[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 23 (Monday, March 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CHAFEE:
  S. 1889. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make 
certain technical corrections relating to physicians' services; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          MEDICAID PATIENTS' ACCESS TO OSTEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make 
a technical correction in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 
[OBRA 1990], which allow pregnant women and children enrolled in the 
Medicaid Program to continue receiving services from osteopathic 
physicians.
  As my colleagues will recall, in an effort to prevent unqualified 
doctors from providing specialized treatment to Medicaid patients, 
Congress enacted a provision in OBRA 1990 which required that 
physicians serving this population be certified in family practice, 
pediatrics, or obstetrics by the applicable medical specialty board 
recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialities [ABMS]. 
Unfortunately, the language of this provision inadvertently shut out a 
group of doctors who are critically important to the Medicaid 
population--osteopathic physicians.
  There are two types of physicians permitted to practice medicine and 
surgery, and recognized as such by the Federal Government and State 
governments--allopathic physicians, to whom M.D. degrees are conferred, 
and osteopathic physicians, who receive D.O. degrees. Each of these 
professions has its own certifying body. Allopathic physicians are 
certified by the ABMS. Osteopathic physicians, however, are certified 
by the American Osteopathic Association [AOA]. Since the OBRA 1990 
provision mentions the ABMS, but not the AOA, its effect is to prevent 
osteopathic physicians from serving Medicaid patients.

  This is a serious mistake. For more than a century, osteopathic 
physicians have been filling a unique and vital niche in the delivery 
of health care in the United States. Though they constitute only 5.5 
percent of the Nation's physicians, they serve approximately one of 
every four Medicaid recipients. By failing to recognize osteopathic 
certification, we risk denying a quarter of our Nation's most 
vulnerable population the health care they deserve.
  The legislation I introduce today will correct the OBRA 1990 
provision to ensure that the vital services provided by osteopathic 
physicians will remain available to our Nation's Medicaid patients. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and look forward to 
working with them toward the bill's enactment.
  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. 1889

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

     SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATING TO PHYSICIANS' 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Unique identifiers.--Paragraph (59) of section 1902(a) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``subsection (v)'' and inserting ``subsection (x)''.
       (2) Expenditures for physicians' services.--Section 
     1903(i)(12) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396b(i)(12)) is amended--
       (A) by amending clause (i) of subparagraph (A) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) is certified in family practice or pediatrics by the 
     medical specialty board recognized by the American Board of 
     Medical Specialties for family practice or pediatrics or is 
     certified in family practice or pediatrics by the medical 
     specialty board recognized by the American Osteopathic 
     Association,'';
       (B) by amending clause (i) of subparagraph (B) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) is certified in family practice or obstetrics by the 
     medical specialty board recognized by the American Board of 
     Medical Specialties for family practice or obstetrics or is 
     certified in family practice or obstetrics by the medical 
     specialty board recognized by the American Osteopathic 
     Association,''; and
       (C) in subparagraphs (A) and (B)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (v);
       (ii) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (vii); and
       (iii) by inserting after clause (v) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(vi) delivers such services in the emergency department 
     of a hospital participating in the State plan approved under 
     this title, or''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective as if included in the enactment of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HEFLIN:
  S. 1890. A bill to require certain disclosures of financial 
information to expose espionage activities by foreign agents in the 
United States; to the Select Committee on Intelligence.


            FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FROM INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President. The Nation was shocked by the recent 
revelation that a 31-year employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, 
a man whose duties and responsibilities carried with them a solemn 
trust, would choose to betray that trust to a foreign government--for 
money.
  Calls for action came swiftly. Many condemned the activities of the 
Russian Government. Some professed a degree of surprise that espionage 
continues in the wake of the end of the cold war. Others questioned 
whether this country should reevaluate its growing relationship with 
Russia, and some feel that our financial and diplomatic efforts to 
assist the Russian Government should be immediately terminated.
  I believe, however, that the administration has reacted in a calm and 
reasonable manner by expelling a Russian diplomat from Washington and 
calling upon the Russian Government to enter into negotiations designed 
to reduce espionage activities by both countries.
  The cold war may be over, but it is clear that intelligence gathering 
agencies have not been put out of business. The collapse of the Soviet 
Union has not eliminated intelligence gathering by the United States or 
Russia. Obviously, it will continue. There are still many potential 
dangers which threaten the future security of the United States. This 
administration recognizes that national security is contingent upon 
military, political, and economic security. Because there are those who 
would seek to disrupt our domestic and international relations, 
compromise our economic security, or revive the old cold war tensions, 
the need for experienced, trusted intelligence personnel will continue.
  The Aldrich Ames case has demonstrated that the safety mechanisms in 
place are not adequate to prevent espionage activities. It is clear we 
must take action to assist our intelligence agencies in identifying 
potential problems within the ranks of those trusted with this awesome 
responsibility.
  It is my understanding that one of the reasons it took so long to 
catch Mr. Ames is that the CIA and FBI did not have access to his 
personal financial records. I was shocked to learn that the financial 
records of many who have access to the most sensitive of national 
security information are not subject to any formal or informal review. 
Though extensive background checks and character references are 
obtained before access to sensitive information is granted, financial 
records are not included in this process.

  Often, however, the danger comes after the security clearance is 
granted. This is when these individuals can become the target of 
foreign powers who would attempt to corrupt them through financial 
rewards. The more senior the person, the greater their value to our 
enemies and the greater the temptations that will be offered them.
  In 1978, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act which required 
the President, Senators, Congressmen, and other senior Government 
officials to file annual financial disclosure statements. These 
documents are made available to the general public. At the same time, 
we recognized the need to have the many Government employees who are 
out of the public eye but who are involved in contracting file a 
similar, though confidential, report. As Mr. Ames was not in senior 
management and was not involved in contracting, he did not have to file 
a financial disclosure. Had he been required to, it is very possible he 
would have soon been caught.
  I am, therefore, introducing legislation today that would serve to 
expose sudden, unexplained, or incongruent financial gain or holding to 
Agency review. The filing of such an annual disclosure statement would 
be conditional for the granting of initial and continued access to the 
most sensitive information. Further, the bill allows the FBI to have 
access information from consumer reporting agencies, including, but not 
limited to credit bureau information, of those who are suspects in 
counterintelligence investigations, once specific facts justify this 
access.
  If this authority had been in effect the FBI and the CIA could have 
been aware of Mr. Ames' extraordinarily increased credit card spending 
as well as his newly acquired lavish lifestyle. Certainly flags of 
suspicion requiring further investigation would have been raised if 
these investigators had known of the purchase of expensive art work, 
the cash purchase of a $540,000 home, acquiring an expensive Jaguar, 
and credit card purchases totaling $450,000 over an 8-year period. If 
the investigators had had such information, they certainly would have 
wondered where the money came from.
  Some of my colleagues might have questions about civil liberties 
violations resulting from such a law. I would answer that the yielding 
of some personal liberties has been a keystone in public service and 
national defense since this Nation was founded. Those who serve in our 
Armed Forces surrender many individual rights. Those who are civil 
service employees are restricted from some political activities 
guaranteed to private citizens. Those of us elected to public office--
from the President and the Congress to the State and local level--are 
compelled to make public personal and financial information considered 
confidential by private citizens. This is one of the prices we pay for 
the privilege of serving, a price paid to maintain a sense of honesty 
and integrity in Government.
  I state categorically that I believe in the courage and patriotism of 
those in the intelligence community. The vast majority of those who 
serve in this vital, and frequently unheralded, area of national 
service, are both honorable and faithful. This is a reasonable, sound, 
and entirely constitutional approach to begin addressing the problems 
in our current system. This is a way to help to protect the more than 
99.9 percent of the intelligence community who would have nothing to 
fear from this legislation.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation aimed at ensuring the continued integrity of our Nation's 
intelligence community.
  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. 1890

