[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.
____________________