[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MITCHELL (for Mr. Wofford):
  S. 2090. A bill to provide negotiating authority for a trade 
agreement with Chile, but to apply fast track procedures only to such 
an agreement that contains certain provisions relating to worker rights 
and the government; to the Committee on Finance.


           chile free trade agreement negotiating act of 1994

 Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, today I am joining House Majority 
Leader Richard Gephardt in introducing legislation authorizing the 
President to negotiate a free trade agreement with Chile, a democratic 
South American country quickly emerging as an international growth 
economy.
  I have long believed that mutual reductions in barriers to 
international trade are essential to our long-term economic growth and 
American creating jobs. A good trade agreement is one that ensures that 
the benefits of free trade go to raising living standards in both 
countries and that the environment is not damaged by the increased 
economic activity. I believe we have an opportunity to reach such an 
agreement with Chile.
  At the same time, I do not believe that Congress should give a blank 
check to the President to enter into international trade agreements. 
Too much is at stake. The legislation being introduced today would make 
sure that before Congress gives up its prerogatives to amend a trade 
agreement with Chile that the agreement would contain adequate 
provisions with respect to workers rights and the environment.
  My hope is that this legislation will bridge the divide in our Nation 
over international trade reflected by the NAFTA debate. It should serve 
as a framework that will allow us to move forward aggressively to seek 
improved trading relationships with other nations as well.
  We have to engage the world on fair and mutually beneficial terms. 
The question now is how we choose to move forward and meet the economic 
competition. Far from weakening the President's hand, our action today 
should strengthen his case for an agreement that is fair to American 
workers and American communities.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2090

       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 ``Chile Free Trade Agreement 
     Negotiating Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY FOR TRADE 
                   AGREEMENT WITH CHILE AND OF ``FAST TRACK'' 
                   PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION.

       Section 1102 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 
     of 1988 (19 u.S.C. 2902) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Special Provisions Regarding Trade Negotiations With 
     Chile.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the time limitation in 
     subsection (c)(1), the President may, before January 1, 1997, 
     enter into a trade agreement with Chile under subsection (c).
       ``(2) Application of fast track procedures.--
       ``(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), section 1103 
     applies to any trade agreement negotiated under subsection 
     (c) pursuant to paragraph (1), but only if the President 
     certifies to the Congress, at the time the implementing bill 
     is submitted with respect to the trade agreement, that the 
     trade agreement--
       ``(i) contains provisions requiring the parties to adhere 
     to internationally recognized worker rights (as defined in 
     section 502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974);
       ``(ii) requires the parties to enforce their environmental 
     laws and to take steps to adopt appropriate higher 
     environmental standards; and
       ``(iii) includes dispute resolution mechanisms to enforce 
     effectively the requirements contained in clauses (i) and 
     (ii).
       ``(B) No provision of subsection (b) of section 1103 other 
     than paragraph (1)(A) applies to any trade agreement 
     described in subparagraph (A). In applying such paragraph, 
     `January 1, 1997,' shall be substituted for `June 1, 1991.'
       ``(C) The fast track procedures (as used in section 1103) 
     shall not apply to an implementing bill submitted with 
     respect to a trade agreement described in subparagraph (A) if 
     the Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives or the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, within 
     15 days after the implementing bill is submitted to the 
     Congress, disapproves the President's certification under 
     subparagraph (A) that is included with the implementing bill. 
     Such 15-day period shall be computed in the manner prescribed 
     in section 1103(e).
       ``(3) Advisory committee reports.--The report required 
     under section 135(e)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 regarding 
     any trade agreement provided for under paragraph (1), shall 
     be provided to the President, the Congress, and the United 
     States Trade Representative not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which the President notifies the Congress under 
     section 1103(a)(1)(A) of his intention to enter into the 
     agreement (but before September 1, 1996).
       ``(4) Rules of house of representatives and senate.--This 
     subsection is enacted by the Congress--
       ``(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such 
     is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, 
     and such procedures supersede other rules only to the extent 
     that they are inconsistent with such other rules; and
       ``(B) with the full recognition of the constitutional right 
     of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to 
     the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same 
     manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that 
     House.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 2091. A bill to amend certain provisions of title 5, United States 
Code, in order to ensure quality between Federal firefighters and other 
employees in the civil service and other public sector firefighters, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                   the firefighters pay fairness act

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation to improve the pay system used for Federal firefighters, an 
issue in which I have a longstanding interest and involvement.
  The legislation has three broad purposes: First, to improve pay 
equality with municipal and other public sector firefighters; second, 
to enhance recruitment and retention of firefighters in order to 
maintain the highest quality Federal fire service; and third, to 
encourage Federal firefighters to pursue career advancement and 
training opportunities.
  Fire protection is clearly a major concern at Federal facilities and 
on Federal lands throughout the Nation. From fighting extended wildland 
fires in our national parks and forests to protecting military families 
from fires in their base housing, Federal firefighters play a vital 
role in preserving life and property.
  The Department of Agriculture, the Coast Guard, the Department of 
Commerce, the Department of Defense, the General Services 
Administration, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs are among the Federal agencies that rely on Federal 
employees to protect their vast holdings of land and structures. Just 
like their municipal counterparts, these Federal firefighters are the 
first line of defense against threats to life and property.
  As I travel throughout my own State of Maryland, I always make an 
effort to stop by the various Federal firehalls. I must say, Mr. 
President, that I have been consistently impressed with the dedication 
and obvious commitment of the Federal firefighters I have met at 
Maryland installations.
  Regretfully, Mr. President, the current system used to pay our 
Federal firefighters is at best confusing and at worse unfair. These 
men and women work longer hours than other public sector firefighters 
yet are paid substantially less. The current pay system, which consists 
of three tiers, is overly complex and, more importantly, is hurting 
Federal efforts to attract and retain top-quality employees.
  Currently, most Federal firefighters work an average 72-hour week 
under exceptionally demanding conditions. The typical workweek consists 
of a one-day-on/one-day-off schedule which results in three 24-hour 
shifts per 72-hour week. Despite this unusual schedule, firefighters 
are paid under a modified version of the same General Schedule pay 
system used for full-time, 40-hour-per-week Federal workers.
  The result of the pay modification is that Federal firefighters make 
less per hour than any other Federal employees at the same grade level. 
While some have tried to justify this by noting that part of a 
firefighter's day is downtime, I must note that all firefighters have 
substantial duties beyond those at the site of a fire.
  Mr. President, the International Association of Fire Fighters has 
estimated that municipal firefighters work about 50 hours per week at a 
rate of pay that is 30 to 40 percent above their Federal counterparts. 
The obvious result is that Federal service is often a training ground 
for young men and women who then leave for higher pay elsewhere in the 
public sector. Continually training new employees is, as my colleagues 
know, very expensive for any employer.
  The Office of Personnel Management is well aware of these problems. 
In fact, section 102 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 
1990 [FEPCA], title V of Public Law 101-509, authorizes the 
establishment of special pay systems for certain Federal occupations. 
The origin of this provision was a recognition that the current pay 
classification system did not account for the unique and distinctive 
employment conditions of Federal protective occupations including the 
Federal fire service.
  In May of 1991 I wrote to OPM urging the establishment of a separate 
pay scale for firefighters under the authority provided for in FEPCA. 
Subsequently, OPM established an Advisory Committee on Law Enforcement 
and Protective Occupations consisting of agency personnel and 
representatives from Federal fire and law enforcement organizations. 
Beginning in August of 1991, representatives from the Federal fire 
community began working with OPM and other administration officials to 
identify and address the problems of paying Federal firefighters under 
the General Schedule. The committee completed its work in June of 1992 
and in December of that year issued a staff report setting forth 
recommendations to correct the most serious problems with the current 
pay system.
  Mr. President, I regret that since the release of the OPM 
recommendations, there has been no effort to implement any of the 
proposals of the advisory task force. In fact, OPM has communicated 
quite clearly that at this time it has no plans to pursue any solution 
to the serious pay deficiencies that have been so widely identified and 
acknowledged.
  It would not be necessary to introduce this legislation today had OPM 
taken the corrective action that, in my view, is so clearly warranted. 
However, I have determined that legislation appears to be the only 
vehicle to achieve the necessary changes in the pay system for Federal 
firefighters.
  Mr. President, the Firefighter Pay Fairness Act would improve Federal 
firefighter pay in several important and straightforward ways. Perhaps 
most importantly, the bill draws from existing provisions in title V to 
calculate a true hourly rate for firefighters. This would alleviate the 
current problem of firefighters being paid considerably less than other 
General Schedule employees at the same GS level. It would also account 
for the varying length in the tour of duty for Federal firefighters 
stationed at different locations.
  In addition, the bill would use this hourly rate to ensure that 
firefighters receive true time and one-half overtime for hours worked 
over 106 in a biweekly pay period. This is designed to correct the 
problem, under the current system, where the overtime rate is 
calculated based on an hourly rate considerably less than base pay.
  The Pay Fairness Act would also extend these pay provisions to so-
called wildland firefighters when they are engaged in firefighting 
duties. Currently, wildland firefighters are often not compensated for 
all the time spent responding to a fire event. Our bill would ensure 
that these protectors of our parks and forests would be paid fairly for 
ensuring the safety of these invaluable national resources.
  The bill also ensures that firefighters promoted to supervisory 
positions would be paid at a rate of pay at least equal to what they 
received before the promotion. This would address the situation, under 
the current pay system, which discourages employees from accepting 
promotions because of the significant loss of pay which often 
accompanies a move to a supervisory position.
  Similarly, the bill would encourage employees to get the necessary 
training in hazardous materials, emergency medicine, and other critical 
areas by ensuring they do not receive a pay cut while engaged in these 
training activities.
  Mr. President, I have consulted many of the affected groups in 
developing my legislation. I am very pleased that this bill has been 
endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, the 
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association 
of Fire Fighters, the National Association of Government Employees, and 
the National Federation of Federal Employees.
  Fairness is the key word, Mr. President. There is no reason why 
Federal firefighters should be paid dramatically less than their 
municipal counterparts. As a cochairman of the Congressional Fire 
Services Caucus, I want to urge all members of the caucus and, indeed, 
all Members of the Senate to join in cosponsoring this important piece 
of legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HEFLIN:
  S. 2092. A bill to reform the Federal Crop Insurance Program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                the farmers' risk management act of 1994

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, The Farmers' 
Risk Management Act of 1994. This legislation, which will reform the 
current Crop Insurance Program, is designed to serve two purposes: 
First, it will give Americas farmers a risk management tool that works, 
and second, it will rein in the cost associated with ad hoc disaster 
programs and a crop insurance program which is underfunded and 
underutilized.
  Mr. President, over the last 6 years, we have spent an average of 
$1.575 billion per year on disaster relief programs for farmers. By 
using a portion of this money, we can develop a viable crop insurance 
program for farmers and still save the American taxpayer $750 million 
over the next 5 years. Under the present system of funding, a crop 
insurance program and an ad hoc disaster program, the Office of 
Management and Budget estimates that over the next 5 years, we will 
spend $8.9 billion. Under this new proposal, the cost over the next 5 
years will be $8.1 billion, a saving of $750 million.
  Also, an additional savings should be realized by the reduction of 
fraud associated with the current disaster programs. Under the present 
disaster program, farmers who farm nonprogram crops are not required to 
show production records. Under this proposal, a farmer will be required 
to show his recent production history, thereby, decreasing the 
likelihood for fraud. While the savings achieved from this new proposal 
is critical, more importantly, this bill develops a risk management 
tool which actually works for farmers. With farm programs taking 
increasingly larger cuts, it has never been more important for those of 
us from agricultural States to develop a viable risk management tool 
for our Nation's farmers.
  To average farmers in the South who currently do not take crop 
insurance, this bill will provide them with an affordable risk 
management tool. For example, the average cotton farmer in Alabama who 
subscribes at the catastrophic rate will save an average of $9.50 an 
acre. To the farmer who currently buys crop insurance, this legislation 
will lower premiums from 8 to 17 percent, depending upon which level of 
coverage is bought.
  For those of you from farm States who carefully follow various crop 
insurance proposals, you will notice that my proposal closely tracks 
the administration's proposal. However, my proposal differs from the 
administration's bill in three important areas. First, my bill calls on 
the Federal Crop Insurance Corp. to offer producers the option of cost 
of production which would be based upon each individual producer's 
actual cost of production. In fact, let me point out that the present 
crop insurance manager, Mr. Ken Ackerman, has gone out of his way to 
work with farmers from the Southeast, and especially Alabama, in an 
effort to develop some type of reasonably priced cost of production 
crop insurance proposal.

  The second major change would allow a producer to choose between 
using his actual yields and his farm program yields in determining his 
crop insurance yields. In fact, many farmers in Alabama would have 
weathered last year's agricultural disaster much better had they been 
able to use their actual yields in determining their disaster payments. 
And last, if a producer has at least 4 years of production history, my 
bill allows him to drop 1 high year and 1 low year and use the mean of 
those remaining years to determine his crop insurance yield. This way, 
a disaster year won't completely ruin a farmer's crop insurance 
history.
  The following is a summary of the Farmer's Risk Management Act of 
1994.
  Cost of production crop insurance.--The Federal Crop Insurance Corp. 
will be required to offer farmers a crop insurance plan based on a 
farmers actual cost of production.
  Farmers choice.--A farmer will be able to chose between using his 
program yields and his actual production yields in determining his crop 
insurance yield
  Cost.--The new program will cost about $8.1 billion for fiscal years 
1995 through 1999. This represents a 5-year savings of some $750 
million compared to the projected cost of the current Federal Crop 
Insurance Program plus the average annual cost for ad hoc crop loss 
disaster programs over the past decade.
  Repeal of ad hoc disaster authority.--Current legal authorities for 
ad hoc crop loss disaster relief are repealed. In the future, the 
program outlined below will replace these disaster bills as the Federal 
response to emergencies involving widespread crop loss.
  Using the mean to determine crop history.--If a farmer has at least 4 
years of production history, he will be allowed to drop 1 high year and 
1 low year and use the mean of the remaining years to determine his 
crop insurance yield.
  Catastrophic crop insurance coverage.--The Federal Crop Insurance 
Program is supplemented with a new catastrophic coverage level 
available to farmers for a nominal processing fee of $50 per crop per 
county, up to $100 per farmer per county. This catastrophic plan will 
protect against yield losses greater than 50 percent at a payment rate 
of 60 percent of the expected market price--a level comparable to 
disaster relief programs in recent years. The processing fee may be 
waived for limited resource farmers.
  Farmers may purchase additional insurance coverage providing higher 
yield for price protection levels for additional cost. Targeted 
subsidies are provided to encourage farmers to pursue these higher 
coverage levels.
  Uninsurable crops.--A standing disaster program would exist for crops 
not covered by crop insurance, with payments triggered by areawide loss 
levels and protection levels similar to those under the catastrophic 
insurance plan.
  Linkage to farm programs.--To ensure wide participation, crop 
insurance coverage at the catastrophic level or above is linked to 
participation in Federal commodity support programs or Farmers Home 
Administration loans. This step should result in crop insurance 
participation rising from 33 percent to about 80 percent of insurable 
acres.
  Delivery.--Farmers may choose to obtain the catastrophic coverage 
either through a private reinsured company or through a USDA county 
office. Higher insurance coverages remain available only through 
private insurers.
  Industry competition.--Premium rates are restructured to reflect both 
direct premium subsidies and the expense reimbursement allowance, a 
more realistic calculation. More efficient companies will be allowed to 
pass along lowered overhead costs in reduced rates charged to farmers, 
creating a more competitive market environment.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Simon):
  S. 2094. A bill to make permanent the authority of the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to approve basic educational assistance for flight 
training; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                   veterans' flight training program

 Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce 
legislation, on behalf of myself and my good friends, Senator Ford and 
Senator Simon, that will give the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
permanent authority to approve basic educational assistance for flight 
training progams. This legislation will allow veterans to prepare for 
careers in the air transportation industry as well as help to ensure 
that our Nation has an adequate supply of well-trained pilots to meet 
future industry demand.
  Public Law 101-237 established a 4-year flight training assistance 
program for veterans, which commenced on October 1, 1990. As of last 
December, this program has helped more than 2,500 veterans pursue 
commercial pilot licenses and various instrument ratings at an average 
cost of $3,200 per individual. A majority of the program's participants 
have already secured employment in the aviation industry. Without 
timely congressional action, however, this successful program will 
expire on September 30.
  Considerable attention has been given to ensuring that those who 
receive benefits under the flight training program are serious about a 
career in aviation. To participate in the program, a veteran must 
possess a valid private pilot's license--at a cost of approximately 
$3,000--and must satisfy the medical requirements to obtain a 
commercial license. Further, the veteran must attend a flight school 
which has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 
and the State agency which certifies all veterans' educational 
programs. Finally, the training must be generally accepted as necessary 
for the attainment of a recognized vocational objective in the field of 
aviation.
  There are also two significant cost-control features to the flight 
training program. First, each veteran must pay at least 40 percent of 
the cost associated with their training. This is a hefty share, given 
the cost of flight training programs and the investment that veteran 
has already made to get a private pilot's license. In addition, the 
program caps the reimbursement for solo flying hours at the minimum 
number of hours required by the FAA for any given rating level.
  Veterans have earned their educational benefits through service to 
our Nation, and they have even made monetary contributions toward those 
benefits. It only seems right that these men and women are given a 
broad array of choices as to how these benefits can be used. Moreover, 
flight instruction is very costly, and many veterans will be unable to 
pursue careers in aviation unless their educational benefits can be 
used for this purpose.
  Now more than ever, veterans need expanded job training 
opportunities. In a recent report, the General Accounting Office 
estimated that on any given night, 150,000 to 250,000 veterans are on 
the streets or in shelters. That veterans, who served this country so 
selflessly, now make up one-third of the homeless population is a 
tragedy which must be addressed. I recognize that the problems of 
homeless veterans are complex and will not be easily solved. However, 
because one of the primary contributors to homelessness is the lack of 
adequate job training, programs such as flight training have a role to 
play in preventing homelessness among our Nation's veterans.

  The need for greater employment opportunities for veterans is 
compounded by the military's downsizing efforts. According to the 
Defense Department's Bottom-Up review, the Armed Forces will have to 
reduce their numbers by an additional 400,000 by fiscal year 1999. Many 
veterans are now experiencing difficulty in finding employment outside 
the military, and the exodus of more servicepersons from all branches 
of the Armed Forces will only exacerbate this problem. Clearly, then, 
there is a great need for education and training, such as flight 
instruction, that is compatible with veterans' skills and interests.
  Allowing veterans to use their educational benefits to obtain flight 
instruction is also good for the future of the air transportation 
industry. Although military downsizing is now creating a temporary 
pilot surplus, it will ultimately result in a smaller pool of military-
trained candidates for employment in commercial aviation. This is 
because the current surplus will taper off and, more importantly, the 
military is now training fewer pilots. Thus, in the future, the air 
transportation industry increasingly will have to turn to pilots 
trained in the civilian sector to meet its needs.
  In August 1993, a Blue Ribbon Panel commissioned by the FAA released 
a report entitled ``Pilots and Aviation Maintenance Technicians for the 
Twenty-First Century: An Assessment of Availability and Quality.'' The 
report concluded that the labor needs of the air transportation 
industry would rise by 18.5 percent during the next decade. Further, it 
found that while there is no current pilot shortage, there is an 
impending shortage of pilots qualified to meet future industry needs.
  The panel also noted that many flight training schools are currently 
operating at less than full capacity and that some run the risk of 
closure due to insufficient enrollment. Because this situation could 
adversely affect the aviation industry's ability to expand the pilot 
supply when the demand dictates, one of the panel's recommendations for 
improving the availability and quality of pilots is to provide adequate 
financial assistance to professional pilot candidates. My legislation 
will help to accomplish that goal.
  Mr. President, I would like to thank the Airline Owners and Pilots 
Association [AOPA] and the National Air Transportation Association 
[NATA] for their help in preparing this legislation. These groups know 
that the health of our Nation's aviation industry is dependent upon a 
sufficient supply of well-trained pilots and that the veterans flight 
training program has been successful in helping private pilots to 
pursue careers in aviation.
  Our Nation owes a great debt to all veterans, and one of the way that 
we can repay this debt is by helping to ease the transition form 
military to civilian employment. For those veterans interested in 
careers as professional pilots, this flight training program will allow 
them to develop the skills they need to find meaningful employment in 
the civilian sector. I hope that my colleagues will support the 
continuation of this successful program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2094

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO APPROVE BASIC EDUCATIONAL 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR FLIGHT TRAINING.

       (a) All-Volunteer Force Assistance.--Section 3034(d) of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking out ``(1)''; and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
       (b) Post-Vietnam Era Assistance.--Section 3241(b) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking out ``(1)''; and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
       (c) Assistance for Selected Reserve.--Section 2136(c) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking out ``(1)''; and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
                                  ____

                                               Aircraft Owners and


                                           Pilots Association,

                                                   April 29, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: As you know, the Aircraft Owners and 
     Pilots Association is a not-for-profit membership association 
     with 325,000 members nationwide. Our members take advantage 
     of general aviation aircraft to fulfill their personal and 
     business transportation needs.
       This is to express our formal support of your bill to 
     permanently extend Veteran's Vocational Flight Training 
     Benefits. This important veterans benefit program is 
     essential to help ensure an adequate supply of qualified 
     commercial pilots for the future of our national air 
     transportation system.
       As you know, the cost of flight training is substantial. 
     Thanks to your previous efforts, qualified veterans are 
     currently eligible under a trial program to receive 
     vocational flight training benefits for both dual and solo 
     flight training. With this trial program set to expire on 
     August 31, 1994, your bill would provide a permanent avenue 
     for veterans to pursue a career in aviation.
       The veterans flight training program has important national 
     implications, as well. Statistics compiled by the Office of 
     Technology Assessment and the Future Aviation Professionals 
     of America show that our country is on the brink of a 
     critical pilot shortage--not just in the airlines, but also 
     in other important areas of aviation, such as air ambulance, 
     crop dusting, and corporate pilots. Veterans deserve a chance 
     at these jobs, and your bill would help make that possible.
       The Daschle bill is a good and necessary step towards 
     meeting the future pilot shortage, and we support it 
     wholeheartedly.
       Thank you for your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Phil Boyer,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                                      National Air


                                   Transportation Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 28, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle. The National Air Transportation 
     Association (NATA) represents the business interests of close 
     to 2,000 companies providing aviation services (fixed base 
     operators or FBOs). Many NATA member companies operate flight 
     schools providing instruction from primary to the most 
     sophisticated jet aircraft pilot training. These businesses 
     have a long history of providing flight training for veterans 
     and strongly support the permanent extension of the flight 
     training assistance program.
       During the last four years, flight training assistance for 
     veterans has certainly proven its worth. Many of the 
     participants have gone on to careers as flight instructors 
     and pilots for our member companies and others in the 
     aviation industry. In fact, this was documented in a study 
     for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The results of the 
     study showed that over 2,500 veterans have participated in 
     the program since 1990, with a majority of these participants 
     having obtained aviation employment.
       The need to encourage a strong flow of qualified pilots 
     will only increase in the future. The Future Aviation 
     Professionals of America (FAPA) estimates the major and 
     regional airlines will need more than 50,000 new pilots over 
     the next decade. The mandatory retirement of an extremely 
     large number of pilots, combined with expansion of the 
     aviation industry, will enable veterans receiving flight 
     training to pursue a career in a high-demand profession.
       The Association wholeheartedly endorses your efforts to 
     extend this valuable program. Flight schools across the 
     country have benefited, and even more importantly, this 
     flight training assistance provides our nation's veterans an 
     opportunity for an aviation career they might not otherwise 
     receive. Please count on NATA's support as you pursue passage 
     of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James K. Coyne,
                                                President.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Durenberger, and Mr. 
        Daschle):
  S. 2095. A bill to reform the Federal crop insurance program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                       Crop Insurance Act of 1994

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, discussion about reinventing 
government has persisted for many years. Last month the Senate voted 98 
to 1 to pass our USDA reorganization bill--the first legislation 
designed to reorganize an executive branch department--and I am proud 
that this committee moved so quickly on this bill. Senator Lugar and I 
demonstrated that it is possible to work together, in a bipartisan 
spirit, to reform bureaucracies many thought were immune to change. I 
hope that this spirit continues.
  Looking to the future, reinventing government will mean more than 
simply changing government structures. In order to make our Government 
more efficient, we need to make changes in outdated policies as well.
  Today I am introducing a bill to reform the policies which dictate 
the way we handle natural disasters affecting American agriculture.
  Every time there is a major disaster, Congress passes an ad hoc 
disaster assistance bill. Ad hoc disaster bills are inherently 
unpredictable, and as a result, farmers do not know what type of help 
they can expect in times of need. Because disaster bills are treated as 
emergency legislation, not subject to normal pay-as-you-go rules, they 
get loaded down with unrelated legislation that would otherwise never 
become law.
  By improving the existing crop insurance program we can eliminate the 
need for add hoc disaster programs. Farmers, lenders, and the rest of 
the country would know what to expect the next time there is a 
disaster. We need to eliminate the senseless duplication of separate 
crop insurance and disaster programs that cover the same losses on the 
same crops. And, perhaps most importantly, Congress would no longer 
need to consider ad hoc disaster bills exempt from normal budgetary 
rules.
  The reform of crop insurance and disaster programs has the broad 
support of farmers and the administration, and I intend to push for 
quick consideration of this legislation. The Crop Insurance Reform Act 
of 1994 will give order and predictability to crop insurance programs 
and at the same time help us help farmers respond to agricultural 
disasters.
 Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I support the Federal Crop 
Insurance Reform Act of 1994. Too often, legislation starts in 
Washington and works its way to the people. That's what's wrong with 
Government. The better way is the way of crop insurance reform--a good 
idea--which originated in the kitchens of Minnesota farmers like 
Richard Peterson, Andy Quinn, and Grant Annexstad and worked its way to 
Washington. This legislation is what's right with government and I am 
proud to be a leading cosponsor.
  We began the fight for reform 3 years ago--in 1991. That year, 
Minnesota farmers were inundated with heavy rains which destroyed much 
of the crop farmers had managed to get in the field. Unfortunately, 
when the rain left them wet, crop insurance left them dry--and this 
marked the beginning of the long road toward reform.
  In 1992--after nearly a year of discussion and hard work--Minnesota 
farmers had an idea for reform. In the fall of that same year, I 
introduced the idea to the U.S. Senate as the Federal Crop Insurance 
Fairness Act of 1992. At the time, however, the need for reform was not 
obvious to everyone and Congress shelved our plan.
  In early spring of last year--on the eve of the 100-year flood--I 
reintroduced crop insurance reform. But, it wasn't until torrential 
rains and record-breaking floods swept through the Midwest that reform 
got any attention. Ultimately, most of Congress settled for the quick 
fix of disaster aid rather than taking on the real challenge of crop 
insurance reform. But those of us who wouldn't settle for less did 
manage to get a promise: There would be reform this Congress.
  Later that year, we succeeded in making two major changes in the way 
crop insurance works. First, farmers would be able to prove their 
yields in 4 years instead of 10. And, second, the penalty for late 
planting would be cut in half. These critical changes came right out of 
the Durenberger bill--the bill Minnesota farmers helped write.
  Pleased with our success but recognizing the need for comprehensive 
reform, we kept the pressure on. And, now, we are seeing our hard work 
and effort paying off. The President and many in Congress have joined 
our cause and, with their help, I am confident crop insurance reform 
will soon be a reality.
  As one of the bill's leading cosponsors, I am pleased that this 
reform package will include nearly all of the remaining components of 
my earlier legislation. In addition to providing catastrophic coverage 
to all our Nation's farmers, the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act 
includes more affordable 65- and 75-percent coverage levels, prevented 
planting as part of the standard package, and a catastrophic yield 
adjustment to protect farmers' actual production history.
  For the first time ever, farmers will have an incentive to buy crop 
insurance coverage. And, this is an important step toward changing the 
way we deal with disasters. Farmers will be able to rely on sound, 
predictable coverage when disaster strikes rather than on the 
unpredictable whims of Congress.
  Mr. President, I am proud of this bill because crop insurance reform 
makes sense. It would provide our Nation's farmers with peace of mind 
and save its taxpayers money. In fact, it is estimated that this bill 
will save the American taxpayer as much as $750 million over the next 5 
years.
  Indeed, I am proud of this legislation and all that it will 
accomplish. But, most of all, Mr. President, I am proud of people who 
made it possible: the farmers of Minnesota.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 2096. A bill to improve private health insurance, to provide 
equitable tax treatment of health insurance, to reform Federal health 
care programs, to provide health care cost reduction measures, and for 
other purposes; read the first time.


                     health care reform Act of 1994

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am introducing what I choose to 
call the Health Care Reform Act of 1994. This bill is my effort to 
provide some concrete legislative proposals in health care. After 
watching and observing for weeks and months on end, I have put this 
bill into a form so that I can advocate some of the principles in it 
which I think many Senators are going to find rather desirable.
  If enacted, this bill will go a long way toward ensuring affordable, 
quality health care for all Americans, and it would reduce the Federal 
budget--that is the deficit--by $95 billion to the year 2000.
  I think that one statement is unique to any of the bills. It seems to 
this Senator that we all anxiously awaited health care reform so we 
could begin to attack the deficit in a permanent way and a way to get 
us to zero. Perhaps that has been left aside by others. Nobody is 
worried about it. But I choose to take some of the resources that we 
account for and say that $95 billion of it over the next 5 years should 
go to deficit reduction so we do not wait until it is too late to get 
control of the residual deficit, which will be back up to $395 billion 
or $400 billion before the turn of the century.
  I do not pretend, however, that this bill will answer all possible 
questions and will fix health care as some claim they want to do once 
and for all in this country.
  Frankly, Mr. President, our system of care is so complex, so diverse, 
so vast I do not believe it would be wise for us to pretend that we 
could pass one bill and be done with it.
  Just to put in perspective, the cost of health care, private and 
public, is still growing at rather substantial rates far and above 
inflation. We already spend over $900 billion, public and private, out 
of a gross domestic product of $6.5 trillion. So we are already up to 
around 15 or 15\1/2\ percent of our gross national product for just 
health care.
  If we continue on the path we are on, by the turn of the century one-
fifth of all our gross productivity will go to health care. In a sense 
one might say, as they walk the streets and cities in our country and 
in their neighborhoods, ``Well, out of every five people I meet one of 
them is taking care of me.''
  That is about as simple a way of talking about the gross national 
product, and 20 percent of it is going to health care.
  It is rather incredible to this Senator that a Nation as far along as 
ours in terms of science, technology, and health would be even 
considering that 20 percent of everything we produce, all our gross 
domestic product, must go just to take care of our health. It is rather 
something that has never been heard of in any civilized country and is 
way and above what any other peoples are paying.
  So rather than trying to fix the whole thing, I believe it is most 
important for us to decide in legislation on the direction that health 
care reform would take. To me it is very clear that the American people 
want a private system, not a Government-run insurance system. They want 
Government standards for that system, including some rules for 
insurance, so that it is fair to all consumers, and they also want 
freedom to choose their own health care providers.
  I am going to go through the main points of my bill and then 
introduce it and hold myself excused from the Senate.
  This bill puts us on a path to universal coverage by vastly expanding 
the voluntary purchase of more affordable health insurance. Most 
persons want health coverage to ensure good care when they need it and 
to avoid the financial risk of going uninsured.