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

     SECTION 1. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS REQUIRED BY 
                   CERTAIN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--(1) The head of each component of the 
     intelligence community of the United States shall submit to 
     the President and the intelligence committees of Congress a 
     report containing a list of all positions under the component 
     that are classified at or below a position of GS-15 of the 
     General Schedule and that require the individuals occupying 
     the positions to have access to information critical to the 
     national security interests of the United States.
       (2) The reports required by paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (3) The President shall submit a report described in 
     paragraph (1) to the intelligence committees of Congress with 
     respect to staff positions on the National Security Council.
       (b) Disclosure Statements.--Any individual occupying a 
     position described in subsection (a) during any calendar year 
     who performs the duties of his position or office for a 
     period in excess of 60 days in that calendar year shall file 
     with the head of the appropriate agency or component on or 
     before May 15 of the succeeding year a report containing the 
     information described in section 102(a) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978.
       (c) Regulations Required.--The President shall prescribe 
     such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``intelligence committees of Congress'' means 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House 
     of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence 
     of the Senate; and
       (2) the term ``intelligence community'' has the meaning 
     given to that term by section 3(4) of the National Security 
     Act of 1947.

     SEC. 2. FBI COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACCESS TO CONSUMER CREDIT 
                   RECORDS.

       Section 608 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1681f) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Disclosure of Certain Identifying Information.--
     Notwithstanding''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Disclosures to the FBI for Counterintelligence 
     Purposes.--
       ``(1) Consumer reports.--Notwithstanding section 604, a 
     consumer reporting agency shall furnish a consumer report to 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation when presented with a 
     written request for a consumer report, signed by the Director 
     of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Director's 
     designee (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Director'), which certifies compliance with this subsection. 
     The Director's designee may make such a certification only if 
     the Director has determined in writing that--
       ``(A) such records are necessary for the conduct of an 
     authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation; and
       ``(B) there are specific and articulable facts giving 
     reason to believe that the consumer whose consumer report is 
     sought is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as 
     defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978.
       ``(2) Identifying information.--Notwithstanding section 
     604, a consumer reporting agency shall furnish information 
     respecting a consumer which shall include, but shall not be 
     limited to, name, address, former addresses, places of 
     employment, or former places of employment, to the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation when presented with a written 
     request, signed by the Director, which certifies compliance 
     with this subsection. The Director may make such a 
     certification only if the Director has determined in writing 
     that--
       ``(A) such information is necessary to the conduct of an 
     authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation; and
       ``(B) there is information giving reason to believe that 
     the consumer has been, or is about to be, in contact with a 
     foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in 
     section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
     1978.
       ``(3) Confidentiality.--A consumer reporting agency, or 
     officer, employee, or agent of such consumer reporting agency 
     shall not--
       ``(A) disclose to any person, other than those officers, 
     employees, or agents of such agency necessary to fulfill the 
     requirement to disclose information to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation under this subsection, that the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation has sought or obtained a consumer report or 
     identifying information respecting any consumer under 
     paragraph (1) or (2), or
       ``(B) include in any consumer report any information that 
     would indicate that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has 
     sought or obtained such a consumer report or identifying 
     information.
       ``(4) Payment of fees.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, pay to 
     the consumer reporting agency assembling or providing credit 
     reports or identifying information in accordance with 
     procedures established under this title, a fee for 
     reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and 
     which have been directly incurred in searching, reproducing, 
     or transporting books, papers, records, or other data 
     required or requested to be produced under this subsection.
       ``(5) Limit on dissemination.--The Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation may not disseminate information obtained 
     pursuant to this subsection outside of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, except to the Department of Justice as may be 
     necessary for the approval or conduct of a foreign 
     counterintelligence investigation.
       ``(6) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to prohibit information from being 
     furnished by the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to 
     a subpoena or court order, or in connection with a judicial 
     or administrative proceeding to enforce the provisions of 
     this title. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     authorize or permit the withholding of information from the 
     Congress.
       ``(7) Reports to the congress.--On a semiannual basis, the 
     Attorney General of the United States shall fully inform the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee 
     on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Select Committee on Intelligence and 
     the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate concerning all requests made pursuant to paragraphs 
     (1) and (2).
       ``(8) Damages.--Any agency or department of the United 
     States obtaining or disclosing credit reports, records, or 
     information contained therein in violation of this subsection 
     is liable to the consumer to whom such records relate in an 
     amount equal to this sum of--
       ``(A) $100, without regard to the volume of records 
     involved;
       ``(B) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a 
     result of the disclosure;
       ``(C) such punitive damages as a court may allow, where the 
     violation is found to have been willful or intentional; and
       ``(D) in the case of any successful action to enforce 
     liability under this subsection, the costs of the action, 
     together with reasonable attorney's fees, as determined by 
     the court.
       ``(9) Disciplinary actions for violations.--If a court 
     determines that any agency or department of the United States 
     has violated any provision of this subsection and the court 
     finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise 
     questions of whether or not an officer or employee of the 
     agency or department acted willfully or intentionally with 
     respect to the violation, the agency or department shall 
     promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether or not 
     disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or 
     employee who was responsible for the violation.
       ``(10) Good-faith exception.--Any credit reporting agency, 
     or agent or employee thereof, making a disclosure of credit 
     reports or identifying information pursuant to this 
     subsection in good-faith reliance upon a certification by the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to this subsection 
     shall not be liable to any person for such disclosure under 
     this title, the constitution of any State, or any law or 
     regulation of any State or any political subdivision of any 
     State.
       ``(11) Limitation of remedies.--The remedies and sanctions 
     set forth in this subsection shall be the only judicial 
     remedies and sanctions for violations of this subsection.
       ``(12) Injunctive relief.--In addition to any other remedy 
     contained in this subsection, injunctive relief shall be 
     available to require compliance with this subsection. In the 
     event of any successful action under this subsection, costs, 
     together with reasonable attorney's fees, as determined by 
     the court, may be recovered.''.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
        Craig, and Mr. Danforth):
  S. 1891. A bill to shift financial responsibility for providing 
welfare assistance to the States and shift financial responsibility for 
providing medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act 
to the Federal Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


