[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 45 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3804-S3812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S3804]]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Lott, Mr. Bradley, Ms.
Moseley-Braun, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 529. A bill to provide, temporarily, tariff and quota treatment
equivalent to that accorded to members of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement [NAFTA] to Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries; to the
Committee on Finance.
the caribbean basin trade security act
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today with my colleagues Senators Mack,
Lott, Bradley, Moseley-Braun, Hatch, and Grassley, I am introducing the
Caribbean Basin Trade Security Act, a bill which will improve the
economic and political security of the nations of the Caribbean Basin
and the United States of America.
In the last decade, the United States has supported and encouraged
the extension of democracy in the Caribbean and Central America through
enhanced trade and investment. Today, democracy rules in all of the
nations of the Caribbean Basin, with the notable exception of Cuba.
This year alone, eight nations in the region are holding free
elections.
For many nations political stability is by no means guaranteed. As we
saw in the painful lesson of Haiti, economic and political instability
in the Caribbean region can have tragic consequences for the people and
enormous costs to the United States.
It is of vital interest to America to see the Caribbean Basin grow
economically. Continued economic expansion will help maintain political
stability in the region. By improving economic conditions, we can deter
illegal immigration, which taxes our resources and hurts those nations
which lose some of their youngest and brightest citizens. Economic
stability in the Caribbean Basin strengthens our defense against the
trafficking of illegal drugs. An economically stable Caribbean Basin is
a rich expanding market for United States goods.
Yet at a time when economic growth is increasingly critical to the
region, members of the Caribbean Basin Initiative [CBI] have faced a
challenging climatic change in the area of trade. Since the
implementation of the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA],
lowered tariffs on Mexican imports have left the Caribbean Basin at a
competitive disadvantage to Mexico. As an example, apparel assembly has
been the most rapidly expanding job generator in the CBI region. Over
77 percent of Central American and Caribbean textile and apparel
exports to the United States are assembled, in whole or in part, from
U.S. components. For an apparel item produced in a CBI country with
materials from the United States, a 20-percent duty is charged on the
value added by the off-shore assembly. Under NAFTA, this same item can
be imported from Mexico duty-free.
As a result of this disparity, the growth in apparel imports from
Caribbean Basin nations has slowed markedly. There has been a virtual
halt in new investment in the apparel sector in the CBI countries and
the closing of over 100 plants during the last year alone, at an
estimated loss of 15,000 jobs. Before NAFTA, the growth rates for
apparel imports from Mexico and CBI nations were roughly equivalent at
25 percent. But by 1994, the CBI growth rate dropped to 14.6 percent,
while Mexico's surged to 48.8 percent.
All signs indicate that this inequality will continue to expand if
parity is not granted to the CBI nations. With the recent devaluation
of the Mexican peso, labor and production costs in Mexico have
decreased, and as a result, apparel companies have an added incentive
to close shop in CBI nations and relocate to Mexico.
As past Caribbean trade agreements have shown, the United States
stands to be a the chief beneficiary of lowering trade barriers between
the Caribbean Basin and the United States. The United States' trade
balance with Caribbean Basin countries shifted dramatically following
the implementation of the 1983 Caribbean Basin Initiative, from a
deficit of $700 million in 1985. This has grown to a surplus of $2
billion in 1993. From a $700 million deficit to a $2 billion surplus on
a per capita basis, our surplus with the Caribbean has consistently
outpaced our surplus with any other region of the world.
This bill covers those manufactured products for which Mexico was
granted preferential tariff levels, such as textiles and apparel.
Currently, a large portion of U.S. textile and apparel imports are
produced in the Far East, where few U.S. materials are used in the
production process. U.S. manufacturers and workers stand to benefit
from increased production of these items in the Caribbean Basin; new
facilities will be more likely to utilize American materials,
components, and machinery than does production in the Pacific rim. The
American Apparel Manufacturers Association estimates that 15 jobs are
created in the United States for every 100 apparel jobs created in CBI
production facilities which use U.S. materials.
Mr. President, at the Summit of the Americas in Miami this past
December, Vice President Gore reiterated the administration's
commitment to the realization of hemisphericwide free trade. The
administration supports the goal of bringing CBI nations into NAFTA-
type free-trade agreements. The Caribbean Trade Security Act which we
introduce today paves the way for the gradual association of the CBI
nations into a closer bilateral or multilateral trade agreement with
the United States. This legislation calls for a 6-year program after
which the CBI nations will be allowed the opportunity to negotiate
accession to NAFTA or to enter into independent free-trade agreements
with the United States. The U.S. Trade Representative's office would
make an assessment of the reforms made in each of the beneficiary
countries and of the ability of each country to fulfill the obligations
of the NAFTA. This checklist would include, among many criteria, the
extent to which a country's markets are accessible, progress on
macroeconomic reforms, and the protection of intellectual property
rights.
Mr. President, there is no region in the world with which the United
States has a stronger and more mutually beneficial relationship than
with our Caribbean and Central American neighbors. This bill will
enhance our trading relationship with our neighbors and will strongly
benefit the United States. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to
consider and support this legislation as a demonstration of our
commitment to encouraging economic stability and the principles of free
markets and free enterprise. From those, the principles of democratic
government and personal freedom will continue to strengthen.
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. 529
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 ``Caribbean Basin Trade
Security Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act represents a
permanent commitment by the United States to encourage the
development of strong democratic governments and revitalized
economies in neighboring countries in the Caribbean Basin;
(2) the economic security of the countries in the Caribbean
Basin is potentially threatened by the diversion of
investment to Mexico as a result of the North American Free
Trade Agreement;
(3) to preserve the United States commitment to Caribbean
Basin beneficiary countries and to help further their
economic development, it is necessary to offer temporary
benefits equivalent to the trade treatment accorded to
products of NAFTA members;
(4) offering NAFTA equivalent benefits to Caribbean Basin
beneficiary countries, pending their eventual accession to
the NAFTA, will promote the growth of free enterprise and
economic opportunity in the region, and thereby enhance the
national security interests of the United States; and
(5) increased trade and economic activity between the
United States and Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries will
create expanding export opportunities for United States
businesses and workers.
(b) Policy.--It is therefore the policy of the United
States to offer to the products of Caribbean Basin
beneficiary countries tariff and quota treatment equivalent
to that accorded to products of NAFTA countries, and to seek
the accession of these beneficiary countries to the NAFTA at
the earliest possible date, with the goal of achieving full
[[Page S3805]] participation in the NAFTA by all beneficiary
countries by not later than January 1, 2005.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title:
(1) Beneficiary country.--The term ``beneficiary country''
means a beneficiary country as defined in section
212(a)(1)(A) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19
U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)(A)).
(2) NAFTA.--The term ``NAFTA'' means the North American
Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States,
Mexico, and Canada on December 17, 1992.
(3) Trade representative.--The term ``Trade
Representative'' means the United States Trade
Representative.
