[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.

                          ____________________