Let us extend its
therapeutic effects to the Halls of the U.S. Congress. I beg this
proposal's adoption.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a constitutional
amendment to limit congressional service to 6 years in the House and 12
years in the Senate. This proposal is identical to the one introduced
in the 104th Congress. On May 22, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court
invalidated the term limits that 23 different States had imposed on
congressional service. The Court further declared that Congress lacks
the constitutional authority to enact term limits by statute.
Therefore, enacting this reform, which polls consistently show that
more than 70 percent of the American people support, will require
passing a constitutional amendment.
Although this proposal is not about denigrating the institution of
Congress or those who have ably served lengthy tenures, public
confidence in elected officials does remain abysmally low. Given the
many scandals involving public officials, the myriad of negative
campaign commercials, and the inability of Congress to solve major
national problems like the budget deficit, I can hardly blame the
American people for being cynical. Nothing could be farther from the
basic tenets of democracy than a professional ruling class, yet despite
the supposedly high turnover in the last three congressional elections,
that is essentially what Congress has become.
Each of the last three Congresses has had unusually large freshman
classes, but the percentage of those returned to Congress still exceeds
the typical return rate prior to 1941. I acknowledge that altering the
way we elect Members of Congress is a task not to be undertaken
lightly, and people are justified in asking, what has changed since the
ratification of the Constitution that necessitates this proposal? To
them, I answer simply: The trend toward careerism in Congress. Although
the system has worked relatively well for 200 years, the Founding
Fathers viewed service in Congress not as a permanent career but as an
interruption to a career. For the first 150 years of the Republic, in
keeping with this notion, those who served in public office typically
stepped down after only a few years. While incumbents were still almost
always re-elected when they chose to run, a turnover rate of 50 percent
every 2 years in the House was common throughout the 19th century. In
fact, only 24 percent of the Members of the House in 1841 were sworn in
again 2 years later. George Washington voluntarily stepped down after
two terms as President because he understood the value of returning to
private life and giving someone else the chance to serve. Over the last
few decades, however, Members of Congress have become much less likely
to step down voluntarily, so the average length of service in Congress
has steadily increased. Because of this trend toward careerism,
Congress now more closely resembles a professional ruling class than
the citizen legislature our Founding Fathers envisioned.
This is significant because a Congress full of career legislators
behaves differently than a citizen legislature. Over time, after years
of inside-the-beltway thinking, elected officials tend to lose touch
with the long-term best interests of the Nation. Instead, they become
slaves to short-term public opinion in their never-ending quest for re-
election. Last year's Medicare debate is a good example of how constant
elections, and the lure of short-term political advantage, make it
harder to make the tough decisions. The constant flow of pork-barrel
projects back home, the practice of effectively buying our
constituents' votes with funds from the U.S. Treasury, is another
example of how what may be beneficial to politicians at the next
election is not necessarily in the best interests of the Nation. When
Congress is not a career for its Members, their career will not be on
the line every time they cast a vote, so I believe that term limits
would more likely produce individuals who would take on the tough
challenges that lie ahead.
To act in the long-term national interest, elected officials also
need to live under the laws they pass, which is why we enacted the
Congressional Accountability Act in the last Congress. Similarly, it is
important that elected officials return home after their term expires
and live with the consequences of the decisions they made while in
Congress. Just as the Congressional Accountability Act makes elected
officials more cognizant of how laws affect average Americans in the
long run, term limits, by requiring Members of Congress to return to
private life, would encourage Members to consider the long-term effects
of their decisions instead of just the short-term political
consequences.
Moreover, little doubt exists that power exercises a gradual,
corruptive influence over those who have it. The Founding Fathers
recognized this and used a system of checks and balances to limit the
power of any one individual. When elected officials are up here for
decades at a time, their accumulating power and growing disregard for
the national interest often cause them to become arrogant in office.
Term limits, by further dispersing power among more individuals, I
believe, would lead to a more honest breed of politicians.
Term limits will also make elections more competitive which will, in
turn, lead to better representation. One only needs to look at the 1996
elections to see that most competitive elections are for open seats.
Twelve-year limits on Senate service would guarantee every State an
open-seat election at least once every 12 years unless a challenger
dislodges an incumbent. Furthermore, term-limited officeholders will be
more likely to seek a higher office. A Member of the House who is term
limited will be more likely to run for the Senate than a Congressman
who is not term limited and can easily win re-election to the House for
many years to come. A term-limited Senator will be more likely to run
for Governor or another office instead of seeking easy re-election to
the Senate.
Opponents of term limits make many arguments against the proposal,
confident that they know better than more than 70 percent of the
American people. Perhaps the most prevalent argument against term
limits is that Congress will lose many good people. While this is true,
as I have already pointed out, we will be gaining many good people as
well. More to the point though, we should not be so arrogant as to
think that we are the only ones who can do this job. I do not believe
that the 535 people who currently serve in Congress are the only 535
people out there who can do the job. Two hundred years ago, people
wondered how the Nation could ever survive without the leadership of
George Washington, but President Washington knew that the system was
stronger than any one man, and that many people were fit to be
President. Not only do I think that many people besides us can do the
job, but the argument that only the 535 currently serving in Congress
possess the ability to solve the Nation's problems assumes that we are
doing a good job now. A $5 trillion debt, Medicare and Social Security
on unsustainable courses, an out-of-control campaign finance system,
and unacceptably high levels of crime make this assumption dubious. A
corollary of this argument is that term limits will result in Congress
having little institutional memory. However, if the legislative process
and the bills that come out of this place are so complicated as to
require more than 12 years of experience to understand, then Congress
is doing too much. The average citizen, with the additional focus of
full-time attention to the issues with which Congress concerns itself,
should be more than capable of doing the job.
The other main argument against term limits is that we already have
[[Page S1319]]
term limits in the form of elections. However, this reasoning has two
problems. First, incumbents enjoy a tremendous advantage in elections.
The ability to raise money, greater name recognition, a staff already
in place, constituent service, and simple voter inertia help incumbents
win their races more than 90 percent of the time. Second, the American
people, just as they have a right to elect their representatives in
Congress, have every right to place qualifications on whom they may
elect. Opponents of term limits say that the voters ought to be able to
elect whomever they want, but when the American people ratified the
Constitution, they agreed not to elect anyone to the Senate who is
younger than 30 years of age or not a resident of the State he or she
seeks to represent. If the voters choose, and more than 70 percent of
them do, they can also declare that people who have already served 12
years in the Senate may not be elected to the Senate again.
It is my hope that we will move quickly to debate this measure.
Perhaps no other proposal as popular with the American people has
received so little attention from Congress. In fact, Congress has been
so reticent with respect to this issue that some term-limits advocates
are now asking the States to call a constitutional convention. The
debate in the last Congress was the first serious discussion of this
issue in Congress in the history of the Nation. Speaker Gingrich has
already said that term limits will be the first item of business this
year in the other body. Finally, other tough decisions are imminent
including balancing the budget, saving Medicare, and putting Social
Security on a permanently sustainable course. The single most important
thing we can do to cultivate an environment where Congress can
effectively address these long-term problems is to enact term limits
immediately. Therefore, I urge my colleagues' support.
____________________