(4) WTO and wto member.--The terms ``WTO'' and ``WTO
member'' have the meanings given such terms in section 2 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
TITLE I--RELATIONSHIP OF NAFTA IMPLEMENTATION TO THE OPERATION OF THE
CARIBBEAN BASIN INITIATIVE
SEC. 101. TEMPORARY PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE NAFTA PARITY TO
BENEFICIARY COUNTRY ECONOMIES.
(a) Temporary Provisions.--Section 213(b) of the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(b) Import-Sensitive Articles.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5),
the duty-free treatment provided under this title does not
apply to--
``(A) textile and apparel articles which are subject to
textile agreements;
``(B) footwear not designated at the time of the effective
date of this title as eligible articles for the purpose of
the generalized system of preferences under title V of the
Trade Act of 1974;
``(C) tuna, prepared or preserved in any manner, in
airtight containers;
``(D) petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum,
provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS;
``(E) watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets
and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to,
mechanical, quartz digital or quartz analog, if such watches
or watch parts contain any material which is the product of
any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty
apply; or
``(F) articles to which reduced rates of duty apply under
subsection (h).
``(2) NAFTA transition period treatment of certain textile
and apparel articles.--
``(A) Equivalent tariff and quota treatment.--During the
transition period--
``(i) the tariff treatment accorded at any time to any
textile or apparel article that originates in the territory
of a beneficiary country shall be identical to the tariff
treatment that is accorded during such time under section 2
of the Annex to a like article that originates in the
territory of Mexico and is imported into the United States;
``(ii) duty-free treatment under this title shall apply to
any textile or apparel article of a beneficiary country that
is imported into the United States and that--
``(I) meets the same requirements (other than assembly in
Mexico) as those specified in Appendix 2.4 of the Annex
(relating to goods assembled from fabric wholly formed and
cut in the United States) for the duty free entry of a like
article assembled in Mexico, or
``(II) is identified under subparagraph (C) as a
handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of such country and
is certified as such by the competent authority of such
country; and
``(iii) no quantitative restriction or consultation level
may be applied to the importation into the United States of
any textile or apparel article that--
``(I) originates in the territory of a beneficiary country,
``(II) meets the same requirements (other than assembly in
Mexico) as those specified in Appendix 3.1.B.10 of the Annex
(relating to goods assembled from fabric wholly formed and
cut in the United States) for the exemption of a like article
assembled in Mexico from United States quantitative
restrictions and consultation levels, or
``(III) qualifies for duty-free treatment under clause
(ii)(II).
``(B) NAFTA transition period treatment of nonoriginating
textile and apparel articles.--
``(i) Preferential tariff treatment.--Subject to clause
(ii), the United States Trade Representative may place in
effect at any time during the transition period with respect
to any textile or apparel article that--
``(I) is a product of a beneficiary country, but
``(II) does not qualify as a good that originates in the
territory of that country,
tariff treatment that is identical to the preferential tariff
treatment that is accorded during such time under Appendix
6.B of the Annex to a like article that is a product of
Mexico and imported into the United States.
``(ii) Prior consultation.--The United States Trade
Representative may implement the preferential tariff
treatment described in clause (i) only after consultation
with representatives of the United States textile and apparel
industry and other interested parties regarding--
``(I) the specific articles to which such treatment will be
extended,
``(II) the annual quantity levels to be applied under such
treatment and any adjustment to such levels,
``(III) the allocation of such annual quantities among the
beneficiary countries that export the articles concerned to
the United States, and
``(IV) any other applicable provision.
``(iii) Adjustment of certain bilateral textile
agreements.--The United States Trade Representative shall
undertake negotiations for purposes of seeking appropriate
reductions in the quantities of textile and apparel articles
that are permitted to be imported into the United States
under bilateral agreements with beneficiary countries in
order to reflect the quantities of textile and apparel
articles of each respective country that are exempt from
quota treatment by reason of paragraph (2)(A)(iii).
``(C) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), the United States Trade
Representative shall consult with representatives of the
beneficiary country for the purpose of identifying particular
textile and apparel goods that are mutually agreed upon as
being handloomed, handmade, or folklore goods of a kind
described in section 2.3 (a), (b), or (c) or Appendix
3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
``(D) Bilateral emergency actions.--The President may
take--
``(i) bilateral emergency tariff actions of a kind
described in section 4 of the Annex with respect to any
textile or apparel article imported from a beneficiary
country if the application of tariff treatment under
subparagraph (A) to such article results in conditions that
would be cause for the taking of such actions under such
section 4 with respect to a like article that is a product of
Mexico; or
``(ii) bilateral emergency quantitative restriction actions
of a kind described in section 5 of the Annex with respect to
imports of any textile or apparel article described in
subparagraph (B)(i) (I) and (II) if the importation of such
article into the United States results in conditions that
would be cause for the taking of such actions under such
section 5 with respect to a like article that is a product of
Mexico.
``(3) NAFTA transition period treatment of certain other
articles originating in beneficiary countries.--
``(A) Equivalent tariff treatment.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the tariff
treatment accorded at any time during the transition period
to any article referred to in any of subparagraphs (B)
through (F) of paragraph (1) that originates in the territory
of a beneficiary country shall be identical to the tariff
treatment that is accorded during such time under Annex 302.2
of the NAFTA to a like article that originates in the
territory of Mexico and is imported into the United States.
Such articles shall be subject to the provisions for
emergency action under chapter 8 of part two of the NAFTA to
the same extent as if such articles were imported from
Mexico.
``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) does not apply to any article
accorded duty-free treatment under U.S. Note 2(b) to
subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTS.
``(B) Relationship to subsection (h) duty reductions.--If
at any time during he transition period the rate of duty that
would (but for action taken under subparagraph (A)(i) in
regard to such period) apply with respect to any article
under subsection (h) is a rate of duty that is lower than the
rate of duty resulting from such action, then such lower rate
of duty shall be applied for the purposes of implementing
such action.
``(4) Customs procedures.--The provisions of chapter 5 of
part two of the NAFTA regarding customs procedures apply to
importations of articles from beneficiary countries under
paragraphs (2) and (3).
``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the NAFTA.
``(B) The term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade
Agreement entered into between the United States, Mexico, and
Canada on December 17, 1992.
``(C) The term `textile or apparel article' means any
article referred to in paragraph (1)(A) that is a good listed
in Appendix 1.1 of the Annex.
``(D) The term `transition period' means, with respect to a
beneficiary country, the period
that begins on the date of the enactment of the Caribbean
Basin Trade Security Act and ends on the earlier of--
``(i) the date that is the 6th anniversary of such date of
enactment; or
``(ii) the date on which--
``(I) the beneficiary country accedes to the NAFTA, or
``(II) there enters into force with respect to the United
States and the beneficiary country a free trade agreement
comparable to the NAFTA that makes substantial progress in
achieving the negotiating objectives set forth in section
108(b)(5) of the North American Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act.