          welfare and medicaid responsibility exchange of 1994

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, later this year, the Senate will take 
up the issue of welfare reform. I know this is a high priority to the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, who has long been 
a leader on the question of welfare and delivering support system to 
those in need. It is also something that is of great concern to Members 
on both sides of the aisle. Senator Coats was talking about the health 
care.
  I believe that welfare reform really is very much a part and just as 
important as health care reform. I think they go hand in hand in many 
ways, and I believe the need to act on this issue is at least as 
important and as urgent as health care reform in and of itself.
  Today, I am introducing legislation along with Senators Bennett, 
Brown, Craig, and Danforth to help address this concern.
  Without question, the current welfare system has helped feed, clothe, 
house, and educate millions of children through the AFDC program, and 
our children's nutritional program. it also is without question that we 
have done so at an enormous price, not only in terms of money, but in 
terms of creating a dependency that has led us in the wrong direction. 
With the best of intentions, we have tried to protect children from 
material poverty. In the process we have helped trap too many children 
in a different kind of poverty--where personal responsibility, 
individual initiative, and a sense of belonging to community have no 
real meaning.
  The real tragedy of our present welfare system is not the questions 
that it constantly raises about the misuse of taxpayers' money--
important as that concern is--but that the present system is failing 
children and families. Welfare was never intended to become a way of 
life. But in many cases that is the reality we now face. And I would 
say, Mr. President, that unless we are willing to step forward, be 
innovative, creative, and take some risks, we are going to be failing 
the children of the coming generation.
  After 60 years--and next year is the anniversary of the creation of 
the AFDC Program--and hundreds of billions of dollars, Federal welfare 
efforts still have not won the war on poverty. Today, one out of five 
children live in poverty. Five million families with 10 million 
children receive welfare assistance. Each year, half a million children 
are born to unwed mothers, the vast majority of whom will end up on 
welfare.
  The trends are clear, and they are not good. They suggest that we 
already have lost a large part of the present generation, and we will 
lose even more of the next.
  That is our challenge, Mr. President. That is why I believe the 
stakes in welfare reform are extremely high. Our failure or success 
will determine to a large extent whether millions of children get a 
fighting chance to lead healthy, responsible, productive lives or not.
  Unfortunately, the history of our repeated attempts to reform welfare 
demonstrates that good intentions never guarantee success.
  For me, the first basic question to be addressed is not how to reform 
welfare, but who should do the reforming. I believe a critical flaw in 
the present system is not only a lack of personal responsibility--it is 
a lack of responsibility at every level of government.
  Our largest welfare programs today are hybrids of State and Federal 
funding and management. The States do most of the administration, 
within a basic framework of Federal regulation, while the Federal 
Government provides most of the money. The result is a hodgepodge of 
State and Federal rules and regulations, conflicting eligibility and 
benefit standards, and constant push-and-pull between State and Federal 
bureaucracies.
  This may suit the needs of government bureaucracy. It clearly is not 
meeting the needs of children in poverty.
  The first step toward real welfare reform, I believe, is to make a 
clearcut decision about who will run the plan, who will have the power 
to make key decisions, and who will be held responsible for the 
outcome.
  I believe that if we redesign it in a different way, then we will see 
that the needs of families and children that have to be met will become 
a part of designing the program that will help the best.
  The legislation we are introducing answers that question: It would 
give the States complete control and responsibility for Aid to Families 
With Dependent Children, the Food Stamp Program, and the Women, Infants 
and Children Nutrition Program. In order to free State funding to 
operate these programs, I would have the Federal Government assume a 
greater share--in some cases the States' full share--of the Medicaid 
program.
  In budget terms, I am proposing a straight swap. The States assume 
all funding for welfare and the nutrition programs and pay for it with 
money they now send to Washington for the Medicaid Program. The Federal 
Government keeps funding it now provides to the States for welfare and 
food programs and uses it to further reduce the State share for 
Medicaid. No State would lose money and neither would the Federal 
Government.
  This is not designed to be a budget deficit issue. It is designed to 
make it more effective, more accountable, and really help the States to 
address the issues of support that are important for that State. It may 
be different for Michigan or for Kansas or Utah or California.
  For example, in my State of Kansas, the State share of Medicaid this 
year will total almost $390 million. Federal spending for AFDC, food 
stamps and WIC will total about $267 million. Under this legislation, 
the State share of Medicaid would be reduced to about $123 million. 
That would free up the $267 million in State funds to take over the 
entire Federal share of AFDC, food stamps, and WIC.
  Nationwide, State payments for Medicaid that now total about $62.3 
billion would be reduced to about $21 billion. The balance would be 
kept by the States to take over the roughly $41 billion that the 
Federal Government spends for welfare and the nutrition programs.
  In terms of Government responsibility, this approach would for the 
first time draw a clear line between the States and Washington. It 
would fix responsibility for welfare at the State level--with no 
Federal strings attached.
  It also would begin the process of making the Federal Government 
responsible for Medicaid--an issue we already must address in health 
care reform. The explosive growth in Medicaid costs is a major cause of 
budget problems at both the Federal and State level. Clearly, we must 
overhaul this program, and I plan to introduce legislation soon to lay 
out my own views on Medicaid reform.
  I believe the exchange of responsibilities proposed in this bill 
makes sense for two reasons.
  First, giving States both the power and the responsibility for 
welfare--with their own money at stake--would create powerful 
incentives for finding more effective ways to assist families in need. 
Nearly half the States already are experimenting with welfare reforms. 
This would give them broad freedom to test new ideas.
  Second, I do not think Washington can reform welfare in any 
meaningful, lasting way. The reality is that we cannot write a single 
welfare plan that makes sense for 5 million families in 50 different 
and very diverse States.
  Washington does not have a magic answer to the welfare problem. The 
governors and State legislatures have no magic solutions either, but 
they have the potentially critical advantage of being closer to the 
people involved, closer to the problems, and closer to the day-to-day 
realities of making welfare work.
  In this case, I believe proximity does matter, perhaps powerfully so. 
One of the most important factors in whether families succeed or fail 
is their connection to a community, to a network of support.
  For some families, this is found in relatives or friends. For others 
it might be a caring caseworker, a teacher or principal, a local 
church, a city, or county official. These human connections are not 
something we can legislate, and they are not something that money can 
buy.
  True welfare reform will require a renewal of local and State 
responsibilities for children and families in need. I believe that can 
only happen if the Federal Government steps aside and allows the States 
to get on with this work.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and 
the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1891

       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 ``Welfare and Medicaid 
     Responsibility Exchange Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. EXCHANGE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CERTAIN 
                   WELFARE PROGRAMS AND THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--In exchange for the Federal funds received 
     by a State under section 3 for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 
     1999, and 2000 such State shall provide cash and non-cash 
     assistance to low income individuals in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Requirement to Provide a Certain Level of Low Income 
     Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The amount of cash and non-cash assistance 
     provided to low income individuals by a State for any quarter 
     during fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall 
     not be less than the sum of--
       (A) the amount determined under paragraph (2); and
       (B) the amount determined under paragraph (3).
       (2) Maintenance of effort with respect to federal programs 
     terminated.--
       (A) Quarter beginning october 1, 1995.--The amount 
     determined under this paragraph for the quarter beginning 
     October 1, 1995, is an amount equal to the sum of--
       (i) one-quarter of the base expenditures determined under 
     subparagraph (C) for the State,
       (ii) the product of the amount determined under clause (i) 
     and the estimated increase in the consumer price index (for 
     all urban consumers, United States city average) for the 
     preceding quarter, and
       (iii) the amount that the Federal Government and the State 
     would have expended in the State in the quarter under the 
     programs terminated under section 4 solely by reason of the 
     increase in recipients which the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture estimate 
     would have occurred if such programs had not been terminated.
       (B) Succeeding quarters.--The amount determined under this 
     paragraph for any quarter beginning on or after January 1, 
     1996, is an amount equal to the sum of--
       (i) the amount expended by the State under subsection (a) 
     in the preceding quarter,
       (ii) the product of the amount determined under clause (i) 
     and the estimated increase in the consumer price index (for 
     all urban consumers, United States city average) for the 
     preceding quarter, and
       (iii) the amount that the Federal Government and the State 
     would have expended in the State in the quarter under the 
     programs terminated under section 4 solely by reason of the 
     increase in recipients which the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture estimate 
     would have occurred if such programs had not been terminated.
       (C) Determination of base amount.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, shall calculate for each State an amount equal 
     to the total Federal and State expenditures for administering 
     and providing--
       (i) aid to families with dependent children under a State 
     plan under title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 
     et seq.),
       (ii) benefits under the food stamp program under the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), including benefits 
     provided under section 19 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2028), and
       (iii) benefits under the special supplemental program for 
     women, infants, and children established under section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786),

     for the State during the 12-month period beginning on July 1, 
     1994.
       (3) Maintenance of effort with respect to state programs.--
     The amount determined under this paragraph for a quarter is 
     the amount of State expenditures for such quarter required to 
     maintain State programs providing cash and non-cash 
     assistance to low income individuals as such programs were in 
     effect during the 12-month period beginning on July 1, 1994.