  The primary obstacle for the uninsured is cost. Nearly two-thirds of 
the uninsured have incomes below 200 percent of poverty.
  In addition to the many reforms in the bill that will strengthen 
market competition and reduce inefficiency, this bill will dramatically 
extend subsidies which we choose to call health discounts for the poor 
and the low-income Americans to make private health insurance 
affordable to them. They will no longer be within a Medicaid system but 
rather will receive health discounts so they can buy health insurance 
like other Americans do and be in the private system with whatever 
savings and efficiencies accrue in it rather than the current 
cumbersome very expensive Medicaid system.
  I believe mandating universal coverage, and I repeat mandating it, is 
premature, and I think for anybody who looks at the major bills before 
us that claim universal coverage I believe they will find that that is 
merely rhetoric and that none of them truly cover every single 
American. In fact, I heard it said the other day by some who I think 
know that even under the President's plan the 20 percent that you would 
have to pay as an employee, 20 percent of your premiums, that it is 
expected that that would mean that one-seventh of the people who are 
obligated to pay that and are young and healthy would not pay it, and 
so one-seventh would probably be uninsured, and they used as an example 
mandates in the automobile insurance on our citizens in various States, 
and it is found that if you mandate it people find a way to pay it for 
a short while under any system you impose and then they drop the 
payment and go uninsured. The ratios to convince even this Senator that 
even under that kind of program everybody will not be insured.
  I understand that in the State of Hawaii that started years ago to 
have mandatory universal health coverage there are anywhere from 7 to 8 
percent that are not covered today. To say it and to provide it are two 
different things.
  I am not sure any plan that comes out of this Congress is going to be 
such that we can look at every single American and say rich or poor, 
unemployed, employed, in between jobs, every single one has the uniform 
coverage that is prescribed in the President's bill.
  So, I believe mandating it is premature, but I think we ought to move 
as swiftly as possible with a program that is understandable and moves 
in the right direction. There is too much uncertainty about cost and 
coverage in a reformed and well-functioning health care market. Too 
much uncertainty to do it all now and promise universal coverage. With 
so much uncertainty it is difficult to know what level of coverage will 
be affordable to the American people. A premature mandate could lead 
some to support Government cost controls, which would undermine market 
reforms and threaten the unsurpassed quality of the American health 
care delivery system as we know it.
  Now, one of the qualities we have been searching for in health care 
reform is to control cost in a reformed marketplace. One of the reasons 
for that was to try to apply some of the savings to the deficit of the 
United States on the public side. The other was to cut the spiraling 
costs of health care for individuals and businesses because unless we 
did it would bankrupt our businesses and diminish our competitiveness 
for everybody knows the numbers that we speak of in terms of insurance 
costs on an American automobile as it leaves the factory and the 
insurance costs on an automobile leaving a Japanese factory. That is 
just symbolic of what is going on in the marketplace if we do not 
control costs.
  I do not believe that the Government can impose cost controls on 
overall health care spending, such as premium caps or price controls on 
services and drugs. And I do not think we can do that without seriously 
undermining the quality and efficiency of this health care system.
  Today, we have the finest quality of care in the world. It would be a 
tragedy to abandon such quality in the name of reform.
  Only market incentives can improve the productivity and efficiency of 
the health care delivery system, thus holding costs down while 
maintaining or improving quality. To make the market work better, 
consumers must be more cost conscious and capable of comparing price 
and the quality of competing health insurance plans.
  This legislation creates something called accountable health plans, 
AHP's, which combine insurance and health care delivery. These plans 
are there principally to collect and provide data, standardized data, 
on how well their health care services keep people in a healthy 
lifestyle, as well as on the satisfaction of the patient. This data 
then will be used by purchasers to compare the quality of various 
competing plans.
  I think the accountable health care plans, perhaps with other names, 
are found in the Chafee plan, and it comes on rather immediately.
  In this bill, consumers are encouraged to purchase accountable health 
plans for their coverage by phasing out the deductibility of premiums 
paid to non AHP's over a 5-year period. But, they may always buy 
something else with their own money if they wish.
  The bill also sets a limit on the amount employers and employees can 
deduct from taxes for health insurance premiums, the so-called cap that 
has been debated back and forth. In my bill, the limit is set very high 
initially, roughly 67 percent above the premium estimate for the 
Clinton benefit package. That means we set a cap on deductibles by the 
employers at 67 percent above the premiums required to purchase the 
benefits assumed in the Clinton health package as a dollar number. But 
these limits are not indexed--they are not indexed, Mr. President--for 
5 years as a phase-in of the more cost-conscious consumption of health 
insurance. They are there as a pressure not to be exceeded. And for 
those who are above it, it they want to get continued deductibility, 
they must begin to ratchet down during that 5 years either what they 
buy or in some way change the insurance coverage and mix if they want 
total deductibility. We think it is a very novel idea and has real 
significance in a health care plan.
  Protecting choice. I believe a strength of our current health care 
system is the freedom of Americans to make choices for themselves. Such 
choice promotes accountability, flexibility and innovation, and that is 
without mentioning that it makes American people feel good about the 
relationship between their doctor and themselves.
  This bill that I am introducing protects choice. Consumers may buy 
any kind of health insurance they wish. Managed care health insurance 
plans must make available insurance products that pay for at least 50 
percent of the cost of services provided by any licensed provider 
chosen by a patient even if the provider is outside the plan's network, 
the so-called point of service option. In other words, there would be 
an insurance policy that would have to be written that if you chose it 
you are choosing choice and that policy will leave you with only 50 
percent of the cost if you choose to go with the total free choice of 
your own doctor and delivery system.
  This bill establishes a standard benefit package, but it is for two 
reasons. First, all employers must offer, but not necessarily purchase 
of pay for, the standard package to ensure access for all employees.
  Second, the standard benefit package, with some variation on cost 
sharing, is used as the basis for calculating health discounts for the 
poor and low-income Americans. I think this is a very important point.
  And for those who are interested in what do I do with and what will 
the standard benefit package be in this bill, I ask that they read this 
carefully. It is not a standard benefits package that is mandated on 
anyone. It is there because we say it should be offered and it is there 
so that when we buy insurance coverage through this approach of putting 
money in the hands of the poor to buy their own that we will use this 
standard package as the benchmark for what is being purchased for them.
  Nonetheless, it must be made clear that employers remain free to also 
offer, and consumers are free to purchase, any variety of benefit 
package they desire.
  Now, I will proceed to a section and I will go through it rapidly 
because it has been discussed over and over. But I call it the fixing 
what is broken part.
  There are many aspects of the current health care system that are 
clearly in need of repair. Nearly every major health care proposal 
addresses each of these problems, and so does this proposal that I 
introduce today.
  It bans preexisting condition clauses in health insurance contracts 
for persons who stay continuously covered by health insurance. The ban 
gives people a strong incentive to stay covered voluntarily to avoid 
such clauses. It requires health insurance to provide parity coverage 
for the severely mentally ill, such as schizophrenia or schizophrenics, 
major depression, bipolar disorders and the like. Parity means that all 
medically necessary care must be covered by health insurance and the 
cost-sharing requirements must be the same as severe physical 
illnesses. And at a later date I will address the issue that it can be 
done and clearly will not break the bank, as some people are concerned.
  It provides fair rules for insurance sold to small businesses, 
including a requirement that such insurance fall within a 20-percent 
ban between the lowest and highest price offered to any small business 
in the area. It gives small business the ability to pool their 
purchasing power and get lower premiums. These two work together.
  It doubles funding for rural and other community health centers and 
national health service corps, found also in the Chafee bill. It 
reforms medical liability by requiring binding arbitration and caps on 
noneconomic damage to cut defensive medicine.
  Now, I then want to talk a minute about reforming the Federal 
programs.
  Federal health programs are a major force in the current system and 
contribute to the excessive costs growth and inefficiency. The 
Congressional Budget Office puts total Federal spending at one-third of 
the national health expenditures. That is, of all the expenditures on 
health, Mr. President, one-third is the National Government's 
expenditures; one-third of that. In some markets, it is higher.
  Reform of these programs should be part of this overall solution.
  The bill that I am introducing today protects Medicare, but expands 
the opportunities and incentives for beneficiaries to enroll in 
competing health insurance plans.
  Currently, some 50 percent of private group health insurance is 
managed care, but only 5 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are in that 
new kind of delivery system. One of the primary reasons is that managed 
care options are not presented well to Medicare beneficiaries and the 
payment system is terribly flawed.
  Senator Durenberger and I have worked on an approach that will give 
Medicare beneficiaries much more meaningful choice among competing 
health plans. Senator Durenberger introduced these provisions 
separately in S. 1996. I have incorporated basically the same 
provisions in this bill.
  Let me repeat, under this approach, so called Medicare Choice, the 
beneficiaries would always retain the right to stay in the current fee 
for service Medicare program which would be fully protected. But they 
would have the option each year, during an annual enrollment, to enroll 
in a private health plan, if they wish.
  To slow down the rate of growth of Medicare spending, this bill 
includes several provisions proposed by the President, including the 
extension of expiring provisions, reduction in payments to providers, 
in some instances--and they are detailed in the bill--and coinsurance 
requirements for home health care and laboratory services.
  My bill would also replace Medicaid acute care with health discounts. 
Fifty percent of Medicaid today goes to acute care. The other portion 
goes to long-term care. We would take the entire pool of money that is 
currently acute care, with the State match that goes with it, and we 
would begin to create the pool of money that would be used to begin 
universal coverage for those who cannot afford it.
  Health discounts would help poor and low-income families enroll in 
private health insurance plans. Medicaid acute care spending, both 
Federal and State, would be converted, as I indicated, to health 
discounts. In addition, new Federal spending would be phased in based 
upon available resources, subject to a 10-percent State matching 
amount. When fully phased in, poor families would get discounts 
sufficient to cover 100 percent of the cost of a benchmark private 
health insurance plan with minimal cost sharing. Low-income families, 
up to twice the poverty level, would get discounts based on a sliding-
income scale. During this phase in, all low-income families will be 
given discounts to ensure protection against large medical expenses.
  Between 1996 and 2000, we estimate that the total spending on health 
discounts will increase from about $120 billion to $200 billion, 
combined Federal and State spending.
  The Federal budget deficit will exceed $380 billion in 10 years, 
largely because of mandatory Federal health care programs and their 
spiraling out-of-control costs.
  None of the bills heretofore introduced will reduce that deficit, 
although the Chafee plan seeks to protect against any additional 
spending by building into the Chafee program ``save before you pay,'' a 
provision that we suggested and is included in it and makes some sense. 
But we do not put any resources on the deficit.
  This bill cuts spending and increases revenues by a total of $145 
billion between 1996 and 2000. It will devote $95 billion of that to 
deficit reduction, and $50 billion of it will go to expand coverage 
through health care discounts above and beyond the Medicaid spending, 
which is also converted to discounts, as I have discussed heretofore, 
with a process of phasing in benefits based on available resources.
  If the market incentives in this bill as we expect, are better than 
projected for budget process work, both the deficit reduction and the 
health discount spending would be even greater. We would move more 
rapidly toward universality of a standard package, and we would reduce 
the deficit more.
  My conclusions are that the President deserves a great deal of credit 
for putting health care reform on the top of the legislative agenda. 
Clearly, despite its many strengths, our health care system is not 
working well for a lot of Americans, and I am committed to enacting 
legislation this year that will address the flaws in the system that 
drive up costs and leave too many people without insurance coverage or 
health care.
  But I believe we must be cautious also. Our health care system is 
huge, complex. Tens of millions of Americans like the coverage they 
have today. This legislation provides targeted reforms in those areas 
that are clearly in need of repair, phases in reforms that are 
necessary to make the market work better, to control long-run costs 
while maintaining quality and innovation, puts us on a path to 
universal coverage and reduces the budget deficit with a degree of 
certainty, not in any other bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three supporting 
documents be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Health Care Reform Act of 1994--Major Principles


              1. expanding coverage in a voluntary system

       The bill puts us on a path to universal coverage by vastly 
     expanding the voluntary purchase of more affordable health 
     insurance.
       Most Americans want health coverage to ensure good care 
     when they need it and to avoid the financial risk of going 
     uninsured: the primary obstacle is cost.
       The bill would expand subsidies (``health discounts'') for 
     poor and low income Americans to make private health 
     insurance affordable.
       Mandating universal coverage is premature: there is too 
     much uncertainty about costs and coverage in a reformed and 
     well-functioning health care market to know what level of 
     coverage is affordable for all Americans. A premature mandate 
     could lead to Government cost controls which would undermine 
     market reforms and the unsurpassed quality of the American 
     health care delivery system.


             2. controlling costs in a reformed marketplace

       Only market incentives can improve the productivity and 
     efficiency of the health care delivery system, thus holding 
     down costs while maintaining quality.
       To make the market work better, consumers must be more 
     cost-conscious and capable of comparing the price and quality 
     of competing health insurance plans.
       Consumers are encouraged to purchase Accountable Health 
     Plans (AHPs)--which combine insurance and systems of health 
     care delivery--for their coverage by phasing-out the 
     deductibility of premiums paid to non-AHPs over five years. 
     AHPs must collect and provide standardized data (health 
     outcomes, patient satisfaction) so purchasers can more 
     objectively compare their quality as well as their price.
       The bill limits the amount employers and employees can 
     deduct from taxes for health insurance premiums: the limit is 
     set high initially, but not indexed for five years to provide 
     a phase-in more-conscious consumption.