``(E) An article shall be treated as having originated in
the territory of a beneficiary country if the article meets
the rules of origin for a good set forth in chapter 4 of part
two of the NAFTA or in Appendix 6.A of the Annex. In applying
such chapter 4 or Appendix 6.A with respect to a beneficiary
country for purposes of this subsection, no countries other
than the United States and beneficiary countries may be
treated as being Parties to the NAFTA.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act is amended--
[[Page S3806]] (1) by amending section 212(e)(1)(B) to read
as follows:
``(B) withdraw, suspend, or limit the application of the
duty-free treatment under this subtitle, and the tariff and
preferential tariff treatment under section 213(b) (2) and
(3), to any article of any country,''; and
(2) by inserting ``and except as provided in section 213(b)
(2) and (3),'' after ``Tax Reform Act of 1986,'' in section
213(a)(1).
SEC. 102. EFFECT OF NAFTA ON SUGAR IMPORTS FROM BENEFICIARY
COUNTRIES.
The President shall monitor the effects, if any, that the
implementation of the NAFTA has on the access of beneficiary
countries under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to
the United States market for sugars, syrups, and molasses. If
the President considers that the implementation of the NAFTA
is affecting, or will likely affect, in an adverse manner the
access of such countries to the United States market, the
President shall promptly--
(1) take such actions, after consulting with interested
parties and with the appropriate committees of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, or
(2) propose to the Congress such legislative actions,
as may be necessary or appropriate to ameliorate such adverse
effect.
SEC. 103. DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN BEVERAGES MADE WITH
CARIBBEAN RUM.
Section 213(a) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
(19 U.S.C. 2703(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``chapter'' and inserting
``title''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the duty-free
treatment provided under this title shall apply to liqueurs
and spirituous beverages produced in the territory of Canada
from rum if--
``(A) such rum is the growth, product, or manufacture of a
beneficiary country or of the Virgin Islands of the United
States;
``(B) such rum is imported directly from a beneficiary
country or the Virgin Islands of the United States into the
territory of Canada, and such liqueurs and spirituous
beverages are imported directly from the territory of Canada
into the customs territory of the United States;
``(C) when imported into the customs territory of the
Untied States, such liqueurs and spirituous beverages are
classified in subheading 2208.90 or 2208.40 of the HTS; and
``(D) such rum accounts for at least 90 percent by volume
of the alcoholic content of such liqueurs and spirituous
beverages.''.
TITLE II--RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. MEETINGS OF TRADE MINISTERS AND USTR.
(a) Schedule of Meetings.--The President shall take the
necessary steps to convene a meeting with the trade ministers
of the beneficiary countries in order to establish a schedule
of regular meetings, to commence as soon as is practicable,
of the trade ministers and the Trade Representative, for the
purpose set forth in subsection (b).
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the meetings scheduled under
subsection (a) is to reach agreement between the United
States and beneficiary countries on the likely timing and
procedures for initiating negotiations for beneficiary
countries to accede to the NAFTA, or to enter into mutually
advantageous free trade agreements with the
United States that contain provisions comparable to those in
the NAFTA and would make substantial progress in achieving
the negotiating objectives set forth in section 108(b)(5)
of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act (19 U.S.C. 3317(b)(5)).
SEC. 202. REPORT ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS AND MARKET ORIENTED
REFORMS IN THE CARIBBEAN.
(a) In General.--The Trade Representative shall make an
assessment of the economic development efforts and market
oriented reforms in each beneficiary country and the ability
of each such country, on the basis of such efforts and
reforms, to undertake the obligations of the NAFTA. The Trade
Representative shall, not later than July 1, 1996, submit to
the President and to the Committee on Finance of the Senate
and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives a report on that assessment.
(b) Accession to NAFTA.--
(1) Ability of countries to implement nafta.--The Trade
Representative shall include in the report under subsection
(a) a discussion of possible timetables and procedures
pursuant to which beneficiary countries can complete the
economic reforms necessary to enable them to negotiate
accession to the NAFTA. The Trade Representative shall also
include an assessment of the potential phase-in periods that
may be necessary for those beneficiary countries with less
developed economies to implement the obligations of the
NAFTA.
(2) Factors in assessing ability to implement nafta.--In
assessment the ability of each beneficiary country to
undertake the obligations of the NAFTA, the Trade
Representative should consider, among other factors--
(A) whether the country has joined the WTO;
(B) the extent to which the country provides equitable
access to the markets of that country;
(C) the degree to which the country uses export subsidies
or imposes export performance requirements or local content
requirements;
(D) macroeconomic reforms in the country such as the
abolition of price controls on traded goods and fiscal
discipline;
(E) progress the country has made in the protection of
intellectual property rights;
(F) progress the country has made in the elimination of
barriers to trade in services;
(G) whether the country provides national treatment to
foreign direct investment;
(H) the level of tariffs bound by the country under the WTO
(if the country is a WTO member);
(I) the extent to which the country has taken other trade
liberalization measures; and
(J) the extent which the country works to accommodate
market access objectives of the United States.
(c) Parity Review in the Event a New Country Accedes to
NAFTA.--If--
(1) a country or group of countries accedes to the NAFTA,
or
(2) the United States negotiates a comparable free trade
agreement with another country or group of countries.
the Trade Representative shall provide to the committees
referred to in subsection (a) a separate report on the
economic impact of the new trade relationship on beneficiary
countries. The report shall include any measures the Trade
Representative proposes to minimize the potential for the
diversion of investment from beneficiary countries to the new
NAFTA member or free trade agreement partner.
______
By Mr. GREGG:
S. 530. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
permit State and local government workers to perform volunteer services
for their employer without requiring the employer to pay overtime
compensation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources.
THE STATE AND LOCAL VOLUNTEER PRESERVATION ACT OF 1995
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is my belief that the U.S.
Government needs to foster voluntarism and philanthropy whenever it
can. This is not how the system is currently working. On the contrary,
overzealous regulation and oppressive Government agencies, such as the
Department of Labor , stifle the efforts of citizens who want to
volunteer some of their spare time to their community.
For example: In a small town in New Hampshire a police officer was
using his free time at night to train women in self-defense. He
volunteered to teach this course and did so gladly. The Labor
Department came onto the scene, however, and told the police department
that they must either pay the officer for overtime or cancel the
program. The program was canceled for lack of funds. The women in this
small town no longer have the option of free classes in order to learn
to protect themselves.
This is a familiar story, not only to police departments across the
country, but also to many other types of State and local agencies whose
employees want to serve their community but are forbidden to by the
Department of Labor. These incidents occurred because of the manner in
which the Labor Department has decided to apply the Fair Labor
Standards Act to those who willingly and gladly volunteer some of their
spare time to public service. Such regulatory overreaching typifies
what has gone wrong with the Federal Government, when public spirit and
common sense lose out to narrow and misguided bureaucratic objectives.