     SEC. 3. PAYMENTS TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall make quarterly payments to each State during fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 in an amount equal to 
     one-quarter of the amount determined under subsection (b) for 
     the applicable fiscal year and such amount shall be used for 
     the purposes described in subsection (c).
       (b) Payment Equivalent to Federal Welfare Savings.--
       (1) In general.--The amount available to be paid to a State 
     for a fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the amount 
     calculated under paragraph (2) for the State.
       (2) Amounts available.--
       (A) Fiscal year 1996.--In fiscal year 1996, the amount 
     available under this subsection for a State is equal to the 
     sum of--
       (i) the base amount determined under paragraph (3) for the 
     State,
       (ii) the product of the amount determined under clause (i) 
     and the increase in the consumer price index (for all urban 
     consumers, United States city average) for the 12-month 
     period described in paragraph (3), and
       (iii) the amount that the Federal Government and the State 
     would have expended in the State in fiscal year 1996 under 
     the programs terminated under section 4 solely by reason of 
     the increase in recipients which the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture estimate 
     would have occurred if such programs had not been terminated.
       (B) Succeeding fiscal years.--In any succeeding fiscal 
     year, the amount available under this subsection for a State 
     is equal to the sum of--
       (i) the amount determined under this paragraph for the 
     State in the previous fiscal year,
       (ii) the product of the amount determined under clause (i) 
     and the estimated increase in the consumer price index (for 
     all urban consumers, United States city average) during the 
     previous fiscal year, and
       (iii) the amount that the Federal Government and the State 
     would have expended in the State in the fiscal year under the 
     programs terminated under section 4 solely by reason of the 
     increase in recipients which the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture estimate 
     would have occurred if such programs had not been terminated.
       (3) Determination of base amount.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, shall calculate the amount that the Federal 
     Government expended for administering and providing--
       (A) aid to families with dependent children under a State 
     plan under title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 
     et seq.),
       (B) benefits under the food stamp program under the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), including benefits 
     provided under section 19 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2028), and
       (C) benefits under the special supplemental program for 
     women, infants, and children established under section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786),
     in each State during the 12-month period beginning on July 1, 
     1994.
       (c) Purposes for Which Amounts May Be Expended.--
       (1) Medicaid program.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, during fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 a 
     State shall--
       (i) except as provided in subparagraph (B), provide medical 
     assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act in 
     accordance with the terms of the State's plan in effect on 
     January 1, 1994, and
       (ii) use the funds it receives under this section toward 
     the State's financial participation for expenditures made 
     under the plan.
       (B) Changes in eligibility during fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
     and 2000.--During fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, a State 
     may change State plan requirements relating to eligibility 
     for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security 
     Act if the aggregate expenditures under such State plan for 
     the fiscal year do not exceed the amount that would have been 
     spent if a State plan described in subparagraph (A)(i) had 
     been in effect during such fiscal year.
       (C) Waiver of requirements.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services may grant a waiver of the requirements under 
     subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B) if a State makes an adequate 
     showing of need in a waiver application submitted in such 
     manner as the Secretary determines appropriate.
       (2) Excess.--A State that receives funds under this section 
     that are in excess of the State's financial participation for 
     expenditures made under the State plan for medical assistance 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act shall use such 
     excess funds to provide cash and non-cash assistance for low 
     income families.
       (d) Denial of Payments for Failure to Maintain Effort.--No 
     payment shall be made under subsection (a) for a quarter if a 
     State fails to comply with the requirements of section 2(b) 
     for the preceding quarter.
       (e) Entitlement.--This section constitutes budget authority 
     in advance of appropriations Acts, and represents the 
     obligation of the Federal Government to provide the payments 
     described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL WELFARE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Termination.--
       (1) AFDC.--Part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


                       ``termination of authority

       ``Sec. 418. The authority provided by this part shall 
     terminate on October 1, 1995.''.
       (2) JOBS.--Part F of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


                       ``termination of authority

       ``Sec. 488. The authority provided by this part shall 
     terminate on October 1, 1995.''.
       (3) Special supplemental food program for women, infants, 
     and children (WIC).--Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 
     1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(q) The authority provided by this section shall 
     terminate on October 1, 1995.''.
       (4) Food stamp program.--The Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 24. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       ``The authority provided by this Act shall terminate on 
     October 1, 1995.''.
       (b) References in Other Laws.--
       (1) In general.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to any 
     provision that has been terminated by reason of the 
     amendments made in subsection (a) shall, unless the context 
     otherwise requires, be considered to be a reference to such 
     provision, as in effect immediately before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) State plans.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to a 
     State plan that has been terminated by reason of the 
     amendments made in subsection (a), shall, unless the context 
     otherwise requires, be considered to be a reference to such 
     plan as in effect immediately before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. FEDERALIZATION OF THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

       Beginning on October 1, 2000--
       (1) each State with a State plan approved under title XIX 
     of the Social Security Act shall be relieved of 
     administrative or financial responsibility for the medicaid 
     program under such title of such Act,
       (2) the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall assume 
     such responsibilities and continue to conduct such program in 
     a State in any manner determined appropriate by the Secretary 
     that is in accordance with the provisions of title XIX of the 
     Social Security Act, and
       (3) all expenditures for the program as conducted by the 
     Secretary shall be paid by Federal funds.

     SEC. 6. SECRETARIAL SUBMISSION OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR 
                   TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, within 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress, a legislative proposal 
     providing for such technical and conforming amendments in the 
     law as are required by the provisions of this Act.

          Basic Information About the Kassebaum Swap Proposal

       What is being ``swapped:''
       The basic purpose of the ``swap'' proposal is to transfer 
     responsibility for welfare assistance programs to the states, 
     while beginning the process of shifting responsibility for 
     Medicaid to the federal government.
       Why the swap is the best approach to welfare reform:
       States are in a much better position than the federal 
     government to make determinations about programs providing 
     cash and noncash assistance for low-income individuals and 
     families. In the past decade, most, if not all, of the 
     innovation in the area of welfare reform has originated at 
     the state and local levels. The number of waivers of federal 
     mandates, regulations and rules being requested by states 
     demonstrates a number of significant things:
       There is a need to change the currently federally mandated 
     system of welfare assistance because it is not working well.
       Federal rules, regulations, and mandates have become a 
     barrier to operating effective welfare assistance programs.
       In the past decade, the momentum for restructuring the 
     welfare system has been generated by the states--the 
     innovations that are being discussed in Congress and by the 
     administration are the result of state efforts to devise and 
     operate more effective welfare systems.
       States need the flexibility to adapt their basic assistance 
     programs to better meet the needs of individuals and families 
     in need of welfare assistance.
       Economic conditions, employment, educational and training 
     opportunities, and available support services vary widely 
     among states--a ``one-size-fits-all'' federal welfare 
     assistance program is not able to adapt readily either to 
     this diversity of situations or changing conditions.
       In contrast, the federal government is in a better position 
     the devise and administer basic health care services for low-
     income individuals and families. As the health care reform 
     debate has demonstrated, there is a need for the development 
     of a broader view of health care financing and service 
     provision--an appropriate role for the federal government.
       Key provisions of the ``swap'' proposal:
       The states will assume full fiscal and administrative 
     responsibility for the Aid to Families with Dependent 
     Children (AFDC), food stamp, and Nutritional Assistance for 
     Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs.
       For five years, there will be a maintenance-of-effort 
     requirement that funds currently obligated by states and the 
     federal government for these programs be used to provide cash 
     and noncash assistance for low-income individuals and 
     families. States will have the responsibility and flexibility 
     to design and operate assistance programs without federal 
     rules, regulations, and mandates.
       In return, the states will receive a federal supplement to 
     the state share of Medicaid expenditures equal to the amount 
     currently spent by the federal government in a given state 
     for AFDC, food stamps, and WIC (adjusted annually to account 
     for changes in population and inflation).
       State Medicaid benefits and plan options will be frozen at 
     the January 1, 1994, levels. In the process of redesigning 
     state welfare systems, states may change Medicaid eligibility 
     as long as the aggregate expenditures for the state do not 
     grow faster than the projected costs for Medicaid under the 
     current law.
       After five years, the federal government will assume 
     responsibility for Medicaid (or its equivalent under a new 
     national health care plan).

