[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request):
  S. 2279. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to make 
discretionary the financial reporting requirements applicable to 
recipients to certain need-based benefits; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.


        veterans' benefits income verification amendment of 1994

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2279, a bill to make discretionary 
the financial reporting requirements applicable to recipients of 
certain need-based benefits. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter 
dated May 17, 1994.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, together with Secretary Brown's transmittal 
letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2279

       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 ``Veterans' Benefits Income 
     Verification Amendments of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. RELAXATION OF MANDATORY ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION 
                   REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Parents.--
     Section 1315(e) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking out ``shall'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``may''; and
       (B) by striking out ``each year'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``for a calendar year''; and
       (2) in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking out ``revised''; and
       (B) by striking out ``the estimated''.
       (b) Pension.--Section 1506 of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking out ``shall'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``may''; and
       (B) by striking out ``each year'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``for a calendar year''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking out ``estimated'' each time it appears; and
       (B) by striking out ``such applicant's or recipient's 
     estimate of''.
                                  ____



                            The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 1994.
     Hon. Albert Gore,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: There is transmitted herewith a draft 
     bill entitled the ``Veterans' Benefits Income Verification 
     Amendments of 1994.'' I request that this bill be referred to 
     the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and 
     enactment.
       The draft bill would eliminate the current mandatory 
     requirement that all recipients of pension or parents' 
     dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) submit to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) annually an eligibility 
     verification report (EVR) providing information on their 
     income and net worth. Instead, the draft bill would give VA 
     discretionary authority to require such reports where 
     necessary to determine eligibility. The Draft bill would 
     specify that such reports are to be submitted on a calendar-
     year basis.
       A majority of the veterans and surviving spouses who 
     receive VA pension either have no other income or have no 
     other income except Social Security benefits. An analysis 
     performed in July 1992 indicated that, of 939,151 veterans 
     and surviving spouses on the pension rolls at that time, 
     197,611 had no other source of income and 518,576 had only 
     Social Security income in addition to VA pension. Thus, only 
     222,964 (approximately 24 percent) of those sampled had 
     income other than VA pension and Social Security benefits. 
     Although a similar analysis was not performed with regard to 
     the recipients of parents' DIC, we would anticipate that a 
     study of that group could yield similar results.
       VA currently has in place computer-matching programs with 
     both the Social Security Administration and the Internal 
     Revenue Service which assist VA in verifying the income of 
     recipients of need-based benefits administered by this 
     Department. The information gathered under these matching 
     programs is sufficient to warrant suspension of the 
     requirement of annual EVR's in many cases.
       If given this authority, VA would develop criteria for 
     exemptions that are consistent with the need to maintain 
     program integrity, and implement the policy through notice-
     and-comment rulemaking so that veterans service organizations 
     and other interested parties would have an opportunity to 
     comment on the policy.
       VA's Compensation and Pension (C&P) Service projects that, 
     under current statutory requirements, approximately 321 full-
     time equivalent employees (FTEE) will be required to process 
     EVR's in fiscal year 1994. Once the final regulations 
     implementing the exemptions for reporting are in place, the 
     FTEE necessary to process EVR's will decrease.
       Implementation of this proposal would also have a 
     beneficial impact on other regional office operations. VA 
     mail rooms would be required to handle fewer EVR's, and the 
     Veterans Services Divisions would receive fewer visits and 
     telephone calls requesting assistance in completing EVR's. In 
     addition, the contemplated reduction in pending C&P claims 
     would decrease the number of status inquiries received by VA, 
     thus further increasing efficiency of operations. Further, 
     the reduced volume of EVR's would allow conversion to a 
     system in which EVR's would be submitted on a calendar-year 
     basis, thereby providing increased convenience to 
     beneficiaries.
       VA would keep all beneficiaries advised of the requirement 
     to report any changes in income or other matters which might 
     affect benefit entitlement. For each beneficiary who would 
     not receive an EVR as a result of this change, VA intends to 
     advise the beneficiary by letter of his or her legal 
     obligation in this regard and provide information on how to 
     file a report concerning any change in income. It is 
     anticipated that this action, together with continued use of 
     computer-match information to verify entitlement, should 
     ensure that no increase in payments to ineligible claimants 
     will result from the proposed amendment. Thus, enactment of 
     this proposal would reduce administrative costs and result in 
     no increase in benefit costs.
       We urge that the Senate promptly consider and pass this 
     legislative item.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program to the submission of this legislative proposal to the 
     Congress.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      Jesse Brown.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROBB (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 2280. A bill to provide for an orderly process to ensure 
compensation for the termination of an easement or the taking of real 
property used for public utility purposes at the Manassas National 
Battlefield Park, VA, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