It is for these reasons that I am introducing the State and Local
Volunteer Preservation Act of 1995, which amends the Fair Labor
Standards Act to allow State and local public servants to volunteer
their time to their employers if they choose to do so. This bill will
extend to town clerks who want to help count ballots on election night;
firefighters who want to help put out fires in their districts even if
they are not on duty; police officers who want to work with police dogs
or train women in self-defense; and many other public employees who
want to volunteer their free time to their communities. We must act now
to stop this encroachment on local voluntarism and allow our civic-
minded citizens to volunteer their time to their community, no matter
what their occupation.
I am pleased to announce that the International Association of Chiefs
of Police [IACP] have endorsed this legislation. It is from police
officers in New Hampshire that I first heard of this
[[Page S3807]] problem, and it is from IACP that I learned that these
regulations were causing difficulties not only in New Hampshire, but
around the country.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important
measure. 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. 530
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 ``State and Local Volunteer
Preservation Act''.
SEC. 2. WAIVER OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION.
Section 7(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 207(o)) is amended--
(1) by redesigning paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (5), the following new
paragraph:
``(5) A public agency which is a State, political
subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental
organization shall not be required to pay an employee
overtime compensation or provide compensatory time under this
section for any period during which the employee--
``(A) volunteered to perform services for the public
agency; and
``(B) signed a legally binding waiver of such compensation
or compensatory time.''.
____
International Association of
Chiefs of Police,
Alexandria, VA, March 8, 1995.
Hon. Judd Gregg,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gregg: The International Association of Chiefs
of Police (IACP) has long been in support of amendments to
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Applying laws and regulations
initially designed for the private sector, to public sector
employers and employees has created difficulties that can
only be curbed by federal legislation. While IACP believes
that other additional amendments would be helpful, we
certainly support and endorse your proposed bill that would
clarify the compensation status of reserve officers who wish
to volunteer for public safety activities.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to call.
Sincerely,
John T. Whetsel,
President.
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 531. A bill to authorize a circuit judge who has taken part in an
in banc hearing of a case to continue to participate in that case after
taking senior status, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
S. 532. A bill to clarify the rules governing venue, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 533. A bill to clarify the rules governing removal of cases to
Federal court, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
TITLE 28 CORRECTION LEGISLATION
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am today introducing three bills, each of
which would correct an inadvertent glitch in title 28 of the United
States Code. I believe that all my colleagues will find these bills to
be uncontroversial and nonpartisan. But they are nonetheless important,
for they clean up problems that have surfaced in existing provisions.
Let me briefly describe the three bills.
My first bill would modify section 46(c) of title 28 to authorize a
circuit judge who has taken part in an en banc hearing of a case to
continue to participate in that case after taking senior status.
Section 46(c) currently sets forth a general rule with one exception:
it provides that only circuit judges in regular active service may sit
on the en banc court, except that a senior circuit judge who was a
member of the panel whose decision is being reviewed en banc may also
be eligible to sit on the en banc court. This general rule makes good
sense, for it ensures that it is the judges in regular active service
who determine the law of the circuit. The exception also makes good
sense, since it enables the court to avoid wasting the already-expended
efforts of a judge.
The current language of section 46(c), however, inadvertently creates
a problem, for it appears to require a circuit judge in regular active
service who has heard argument in an en banc case to cease
participating in that case when that judge takes senior status. Courts
of appeals have regarded themselves as bound to so construe the
statute. See, e.g., United States v. Hudspeth, No. 93-1352--7th Cir.
Oct. 28, 1994. This result is problematic, for it means that at the
time of argument in an en banc case, it may be unclear who will be
eligible to vote on the final disposition. Worse, there is the
possibility that a judge might delay--or might be perceived as
delaying--the release of an opinion until a member of the court takes
senior status, in order to affect the outcome. As the seventh circuit's
discussion in Hudspeth makes clear, there is every reason to believe
that this consequence was inadvertently produced by Congress. The
Judicial Council of the seventh circuit has written to me recommending
that this provision be reconsidered. Other courts have also faced
difficulties with this provision. My bill would correct this problem.
My second bill adopts a proposal by the Judicial Conference of the
United States to correct a flaw in a venue provision, section 1391(a)
of title 28. Section 1391(a) governs venue in diversity cases. Like
section 1391(b), which governs venue in Federal question cases, section
1391(a) has a fallback provision--subsection (3)--that comes into play
if neither of the other subsections confers venue in a particular case.
See C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 262--5th ed. 1994--Specifically,
subsection (3) provides that venue lies in ``a judicial district in
which the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction at the time
the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action
may otherwise be brought.''
The defect in this fallback provision is that it may be read to mean
that all defendants must be subject to personal jurisdiction in a
district in order for venue to be lie. Under this reading, there would
be cases in which there would be no proper venue. In short, the
fallback provision would not always work. Such a result is undesirable
and appears to be the inadvertent product of a rather tortuous drafting
history. See C. Wright, supra, at 262 n. 35.
My bill would eliminate the ambiguity in subsection (3) by specifying
that venue would be proper under this fallback provision in a district
in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. This
language would track the language in the parallel fallback provision in
section 1391(b). Again, I note that the Judicial Conference has
endorsed this change.
My third bill would remedy a problem that has arisen in the
procedures governing remand to State court of cases that have been
removed to Federal court. Section 1447(c) of title 28 provides that a
motion to remand a case on the basis of any defect in removal procedure
must be made within 30 days of the filing of the notice of removal. It
appears clearly to have been the intent of Congress that the phrase
``any defect in removal procedure'' would encompass any defect other
than lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Section 1447(c) specifies
that no time limit applies to motions to remand based on lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. But a few courts have taken a more narrow
reading, and a circuit split exists. See C. Wright, supra, at 249-250
and nn. 3-6. My bill would make clear that a 30-day limit applies to
all motions to remand except those based on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
S. 534. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide
authority for States to limit the interstate transportation of
municipal solid waste, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
interstate waste and flow control legislation
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that I
believe will solve the longstanding problem of the interstate disposal
of solid waste, as well as address the more recent issue involving the
use of flow control measures to control the disposal of these
materials.
For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with the issue, the
controversy surrounding the interstate transportation of solid waste is
one that the Senate has been considering since before 1990. Today, 47
States export approximately 14 to 15 million tons of solid waste per
year for disposal in other States. While short distance waste exports
have been occurring for
[[Page S3808]] some time, the development of a longhaul waste transport
market has been a more recent development. With tipping fees of $140
per ton in some large cities, compared with a national average of
between $30 and $50, there is an incentive for municipalities to
transport these wastes by truck and rail to distant States for
permanent disposal.
Those States that have recently been the recipients of large amounts
of long-haul wastes have raised a concern that their limited capacity
for solid waste disposal is being filled, and that they have become the
dumping ground for someone else's waste problems. Over the last few
years, 37 States have passed laws to prohibit, limit, or severely tax
waste that enters their jurisdiction. However, almost all of these laws
have been stuck down for violating the commerce clause of the
Constitution. While there has been some recent easing of disposal
capacity nationwide, there are still significant concerns about the
future consequences of the long-haul system.