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today, Senator Kassebaum and I are 
introducing a bill to give States the ultimate flexibility to reform 
our welfare system. You have heard of the ``uncola''--well, this is the 
``unmandate'' bill.
  In exchange for the Federal Government ultimately taking over the 
Medicaid program, States would be freed from all Federal mandates in 
the operation of the three primary welfare programs--Aid for Families 
with Dependent Children [AFDC], food stamps and the Women, Infants, and 
Children [WIC] supplemental food program. State responsibility for 
Medicaid would be swapped for State autonomy in AFDC, food stamps and 
WIC.
  Under this bill, States can design their own programs to help low-
income people out of poverty and off of welfare. States can develop 
programs to stem rising illegitimacy and encourage parental 
responsibility. They can set eligibility criteria to meet the needs of 
their State and its citizens. They can strengthen work or education 
requirements in their programs without having to come to the Federal 
Government for a waiver.
  The welfare system as it exists today imposes stringent Federal 
mandates on the States. Currently, we require States to go through a 
complex and lengthy process to get out from under these Federal 
requirements. With this bill, States no longer have to come begging to 
Washington for a welfare waiver. Instead, States can be the crucibles 
for welfare reform that they seek to be--to meet the needs of their 
citizens, not the Federal bureaucracy.
  My own State of Colorado has been fortunate to get one of these 
welfare waivers. The process took almost a year. Colorado's waiver: 
limits welfare benefits for able-bodied adults after 2 years unless 
they are employed or participating in the JOBS program; provides 
incentives for welfare recipients to get a high school diploma; 
requires AFDC parents to have their toddlers immunized against 
childhood diseases; and eliminates earned income and asset restrictions 
which have hampered AFDC recipients ability to become self-sufficient.
  Other States have been given waivers to reform their welfare 
programs. are identical, but each addresses the particular concerns of 
that State in a way the State legislature and Governor have devised. 
With these waivers, States have been doing what President Clinton has 
been talking about--``ending welfare as we know it'' and requiring work 
for benefits after a certain time. With this bill, we can allow States 
to continue what they've already started--actually reforming welfare.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1892. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to phase 
out the earnings test over a 10-year period for individuals who have 
attained retirement age, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  S. 1893. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
impose the Social Security earnings test on the retirement annuities of 
Members of Congress; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  S. 1894. A bill to amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States 
Code, to provide that the cost-of-living adjustment of the annuities of 
Members of Congress may not exceed the cost-of-living adjustment of 
certain social security benefits, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                       earnings test legislation

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing three bills 
regarding Social Security and the earnings test.
  The first bill would gradually phase out the earnings test over a 10-
year period. I have sponsored S. 30 which seeks a full and immediate 
repeal of the earnings test. I strongly favor this approach to the 
earnings test. I see no need to gradually phase out this discriminatory 
test, but I appreciate the views of others who claim that a gradual 
phase out would be simpler to implement and may result in less cost to 
the Government and less confusion among our senior citizens. Thus, 
today I am introducing a bill calling for a gradual phase out of the 
earnings test to serve as a basis for discussion.
  The second would require that the congressional pensions of Members 
of Congress be subjected to the earnings test. This bill mandates that 
the retirement annuities of Members of Congress be subject to the 
provisions of section 203(b) of the Social Security Act in the same 
manner as if such annuity was a benefit of such an individual under 
such act. The bill would not effect Members of Congress who have 
already left the body and retired.
  Social Security is a Pension Program. It is not an entitlement. It is 
a Government operated Pension Program which in reality is no different 
from the pension offered to Members of Congress. Therefore, I strongly 
believe that if we fail to repeal the earnings test, then we should 
subject Members to its onerous provisions.
  The third bill would mandate that the cost-of-living adjustment for 
the pensions of Members of Congress could not exceed the cost-of-living 
adjustment for Social Security recipients.
  Mr. President, last week during debate on the Social Security as an 
independent agency bill, the chairman of the Finance Committee and I 
discussed the Social Security earnings test. At that time we came to an 
agreement that instead of my offering an amendment on the issue. The 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee suggested these 
hearings occur in May.
  I applaud the chairman for his commitment to this issue and I look 
forward to the May hearings. I would hope that the Social Security 
legislation I am introducing today will be considered along with S. 30, 
a bill to fully repeal the earnings test, when the Finance Committee 
holds hearings on the earnings test.
  Mr. President, again, I thank Senator Moynihan for his commitment to 
hold hearings on the Social Security earnings test. I also want to 
extend my appreciation to Senator Packwood for his support of my 
efforts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the three bills I have 
introduced appear in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1892

       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 ``Older Americans' Freedom to 
     Work Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. PHASE OUT OF THE EARNINGS TEST OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD 
                   FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINED RETIREMENT 
                   AGE.