                          3. protecting choice

       Americans value their freedom to make choices for 
     themselves, and a strength of our current health care system 
     is flexibility and innovation.
       The bill protects choice: consumers may buy any kind of 
     health insurance they wish and managed care plans that use 
     networks of providers are required to make available 
     alternative insurance plans that pay for at least 50 percent 
     of the cost of services provided by any licensed provider 
     chosen by a patient (a ``point of service'' option).
       The bill establishes standard benefits which employers must 
     off (but not necessarily pay for) and which provides a 
     reference for health discounts. But employers are free to 
     also offer, and consumers are free to purchase, any other 
     variety of benefits package they desire.


                        4. fixing what's broken

       The bill addresses clearly identifiable problems and 
     inequities in the current system by banning pre-existing 
     condition clauses for persons who stay continuously covered 
     by health insurance, providing fair rules for insurance sold 
     to small businesses, pooling small business purchasing power, 
     expanding rural health clinics, and reforming medical 
     liability to cut defensive medicine.


                     5. reforming federal programs

       Federal health programs are a major force in the current 
     system and contribute to excessive cost growth and 
     inefficiency. Reform of these programs should be part of an 
     overall solution.
       The bill would protect Medicare but expand the 
     opportunities and incentives for beneficiaries to enroll in 
     competing AHPs (``Medicare Choice'').
       The bill would also replace Medicaid acute care with 
     ``health discounts,'' available to poor and low income 
     Americans to offset the cost of enrolling in competing AHPs.


       6. reducing the deficit and assuring fiscal responsibility

       The federal budget deficit will exceed $380 billion in ten 
     years largely because mandatory federal health care programs 
     are spiralling out of control. To be responsible fiscally, 
     health care reform must contribute to deficit reduction and 
     ensure new health care spending does not exceed projections.
       The bill cuts spending and increases revenue by $145 
     billion between 1995 and 2000, devotes $95 billion of that 
     amount to deficit reduction, and provides at least $50 
     billion to expand coverage through health discounts (above 
     and beyond Medicaid spending which is also converted to 
     discounts) with a process for phasing-in benefits based on 
     available resources.
                                  ____


                Health Care Reform Act of 1994--Summary


              Controlling costs in a reformed marketplace

       Accountable Health Plans (AHPs): AHPs must provide 
     standardized data measuring their quality and enrollee 
     satisfaction to allow comparisons among AHPs. Premiums paid 
     to non-AHPs are not tax deductible in five years.
       Limit on Tax Deductibility: Employers and employees can 
     deduct health insurance premiums up to a fixed amount that is 
     nearly double the cost of the an average plan but will not be 
     indexed for five years. The limit is reduced by half for 
     higher income persons.
       Employer Responsibility: Employers must make available to 
     employees an AHP covering a standard benefits package. 
     Employers are not obligated to pay premiums.


                           protecting choice

       Point-of Service: AHPs must make available an insurance 
     product that covers at least 50 percent of the cost of 
     services provided by any licensed health care provider.


                          Fixing What's Broken

       No Pre-Existing Condition Clauses/Severe Mental Illness 
     Parity Coverage: Health insurance may not exclude a pre-
     existing condition if a person is in a period of continuous 
     coverage; health insurance must provide parity coverage for 
     severe mental illnesses.
       Small Business Health Insurance: Health insurance offered 
     to small business employees must be available to all small 
     business employees in the market area, renewable by the small 
     business, and priced with a 20% premium rate band. Small 
     businesses may join together voluntarily in purchasing pools 
     to improve their market power.
       Access in Rural Areas: The community health center and 
     national health service corps programs are doubled. Rural 
     providers get refundable tax credits.
       Medical Liability Reform: All disputes must be resolved by 
     arbitration and are subject to a $250,000 cap on non-economic 
     damages and other constraints on awards.


                       Reforming Federal Programs

       Medicare Choice: Beneficiaries can stay in the current fee-
     for-service program, which is fully protected, or, once a 
     year, enroll in an AHP. The Government will pay a fixed 
     amount to AHPs, based on competition. Beneficiary premiums 
     reflect local costs. Higher income persons pay higher 
     premiums. Spending growth is slowed by including 
     Administration proposals extending expiring provisions, 
     reducing provider payments, and other changes.
       Health Discounts and Medicaid: Medicaid acute care is 
     replaced by health discounts. When fully phased-in, health 
     discounts pay all (for the poor) or a portion of (for persons 
     below 200% of poverty) AHP premiums on behalf of eligible 
     beneficiaries. States pay a 10 percent matching amount above 
     current Medicaid spending.


        reducing the deficit and assuring fiscal responsibility

       Deficit Reduction and Health Discount Financing: Spending 
     reductions and new revenues total $145 billion between 1995 
     and 2000, with $95 billion devoted to deficit reduction and 
     $50 billion to finance health discounts (above and beyond the 
     Federal Medicaid baseline amounts converted to health 
     discounts). The Secretary of HHS will phase-in health 
     discounts based on available Federal spending each year.
       Tobacco Tax: Cut the President's $.75/pack of cigarettes 
     increase to $.36.
                                  ____


              Health Care Reform Act of 1994--Description


               1. federal reform and state implementation

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services will certify 
     that States have established health care reform programs 
     consistent with the Act.
       In general, States will be responsible for: Regulating 
     health plans and accountable health plans; establishing 
     health plan market areas covering the State; coordinating 
     reform with bordering and nearby States; implementing 
     insurance reforms for small businesses; ensuring at least one 
     voluntary small business purchasing pool in each market area; 
     reforming medical liability laws; and administering low 
     income premium assistance.
       The Federal Government will retain regulatory oversight of 
     health plans established under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act (ERISA) and make other reforms in Federal health 
     care laws and programs.
       States not complying with the standards established in the 
     Act would be ineligible for new Federal financing of the 
     premium assistance program (``health discounts'') for poor 
     and low income families.
       In such a case, the Secretary would assume regulation of 
     health plans in the State.
       States would have the flexibility to propose alterations to 
     the basic Federal reform framework, particularly to address 
     underserved rural areas, if such alterations do not increase 
     the Federal budget deficit and are generally consistent with 
     a system of private health insurance, cost control based on 
     competition, and freedom of choice of provider and plans.
       States may not establish single payer plans.


                   2. pre-existing condition clauses

       No health plan may exclude from coverage the costs for 
     treating the pre-existing condition of a newly enrolled 
     individual if the individual was covered by other health 
     insurance for six months prior to switching coverage.
       To ensure individuals have an incentive to stay insured, 
     health plans may exclude from coverage the costs of treating 
     a preexisting condition for up to six months if a newly 
     enrolled individual was not covered by other health insurance 
     for at least six months prior to switching coverage.


                   3. small business insurance reform

       All health plans offered to small businesses (under 51 
     employees) would be required to meet certain standards.
       Guaranteed Eligibility: No person may be denied coverage if 
     they are part of an eligible small business seeking to 
     purchase coverage.
       Guaranteed Renewability: Health plans may not refuse to 
     renew coverage unless they are terminating coverage for all 
     small businesses in a State.
       Guaranteed Availability: Health plans made available to one 
     small business purchaser must be made available to all small 
     groups in the market area.
       Premium Rate Bands: Health plans must limit the difference 
     between the lowest and highest premium charged to 20 percent 
     in a health plan market area for small business employees 
     with the same age and family status.


             4. parity coverage of severe mental illnesses

       All health plans and AHPs must provide parity coverage for 
     severe mental illnesses.
       Severe mental illness is defined through diagnosis, 
     disability, and duration, and includes disorders with 
     psychotic symptoms such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective 
     disorder, manic depressive disorder, autism, as well as 
     severe forms of other disorders such as major depression, 
     panic disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder.
       For persons 21 years of age or younger, severe mental 
     illness is defined to also include psychotic disorders, 
     attention deficit hyperactive disorder, autism and pervasive 
     development disorder, severe childhood eating disorders, 
     Tourette's syndrome, and any behavioral disorder that could 
     result in conduct which may place the person or another 
     person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
       Parity coverage will prohibit health plans from imposing 
     dollar or service limitations or higher cost-sharing 
     requirements on coverage for these illnesses.


                   5. accountable health plans (AHPs)

       Accountable health plans (AHPs) will provide both insurance 
     coverage and a system for delivering health care services to 
     enrollees.
       AHPs will be accountable to their enrollees and the public 
     for their performance in providing a quality health care and 
     satisfying their enrollees.
       In addition to complying with pre-existing condition 
     requirements, AHPs must adhere to the following:
       No Discrimination: AHPs may not discriminate against 
     potential enrollees based on their health status or expected 
     use of health care services.
       Adjusted Community Rating: In the small group market, AHPs 
     must charge the same premium for all consumers in a market 
     area, adjusting only for age and family status.
       Internal Quality Assurance: AHPs must maintain a system of 
     continuous quality improvement, providing feedback to the 
     AHPs network of providers to improve care outcomes.
       Comparative Quality Data: AHPs must comply with standards 
     established by the Secretary for the collection and use of 
     data concerning an AHP's quality, health outcomes, and 
     enrollee satisfaction. Such data shall be used to compare 
     AHP's performances.
       Market Conduct: AHPs shall comply with standards for market 
     conduct, including provision of written descriptions of the 
     plan's covered benefits, services, procedures, limitation on 
     enrollees' use of services, and cost-sharing requirements.
       Enrollee Grievances: AHPs must maintain a process for 
     hearing and resolving enrollee grievances.
       Financial Solvency: AHPs must meet standards of financial 
     solvency.
       Health Discount Programs: AHPs (other than self-insured 
     plans covered by ERISA) must participate in State health 
     discount programs for poor and low income individuals and 
     employees.
       Medical Liability Reform/Administrative Costs: AHPs must 
     comply with the requirements regarding medical liability 
     reform and reducing administrative costs.
       AHPs will be phased-in over a five year period by gradually 
     eliminating the tax deduction for employer and employee 
     premiums paid to non-AHPs.


               6. guaranteed choice of provider and plan

       Consumers would always retain the right to purchase any 
     kind of health insurance coverage they desire, including 
     insurance that does not qualify as an APH and duplicates 
     standard benefits.
       AHPs would be required to make available an insurance 
     product that provides a ``point of service'' option for 
     enrollees:
       Under such an option, enrollees would be allowed to see any 
     provider they chose, including those not normally in the 
     AHP's network.
       The AHP would be required to pay for at least 50 percent of 
     the cost of those services.


                      7. standard benefits package

       The Secretary will establish a standard benefits package 
     that all employers must offer to employees and which will be 
     used to determine health discounts for low income families.
       The standard benefits package will contain coverage for at 
     least the following: Inpatient and outpatient hospital 
     services; Physician services; Diagnostic services and tests; 
     Outpatient prescription drugs; Preventive services; and Party 
     coverage for severe mental illnesses.
       The Secretary will establish actuarially equivalent cost-
     sharing arrangements for the standard benefits package, 
     including arrangements typical of health maintenance 
     organizations and fee-for-service health insurance.
       For purposes of providing health discounts, the Secretary 
     will also establish:
       A nominal cost-sharing benefit package which is identical 
     to the standard benefits package, but with lower cost-sharing 
     for purposes of providing health discounts for poor 
     individuals; and
       An alternative benefits package which is identical to the 
     standard benefits package, but with higher cost-sharing for 
     purposes of phasing-in health discount benefits for low 
     income individuals.


                   8. SMALL BUSINESS PURCHASING POOLS

       Each State will ensure that at least one voluntary small 
     business purchasing pool is operating in each market area.
       These purchasing pools cannot require small businesses to 
     get their coverage through them, but they must accept as part 
     of their pool all willing and eligible small businesses and 
     eligible employees.
       Purchasing pools will be private, not-for-profit 
     corporations governed by representatives of small businesses 
     and other individuals purchasing through them.
       In general, purchasing pools will allow eligible employees 
     to select their health plan coverage annually from among AHPs 
     offering the standard benefits package and, for poor 
     employees, the nominal cost-sharing benefits package (and 
     perhaps other standardized options) and competing on the 
     basis of their price and quality.
       AHPs may offer a premium inside the pool that is below the 
     adjusted community rate offered outside the pool if the pool 
     has at least 30 percent of the small business market in the 
     market area.
       Purchasing pools will provide comparative information for 
     selecting plans and may organize the collection and 
     forwarding of premiums, but pools will not regulate health 
     plans or health care providers.


                       9. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY

       All employers will be required to make at least one AHP 
     providing standard benefits available to employees.
       Employers are not required to pay for any portion of the 
     premium.
       Small employers may enroll in small business purchasing 
     pools to satisfy this requirement.


              10. EQUITABLE TAX TREATMENT OF HEALTH PLANS

       Self-employed workers would be given a deduction of up to 
     100 percent of their health plan premiums, subject to the 
     limit and requirements discussed below.
       Employers offering a choice of more than one health care 
     delivery system for a benefit package must provide the same 
     contribution to all plans, regardless of the employee's 
     selection.
       The tax deduction for employers and employees would be 
     limited to a fixed amount (shown below) for the years 1996 
     through 2000, and would be indexed to per capita GDP growth 
     beginning in 2001.


        Type of family covered                      Annual limit on tax
                                                              deduction
Single Person....................................................$4,080
Couple (no children)..............................................8,280
Single Parent.....................................................8,040
Family with children.............................................10,920

       These amounts would be reduced by one-half for persons with 
     incomes exceeding $100,000 ($125,000 for joint filers).
       The lower limits will be phased-in beginning at $75,000 
     ($100,000 for joint filers).


                11. medicare choice and regional equity

       Regional Equity: Nationwide, the Medicare beneficiary 
     premium would be based on the same calculation as current 
     law, but the premium would vary by market area to reflect the 
     costs in that area.
       As shown in the example below, currently costs vary widely 
     between areas, but beneficiaries are required to pay the same 
     Part B premium.

    EXAMPLE OF WIDE VARIATION IN MEDICARE PART B COSTS BY GEOGRAPHIC    
                                LOCATION                                
                                [In 1994]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Premium 
                                           Part B   Costs per      as   
                                          premium    person     percent 
                                                               of costs 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernalillo County, NM..................       $493     $1,681         29
Dona Ana County, NM....................        493      1,434         34
Los Angeles, CA........................        493      2,574         19
Dade County, FL........................        493      3,402        14 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Simplification: To reduce the paperwork for beneficiaries, 
     Medicare contractors will coordinate and adjudicate all 
     billing and claims for health care providers, including 
     amounts covered by supplementary insurance.
       Medicare and supplementary insurance carriers will 
     reimburse providers first before any remaining amount is 
     billed to the beneficiary using a standardized form.

                                 Choice

       Each year, Medicare beneficiaries in a market area would 
     have the opportunity to select from among competing AHPs, 
     called Medicare health plans.
       Beneficiaries would always retain the right to stay in the 
     current Medicare program, which would be fully protected.
       For beneficiaries selecting a health plan, Medicare would 
     pay a fixed amount per beneficiary based on bids put forward 
     by all competing health plans in the market area.
       The fixed amount would be set so that the beneficiary would 
     retain most of the savings from enrolling in a cost effective 
     plan in the form of reduced Medicare premiums.
       For five years, the fixed amount will be increased by 10 
     percent for beneficiaries residing in underserved rural 
     areas.
       Beneficiaries may also enroll in an employer-sponsored 
     health plan that is available only to current or former 
     employees.
       Medicare would pay the same fixed amount to the employer-
     sponsored plan.
       Low income Medicare beneficiaries would get the same 
     protection provided under current law for premium and cost-
     sharing assistance, including any health plan premiums and 
     cost-sharing.
       During selection of their Medicare coverage, beneficiaries 
     would also choose from among several standardized 
     supplementary insurance policies offered by Medicare health 
     plans or other insurers.
       Medicare health plan must offer to beneficiaries an 
     optional supplementary plan covering prescription drugs and 
     as well as an optional plan providing an annual out-of-pocket 
     maximum for cost-sharing and other coverage typically 
     provided in employer-sponsored plans.