To address these concerns Congress, as well as the Environment and
Public Works Committee, in particular, have been attempting to strike a
balance between importing and exporting States. Last year, the
Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am a member,
unanimously reported S. 2345 to address this problem. A number of
Members, both on and off the committee, including Senators Coats,
Specter, Lautenberg, Moynihan, and others, took a very active role in
attempting to develop a compromise that importing and exporting States
could live with. While the Senate easily passed this compromise by
voice vote on September 30, 1994, time ran out before this issue could
be finally resolved.
Today I am offering legislation that is cosponsored by Senator
Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
that will address both interstate waste and flow control. Title I of
our bill, which pertains to interstate waste, is essentially the same
package that the Senate overwhelmingly supported last year. There was
no opposition that I was aware of. It is our hope that we will have
similar support for this legislation so that we can quickly lay this
issue to rest.
The issue of flow control is another trashrelated concern that has
been brought before Congress as a result of Supreme Court action. In
essence, flow control is a mechanism that has been utilized by a
variety of towns and cities to mandate that solid waste be disposed of
at facilities designated by that entity. In May 1994, the Supreme
Court, in the decision of Carbone versus Clarkstown, struck down a New
York flow control ordinance as a violation of the commerce clause. For
better or worse--depending on your point of view--the Carbone decision
essentially halted efforts nationwide to enact flow control measures.
Cities and towns that utilized flow control authority prior to Carbone
assert that it allowed them to create integrated waste control systems,
including activities such as recycling, composting, and hazardous waste
collection--that would not have been possible without this authority.
Since 1980, over $20 billion in municipal bonds have been issued to
pay for the construction of solid waste facilities utilizing flow
control. In the wake of Carbone, there has been a strong concern raised
that without prompt action by the Congress to authorize some flow
control, many cities and towns that let these bonds are in danger of
having these investments downgraded--some say even turned into junk
bonds. This concern was underscored by a recent decision of Moody's
Investors Service to downgrade the waste bond rating of five New Jersey
counties to below investment grade status. In addition to bond-related
concerns, the proponents also assert that the failure of Congress to
provide flow control authority will leave State and local governments
defenseless in their efforts to control the export of interstate waste.
It must be noted, however, that flow control does not have universal
support. It does not really have this Senator's support. A number of
mayors and local officials, such as Bret Schundler, the mayor of Jersey
City, NJ, have gone on record in strong opposition to the use of flow
control. They argue essentially that flow control limits the ability of
local government to find low-cost, environmentally sound disposal
alternatives, and results in exorbitant and unnecessarily high tipping
fees.
In addition to these arguments, a recently released EPA report
entitled ``Flow Controls and Municipal Solid Waste,'' concludes that
not only is there ``no empirical data showing that flow control
provides more or less protection'' to human health and environment. The
report then goes on to say that there is no evidence that ``flow
controls are essential either for the development of new solid waste
capacity or for the long-term achievement of State and local goals for
source reduction, reuse, and recycling.''
So, last week, the Environmental and Public Works Subcommittee on
Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment, which I chair, of course,
held an extensive hearing that focused on two issues: Both flow control
and interstate waste. During that hearing, we heard testimony from New
Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman and others, including
Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, who called for the enactment of
very broad flow control authority for municipalities in States well
into the future. Others, including the Natural Resources Defense
Council and Competitive Enterprise Institute requested that the Senate
enact no flow control whatever.
My subcommittee also heard from the Public Securities Association
which outlined the domino effect that might occur if Congress were to
fail to authorize any flow control for those municipalities that have
already let bonds under the presumption that they had the authority to
flow control. They assert that not only would a failure to enact this
authority affect the value of the existing flow control bonds, but it
would also have a detrimental effect on the ability of the
municipalities to let any bonds in the future.
So, the language that Senator Chafee and I are today introducing will
protect those municipalities that impose flow control pursuant to a
law, ordinance, regulation, or any other legally binding provision
prior to May 15, 1994, prior to the Carbone decision, and which
implemented flow control by designating a flow control facility prior
to that date. In addition, this bill will protect those municipalities
that imposed flow control prior to May 15, 1994, but which were in the
midst of constructing such a flow control facility. Thus, in other
words, if the municipality had its permits to construct and had signed
contracts to build the facilities, had let revenue bonds, or had
received its operating permit prior to May 15, 1994, it would also be
able to take advantage of the grandfather provision and the protection
that we are providing in our bill.
Our bill also provides sufficient flexibility so that the facilities
that need to retrofit or modify their equipment to meet environmental
or safety requirements, or if the facility needs to expand on the land
that they own and that it is covered by their permit, they will be
allowed to do so.
But it does not stop there Mr. President. Our bill is intended to
provide a sense of finality to this issue. Precisely 30 years after
this legislation is adopted, no further flow control measures will be
allowed. Zero, none.
I want to be clear: I am opposed to flow control. I think the
interstate commerce clause is exactly correct and the court's ruling
was correct. I am not convinced that communities need to have broad
flow control authority in order to ensure the proper disposal of their
solid wastes. Nonetheless, I am aware of and I am sympathetic to and
understand the position of those cities and towns that need this
grandfathering so they can pay off the bonds that were let, based on
the presumption that they had this authority. They thought they had the
authority, they let the bonds, and they are kind of in the middle in a
whipsaw, what to do. And nothing has been done since May 15, 1994,
except the bonds have been going down in value.
So, under our bill, those municipalities that took action on this
presumption will be protected. It is a grandfather protection. It ends
in 30 years. Why 30 years? Because that is as long as any bonds that we
know of are out there. It is a compromise.
[[Page S3809]] Frankly, it is not my philosophical view. I do not
believe that there ought to be flow control, but I do understand that
things happen. Sometimes people believe they are doing the right thing,
think they have the authority to do the right thing, and they get
caught in the middle.
I believe this legislation strikes a fair balance in accommodating
those who are strong proponents of States' rights and those who are
strong proponents of the free market system.
Now, there are some who will probably try to amend this legislation,
perhaps here on the floor or in committee, who will take the position
that the States should have the total right to enact flow control any
way they want to do that. But that is not the free market system. I am
surprised, somewhat, by some of my colleagues who take that position
who claim to be free marketeers.
So, in essence, what I tried to do in order to help those people who
immediately need the help, is to craft this compromise, to grandfather
the situations where there is an urgency here, where there has been
some money expended, through the processes that I indicated, letting
the bonds, or permitting, or construction work, or contracts, allow
that to be grandfathered, and then at the end of that period of time,
we go back to no flow control, we go back to interstate commerce.
Now, I am not convinced that the free market could not fully address
this issue of disposing of our Nation's solid waste, but I am willing
to make this accommodation.
Now, again, let me repeat, so that there is no misunderstanding, I do
not support systemwide flow control, and I am strongly opposed to any
prospective flow control. I feel that our bill has struck the balance,
and I do not feel we need to go any further. Grandfathering is there.
It ends in 30 years from the date of the enactment of the legislation.