       (a) Liberalization of Earnings Test Over the Period 1995-
     2004 for Individuals Who Have Attained Retirement Age.--
     Effective with respect to taxable years ending after 1994, 
     subparagraph (D) of section 203(f)(8) of the Social Security 
     Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, the exempt amount which is applicable to an 
     individual who has attained retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l)) before the close of the taxable year involved 
     shall be increased by $12,000 in each taxable year over the 
     exempt amount for the previous taxable year, beginning with 
     any taxable year ending after 1994 and before 2005.''.
       (b) Repeal of Earnings Test in 2005 for Individuals who 
     have Attained Retirement Age.--Effective with respect to 
     taxable years ending after 2004--
       (1) clause (B) in the third sentence of section 203(f)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act is amended by striking out ``age 
     seventy'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``retirement age (as 
     defined in section 216(l))''; and
       (2) section 203(f)(3) of such Act is amended--
       (A) by striking out ``33\1/2\ percent'' and all that 
     follows through ``other individual'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``50 percent of his earnings for such year in excess 
     of the product of the applicable exempt amount as determined 
     under paragraph (8)'', and
       (B) by striking out ``age 70'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``retirement age (as defined in section 216(l))''.
       (c) Conforming and Related Amendments.--Effective with 
     respect to taxable years ending after 2004--
       (1) section 203(c)(1) of the Social Security Act is amended 
     by striking out ``is under the age of seventy'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``is under retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l))'';
       (2) the last sentence of subsection (c) of section 203 of 
     such Act is amended by striking out ``nor shall any 
     deduction'' and all that follows and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``nor shall any deduction be made under this 
     subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefit if 
     the widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving 
     divorced husband involved became entitled to such benefit 
     prior to attaining age 60.'';
       (3) paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of section 203(d) of such Act 
     are each amended by striking out ``under the age of seventy'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``under retirement age (as 
     defined in section 216(l))'';
       (4) section 203(f)(1) of such Act is amended by striking 
     out clause (D) and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 
     ``(D) for which such individual is entitled to widow's or 
     widower's insurance benefits if such individual became so 
     entitled prior to attaining age 60, or'';
       (5) subparagraph (D) of section 203(f)(5) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking out ``(D) In the case of'' and all that 
     follows down through ``(ii) an individual'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following:
       ``(D) An individual'';
       (B) by striking out ``became entitled to such benefits'' 
     and all that follows and inserting in lieu thereof ``became 
     entitled to such benefits, there shall be excluded from gross 
     income any such other income.''; and
       (C) by shifting such subparagraph as so amended to the left 
     to the extent necessary to align its left margin with that of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C) of such section;
       (6) section 203(f)(8)(A) of such Act is amended by striking 
     out ``the new exempt amounts (separately stated for 
     individuals described in subparagraph (D) and for other 
     individuals) which are to be applicable'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the new exempt amount which is to be 
     applicable'';
       (7) section 203(f)(8)(B) of such Act is amended--
       (A) by striking out all that precedes clause (i) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(B) The exempt amount which is applicable for each month 
     of a particular taxable year shall be whichever of the 
     following is the larger--'';
       (B) by striking out ``corresponding'' in clause (i); and
       (C) by striking out ``an exempt amount'' in the matter 
     following clause (ii) and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     exempt amount'';
       (8) section 203(f)(8)(D) of such Act (as amended by 
     subsection (a) of this Act) is repealed;
       (9) section 203(f)(9) of such Act is repealed;
       (10) section 203(h)(1)(A) of such Act is amended by 
     striking out ``age 70'' each place it appears and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l))'';
       (11) section 203(j) of such Act is amended to read as 
     follows:

                     ``Attainment of Retirement Age

       ``(j) For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) an individual shall be considered as having attained 
     retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)) during the 
     entire month in which he attains such age; and
       ``(2) the term `retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l))', with respect to any individual entitled to monthly 
     insurance benefits under section 202, means the retirement 
     age (as so defined) which is applicable in the case of old-
     age insurance benefits, regardless of whether or not the 
     particular benefits to which the individual is entitled (or 
     the only such benefits) are old-age insurance benefits.'';
       (12) section 202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of such Act is amended--
       (A) by striking out ``either''; and
       (B) by striking out ``or suffered deductions under section 
     203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such 
     benefit''; and
       (13) the second sentence of section 223(d)(4) of such Act 
     is amended by inserting ``(or would be applicable to such 
     individuals but for the amendments made by the Older 
     Americans' Freedom to Work Act of 1994)'' after 
     ``subparagraph (D) thereof'' the first place it appears.
                                  ____


                                S. 1893

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

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL ANNUITIES SUBJECT TO SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   EARNINGS TEST.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 8339 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 8339a. Limitation on annuities of Members of Congress

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 
     the annuity of any individual described in subsection (b) 
     shall be subject to the provisions of section 203(b) of the 
     Social Security Act in the same manner as if such annuity was 
     a benefit of such individual under section 202 of such Act.
       ``(b) An individual is described in this subsection if--
       ``(1) such individual has attained the age of 62 years, and
       ``(2) the computation of the annuity of such individual is 
     based in whole or in part on the service of such individual 
     as a Member of Congress on or after the date of the enactment 
     of this section.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     83 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 8339 the following new 
     item:

``8339a. Limitation on annuities of Members of Congress.''.

       (b) Federal Employees Retirement System.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 8415 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 8415a. Limitation on annuities of Members of Congress

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 
     the annuity of any individual described in subsection (b) 
     shall be subject to the provisions of section 203(b) of the 
     Social Security Act in the same manner as if such annuity was 
     a benefit of such individual under section 202 of such Act.
       ``(b) An individual is described in this subsection if--
       ``(1) such individual has attained the age of 62 years, and
       ``(2) the computation of the annuity of such individual is 
     based in whole or in part on the service of such individual 
     as a Member of Congress on or after the date of the enactment 
     of this section.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     84 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 8415 the following new item:

``8415a. Limitation on annuities of Members of Congress.''.

                                S. 1854

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

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS FOR 
                   ANNUITIES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--Section 8340 of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(h)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, the adjustment under this section for an annuity 
     which is based on creditable service, any part of which is 
     service as a Member, shall be the lesser of--
       ``(A) the percentage adjustment which would be applicable 
     under this section if the provisions of this subsection had 
     not been enacted; or
       ``(B) the maximum percentage increase determined under 
     section 215(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 459(i)) 
     for the applicable year.
       ``(2) The provisions of this subsection shall apply only to 
     the annuity of an individual who is a Member of Congress on 
     or after the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.
       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Section 8462 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(f)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, the adjustment under this section for an annuity 
     which is based on creditable service, any part of which is 
     service as a Member, shall be the lesser of--
       ``(A) the percentage adjustment which would be applicable 
     under this section if the provisions of this subsection had 
     not been enacted; or
       ``(B) the maximum percentage increase determined under 
     section 215(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 459(i)) 
     for the applicable year.
       ``(2) The provisions of this subsection shall apply only to 
     the annuity of an individual who is a Member of Congress on 
     or after the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. RIEGLE (by request):
  S. 1895. A bill to consolidate under a new Federal Banking Commission 
the supervision of all depository institutions insured under the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                  regulatory consolidation act of 1994

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, by request, the 
administration's legislative proposal to consolidate under a new 
Federal Banking Commission the supervision of all depository 
institutions insured under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter of transmittal to the 
committee from Treasury-Secretary Lloyd Bentsen be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 1994.
     Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         United States Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to transmit the 
     Administration's legislative proposal to consolidate within a 
     new independent agency--the Federal Banking Commission--the 
     bank and thrift regulatory functions currently fragmented 
     among four different agencies. The need to restructure the 
     federal bank and thrift regulatory system has steadily 
     increased over the past several decades, as distinctions 
     among depository institutions have blurred, the financial 
     services industry has grown more complex, and the regulatory 
     system has become increasingly costly and antiquated.
       The Administration's proposal will benefit the economy, 
     consumers, business, and depository institutions themselves. 
     Consolidation will reduce the regulatory burden on depository 
     institutions which will allow them to compete more 
     effectively with other providers of financial services and 
     free up funds for loans to businesses and consumers. And 
     customers will no longer have to guess which agency is 
     responsible for supervising their bank or thrift, or fight 
     their way through a maze of overlapping federal bureaucracies 
     to file complaints or comments about a depository 
     institution's performance.
       Under the current federal regulatory structure, supervision 
     of banks and thrifts is needlessly fragmented, convoluted, 
     and in some cases contradictory. The Office of the 
     Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters and regulates 
     national banks and federal branches and agencies of foreign 
     banks. The Federal Reserve Board, in addition to conducting 
     monetary policy and managing the payments system, regulates 
     bank holding companies (i.e., companies that control banks) 
     and state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal 
     Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Board also has 
     overlapping responsibilities with the OCC for regulating 
     foreign banks' U.S. operations and U.S. banks' foreign 
     operations. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 
     in addition to insuring deposits, regulates state-chartered 
     banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System. The 
     Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) charters and regulates 
     federal savings associations, and also regulates savings and 
     loan holding companies (i.e., companies that control 
     savings associations) and state-chartered savings 
     associations. In addition, the FDIC has back-up authority 
     to stop unsafe practices at any FDIC-insured institution 
     if the institution's primary federal regulator fails to do 
     so.
       Under this structure, a company that owns both federally 
     and state-chartered institutions may find itself subject to 
     overlapping and sometimes conflicting supervision by four 
     different agencies. The administration's proposal will end 
     this needless confusion and conflict by consolidating 
     supervisory functions of the OCC, the OTS, the FDIC, and the 
     Federal Reserve into the Federal Banking Commission.
       The Administration's proposal leaves the core functions of 
     the FDIC and the Federal Reserve undisturbed. It realigns the 
     responsibilities of the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the 
     Federal Banking Commission according to their fundamental 
     responsibilities: deposit insurance, central banking, and 
     safety and soundness supervision. The FDIC will continue to 
     insure deposits. The Federal Reserve Board will continue to 
     conduct monetary policy, administer the payment system, and 
     provide liquidity through the discount window. The new 
     Federal Banking Commission will supervise all FDIC-insured 
     depository institutions.
       The Administration's proposal also preserves the integrity 
     and benefits of the dual banking system. The states will 
     remain the primary regulators of the banks they charter. 
     Moreover, the Federal Banking Commission will place increased 
     reliance on examinations by certified state banking 
     departments.
       Reforming our nation's bank regulatory structure will help 
     assure the strength of insured depository institutions and 
     their ability to support continued growth, and eliminate 
     waste and duplication in the regulatory system. The 
     Administration's proposal is a significant step toward making 
     government work better and cost less.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Lloyd Bentsen
                                 ______