                  Slowing the Rate of Spending Growth

       The following provisions, proposed in some form in the 
     President's health reform plan, would reduce the rate of 
     growth of Medicare spending: Extend expiring provisions 
     relating to secondary payer situations and maintenance of the 
     25 percent Part B premium; lower the inflation increase for 
     inpatient hospital service; expand use of centers of 
     excellence and allow selective contracting for certain items 
     and services, including lab services, and require 20 percent 
     coinsurance for lab services; reduce skilled nursing and home 
     health cost limits, and require a 10 percent home health 
     copayment; use cumulative expenditure targets for physician 
     fee increases; reduce physician fees for high cost medical 
     staffs; eliminate payments to hospitals for bad debts; reduce 
     hospital indirect medical education payments; and reduce 
     outpatient payments by instituting a perspective payment 
     system.

                    Income-Tested Medicare Premiums

       Medicare beneficiaries with incomes exceeding $100,000 
     ($125,000 for couples) will be required to pay Medicare 
     premiums equal to half the cost of Medicare insurance.
       These higher premiums will be phased-in beginning at 
     $75,000 ($100,000 for couples).


                12. Health Discounts and Medicaid Reform

                                Medicaid

       The acute care portion of Medicaid, including 
     disproportionate share payments, would be replaced by a 
     Federal-State low income premium assistance program--called 
     health discounts--which will be administered by the States.
       Low income Medicare beneficiaries will remain entitled to 
     Medicaid payments for premiums and cost-sharing including 
     Medicare health plan premiums and cost-sharing.

              Federal-State Financing of Health Discounts

       Health discounts will be financed with a combination of 
     Federal and State funds.
       Federal and States spending on Medicaid acute care, 
     including disproportionate share spending, will be converted 
     to health discount spending.
       Above those amounts, Federal spending (subject to an annual 
     limit; see # 14) will pay for 90 percent of the cost of 
     health discounts, and States will be responsible for the 
     other 10 percent.

                        Health Discount Programs

       States will be responsible for administering the health 
     discount programs.
       Health discounts may only be used to pay AHP premiums.
       Health discount beneficiaries must pay the difference 
     between their discount and the premium charged by the APH 
     they select (less any employer contribution).
       Persons not otherwise eligible for an employer-sponsored 
     plan will be maintained as a separate risk pool, and AHPs 
     will set a separate adjusted community premium for this pool.
       Health discounts will be calculated based on premiums 
     submitted by AHPs in each market area.
       Benchmark premiums will be determined based on a percentage 
     difference between the lowest and the average AHP premium in 
     each market area.
       AHP premiums charged under the small business insurance 
     reforms will determine the benchmark AHP and health discounts 
     for employed persons.

               Phasing-In Entitlement to Health Discounts

       Entitlement to health discounts will be limited by 
     available Federal spending, necessitating a phase-in.
       In general, the Secretary will phase-in health discounts as 
     follows:
       Medicaid-Eligibles: For five years, all persons who would 
     otherwise have qualified for acute care coverage under 
     Medicaid would get health discounts sufficient to purchase 
     the nominal cost-sharing benefits package offered by a 
     benchmark AHP.
       Medicaid-eligible persons shall be entitled to these 
     discounts regardless of available Federal spending.
       Poor: Persons below the poverty line but not otherwise 
     eligible for Medicaid would get health discounts sufficient 
     to purchase the nominal cost-sharing benefits package offered 
     by a benchmark AHP.
       If there is insufficient funds to provide full health 
     discounts to all poor persons, the Secretary shall limit the 
     number of poor persons entitled to the health discounts by 
     lowering the income eligibility threshold below the poverty 
     line.
       Low Income: Persons with incomes between 100 and 200 
     percent of the poverty line would get reduced health 
     discounts, based on a sliding income scale and the cost of 
     the standard benefits package offered by a benchmark AHP.
       If there is insufficient funds, the Secretary shall first 
     ensure that the maximum number of low income persons get 
     health discounts based on the less expensive alternative 
     benefits package providing an annual out-of-pocket maximum on 
     patient cost-sharing.
       The Secretary shall then increase the actuarial value of 
     the alternative benefits packages, subject to available 
     funds, until all low income persons are entitled to health 
     discounts based on the standard benefits package.


                            13. tobacco tax

       The President's proposed increase in the excise tax on 
     cigarettes would be cut from $.75 per pack to $.36 per pack, 
     bringing the total tax to $.60 per pack.
Additional revenue:                                            Billions
  1996.............................................................$7.4
  1997..............................................................6.4
  1998..............................................................6.3
  1999..............................................................6.1
  2000..............................................................6.0
                                                               ________

    Total..........................................................32.2


            14. deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility

       Staff estimates indicate that between 1995 and 2000, the 
     provisions of this Act would: Cut spending and increase 
     revenue by $145 billion: finance at least $50 billion in 
     health discounts above and beyond the amount of Federal 
     Medicaid spending converted to health discounts; and cut the 
     deficit by $95 billion.
       Federal spending on health discounts will be limited to a 
     specified amount each year less spending on Medicare and the 
     remaining portion of Medicaid (long-term care).
       The Secretary will adjust the phase-in of health discounts 
     to ensure spending stays within the available amounts.
       If spending on Medicare and Medicaid slow more than 
     projected, the amounts devoted to health discount financing 
     will exceed $50 billion between 1996 and 2000.


                       15. access in rural areas

                        Community Health Centers

       Federal grants for Community Health Centers would increase 
     as shown below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Appropriation   Increase 
                                                 (millions)    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 (actual)................................          $663   ..........
1995.........................................           800          +20
1996.........................................           960          +17
1997.........................................         1,100          +14
1998.........................................         1,200           +9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       These grants would fund expanded capacity at current sites 
     as well as new clinics, particularly in underserved rural 
     communities.

                     National Health Service Corps

       Federal funding of corps scholarship and loan programs 
     would be increased sufficiently to approximately double the 
     number of health providers serving in underserved areas.
       Tax Incentives: Providers locating in underserved rural 
     communities will be eligible for a refundable tax credit for 
     each month they provide primary care services in the 
     community. Physicians staying at least 5 years will get $1000 
     per month, and nurse practitioners and physicians assistants 
     will get $500 per month.
       Primary Care Education: Medicare payments to hospitals for 
     graduate medical education would be reformed in a budget 
     neutral fashion:
       Payments would be based on a national average per resident 
     amount.
       Payments for primary care residents would be 20 percent 
     higher than payments for non-primary care residents.


                      16. medical liability reform

       State Implementation: The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services will certify that States have implemented medical 
     liability reforms that comply with the following 
     requirements.

                 Binding Alternative Dispute Resolution

       All disputes over claims for damages must be resolved by 
     State-based dispute resolution systems.
       The States will have considerable flexibility in 
     establishing such systems, but the decisions must be binding 
     and cannot be based on decisions by lay juries (or similarly 
     constructed bodies).
       The Secretary will outline an arbitration system that 
     States could adopt to meet Federal standards.

                         Constraints on Awards

       All economic damages would be fully recoverable.
       Non-economic damages would be capped at $250,000.
       Awards would be reduced for collateral source payments for 
     the same injury.
       And periodic payments would be allowed for awards exceeding 
     $100,000.
       Punitive Damages: Punitive damages may be imposed, but they 
     will be paid to the States to finance enhanced efforts to 
     prevent injuries by monitoring health providers.
       Accountable Health Plans: All Accountable Health Plan (AHP) 
     must clearly identify the party that is accountable for 
     negligent care (the AHP or individual health providers).

                      Medical Practice Guidelines

       The Secretary of HHS will certify scientifically-based 
     medical practice guidelines that may be included in AHP 
     contracts.
       If included in an AHP contract, the guidelines would serve 
     to establish the standard by which liability is determined 
     for care provided by the AHP.
       Judicial Review: Decisions of the State-based ADR systems 
     may be appealed in court on the same basis as provided in the 
     Federal Arbitration Act to ensure impartial and fair 
     decisions.


                         17. anti-trust reform

       The President would be required to provide clear guidance 
     on the application of anti-trust laws to the development and 
     operation of AHPs.
       The Attorney General will establish a review process for 
     determining whether AHPs or potential AHPs will violate 
     antitrust laws.
       The Attorney General will establish a process for issuing 
     ``certificates of public advantage'' that will allow health 
     care collaborative efforts to occur without regard to 
     antitrust laws if the benefits of such an effort clearly 
     outweigh any possible reduction in competition.
       In general, these certificates will allow more 
     consolidation of health care resources in rural areas to 
     prevent competition among capital-intensive health care 
     services from increasing, rather than decreasing costs.


             18. cutting paperwork and administrative costs

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services will establish 
     standardized requirements for maintaining and transmitting 
     health care information electronically.
       AHPs will be required to comply with these standards.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2097. A bill to amend the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 to 
promote further United States exports of environmental technologies, 
goods, and services; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


               environmental export promotion act of 1994

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to be introducing today 
a bill that will help increase exports of a growing, job-creating 
California industry: environmental technology or envirotech.
  Over 4,000 California companies produce envirotech--more than any 
other two states combined. These companies employ roughly 180,000 
Californians.
  The international market for envirotech is large and growing rapidly. 
The market is currently about $270 billion annually, and is projected 
to grow to $400-600 billion by the year 2000. The United States is 
still the leading envirotech producer, but our major competitors--
Japan, Germany, France, and the Nordic countries--are gaining fast. We 
must be sure that our envirotech producers do not lose their 
competitive edge in this growing market sector. This bill will direct a 
portion of our limited trade promotion resources toward envirotech, 
helping our companies maintain their edge.
  This bill will help U.S. envirotech producers locate foreign market 
opportunities. Foreign envirotech producers benefit from strong, 
government-sponsored trade promotion efforts. In Japan, the Ministry of 
International Trade and Industry [MITI] is promoting their envirotech 
companies through R&D support, export promotion, and foreign aid 
programs. The European Community [EC] supports envirotech exports 
through the Network for Environmental Technology Transfer [NETT] which 
provides information about foreign market opportunities, foreign 
environmental standards and regulations, and R&D programs.
  In the past, many U.S. industries have lost markets around the world 
because their competitors have benefitted from high-levels of export 
assistance and foreign government officials who are willing to go out 
and sell their nation's products. We need to be sure that our 
envirotech companies can compete against foreign producers that benefit 
from this kind of government support.
  California's economy is beginning to rebound after 4 years of 
recession. Increasing exports of California's competitive industries--
such as environmental technology--will help drive this economic 
recovery. Increasing the exports of California's world-class envirotech 
producers will mean more jobs for Californians, and a cleaner global 
environment.
  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. 2097

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Export 
     Promotion Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. PROMOTION OF UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL EXPORTS.

       (a) Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee.--
     Section 2313 of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 
     4728) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (d);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(c) Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory 
     Committee.--
       ``(1) Establishment and purpose.--The Secretary, in 
     carrying out the duties of the chairperson of the TPCC, shall 
     establish the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory 
     Committee (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Committee'). The purpose of the Committee shall be to 
     provide advice and guidance to the Working Group in the 
     development and administration of programs to expand United 
     States exports of environmental technologies, goods, and 
     services.
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The members of the Committee shall be 
     drawn from representatives of--
       ``(i) environmental businesses, including small businesses;
       ``(ii) trade associations in the environmental sector;
       ``(iii) private sector organizations involved in the 
     promotion of environmental exports;
       ``(iv) the States (as defined in section 2301(j)(5)) and 
     associations representing the States; and
       ``(v) other appropriate interested members of the public.
       ``(B) Committee composition.--The Secretary shall appoint 
     as members of the Committee no fewer than 1 individual under 
     each of clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).
       ``(d) Export Plans for Priority Countries.--
       ``(1) Priority country identification.--The Working Group, 
     in consultation with the Committee, shall annually assess 
     which foreign countries have markets with the greatest 
     potential for the export of United States environmental 
     technologies, goods, and services. Of these countries, the 
     Working Group shall select the 5 countries with the greatest 
     potential for the application of United States Government 
     export promotion resources related to environmental exports 
     as `priority countries'.
       ``(2) Export plans.--The Working Group, in consultation 
     with the Committee, shall annually create a plan for each 
     priority country selected under paragraph (1), setting forth 
     in detail ways to increase United States environmental 
     exports to such country. Each plan shall--
       ``(A) identify the primary public and private sector 
     opportunities for United States exporters of environmental 
     technologies, goods, and services in the priority country;
       ``(B) analyze the financing and other requirements for 
     major projects in the priority country which will use 
     environmental technologies, goods, and services, and analyze 
     whether such projects are dependent upon financial assistance 
     from foreign countries or multilateral institutions; and
       ``(C) list specific actions to be taken by the member 
     agencies of the Working Group to increase United States 
     exports to the priority country.''.
       (b) Additional Mechanisms To Promote Environmental 
     Exports.--Section 2313 of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 
     (15 U.S.C. 4728) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Environmental Technologies Specialists in the United 
     States and Foreign Commercial Service.--
       ``(1) Assignment of environmental technologies 
     specialists.--The Secretary shall assign a specialist in 
     environmental technologies to the office of the United States 
     and Foreign Commercial Service in each of the 5 priority 
     countries selected under subsection (d)(1), and the Secretary 
     is authorized to assign such a specialist to the office of 
     the United States and Foreign Commercial Service in any 
     country that is a promising market for United States exports 
     of environmental technologies, goods, and services. Such 
     specialist may be an employee of the Department of Commerce, 
     an employee of any relevant Government department or agency 
     assigned on a temporary or limited term basis to the 
     Department of Commerce, or a representative of the private 
     sector assigned to the Department of Commerce.
       ``(2) Duties of environmental technologies specialists.--
     Each specialist assigned under paragraph (1) shall provide 
     export promotion assistance to United States environmental 
     businesses, including--
       ``(A) identifying factors in the country to which the 
     specialist is assigned that affect the United States share of 
     the domestic market for environmental technologies, goods, 
     and services, including market barriers, standards-setting 
     activities, and financing issues;
       ``(B) providing assessments of assistance by foreign 
     governments to producers of environmental technologies, 
     goods, and services in such countries in order to enhance 
     exports to the country to which the specialist is assigned, 
     the effectiveness of such assistance on the competitiveness 
     of United States products, and whether comparable United 
     States assistance exists;
       ``(C) training Foreign Commercial Service Officers in the 
     country to which the specialist is assigned, other countries 
     in the region, and United States and Foreign Commercial 
     Service offices in the United States, in environmental 
     technologies and the international environmental market;
       ``(D) providing assistance in identifying potential 
     customers and market opportunities in the country to which 
     the specialist is assigned;
       ``(E) providing assistance in obtaining necessary business 
     services in the country to which the specialist is assigned;
       ``(F) providing information on environmental standards and 
     regulations in the country to which the specialist is 
     assigned; and
       ``(G) providing information on all United States programs 
     that could assist the promotion, financing, and sale of 
     United States environmental technologies, goods, and services 
     in the country to which the specialist is assigned.
       ``(g) Environmental Training in One-Stop Shops.--In 
     addition to the training provided under subsection (f)(2)(C), 
     the Secretary shall establish a mechanism to train--
       ``(1) Commercial Service Officers assigned to the one-stop 
     shops provided for in section 2301(b)(8); and
       ``(2) Commercial Service Officers assigned to district 
     offices in districts having large numbers of environmental 
     businesses;