Those municipalities that are in danger of having their bonds
downgraded have requested that we move quickly to resolve this issue.
That is exactly what I have been doing. It is the first piece of
legislation that we worked on and marked up. There are many other
pieces of legislation out there that are very critical, that are very
high priority to me and to the Senate, including Superfund. We put this
first in order to accommodate these communities, these municipalities,
who have this problem.
I would hope that those people who might have a stronger view that we
ought to have total flow control would understand that I have done this
in an effort to help those communities and not get this thing into an
extended debate, an extended controversy, to try to go all the way over
to systemwide flow control and allow what I believe to be a reasonable
compromise to pass.
I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation. It is very
carefully thought out. Senator Chafee was immensely helpful and
supportive. Senator Coats did a lot of work on interstate transfer of
waste. He was very helpful, of course, and others. I hope that we will
get support for this legislation, that it will pass quickly, as we do
have kind of an emergency situation out there with these
municipalities.
But I would just say to my colleagues, if we wind up in a huge floor
fight, either out here on the floor or perhaps a fight in committee
which delays this, then I think we are making a serious mistake in not
helping those communities who really need the help.
Again, this is a big step for me because I believe that there should
not be flow control, as I indicated. And had this situation not
developed where we had these municipalities who had let these bonds, we
would be out here with legislation that basically says there would be
no flow control.
So I am doing this as a compromise to help those communities and
municipalities in need. Hopefully, people will understand that and this
legislation will be promptly passed by the Senate, sent to the House
and signed by the President and become law.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I join the Senator from New
Hampshire [Mr. Smith] in introducing legislation dealing with
interstate waste and flow control authority. I want to acknowledge the
Senator's effort. As the chairman of the Environment Committee's
Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, the Senator
from New Hampshire has taken the lead in drafting this legislation,
targeting issues that went unresolved last year.
As you may recall, at the close of the last session of Congress, a
so-called compromise on interstate waste and flow control was approved
by the House and sent to the Senate on the last day of the session. I
had real concerns with the bill. We could have approved that bill if
there had been time for debate and an opportunity to consider
amendments. But that was not the case. It was a take-it-or-leave-it
proposition, and for a number of reasons, I could not take it.
The legislation was broad in scope, both on interstate and flow
control. In my view, unlike the Senate-passed bill on interstate
waste--which was a fair accommodation of importing and exporting
States' interests--the House-passed bill tilted the scales out of
balance in favor of importing States. Rhode Island, I might add, is a
waste exporter. On flow control--which was not addressed in the Senate
bill--the House bill favored local governments to the detriment of
consumers and small business.
My major concerns with the House-passed bill revolved around three
key issues, one on interstate and two on flow control.
On interstate, the primary problem was the inclusion of language
creating a statutory presumption against the lawful shipment of waste
across the State lines. On flow control, the House-passed bill granted
authority not only to existing facilities with outstanding bond debt--
the Public Securities Association's primary concern--but also to
facilities with little or no financial exposure. In addition, the
language would have resurrected Rhode Island's flow control authority--
even though a Federal district court blocked that law in 1992, and the
State has no need for the authority.
Now, to the legislation. For the record, Senator Smith chaired a
Waste Control Subcommittee hearing on March 1, 1995, to solicit
testimony on interstate waste and flow control from the various
interest groups, including the National Association of Counties, the
National Federation of Independent Business, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and waste haulers. In addition, Senators Coats and
Cohen as well as Representative Chris Smith and Gov. Christine Todd
Whitman testified before the committee. There is great interest in
moving this legislation early in the session, and we intend to do so.
The legislation is straightforward. Title I deals exclusively with
the interstate transport of waste. Title II focuses on the issue of
flow control.
Let me turn to title I. On interstate shipments, this bill we are
introducing is similar to S. 2345, legislation that was approved
unanimously by the Senate last year. I want to make it clear that the
bill before us deals exclusively with the transport, across State
borders, of municipal solid waste--commonly known as garbage or trash.
It purposely avoids imposing restrictions on the interstate transport
of hazardous waste, industrial waste, or even construction and
demolition debris, which create a different set of problems, and would
require markedly different approaches.
The interstate conflict is a symptom of a larger solid waste problem.
Our society is generating more and more waste. We are a throw-away
society. As a result, our landfills have become precious resources.
What's more, communities all across the country are finding it
exceedingly difficult to site new capacity, even for waste generated
within their borders.
Listen to these statistics. In the United States, we generate about
180 million tons of municipal waste each year. Forty-three States ship
some 15 million tons out of State each year. Forty-two States also
import some waste. Nearly every State relies on at least one other
State to handle some portion of their waste. The vast majority of these
shipments are noncontroversial, so-called border waste which has been
traveling short distances over State lines for years. We do not want to
upset these arrangements unnecessarily.
The real problem arises when some States, such as Pennsylvania,
Indiana, and Ohio are forced to accept far more
[[Page S3810]] waste than they want. We need a three-part strategy to
solve this problem. First, we must reduce the amount of waste we
produce. Second, we need to recycle more of the waste that is produced.
And third, States and localities must be given some additional
authority to control the disposal of waste in a safe and
environmentally sound manner.
Toward this end, the bill we are considering would give States
limited authority to impose restrictions on municipal wastes that are
imported from other States. Subject to certain exceptions, this
legislation allows a Governor to prohibit shipments of out-of-State
waste if the affected local government submits a request to the
Governor. In addition, a Governor could unilaterally freeze out-of-
State waste at 1993 levels at certain landfills and incinerators.
The legislation, I must admit, is complicated because it attempts to
accommodate the interests of many Members and because it recognizes
that interstate waste is not an issue in just one or two States. In
developing this bill, the chairman has struggled to provide States some
control over imported garbage without unduly limiting interstate
commerce.
In addressing the problem, the chairman has tried to find a solution
that will reduce unwanted imports, and yet give exporting States some
time to reduce the amount of waste generated, to increase recycling,
and to site new, in-State capacity. I believe the legislation we are
considering, while far from perfect, is equitable, and will provide a
responsible solution to the problem.
To be sure, our work on this issue, as well as on flow control, has
just begun. Senator Smith and I are ready to work with the committee
and other interested Members of the Senate to craft a bill that can be
approved by both Senate and House.
Now to title II on flow control. Flow control is the method used to
route a community's solid waste to designated, often publicly financed,
disposal facilities, with little or no competition from the private
sector. Flow control laws, because of their potential interference in
interstate
commerce, have been overturned in several Federal courts, most
recently last May at the Supreme Court in Carbone versus Clarkstown.
The issue is controversial both for the private waste market and the
many communities that have financed waste facilities in reliance upon
flow control.