      By Mr. D'AMATO:
  S. 1896. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain PVC rain 
slickers; to the Committee on Finance.


            suspension of duty on certain pvc rain slickers

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I am introducing a duty 
suspension bill for certain PVC rain slickers, valued at under $10 upon 
importation. The purpose of this legislation is to allow for 
consideration of this duty suspension in the Uruguay round negotiations 
which are ongoing.
  In order to be considered in the round, legislation must first be 
introduced. It must then be cleared through the Industry Sector 
Advisory Committee on Textiles and Apparel and undergo a separate 
investigation by the administration.
  According to the small and medium sized New York companies who 
requested this legislation and consideration in the Uruguay round, no 
U.S. firms or workers would be injured by this proposal change because 
the rain slickers are not manufactured in the United States, nor are 
they subject to any additional import restrictions. In addition, they 
claim removal of the 5-percent tariff would allow them to reduce prices 
to consumers, sell more merchandise nationwide and increase employment 
in New York.
  It is my hope that the Advisory Committee on Textiles and Apparel and 
the administration will move swiftly in their review. I thank them for 
their cooperation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and my statement 
be printed in full in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1896

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

     SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN PVC RAIN SLICKERS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new subheading:

``9902.39.2  Plastic rainwear, including           No     No     On or  
 0.           jackets, coats, ponchos,              chan   chan   before
              parkas, and slickers;                 ge     ge     12/31/
              featuring an outer shell of                         98''. 
              polyvinyl chloride plastic                                
              with or without attached                                  
              hoods, valued not over $10 per                            
              unit (provided for in                                     
              subheading 3926.20.50)........  Fre                       
                                               e                        
                                                                        

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 1897. A bill to expand the boundary of the Santa Fe National 
Forest, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


        santa fe national forest boundary adjustment act of 1994

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici to authorize the 
Forest Service to acquire land and easements adjacent to the Santa Fe 
National Forest in New Mexico. The purpose of this legislation is to 
preserve the Atalaya Mountain area, east of the city of Santa Fe, New 
Mexico. The tracts of land in question comprise a portion of the 
eastern scenic backdrop of Santa Fe which provide the physical and 
visual edge of the city. They are logical additions to the Santa Fe 
Forest.
  The expanded boundary will adjoin existing city-owned lands, and will 
connect with and contribute to the city's open space plan. This 
boundary adjustment will provide a more logical exterior boundary for 
the Santa Fe National Forest, thereby also facilitating management and 
administration of these Federal lands.
  This property possesses outstanding scenic qualities that are 
presently enjoyed by the general public traveling in the vicinity. In 
addition, these lands are crossed by historic wood gathering trails, 
used by Santa Fe residents for over 300 years, and could provide 
permanently protected public access corridors.
  Over the last several months, broad community concern has been 
expressed over the prospect of development of the west face of Atalaya 
Mountain. There is strong public support for preserving this property 
in an undeveloped State for public use and enjoyment. The purpose of 
this legislation is to protect Atalaya Mountain through acquisition of 
land and conservation easements by the Forest Service, thus returning 
the land to the public as open space. This legislation specifically 
prohibits the Forest Service from selling this land and endangering it 
to development in the future. It is our intent that this legislation 
spur Forest Service acquisition and provide the extra protection that 
the mountain so richly deserves.
  This effort represents a high level of cooperation and compromise 
among several parties--the current owners of the land in question, 
Santa Feans concerned about the preservation of open space, and local 
and Federal governments. I am pleased to support this effort through 
introduction of this legislation, which will ensure that Atalaya 
Mountain, one of Santa Fe's natural treasures, will be protected. Let 
me take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for 
his cosponsorship of this legislation. Congressman Richardson is 
introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. It 
is my hope that we will be able to move swiftly to pass this 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I ask that the full text of my remarks and this legislation be 
printed in the Record.

                                S. 1897

       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 ``Santa Fe National Forest 
     Boundary Adjustment Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) Expansion.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall modify 
     the boundary of the Santa Fe National Forest as depicted on 
     the map entitled ``Santa Fe National Forest Boundary 
     Expansion--1994''.
       (b) Map.--The map referred to in subsection (a) shall be on 
     file and available for public inspection in the Office of the 
     Chief Forester, National Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
       (c) Acquisition.--The Secretary of Agriculture is 
     authorized to acquire land depicted on the map described in 
     subsection (a) by exchange with the Bureau of Land Management 
     of the Department of the Interior.
       (d) Disposal.--The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized 
     to transfer land within the Santa Fe National Forest to the 
     Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior, 
     to offset the value of land acquired by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture pursuant to subsection (c).
       (e) Effective Date.--For purposes of section 7(a)(1) of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     9(a)(1)), the boundary of the Santa Fe National Forest, as 
     modified pursuant to subsection (a), shall be treated as if 
     it were the boundary as of January 1, 1965.

     SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b)(1), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall not transfer by exchange, 
     sale, or otherwise, any land or interest in land within the 
     boundary of the Santa Fe National Forest that is acquired 
     pursuant to the boundary expansion authorized in section 
     2(a).
       (b) Easements.--
       (1) Conveyance.--The Secretary may convey to the State of 
     New Mexico easements donated to, and accepted by, the United 
     States.
       (2) Management.--Land or interest in land acquired pursuant 
     to the boundary expansion authorized in section 2(a) shall be 
     managed consistent with the terms and conditions of any 
     easement donated to, and accepted by, the United States with 
     respect to such land or interest in land .