     in environmental technologies and in the international 
     environmental marketplace, and ensure that such officers 
     receive appropriate training under such mechanism. Such 
     training may be provided by officers or employees of the 
     Department of Commerce, and other United States departments 
     and agencies, with appropriate expertise in environmental 
     technologies and the international environmental workplace, 
     and by appropriate representatives of the private sector.
       ``(h) International Regional Environmental Initiatives.--
       ``(1) Establishment of initiatives.--The TPCC shall 
     establish not less than one international regional 
     environmental initiative, the purpose of which shall be to 
     coordinate the activities of Federal departments and agencies 
     in order to build environmental partnerships between the 
     United States and the geographic region outside of the United 
     States for which such initiative is established. Such 
     partnerships shall enhance environmental protection and 
     promote sustainable development by using technical expertise 
     and financial resources of the United States departments and 
     agencies that provide foreign assistance, and by expanding 
     United States exports of environmental technologies, goods, 
     and services to that region.
       ``(2) Activities.--In carrying out each international 
     regional environmental initiative, the TPCC shall--
       ``(A) support the development of sound environmental 
     policies and practices in countries in the geographic region 
     for which the initiative is established, including the 
     development of environmentally sound regulatory regimes and 
     enforcement mechanisms, through the provision of foreign 
     assistance;
       ``(B) identify and disseminate to United States 
     environmental businesses information regarding specific 
     environmental business opportunities in that geographic 
     region;
       ``(C) coordinate existing Federal efforts to promote 
     environmental exports to that geographic region, and ensure 
     that such efforts are fully coordinated with environmental 
     export promotion efforts undertaken by the States and the 
     private sector;
       ``(D) increase assistance provided by the United States to 
     promote exports from the United States of environmental 
     technologies, goods, and services to that geographic region, 
     such as trade missions, reverse trade missions, trade fairs, 
     and programs in the United States to train foreign nationals 
     in United States environmental technologies; and
       ``(E) increase high-level advocacy by Government officials 
     (including the United States ambassadors to the countries in 
     the geographic region outside of the United States) for 
     United States environmental businesses seeking market 
     opportunities in that geographic region.
       ``(i) Environmental Technologies Project Advocacy Calendar 
     and Information Dissemination Program.--The Working Group 
     shall--
       ``(1) maintain a calendar, updated at the end of each 
     calendar quarter, of significant opportunities for United 
     States environmental businesses in foreign markets and trade 
     promotion events, which shall--
       ``(A) be made available to the public;
       ``(B) identify not less than 50 nor more than 100 
     environmental infrastructure and procurement projects in 
     foreign markets that have the greatest potential in the 
     calendar quarter for United States exports of environmental 
     technologies, goods, and services; and
       ``(C) include trade promotion events, such as trade 
     missions and trade fairs, in the environmental sector; and
       ``(2) provide, through the National Trade Data Bank and 
     other information dissemination channels, information on 
     opportunities for environmental businesses in foreign markets 
     and information on Federal export promotion programs.
       ``(j) Regional Centers.--The Secretary, through the 
     Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the 
     United States and Foreign Commercial Service, is authorized 
     to provide matching funds for the establishment in the United 
     States of regional environmental business and technology 
     cooperation centers that will draw upon the expertise of the 
     private sector and institutions of higher education and 
     existing Federal programs to provide export promotion 
     assistance related to environmental technologies, goods, and 
     services.
       ``(k) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `environmental business' means a business that produces 
     environmental technologies, goods, or services.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lott, Mr. Shelby, and 
        Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 2098. A bill to amend section 217 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to provide that military moving expense reimbursements are 
excluded from income without regard to the deductibility of the 
expenses reimbursement; to the Committee on Finance.


         the military moving expense tax treatment act of 1994

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the 1993 budget reconciliation bill removed 
the deductibility of certain moving expenses as of January 1, 1994. 
This action affected four moving allowances which, when reimbursed to 
members of the military, are now subject to income tax. These 
allowances are the temporary lodging allowance, temporary lodging 
expense, dislocation allowance, and the move-in housing allowance.
  The Defense Department dictates over 800,000 transfers each year, 
approximately 100,000 of which are overseas. Ninety percent of these 
moves involve enlisted personnel, who are frequently forced to live in 
temporary--often expensive--accommodations.
  These allowances have always been tax free and are designed to 
reimburse troops for their out-of-pocket moving expenses. Because they 
do not profit from these allowances, making them taxable requires our 
Armed Forces to take 15 or 28 percent of their moving allowance to pay 
taxes rather than pay for their moving expenses. In addition, since 
these allowances are subject to withholding, troops and their families 
will be forced to dip into their savings to make a move when their 
expenses are already much higher than usual, placing another heavy 
burden on cash-strapped military families.
  For example, before 1994, a petty officer third class with 4 year's 
service and a spouse and child, who was transferred to Naples, would 
receive a total reimbursement of $11,719. After the 1993 tax change, he 
would receive only $9,961 and have to pay taxes of $1,758.
  A lieutenant commander with 16 years service who has a spouse and two 
children, transferred to Naples before 1994, would receive a total 
reimbursement of $13,434. Now, he would receive only $9,672, and a tax 
increase of $3,762.
  The total estimated tax revenue the Government receives from military 
members as a result of the reconciliation change is $77 million. If the 
Defense Department were to increase the moving allowance payments to 
service members to counter tax increases, it would cost the Government 
$95 million.
  Mr. President, we ask our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to 
move repeatedly and to serve in high-cost areas, often overseas. They 
do not have a choice where they go, when they go there, or, often, 
where they live when they arrive. There's something very wrong when our 
Government orders troops to move and then makes them pay to do it. Last 
year's tax change hits them very hard and will certainly affect their 
morale. I urge my colleagues to endorse this important piece of 
legislation and remedy this situation.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation with 
Senator Phil Gramm today that will correct an injustice to those men 
and women who serve in our Armed Forces. I am very concerned about the 
impact of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993, passed by the 
Congress last year, on active duty service members for the out-of-
pocket expenses they incur when moving from one duty station to another 
on Government orders. This bill treated moving expense reimbursements 
as income subjecting it to Federal and possibly even State taxes.
  The unintended effect of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 is 
that it will severely penalize our Nation's sailors, soldiers, airmen, 
and marines.
  The overwhelming majority of private sector employees and Federal 
civil servants who make business-related moves are white collar 
professionals. Mr. President, these individuals were undoubtedly the 
target of the restrictions included in the Reconciliation Act on the 
types of moving expenses that may be deducted. Unfortunately, in the 
case of military personnel, the overwhelming majority of those who will 
be affected are the blue collar workers--the enlisted personnel who are 
the backbone of the military.
  As a result of the Revenue Reconciliation Act, the travel allowances 
paid to a service member to offset the costs associated with a 
Government-ordered move will likely be deemed to be taxable, nearly 
doubling the service member's taxable income. In addition, the many 
junior enlisted personnel who normally file a 1040 EZ IRS form will 
probably now need to hire a tax accountant just to complete their tax 
returns for 1994.
  Mr. President, the tax law change, passed by the Congress last year, 
has created great distress and considerable uncertainty for many 
military families. It is imperative that now the Congress rights this 
wrong, and finds a legislative or an administrative solution to the 
problem as expeditiously as possible in order to protect the morale and 
welfare of our Nation's young men and women in uniform.
  Mr. President, let's listen to one who understands the needs of our 
enlisted service members, one who is cut from the same cloth; Adm. 
Jeremy ``Mike'' Boorda, the new Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral 
Boorda, rose from a 16-year-old seaman recruit to command surface 
ships, spent time in Washington as Chief of Naval Personnel, became 
NATO's commander for operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and made it 
to the top, as the Navy's top uniformed officer.

  Mr. President, Senator Phil Gramm and I had a chance to discuss the 
severe impact of the Revenue Reconciliation Act on military service 
members and their families who are required to move in order to do our 
country's business with Admiral Boorda. Here is what Admiral Boorda had 
to say;

       The bottom line for me is that these allowances are the 
     governments's cost of doing business. If we didn't send 
     people overseas to do the Nation's business they wouldn't 
     need the money. They don't make money when they get these 
     allowances. They use them to pay bills they wouldn't have to 
     pay if we did not put them in the position of needing the 
     money. Making them taxable simply does not make sense!

  Mr. President, it is time that Congress bears the accountability for 
the hardship that we have imposed, needlessly, on those Americans who 
serve in our military and their families. Mr. President, it is for this 
reason that Senator Phil Gramm and I introduce this important and 
timely legislation today.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Durenberger, Mr. Exon, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerrey, 
        Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2099. A bill to establish the Northern Great Plains Rural 
Development Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


            The northern great plains rural development act

 Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 
Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act. This legislation will 
create a commission to study and make recommendations regarding the 
economic needs and development of the rural Northern Great Plains 
States of South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota. In 
addition, it will seek and encourage the participation of all 
interested citizens in the formulation of a 10-year rural economic 
development plan for the area.
  The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act creates a Commission 
with 10 members, 5 to be selected by the States with each Governor 
appointing 1 member, and 5 to be chosen by the Federal Government with 
the Secretary of Agriculture appointing 1 member from each of the 5 
States. The Commission will hold hearings, conduct studies and 
determine the appropriate strategies for promoting development in the 
rural areas of the Northern Great Plains. The Commission must also 
determine the best structure(s) for the region to implement its 
findings, both with and without substantial Federal involvement. The 
Commission would be sunsetted after 2 years.
  The Commission will involve in its deliberations not only all levels 
of government, but also nonprofit, business, financial, manufacturing, 
agricultural, and educational organizations and foundations as well as 
the general public. It is anticipated that these groups will contribute 
financial and in-kind resources to this initiative that will complement 
any appropriation necessary to fund the 2-year Commission.
  This legislation addresses an issue of the utmost importance to the 
future of our region, and it is intended to provide results, not just 
produce another study to be placed on a shelf to collect dust.
  Joining me as original cosponsors of the Northern Great Plains Rural 
Development Act are Senators Pressler, Conrad, Dorgan, Exon, Kerrey, 
Harkin, Grassley, Wellstone, and Durenberger. Each of us continues to 
confront problems separately in our own States that don't stop at our 
borders but are common to the Northern Plains. Only through a 
cooperative regional approach will we be able to most effectively meet 
the challenges of the 21st century.
  The Northern Plains is primarily rural with a widely dispersed 
population. This demographic profile creates substantial obstacles to 
business and economic development.
  This problem is aggravated by the outmigration of one of our most 
valuable resources, our young people. Increasingly our youth choose 
professions that take them outside of the area in search of employment. 
Many of those who remain are consigned to low-wage jobs, often working 
more than one job to support their families.
  This is a particularly difficult period for the American family 
farmer. For over 100 years, the prairie offered people willing to work 
hard enough the opportunity to secure their own future from the land. 
The American farmer responded to this challenge and fed first the 
country and later the world. Today's young family farmers, however, 
face a set of natural and man made challenges that threaten this way of 
life. As the economics of farming changes, far too many face career 
options that force them to leave their home States.
  The economy of the Northern Plains has been, and for the most part 
continues to be, dependent upon natural resources, particularly farming 
and ranching, but also mining and timber. The prosperity of these 
industries helped develop our region. Currently, however, they are 
under great stress as they struggle to meet the environmental and 
economic challenges of the 1990's and beyond.
  I am confident that each of these traditional rural industries can 
and will adapt to changing times, but we must also recognize the 
benefits of diversification. Transitions in regional economies don't 
happen overnight. Careful analysis and planning are necessary 
prerequisites to the implementation of a strategy that will sustain the 
viability of our rural communities by strengthening our traditional 
industries and promoting diversification into growing new sectors.
  The Northern Great Plains is not without competitive advantages and 
assets. In the past, it has been penalized by its geography. The 
disadvantages created by its relative isolation from market centers 
have been difficult to address. However, the Clinton administration's 
National Information Infrastructure [NII], more commonly known as the 
information superhighway, holds more promise for rural States like 
South Dakota than anywhere else. It offers the potential to put our 
communities on a more level playing field with the traditional, urban 
centers of commerce, education and medicine.
  The NII is the Missouri River of the 21st century for the Northern 
Great Plains. It will link our States to the international marketplace.
  Our labor force in the Northern Great Plains possesses a work ethic 
not found in many parts of this country. This dedication is joined with 
the talent and proven skills necessary to succeed in competitive and 
growing fields. When that proven work ethic is combined with advanced 
telecommunications technology, the result will be solid development 
possibilities for our part of the country.
  Mr. President, my colleagues and I offer a three point plan to 
address the economic problems of the Northern Great Plains. First, a 
regional Commission should be established to collect and analyze all 
relevant data. Second, that Commission will prepare a realistic rural 
development blueprint for action. And third, the States, working with 
community leaders throughout the region, will implement the projects 
and proposals identified by the Commission to improve our rural 
economies. The legislation we are introducing today, the Northern Great 
Plains Rural Development Act, will ignite this effort.
  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. 2099

       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 ``Northern Great Plains Rural 
     Development Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the rural economy of the Northern Great Plains is 
     undergoing a substantial and potentially threatening 
     transformation;
       (2) the rural Northern Great Plains suffers from 
     substantial measurable poverty, unemployment, outmigration, 
     underemployment, aging of the population, and low per capita 
     income;
       (3) the Northern Great Plains is highly rural and has a 
     highly dispersed population, and contains many Native 
     American reservations;
       (4) many of the basic industries of the rural Northern 
     Great Plains in natural resources are under stress;
       (5) a concerted Federal, State, and local public and 
     private effort is needed if the rural Northern Great Plains 
     is to share in the general prosperity of the United States;
       (6) the creation of jobs and expansion of existing 
     businesses, including small businesses, offer the greatest 
     hope for rural economic growth and revitalization in the 
     Northern Great Plains;
       (7) the availability of capital, technology, market 
     information, infrastructure development, educational 
     opportunities, health care, housing, recreational activities, 
     and resource development are essential to successful business 
     development in the rural Northern Great Plains;
       (8) the transportation needs of the rural Northern Great 
     Plains must be addressed through highway and bridge 
     construction, air service availability, and rail service and 
     river transport development;
       (9) because of the social, geographic, weather, historical, 
     and cultural ties of the rural Northern Great Plains as well 
     as common economic problems, planning for this unique region 
     is desirable and urgently needed; and
       (10) in the rural Northern Great Plains, the tourism 
     industry offers significant additional potential for 
     supporting economic development and job growth, fostered by 
     the wise stewardship of natural resources.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to establish the Northern Great 
     Plains Development Commission to study and make 
     recommendations regarding the economic needs and economic 
     development of the rural Northern Great Plains by seeking and 
     encouraging the participation of interested citizens, public 
     officials, groups, agencies, businesses, and other entities 
     in developing a 10-year rural economic development plan for 
     the Northern Great Plains.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Chairperson.--The term ``chairperson'' means the 
     chairperson of the Commission.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Northern 
     Great Plains Rural Development Commission.
       (3) Northern great plains.--The term ``Northern Great 
     Plains'' means the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
     Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means a State in the 
     Northern Great Plains.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is established a Commission to be known as the 
     ``Northern Great Plains Rural Development Commission''.