The implications of congressional action on flow control have the
potential to resonate throughout the economy. Flow control laws have
been widely used in recent years, often as a tool to guarantee that
projected amounts of waste and revenues will be received at waste
management facilities funded by revenue bonds. In fact, since 1980,
over $24 billion in municipal bonds have been issued to pay for the
construction of solid waste facilities.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, investors were assured that
the projected amounts of waste would be delivered to the facility
because flow control laws were in place. In some cases, the local
government agreed to bear the risk that flow control laws would be
found to be unconstitutional. They have enforceable put-or-pay
contracts. Now, unless a solution is developed, affected governments'
bond ratings may be at risk, and local residents will have to pay for
services they are not receiving.
In developing a solution, however, we must take into consideration
not only the interests of local taxpayers and bondholders but also
consumers and small business who may get a better deal in the absence
of flow control laws. Furthermore, I have great concern generally with
the anticompetitive nature of flow control.
The bill we are introducing today strikes a balance, protecting past
community investments based on flow control without perpetuating an
anticompetitive market going forward. Under our bill, each State and
each political subdivision may exercise flow control authority if that
authority is imposed pursuant to law or other legally binding provision
and has been implemented by designating facilities that were
constructed after the effective date of the provision and prior to May
15, 1994. In addition, the bill provides a grandfather provision, for
communities that have made a substantial commitment toward the
designation of a waste management facility, although not yet
constructed, prior to May 15, 1994. Finally, the bill includes a flow
control authority sunset provision effective 30 years after date of
enactment.
Mr. President, I believe this legislation represents a good faith
effort to bring the various parties together on the issues of
interstate waste and flow control. It provides additional authority to
waste importers without overriding the needs of waste exporting
States--it protects past community financial investments and yet
provides opportunities for the private sector. So, I commend the
Senator from New Hampshire and look forward to working with him and the
other members of the committee to report this legislation in an
expeditious fashion.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 537. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the alaska native claims settlement act amendments act of 1995
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill
to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. This
legislation is noncontroversial and fully supported by the Alaska
Federation of Natives. The bill was passed by the House of
Representatives last Congress. The Senate Energy Committee held
hearings and approved a similar bill. Unfortunately, it did not pass
the full Senate last year because of an issue unrelated to this
legislation.
The enactment of the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act [ANCSA] was a
landmark event in Alaska's history. The land grants and compensation
provided to Alaska Natives under ANCSA was unprecedented and has proven
to be a successful alternative to the reservation system in the lower
48 States. ANCSA created business corporations based on existing Alaska
Native communities and the corporations are responsible for investing
and managing assets provided under ANCSA for the benefit of the all-
Native shareholders. ANCSA created a system that allows Alaska Natives
to become self-sufficient.
While I am happy to say that the system created under ANCSA is
working, there are some changes that are sometimes necessary to make
sure the intent of ANCSA is carried out. This bill corrects existing
technical problems with ANCSA and the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act [ANILCA]. An identical bill was introduced in the
House by my colleague from Alaska.
The legislation is designed to resolve specific problems, for example
one section of the bill will make it possible for the Caswell and
Montana Creek Native groups to receive lands approved by a February
1976 agreement and finally fulfill their land entitlement under ANCSA.
Another provision would allow Chugach Native Corp. to select a specific
tract of land at the edge of their own current boundaries. Included in
this bill there are eight technical amendments to resolve specific
issues. Another section would make certain veterans from the Vietnam
era eligible for land allotments under ANCSA.
Mr. President, it is my hope that the committee which last year
agreed that all of these items were noncontroversial will retain their
spirit of cooperation so that this legislation will be able to move
early in this session.
______
By Mr. HATFIELD:
S. 538. A bill to reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline
under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of, a
hydroelectric project in Oregon, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
talent irrigation district license extension
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation which allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
grant Talent Irrigation District, in Jackson County, OR, an extension
of its hydro project construction commencement deadline.
The project is a 2.4-megawatt powerhouse, planned as an attachment to
the existing Emigrant Dam, on the Emigrant River in southern Oregon.
Low water conditions in the Emigrant
[[Page S3811]] River, resulting from 8 years of continuous drought in
Oregon, have caused the irrigation district to reevaluate the operating
plan of the project. I believe granting an extension in this case will
enable local officials to better configure this project to maximize
power production and fish enhancement in light of the reduced water
flows in the Emigrant River.
Construction of the existing Emigrant Dam was completed in 1959. It
has a structural height of 176 feet and impounds 39,000 acre feet of
water, which is delivered to about 8,000 users, irrigating
approximately 30,000 acres.
On May 24, 1989, FERC issued a construction license to the Talent
Irrigation District for the hydro project extension at Emigrant Dam.
The license required construction to commence within 2 years--by May
24, 1991. In January 1991, the district requested and received a 2-year
extension of the construction commencement deadline, until May 24,
1993, citing the need to consult further with the Bureau of Reclamation
and continue negotiating a power sales agreement.
All negotiations were completed by April 1992, but the low flow
conditions in the Emigrant River caused the Talent Irrigation District
to postpone the commencement of construction and reevaluate the hydro
project's proposed operating plan. When the 2-year extension expired on
May 24, 1993, FERC canceled the license.
In order to commence with this project, the district needs its
license reinstated and additional time to carefully evaluate the
operating plan for the Emigrant hydro project and adjust it to perform
better under low water conditions, both for power production and fish
enhancement. The Federal Power Act, however,
only allows FERC to grant one 2-year extension to the district, which
it granted in 1991. Therefore, legislation is required to authorize
FERC to extend the deadline further.
The legislation I am introducing today reinstates the Talent
Irrigation District license and grants the district up to 4 years to
begin construction.
I look forward to working with members of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee to ensure that this proposal receives
prompt and thorough attention.
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. 538
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF PERMIT EXTENSION DEADLINE.
Notwithstanding the expiration of the permit and
notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise
apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project
numbered 7829, the Commission shall, at the request of the
licensee for the project, reinstate the permit effective May
23, 1993, and extend the time period during which the
licensee is required to commence the construction of the
project to the date that is 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. COCHRAN:
S. 539. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a tax exemption for health risk pools; to the Committee on Finance.
THE HEALTH RISK POOLS ACT OF 1995
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to grant Federal tax exemption to State health risk pools. The purpose
of a health risk pool is to provide health and accident insurance
coverage to individuals who, because of health conditions, would
otherwise not be able to secure health insurance coverage.
Since 1976, 28 States have enacted legislation establishing a health
insurance pool aimed at protecting uninsurable and high-risk
individuals. Most of the pools were established in the last 4 years.
For example, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Risk Pool Association
Act was enacted by the Mississippi State Legislature during the 1991
legislative session and became effective April 15, 1991. At that time
Mississippi became the 25th State to enact such legislation.
The Comprehensive Health Insurance Risk Pool Association was created
to implement such a health insurance program. Members of the
association include insurance companies and nonprofit health care
organizations which are authorized to write direct health insurance
policies and contracts supplemental to health insurance policies in
Mississippi. The association also includes third party administrators
who are paying and processing health insurance claims for Mississippi
residents.
Over the past 3 years, the association has issued medical insurance
policies to approximately 900 Mississippians. The association is funded
by premiums paid by policyholders and quarterly assessments against
members of the association. There is no public funding--State or
Federal--involved.