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague 
from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] in the introduction of this legislation 
that will help preserve the scenic beauty of Santa Fe, the capital of 
our enchanted State. By adjusting the boundary of the Santa Fe National 
Forest, we will ensure that Atalaya Mountain will continue to stand as 
a majestic backdrop to the city, free from the clutter of inappropriate 
development.
  This legislation represents a significant effort on the part of a 
number of people in the Santa Fe area. I appreciate the hard work on 
the part of all those responsible, including Santa Fe area residents 
Frank Bond, David Aubin, Valantin Valdez, and Irene VonHorvath; Santa 
Fe City Council member, Ouida MacGregor; Bill deBuys of the 
conservation fund; Dale Ball, of the Santa Fe conservation trust; and 
the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management personnel who were 
very helpful. I especially want to thank the generous landowners 
themselves, as without their cooperation, this preservation effort 
would not be possible.
  I am delighted that this boundary expansion will be accomplished 
through land donations and exchanges. This will require no purchases of 
land by the Federal Government. This is an excellent example of how the 
Federal Government and dedicated local citizens can work together for 
the betterment of the community.
  I believe that through these efforts, residents and visitors to the 
city will be able to enjoy not only the scenic beauty of the mountain, 
but continued easy access to the Santa Fe National Forest. I also 
anticipate that the expanded straight boundary line will help 
facilitate management functions, and provide added recreational 
opportunities in the Santa Fe National Forest. 
                                 ______

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. 
        Metzenbaum):
  S.J. Res. 166. Joint resolution to designate the week of May 29, 
1994, through June 4, 1994, as ``Pediatric and Adolescent AIDS 
Awareness Week''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              pediatric and adolescent aids awareness week

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am introducing along with my 
colleagues Senator Levin, Senator Murray, and Senator Metzenbaum, a 
joint resolution to designate the week of May 29, 1994 through June 4, 
1994, as ``Pediatric and Adolescent AIDS Awareness Week.'' This joint 
resolution is introduced as a companion to identical legislation 
introduced by Congressman Jose Serrano of the 16th District in New 
York.
  Pediatric and Adolescent AIDS Awareness Week provides us an 
opportunity to expand a national prevention effort aimed at the 
reduction in the incidence of AIDS in children and adolescents. 
Adolescent and young adult HIV transmission guarantees the continuation 
of the spread of AIDS/HIV epidemic, if we do not increase our 
counseling and educational efforts.
  As my colleagues may know, AIDS is a leading cause of death for 
children ages 1 through 4. By October 1993, the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention has reported 4,906 cases of pediatric AIDS and 
1,412 cases of adolescent AIDS throughout the United States. Pediatric 
AIDS is most often contracted from the mother by the newborn child in 
utero. If the incidence of AIDS continues to increase at this rate, 
AIDS will become the fifth leading cause of death among children of all 
ages in the United States.
  I have been involved in legislation which would increase the 
awareness of pediatric AIDS since 1987 when I first introduced the 
Pediatric AIDS Resource Centers Act to address the problem of providing 
care for children and youth suffering from AIDS. In addition, I am an 
original cosponsor of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources 
Emergency Act which became law in August 1990. This bill amended the 
Public Health Service Act to provide grants for improving the quality 
and availability of care to individuals and families that are tested to 
be HIV positive.
  As ranking minority member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, I have been involved in 
working toward providing sufficient resources to fund AIDS research, 
education, prevention, and services. In 1989, the Public Health Service 
[PHS] received a total of $95,977 million for all pediatric AIDS 
research and demonstration projects, by 1992 the PHS received $189,703 
million. This amount is a 49.4 percent increase in the funding level. 
Therefore, for the benefit of all American citizens, Pediatric and 
Adolescent AIDS Awareness Week would provide a forum for education and 
promotion to broaden awareness of the course of AIDS in America today.
  Mr. President, in light of our desire to begin the debate on health 
care reform, this joint resolution would be an important step in 
relieving the growing burden on our health care system of the costs 
associated with AIDS through education and prevention.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the 
children and adolescents currently infected with AIDS and in support of 
their families and caretakers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                             S.J. Res. 166

       Whereas more than 339,250 individuals in the United States 
     have been diagnosed with acquired immune deficiency syndrome 
     (commonly known as AIDS) and 204,390 have died from the 
     disease; and
       Whereas the Public Health Service has estimated that there 
     are currently between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 persons in the 
     United States infected with AIDS; and
       Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has 
     reported 4,906 cases of pediatric AIDS and 1,412 cases of 
     adolescent AIDS as of October, 1993; and
       Whereas 1 in 5 of all reported AIDS cases is diagnosed in 
     the 20-29 year old age group, and the median incubation 
     period between human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) infection 
     and AIDS diagnosis is nearly 10 years, most of those people 
     in their 20's who are diagnosed with AIDS were adolescents 
     when they became infected; and
       Whereas AIDS was the eighth leading cause of death for 
     children aged 1-4 in 1990. If the incidence of AIDS continues 
     to increase, within the next 10 years AIDS may become the 
     fifth leading cause of death among children of all ages in 
     the United States; and
       Whereas by the end of 1995, maternal deaths caused by the 
     HIV/AIDS epidemic will have orphaned an estimated 24,600 
     children (under age 13) and 21,000 adolescents (aged 13-17) 
     in the United States. Unless the course of the epidemic 
     changes dramatically, by the year 2000 the overall number of 
     motherless children and adolescents will exceed 80,000; and
       Whereas in 1992 reported AIDS cases among women continued 
     to grow at a faster rate than among men, and for the first 
     time, more than half the number of women's cases were the 
     result of heterosexual transmission, not intravenous drug 
     use; and
       Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     estimates that approximately 110,000 women in the United 
     States are infected with HIV. An estimated 6,000 are expected 
     to give birth to children each year; approximately 1,500-
     2,000 of these children will be infected with HIV; and
       Whereas more than 88 percent of children with AIDS have a 
     parent with, or at risk for, HIV infection; and
       Whereas 24 percent of reported pediatric AIDS cases in the 
     United States have occurred in New York City and the South 
     Bronx has the highest HIV seroprevalence rate among newborns 
     in the United States; and
       Whereas Philadelphia ranks among American cities most 
     impacted by reported AIDS cases among children age 0-13, and 
     these children belong to an estimated 1,400 HIV affected 
     families; and
       Whereas 74 percent of women with AIDS and 79 percent of 
     children with AIDS are African-American or Hispanic, many of 
     whom are underprivileged and have experienced social 
     discrimination; and
       Whereas there have been 1,183 cases of pediatric AIDS 
     reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 
     New York City; 260 cases in Miami, Florida; 184 cases in 
     Newark, New Jersey; 168 cases in San Juan, Puerto Rico; 146 
     cases in Los Angeles, California; 138 cases in Washington, 
     DC; 107 cases in West Palm Beach, Florida; 117 cases in 
     Boston, Massachusetts; 125 cases in Chicago, Illinois; 113 
     cases in Baltimore, Maryland; 87 cases in Philadelphia, 
     Pennsylvania; and 87 cases in Houston, Texas; and
       Whereas instances of discrimination against children and 
     youth with HIV occur in schools and other institutions; and
       Whereas it is important that the people of the United 
     States diligently seek preventative measures and better 
     solutions to care for women and youth, including helping them 
     gain access to HIV and other sexually transmitted disease 
     clinical therapies; and
       Whereas early intervention and educational resources must 
     be made available to all citizens, especially youth and other 
     high-risk groups, to make them more aware of AIDS and the 
     risks associated with engaging in unprotected sexual activity 
     or substance abuse; and
       Whereas the Health Care Financing Administration and the 
     Public Health Service should work with appropriate state 
     officials to help design optimal care packages needed for 
     children, youth and families with AIDS or HIV infection 
     especially as health care reform is undertaken; and
       Whereas states and localities should recognize relatives, 
     extended family members and other non-biological relations as 
     an appropriate source of foster care for children with AIDS 
     whose parents can no longer care for them, subject to the 
     same review and afforded the same benefits as other foster 
     parents: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in the Congress assembled, That May 
     29 through June 4, 1994, is designated as ``Pediatric and 
     Adolescent AIDS Awareness Week,'' and the President is 
     authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon 
     the people of the United States to observe the week with 
     appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                          ____________________