[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.
____________________