        the manassas national battlefield park amendment of 1994

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I would like to introduce legislation, 
known as the Manassas National Battlefield Park Amendments of 1994, 
which makes a technical correction to the Manassas National Battlefield 
Park Amendments of 1988.
  This legislation is necessary to avoid expensive litigation.
  Both Virginia Power and the National Park Service support passage of 
this bill because it will provide the necessary time to complete the 
required public reviews, which could take substantial time beyond 
November 1994. Should the statute of limitations not be extended, it 
will be necessary for Virginia Power to prepare and file legal action 
before November 10, 1994 to preserve their rights under the fifth 
amendment.
  In 1988, Congress passed the Manassas National Battlefield Park 
Amendments of 1988 which instituted a legislative taking of land in 
Manassas, VA for the purposes of adding to it the park. When the 
Government acquired the land at Manassas, it also acquired some 
electric power lines owned by Virginia Power. These lines and towers 
are an integral part of Virginia Power's transmission system, serving 
customers in northern Virginia and south into North Carolina and 
interconnecting with utilities in other parts of the northeast.
  Unfortunately, Virginia Power has not yet been compensated by the 
Government for the value of the condemned property which is estimated 
at $50 to $60 million.
  This legislation, cosponsored by the distinguished senior Senator 
from Virginia, Senator Warner, would provide for an orderly process to 
ensure compensation for the termination of the easement or the taking 
of real property used for public utility purposes at the Manassas 
National Battlefield Park. It is the companion to H.R. 4435, sponsored 
by Representative Wolf in the House of Representatives.
  Virginia Power and the Park Service have worked together and arrived 
at a tentative agreement regarding this situation. Virginia Power and 
the National Park Service staff have concentrated on identifying a 
suitable route to relocate the transmission lines. This has involved 
preparation of an Environmental Assessment by the National Park 
Service, preparation of a Virginia State Corporation Commission 
application by Virginia Power and meetings with the public.
  In order to protect the historic resource of the historic park, these 
parties have agreed to move the power lines about 400 feet to the 
perimeter of the park. The Park Service would grant Virginia Power an 
easement for the lines.
  This legislation would alleviate the need and costs of litigation--
which could affect taxpayers and Vepco ratepayers. In addition, this 
legislation would allow Virginia Power and the National Park Service to 
continue to work together to complete this project in an orderly and 
cost-effective fashion.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2282. A bill to amend title V of the Trade Act of 1974 to provide 
incentives for developing countries to develop and implement strong 
environmental protection programs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


         The Sustainable Development Through Trade act of 1994

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce a bill 
with which I hope to promote the dual interests of free trade and 
environmental protection, the Sustainable Development Through Trade Act 
of 1994. This bill proposes modifications to the United States' 
Generalized System of Preferences program. It would give the President 
tools with which to expand trade with developing countries which take 
strong steps to protect their environmental resources.
  Mr. President, the Generalized System of Preferences program, or GSP, 
is the most important program governing U.S. trade with developing 
countries. Through it, the U.S. grants preferential treatment to 
certain developing country exports. Clearly, GSP is a potentially 
powerful tool for promoting sustainable development worldwide. 
Unfortunately, today GSP is failing to meet this potential for two 
reasons.
  First, GSP does not include any mechanisms for encouraging countries 
which receive GSP benefits to protect the environment. This is true 
despite the fact that promoting sustainable development is a declared 
U.S. foreign policy objective. For example, Brazil and Indonesia are 
only two of the 132 countries which benefited from GSP in 1991. That 
year, they garnered 12 percent of all GSP benefits. Brazil and 
Indonesia harbor important environmental resources. Specifically, they 
are home to nearly 40 percent of the world's remaining rainforests. 
Both countries are clearing their rainforests for timber production and 
agricultural expansion at alarming rates. Besides the environmental 
importance of these rainforests, they also contain a wealth of 
biological treasures which the biotechnology industry has only begun to 
explore.
  My proposal would allow the President to encourage countries like 
Brazil and Indonesia to protect environmental resources in exchange for 
GSP benefits.
  A second concern with today's GSP program is that it provides 
virtually no benefits for many of the developing countries it was 
designed to assist. In 1991, less than 1 cent of every GSP dollar went 
to the world's 40 least-developed countries. This is ironic, since, 
according to several international agreements, such countries are 
supposed to enjoy special status under GSP.
  Moreover, the vast majority of least-developed countries are in Sub-
Saharan Africa, a region plagued by chronic economic crises exacerbated 
by negative trade balances. Last month AID Administrator Brian Atwood 
and Representative Tony Hall, chairman of the Congressional Hunger 
Caucus, led a Presidential mission to Rwanda and about 10 other 
countries in Africa. They concluded that if the United States wants to 
help avoid future Rwandas--and Somalias and Ethiopias--it must do more 
to promote long-term development in that region.
  Thus, my proposal would expand GSP benefits for least-developed 
countries in Africa.
  I should note that, although I support extension and reform of the 
GSP program, the Sustainable Development Through Trade Act does not 
include an extension of GSP. My intent in introducing this legislation 
is to propose language which I hope would be included in a 
comprehensive GSP extension and reform bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the goals of the Sustainable 
Development Through Trade Act of 1994 and to work to include its 
provisions in any GSP legislation that passes this body.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Sustainable 
Development Through Trade Act of 1994.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Reocrd, as follows:

                                S. 2282

       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 ``Sustainable Development 
     Through Trade Act of 1994''.

     SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INCENTIVES.

       (a) Waiver For Environmental Protection Action.--Section 
     504(c)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2464(c)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of clause 
     (iii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at 
     the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) is advised by the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, the Administrator of the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of the 
     Interior, that the beneficiary developing country is taking 
     action to protect environmental resources, including 
     ecosystems, that have environmental, economic, or national 
     security significance for the United States.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     clause (i), by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) 
     and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end 
     the following new clause:
       ``(iii) the extent to which such country is taking action 
     to protect environmental resources, including ecosystems, 
     that have environmental, economic, or national security 
     significance for the United States.''.
       (b) Least-Developed Countries.--Section 503 of the Trade 
     Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2463) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     President may designate any article that is the growth, 
     product, or manufacture of a least-developed beneficiary 
     developing country as an eligible article under subsection 
     (a), unless the President determines that such article is an 
     import-sensitive article in the context of imports 
     from such least-developed beneficiary developing 
     country.''. 

                          ____________________