     SEC. 6. MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION.

       (a) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 
     members, of whom--
       (1) 1 member shall be appointed by the Governor of each 
     State; and
       (2) 1 member shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture from each of the States.
       (b) Term.--Each member of the Commission shall serve for 
     such term as the official who appoints the member determines 
     is appropriate.
       (c) Quorum.--Five members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum, but the Commission may establish that a 
     lesser number shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of 
     conducting hearings.
       (d) Meetings.--
       (1) First meetings.--Five or more members appointed under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall determine the date, time, and place 
     of the first meeting, and shall call the first meeting. At 
     the first meeting, the members of the Commission shall 
     appoint a chairperson from among the members appointed under 
     subsection (a)(1). The first meeting of the Commission shall 
     be held not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Additional meetings.--The Commission shall conduct such 
     additional meetings as the Commission determines are 
     appropriate.
       (e) Appointments.--Each appointment under this Act shall be 
     made not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (f) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall not 
     affect the powers of the Commission and shall be filled in 
     the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (g) Headquarters.--The Commission shall establish the 
     location for the headquarters of the Commission.

     SEC. 7. DUTIES.

       (a) Plan.--The Commission shall identify and study the 
     economic development, infrastructure, technology, 
     telecommunications, capital, employment, transportation, 
     business resource development, education, health care, 
     housing, and recreation needs of the Northern Great Plains 
     and develop a 10-year plan that makes recommendations and 
     establishes priorities to address the needs.
       (b) Preparation of Plan.--In developing the plan, the 
     Commission shall, with respect to the Northern Great Plains--
       (1) sponsor and conduct investigations, research studies, 
     and field hearings;
       (2) review and evaluate available research, studies, and 
     information on conditions in the areas referred to in 
     subsection (a);
       (3) study the economy, identifying strengths, weaknesses, 
     participation levels, opportunities, and methods of 
     addressing outmigration;
       (4) develop a profile of, and a description of resources 
     devoted to, economic development (including tourism), human 
     resources (including demographics, outmigration, poverty, 
     Native Americans, education, and training), infrastructure 
     (including air, water, highway, rail, and 
     telecommunications), and natural resources;
       (5) study and evaluate the economic development resources, 
     coordination, collaboration, and ``best practices'' of the 
     Federal, State, and local governments, nonprofit 
     organizations, universities, businesses, agricultural and 
     natural resources groups, foundations, cooperatives, and 
     other organizations;
       (6) identify methods of facilitating the employment and 
     business startups of unemployed, underemployed, and low-
     income individuals and households;
       (7) identify effective methods for promoting development on 
     Native American reservations;
       (8) study the availability of methods of delivering public, 
     private, and nonprofit capital and technical assistance for 
     business startups and expansions, including farming and 
     ranching;
       (9) evaluate the availability of, need for, and strategies 
     for providing and maintaining, the infrastructure, including 
     air, water, highway, rail, and telecommunications;
       (10) study the structure and potential development of major 
     industries, including agriculture, timber, mining, tourism, 
     and manufacturing (including the use of advanced technologies 
     and processes and adding value to raw materials and component 
     parts);
       (11) study the competence and availability of the labor 
     force, including the health, educational, training, housing, 
     and economic needs of the labor force;
       (12) develop an inventory of water, mineral, energy, 
     timber, agricultural, fishery, wildlife, and other natural 
     resources;
       (13) assess the comparative cost of doing business;
       (14) assess the international trading levels, markets, and 
     practices, and potential opportunities;
       (15) assess the interconnection between metropolitan and 
     rural areas and identify methods through which the areas can 
     collaborate;
       (16) assess methods by which small communities and regions 
     are collaborating or can collaborate in economic development 
     initiatives;
       (17) evaluate--
       (A) the distribution and impact of Federal spending, 
     including grant-in-aid programs, research, and Federal 
     procurement, and compare the level of spending in these 
     categories with spending in other regions of the country; and
       (B) the extent to which reliance on Federal, State, and 
     local government outlays for poverty programs can be reduced 
     by outlays targeted for economic development;
       (18) identify Federal, State, and local government 
     programs, policies, and regulations that enhance or obstruct 
     the development of businesses and well-paying jobs with long-
     term potential and that effectively use the skills, 
     education, and training of the labor force;
       (19) evaluate the potential for States to jointly finance 
     projects and activities of regional benefit; and
       (20) analyze such other issues as the Commission determines 
     are relevant to future economic development.
       (c) Development of Plan.--In developing the plan, the 
     Commission shall--
       (1) provide a forum for the consideration of the problems 
     of the rural Northern Great Plains and proposed solutions, 
     and establish and utilize citizens groups, special advisory 
     councils, public hearings, and conferences;
       (2) seek and encourage the participation of interested 
     citizens, public officials, groups, agencies, economic 
     development organizations, natural resource organizations, 
     and other organizations;
       (3) make the Commission accessible to the individuals, 
     groups, agencies, and organizations referred to in paragraph 
     (2) by holding at least 1 well publicized public hearing in 
     each State; and
       (4) consult with--
       (A) Federal, State, and local government agencies, 
     including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 
     Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and 
     Urban Development, and Transportation, and the Small Business 
     Administration, bank regulatory agencies, and rural 
     development councils;
       (B) banks, insurance companies, venture capital companies, 
     and other for-profit financial institutions;
       (C) nonprofit and community-based development 
     organizations, revolving loan funds, and other organizations;
       (D) industry and sectoral organizations;
       (E) foundations and universities; and
       (F) other organizations involved in economic development 
     activities.

     SEC. 8. COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.

       (a) Members Appointed by Governors.--Each member of the 
     Commission appointed by a Governor of a State may be 
     compensated by the State that the member represents.
       (b) Members Appointed by the Secretary.--Each member 
     appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, who is not 
     otherwise employed by the United States Government, shall 
     receive compensation at a rate determined by the Secretary of 
     not to exceed the daily equivalent of the lowest annual rate 
     of basic pay payable for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule 
     under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, including 
     traveltime, for each day the member is engaged in the actual 
     performance of the duties of the Commission. A member of the 
     Commission appointed by the Secretary who is an officer or 
     employee of the United States Government shall serve without 
     additional compensation.
       (c) Travel and Other Expenses.--Each member of the 
     Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per 
     diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for 
     employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or 
     regular place of business of the member in the performance of 
     services for the Commission. Each member of the Commission 
     shall also be reimbursed by the United States Government for 
     other necessary expenses incurred by the member in the 
     performance of the duties of the member.

     SEC. 9. POWERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission may obtain the 
     services of experts and consultants in accordance with 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Financial and Administrative Services.--The Commission 
     may enter into agreements with the Administrator of General 
     Services for the procurement of necessary financial and 
     administrative services, for which payment shall be made by 
     reimbursement from funds of the Commission in such amounts as 
     are agreed on by the chairperson and the Administrator of 
     General Services.
       (c) Contracts.--Subject to subsection (d), the Commission 
     may enter into contracts with Federal and State agencies and 
     private firms, institutions, and agencies for the conduct of 
     research and surveys, the preparation of reports, and other 
     activities necessary to carry out the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (d) Supplies, Services, Property, and Contracts.--The 
     Commission may procure supplies, services, and property, and 
     make contracts in any fiscal year, only to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts.
       (e) Hearings.--The Commission or, on the authorization of 
     the Commission, a member of the Commission may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this Act, hold such hearings, sit and 
     act at such times and places, and request the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, memoranda, papers, and documents as the Commission 
     or the member considers appropriate.
       (f) Information.--The Commission may acquire directly from 
     any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, 
     office, independent establishment, or instrumentality, 
     information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the 
     purpose of this Act. Each department, bureau, agency, board, 
     commission, office, establishment, or instrumentality shall 
     provide, to the extent permitted by law, the information, 
     suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the 
     Commission, upon request by the chairperson.
       (g) Personnel.--
       (1) In general.--Without regard to the provisions of title 
     5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and without regard to chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates, the 
     chairperson of the Commission may appoint, terminate, and fix 
     the compensation of an Executive Director and such additional 
     personnel as the chairperson determines are necessary to 
     enable the Commission to carry out the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Compensation.--The rate of compensation of the 
     Executive Director may not exceed a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay payable for level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title. 
     The rate of compensation of all other personnel may not 
     exceed a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the lowest 
     annual rate of basic pay payable for grade GS-15 of the 
     General Schedule under section 5332 of such title.
       (h) Assistance From Other Agencies.--Upon request of the 
     Commission, the head of any Federal agency may make any of 
     the facilities and services of the agency available to the 
     Commission or detail any of the personnel of the agency to 
     the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, to assist the 
     Commission in carrying out the duties of the Commission under 
     this Act. If the head of an agency determines that the agency 
     cannot make the facilities, services, or personnel available 
     to the Commission, the head shall notify the chairperson in 
     writing.
       (i) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the United States.

     SEC. 10. REPORTS.

       (a) Interim Report.--Before the end of the 270-day period 
     beginning on the date of the first meeting of the Commission 
     under section 6(d)(1), the Commission shall submit a report 
     to the Secretary of Agriculture, the President pro tempore of 
     the Senate, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives, the President, and the Governor of each 
     State, describing the findings and activities of the 
     Commission and the further activities necessary to carry out 
     the duties of the Commission.
       (b) Final Report.--
       (1) In general.--Before the end of the 18-month period 
     beginning on the date of the first meeting of the Commission 
     under section 6(d)(1), the Commission shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
     of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, 
     the President, and the Governor of each State, a report 
     describing the findings and activities of the Commission and 
     recommendations in accordance with paragraph (2) regarding 
     specific actions that are necessary to promote the economic 
     development of the rural Northern Great Plains while 
     preserving, to the maximum extent possible, the natural 
     beauty and habitat of the Northern Great Plains.
       (2) Recommendations.--
       (A) Regional collaboration.--The Commission shall, with 
     respect to the Northern Great Plains--
       (i) determine the most effective and appropriate method for 
     ensuring continued collaboration within the region on 
     economic development matters, considering regional compacts, 
     cooperatives, foundations, development corporations, and 
     other agreements and organizations;
       (ii) identify the organizational structure, method of 
     financing, functions, and participating organizations, of the 
     collaboration referred to in clause (i);
       (iii) identify methods of effective multi-community, 
     substate, and small region development; and
       (iv) assess the interconnection between metropolitan and 
     rural areas and identify methods of collaboration between the 
     areas.
       (B) Business development.--The Commission shall, with 
     respect to the rural Northern Great Plains--
       (i) recommend methods of diversifying the rural economy, 
     including the development and financing of value-added and 
     new-use agricultural products;
       (ii) develop methods to promote and finance beginning 
     owner-occupied farming and ranching operations;
       (iii) recommend methods of promoting entrepreneurial 
     development, including business startups and expansions;
       (iv) recommend methods in which the public, private, and 
     nonprofit sectors can help increase international trading 
     levels and penetrate new markets in agricultural, 
     manufactured, and service products;
       (v) evaluate the potential utility of business and 
     manufacturing networks in target sectors;
       (vi) assess the competitiveness of manufacturers and the 
     use of modern technology, processes, and information by the 
     manufacturers, and methods of assisting manufacturers lacking 
     the technology, processes, or information;
       (vii) recommend methods in which capital and technical 
     assistance can be provided on a regional or sectoral basis to 
     business startups and expansions by public, private, and 
     nonprofit organizations; and
       (viii) recommend ways in which Federal and State resource 
     conservation programs can be used to encourage tourism in the 
     region.
       (C) Capital.--The Commission shall, with respect to the 
     rural Northern Great Plains--
       (i) determine if there are capital needs in the economy, 
     and in what part of the economy the needs are located, and 
     recommend how governmental, nonprofit, cooperative, 
     community-based, microlending, banking, venture, seed, and 
     nonbanking financing sources can assist in meeting the needs;
       (ii) identify such strategies in organization, regulations, 
     policy, marketing, and coordination as are needed to 
     implement a plan to meet the needs referred to in clause (i); 
     and
       (iii) recommend methods of utilizing secondary financial 
     markets to increase the capital available for business 
     development.
       (D) Infrastructure.--The Commission shall, with respect to 
     the rural Northern Great Plains--
       (i) prepare a plan to preserve, finance, and operate 
     effective freight railroad service in coordination with 
     States, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Interstate 
     Commerce Commission, rail operators, shippers, and the 
     financial community;
       (ii) prepare an assessment and agreement on the capital 
     needs, coordination, and financing of telecommunications 
     infrastructure, in cooperation with the Department of 
     Agriculture, the National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration of the Department of Commerce, the Federal 
     Communications Commission, the public utilities commission of 
     each State, telephone companies and cooperatives, 
     representative users, and such other entities as the 
     Commission determines are appropriate; and
       (iii) recommend strategies for addressing air, water, and 
     highway needs.
       (E) Human resources.--The Commission shall, with respect to 
     the rural Northern Great Plains--
       (i) identify methods of facilitating the employment and 
     business startups of individuals who are not effectively 
     participating in the labor force, including unemployed, 
     underemployed, and low-income individuals and households;
       (ii) identify methods of coordinating on a regional or 
     sectoral basis education and training programs that are tied 
     to economic development initiatives, especially programs that 
     address the outmigration of youth; and
       (iii) study the competence and availability of the labor 
     force and the effects of the health, educational, training, 
     housing, and economic needs of the labor force, and identify 
     regional strategies addressing the needs.
       (F) Government programs, policies, and regulations.--The 
     Commission shall submit to the appropriate government, 
     nonprofit, and private sector organizations recommendations 
     for modifications or additions to the programs, policies, and 
     regulations referred to in section 7(b)(18) to promote the 
     rural development of the Northern Great Plains.

     SEC. 11. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate on the earlier of--
       (1) 120 days after the date of submission of the final 
     report under section 10; and
       (2) 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BRADLEY:
  S. 2101. A bill to provide for the establishment of mandatory State-
operated comprehensive one-call systems to protect all underground 
facilities from being damaged by any excavations, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


            comprehensive one-call notification act of 1994

 Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I introduce new legislation to 
create new assurance that accidents involving pipelines and underground 
utilities won't occur. Every year, multiple fatalities and tens of 
millions of dollars worth of damage occur simply because people dig 
where they shouldn't. These third-party incidents are the single 
leading cause of accidents involving pipelines. According to the 
Department of Transportation, these accidents are responsible for over 
half of the fatalities and half of the property damage. My legislation, 
the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act, will create a mechanism to 
prevent the inadvertent injury and the potential tragedy.
  On March 23, just before midnight, an explosion ripped through the 
community of Durham Woods in Edison, NJ. Within minutes, eight 
apartment buildings were ablaze. Soon they were gone, wiped out by a 
fireball that lit up the sky over hundreds of square miles. One life 
was lost. Hundreds lost their homes. Many more were evacuated.
  The injuries were miraculously low. But who knows how many others 
still lie awake at night, wondering whether it could happen again and 
fearing the future.
  Reflecting on the accident today, it seems hard to fault anyone here 
for their response to the tragedy. The community pulled together to 
help out those in need. Food, emergency shelter, general support and 
financial assistance were offered amply and unconditionally in the 
hours and days following the accident.
  Government and industry mobilized quickly. Within 4 hours of the 
explosion, Texas Eastern's accident response team was en route. By 
morning, the team and senior management were on the site, together with 
a strong Federal and State presence. Before the site had even cooled 
sufficiently for access, the experts from the NTSB were there and ready 
to begin the crucial investigation.
  There was likewise an aggressive effort to help the victims. The 
local high school became a relief center. Texas Eastern created another 
center for help and, within 3 days, had dispensed more than $1.5 
million to 250 families whose homes were destroyed or damaged in the 
fire. Within 3 days, the Small Business Administration had opened an 
assistance center on site and were handing out and processing 
applications for emergency support.
  However, great as this response was, this is not what is most 
striking about this accident. What is most striking about the accident 
is how lucky we were. Who would ever think that, given the timing and 
the magnitude of the explosion, so many people--many fleeing with just 
the clothes they had on--would escape without serious injury? Few who 
have walked around that crater, seen the charred cars and the empty 
building foundations would disagree with the conclusion that many there 
were saved only by a miracle.

  Unfortunately, miracles are a poor basis for public policy. You can't 
count on them. I am not about to count on them. The fact is that there 
is no margin for error in this industry. The natural gas industry does 
have an excellent safety record, especially when you consider that 25 
percent of the energy we consume moves by these pipelines. We have 
seven major pipelines that cross the State, and hundreds of smaller 
ones. But the Edison accident never should have happened.
  We need to acknowledge Edison for what it is: a breakdown in the 
regulatory and safety program. We need to learn about the Edison 
accident in order to learn from it. When the National Transportation 
Safety Board testified before the Energy Committee last month, their 
analysis pointed nearly conclusively to multiple gouges on the pipeline 
as the probable cause of the disaster. These marks appeared to be due 
to some powerful machinery, such as a backhoe, that struck the pipeline 
repeatedly.
  At this point, we don't know whether the damage was inadvertent or on 
purpose. We don't know who struck the pipeline or whether they might 
have been aware of the possibility. We do know, however, that there was 
no requirement of utility notification prior to the excavation. And we 
know that there is no penalty for digging in the vicinity of the 
pipeline without notifying the utility.
  This is wrong, and represents a failure of public policy. At the 
hearing I held last month, every witness agreed that we need a few 
national program of utility notification. If someone is excavating or 
grading a site, there has to be proper notification and it has to be 
mandatory--not voluntary--without exceptions and with penalties for 
negligence or non-compliance. This program will be created by my 
legislation.
  I'm drawn to a quote that appeared in the Asbury Park Press when the 
gas pipeline was put back in service Wednesday. One of the Durham Woods 
residents, Jim Waldron, was about his concerns and he said.

       I believe logically that it's like lightning striking 
     twice. But we know what we saw that night, and it will be in 
     our minds forever.

  Right now, the gas industry is making plans for a rapid expansion 
into new markets, particularly in the areas of natural gas vehicles and 
electric power production. Last week, representatives from the 
Department of Energy predicted that the gas market will expand be a 
third over the next 15 years. If accidents occur--regardless of who is 
at fault or how the industry follows up--this growth will not. It is 
that simple.
  Mr. President, my legislation represents a necessary step if we are 
to do everything reasonable and appropriate to protect the public from 
the kind of tragedy that struck Edison. I urge the Senate to consider 
my legislation closely and approve it swiftly.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2101

       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 ``Comprehensive One-Call 
     Notification Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) since the 1950s, steadily increasing development of 
     infrastructure has resulted in the construction of 
     underground facilities throughout the United States, 
     including water pipelines, natural gas pipelines, liquids 
     pipelines, steam pipelines, telephone lines, electric lines, 
     fiber optic lines, cable television lines, sewer pipelines, 
     and dedicated traffic control, emergency communication, and 
     alarm lines;
       (2) these underground facilities offer a safe and 
     economical means of providing essential services to the 
     public;
       (3) of all accidents involving these facilities, the 
     largest number are caused by nearby excavation, demolition, 
     or tunneling activities, known as third-party damage;
       (4) accidents resulting from third-party damage present an 
     unnecessary risk to public safety and the environment;
       (5) costs arising from third-party damage are ultimately 
     paid by consumers;
       (6) in the case of interstate facilities, consumers in one 
     State may pay for damages incurred in another State;
       (7) to prevent third-party damage, the owners of some 
     underground facilities have initiated one-call (or ``call 
     before you dig'') programs, and some States have mandated 
     one-call programs, although the scope and effectiveness of 
     these programs is inconsistent;
       (8) to maximize the effectiveness of one-call programs, 
     national standards are needed;
       (9) these standards should apply, without exception, to all 
     excavation near any underground facilities; and
       (10) these standards should produce one-call systems which 
     are simple to use, with a single telephone number established 
     which excavators must call to obtain information on the 
     location of any type of underground facility anywhere in the 
     United States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the term--
       (1) ``damage'' means any impact on or contact with an 
     underground facility, its appurtenances, or its protective 
     coating, or weakening of the support for the facility or 
     protective housing, which requires repair;
       (2) ``excavation'' means any operation in which earth, 
     rock, or other material in the ground is moved, removed, or 
     otherwise displaced by means of any tools, equipment, or 
     explosive, and includes, without limitation, grading, boring, 
     milling, trenching, tunneling, scraping, tree and root 
     removal, cable or pipe plowing, pile driving, wrecking, 
     razing, rending, or removing any structure or mass material, 
     but shall not include the tilling of soil for agricultural 
     purposes to a depth of 18 inches or less;
       (3) ``facility operator'' means any person who owns or 
     operates an underground facility, except for any person who 
     is the owner of real property wherein are located underground 
     facilities for the purpose of furnishing services or 
     materials only to himself or occupants of such property;
       (4) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Transportation; 
     and
       (5) ``underground facility'' means any underground line, 
     system, or structure used for producing, gathering, storing, 
     conveying, transmitting, or distributing communication, 
     electricity, gas, petroleum, petroleum products, hazardous 
     liquids, water, steam, sewerage, or any other commodities the 
     Secretary of Commerce determines to be similar and 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 4. NATIONWIDE DEDICATED NUMBER.

       Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Federal Communications Commission shall establish a 
     nationwide dedicated telephone number to be used by local or 
     regional underground facility location services and by one-
     call systems established pursuant to this Act.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE ONE-CALL SYSTEMS.

       (a) Requirement.--Each State shall, within 3 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, establish a comprehensive 
     statewide one-call notification system, in accordance with 
     this Act, to protect all underground facilities from damage 
     due to any excavation.
       (b) State Sanctions for Nonparticipation.--The Secretary 
     may impose a prohibition, applicable to a State that does not 
     comply with subsection (a), on the approval by the Secretary 
     of any projects or the awarding by the Secretary of any 
     grants under title 23, United States Code, other than 
     projects or grants for safety where the Secretary determines, 
     based on accident or other appropriate data submitted by the 
     State, that the principal purpose of the project is an 
     improvement in safety to resolve a demonstrated safety 
     problem and likely will result in a significant reduction in, 
     or avoidance of, accidents.

     SEC. 6. ELEMENTS OF SYSTEM.

       Each State one-call system established under section 5(a) 
     shall--
       (1) have a designated system operator;
       (2) operate in all areas of the State containing 
     underground facilities;
       (3) apply to all excavations and to all underground 
     facility operators, except as provided by this Act;
       (4) employ mechanisms, such as the issuance of excavation 
     or building permits, to ensure that the general public, and 
     in particular all excavators, are aware of the one-call 
     telephone number and the requirements and penalties of the 
     State system relating to excavations;
       (5) require that any person conducting an excavation must 
     contact the one-call system at least 3 business days, and not 
     more than 10 business days, before excavation begins;
       (6) receive and record appropriate information from 
     excavators about intended excavations, including--
       (A) the name of the person contacting the one-call system;
       (B) the name, address, and telephone number of the 
     excavator; and
       (C) the specific location of the intended excavation, along 
     with the starting date thereof and a description of the 
     intended excavation activity;
       (7) inform excavators of the identity of facility operators 
     who will be notified of the intended excavation;
       (8) inform excavators of any procedures that the State has 
     determined must be followed when excavating;
       (9) inform facility operators of any intended excavations 
     that may be in the vicinity of their underground facilities;
       (10) require facility operators to locate and mark, in 
     accordance with standards established by the State, their 
     underground facilities in the vicinity of an intended 
     excavation within no more than 3 business days after 
     notification of such intended excavation, and to supervise 
     such excavation as necessary;
       (11) provide for penalties and enforcement as described in 
     section 7;
       (12) maintain records on each notice of intent to excavate 
     for at least 7 years;
       (13) establish procedures to promote the timely acquisition 
     of information on previously unknown underground facility 
     locations;
       (14) provide for an appropriate waiver of timely compliance 
     with system requirements in emergency circumstances in which 
     public safety is endangered, as long as the one-call system 
     is notified at the earliest practicable time;
       (15) establish an appropriate schedule of fees to be 
     imposed on facility operators to cover the costs of 
     establishing, maintaining, and operating the one-call system; 
     and
       (16) provide an opportunity for citizen suits to enforce 
     the requirements of this section.

     SEC. 7. PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) General Penalties.--Each State one-call system 
     established under section 5(a) shall provide that any 
     excavator or facility operator who violates the requirements 
     of the system shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more 
     than $25,000 for each violation for each day that violation 
     persists, except that the maximum civil penalty shall not 
     exceed $500,000 for any related series of violations and the 
     minimum civil penalty for a violation shall be not less than 
     $250.
       (b) Increased Penalties.--If a violation results in damage 
     to an underground facility resulting in death, serious bodily 
     harm, or actual damage to property exceeding $50,000, or 
     damage to an underground hazardous liquid pipeline facility 
     resulting in the release of more than 50 barrels of product, 
     the penalties may be increased, and an additional penalty of 
     imprisonment may be assessed.
       (c) Decreased Penalties.--A State one-call system may 
     provide for reduced penalties for a violation, that results 
     in or could result in damage, that is promptly reported by 
     the violator.
       (d) Injunctive Relief.--Each State one-call system shall 
     provide for appropriate injunctive relief.
       (e) Revocation of License.--Each State one-call system 
     shall include procedures for the revocation of a license or 
     permit to do business of any excavator determined to be a 
     habitual violator of the requirements of the system.
       (f) Immediate Citation of Violations.--A State one-call 
     system may include procedures for issuing a citation of 
     violation at the site and time of the violation.

     SEC. 8. ASSISTANCE OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN 
                   DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMS.

       (a) Coordination with Other Responsibilities.--The 
     Secretary shall coordinate the implementation of this Act 
     with the implementation of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety 
     Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. App. 1671 et seq.) and the Hazardous 
     Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C. App. 2001 et 
     seq.).
       (b) Model Program.--Within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Office of Pipeline Safety of the 
     Department of Transportation shall draft and make available 
     to States a model one-call system program, along with such 
     additional guidance as the Secretary considers appropriate, 
     to assist the States in complying with this Act. Such model 
     program may be amended in response to reports submitted by 
     the States pursuant to section 10.
       (c) Public Education.--The Secretary shall develop public 
     service announcements to be broadcast or published to educate 
     the public about one-call notification systems, including the 
     national phone number.

     SEC. 9. ALTERNATE FORM OF SYSTEM.

       A State that wishes to establish or maintain a one-call 
     system that differs from the requirements of this Act may 
     petition the Secretary for approval of such system. The 
     Secretary shall approve such a petition if the proposed 
     system is at least as protective of the public health and 
     safety as a system described in this Act.

     SEC. 10. STATE REPORTS.

       Within 54 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     each State shall report to Congress and the Secretary on the 
     status of their one-call notification system and its 
     requirements. The report shall contain data on the operation 
     and effectiveness of the one-call system including--
       (1) the status of its law establishing the one-call system;
       (2) the number of notification requests received annually;
       (3) the effectiveness of the method of underground facility 
     marking required;
       (4) the degree of excavator compliance;
       (5) the number of incidents where underground facilities 
     were damaged and the type of damage to such facilities;
       (6) the number of deaths and injuries and the estimate 
     amount of property loss resulting from damage to underground 
     facilities;
       (7) the extent to which all underground facilities 
     participate; and
       (8) any other information that the Secretary determines 
     relevant.
                                  ____


          The Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1994

       While all but four states have some kind of one-call 
     program, there is wide variation in the programs, their 
     requirements and coverage. Senator Bill Bradley's 
     Comprehensive One-Call legislation will create a uniform and 
     workable framework for the prevention of third-party 
     accidents and damage to underground utilities.
       These accidents are the leading cause of damage to 
     utilities, including natural gas pipelines. All available 
     evidence indicates that third-party damage led to the tragic 
     accident at Edison, New Jersey, which left hundreds homeless 
     and resulted in one death.
       Companion legislation is being introduced in the House of 
     Representatives by Congressman Frank Pallone.
       The Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1994 will: 
     establish a dedicated nationwide number (such as ``911'') for 
     use by state one-call systems; require each state to 
     establish a one-call program meeting the minimum requirements 
     in the Act within three years; allow federal transportation 
     grants to be withheld, if a state fails to sponsor an 
     effective one-call program; engage in a campaign of public 
     awareness to ensure a general and broad familiarity with one-
     call programs and their importance; cover all excavation, 
     except shallow digging (i.e. the tilling of soil in farming); 
     cover all underground utilities, including natural gas and 
     oil pipelines, electricity, telecommunications, water and 
     sewer; require excavators to call at least three days prior 
     to digging; require utility companies to mark any affected 
     lines prior to excavation; set penalties for non-compliance 
     by excavators of at least $250 and as much as $25,000 per 
     violation per day; allow states to set increased penalties, 
     including imprisonment, for violations that lead to accidents 
     which result in serious property damage or injury; allow 
     states to revoke licenses for multiple offenders or issue 
     immediate fines (similar to a parking ticket) when a 
     violation occurs; allow the states to reduce penalties for 
     violators who promptly report an incident and, as a result, 
     avoid a possible accident; allow the states to appeal for an 
     alternative system, if it can be shown that another approach 
     will be just as protective of the public; call on the federal 
     government to make available a model state law and additional 
     guidance within one year; and create a series of reports on 
     the effectiveness of the program, compliance, the number and 
     type of violations, etc.

                          ____________________