Currently, about 120,000 individuals nationwide are a member of a
State pool. Nationally, there are an additional 1 to 3 million people
who are uninsured and uninsurable, and who could be eligible for
inclusion in a State pool.
Unfortunately, several State health risk pools have applied for, and
have been denied, exemption from Federal taxation under International
Revenue Code sections 501(c)(4) and/or 501(c)(6). Generally, the
Internal Revenue Service's [IRS] rationale for such denial has been
that the sole activity of the health risk pools is the provision of
health insurance for individual policyholders. The IRS perceives,
incorrectly in my view, health risk pools as a regular business
ordinarily carried on for profit, which primarily provide commercial
type insurance. Moreover, the IRS takes the position that health risk
pools are primarily serving the private interests of its members and
not the common interest of the community as a whole.
In its decision to deny the State of Mississippi's Comprehensive
Health Insurance Risk Pool Association exemption from Federal income
tax, the Internal Revenue Service in a letter dated August 16, 1993,
states:
For purposes of section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue
Code, an organization providing insurance for its members or
other individuals, except in very limited instances, either
is considered to be engaged in an activity that is an economy
or convenience in the conduct of members' businesses because
it relieves the members of obtaining insurance on an
individual basis, or is a regular business of a kind
ordinarily carried on for profit. In either case, the
activity of providing insurance is not considered to be an
exempt activity under section 501(c)(6) and, if it is the
primary activity of the organizations, exemption under
section 501(c)(6) is precluded pursuant to section
1.501(c)(6)-1 of the regulations.
However, health risk pools have been created by statute in several
States to serve a public function of relieving the hardship of those
who, for health reasons, are unable to obtain health insurance
coverage. These pools do not carry on an activity ordinarily carried on
by insurance companies and are not designed to make a profit. Further,
they are established by State statute and none of the net earnings
benefits any private shareholder, member, or individual.
The Federal Government should serve as an impetus for, not an
impediment to, State health care reform. We should do all we can to
increase the ability of States to help the uninsured. The Senate
Finance Committee recognized the value of health risk pools and
included a version of this bill in their health care reform legislation
last year.
In order to allow States real flexibility in designing effective
health care plans, State health risk pools should be exempt from
taxation. By passing this legislation, we will promote State-based
health care reform by expressly granting Federal tax exemption to State
health risk pools, notwithstanding the IRS's current position. While
future national health care reform may eliminate the need for State
health risk pools, until such reform is implemented, these entities
will remain the only source of medical insurance for many of our
citizens.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
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. 539
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That (a) subsection (c) of section 501 of the
Internal Revenue Code
[[Page S3812]] of 1986 (relating to list of exempt
organizations) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
``(26) Any corporation, association, or similar legal
entity which is created by any State or political subdivision
thereof to establish a risk pool to provide health insurance
coverage to any person unable to obtain health insurance
coverage in the private insurance market because of health
conditions and no part of the net earnings of which inures to
the benefit of any private shareholder, member, or
individual.''
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to
taxable years beginning after December 31, 1989.
______
By Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Levin):
S. 540. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
conduct at least three demonstration projects involving promising
technologies and practices to remedy contaminated sediments in the
Great Lakes system and to authorize the Administrator to provide
technical information and assistance on technologies and practices for
remediation of contaminated sediments, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
______
By Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Levin, and Mr.
Feingold):
S. 541. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
coordinate and promote Great Lakes activities, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
great lakes resources legislation
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf
of myself and my distinguished colleagues, Senator DeWine and Senator
Levin to introduce the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments [ARCS] Reauthorization Act and on behalf of Senator DeWine,
Senator Levin, and Senator Feingold to introduce the Great Lakes
Federal Effectiveness Act.
I am honored to be joined by a new Great Lakes Senator, Senator
DeWine. I am pleased that the Senator from my home State, Ohio, has
shown such significant leadership on Great Lakes issues so early on in
the 104th Congress. Both Senator Levin and Senator Feingold's
consistent leadership on issues of critical importance to the Great
Lakes is exemplary. Furthermore, I am honored that another Ohio
colleague, Congressman LaTourette, and Congressman Quinn are
introducing a House companion bill for the Great Lakes Federal
Effectiveness Act with Congressman Oberstar joining them on the ARCS
Reauthorization Act.
These two bills address the unique water resources in the Great Lakes
region, the impact of contaminated sediments on our freshwater
resources and the need for coordinated research efforts to efficiently
apply science to our efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes. I
am proud to join my colleagues from the Great Lakes region in the
introduction of the ARCS Reauthorization Act and the Great Lakes
Federal Effectiveness Act.
Sedimentation has created a need to dredge Great Lakes harbors for
decades. Industrialization of our region and the nation increased the
amount of erosion and storm water runoff which in turn escalates the
amount of sediment being deposited on our lake and river bottoms and
coastal shores. Unfortunately, recent times have seen dredging become
increasingly costly largely due to the contaminants which accompany the
silt. Contaminated dredge spoils require special handling for proper
disposal which adds to the cost of the dredging.
Contrary to what one might think, the bottom of a water body is not a
safe depository for toxics. Resuspension of these toxics may result
from both human and natural activity in the water thus acting as a
continual discharge of contamination into the water. The contaminants
become available to enter the food chain or come in contact with
recreational users. Contaminated sediments can result in shellfish
contamination, fish advisories and threats to human health by those who
consume tainted fish.
The ARCS Program is a demonstration program for innovative technology
to address the problem of contaminated sediments. The 5-year ARCS
program was originally authorized in the 1987 Clean Water Act. The ARCS
Program authorized the implementation of pilot-scale tests of promising
sediment remediation technologies to address the water pollution
problems in the Great Lakes. Reauthorization of the ARCS Program takes
us to the next level: full-scale demonstrations of contaminated
sediment remediation. The ARCS Program, coordinated by the
Administrator of the EPA, acting through the Great Lakes National
Program Office, would implement three sediment remediation
demonstration projects and at least one full-scale demonstration of a
remediation technology.
The second bill, the Great Lakes Federal Effectiveness Act [GLFEA] is
consistent with the current efforts to streamline Government and reduce
redundant or outdated programs. The GLFEA will prevent unnecessary
duplication of efforts among Federal agencies which undertake Great
Lakes research. The act establishes a Great Lakes Council, composed of
offices from the Environmental Protection Research Agency, Fish and
Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
and other Federal agencies conducting research in the Great Lakes
basin. The Council will assess the current status of scientific
research capabilities, identify research priorities for the region,
make recommendations for integrated data collection and management of
Great Lakes resources, and finally develop and disseminate its findings
through a biennial report.
The Great Lakes Federal Effectiveness Act does not require any new
funding, rather it actually aims to help agencies better manage their
research budgets and potentially cut costs through cooperative efforts
to set research priorities and avoid unnecessary or duplicative
projects. The Great Lakes Council will essentially serve as a
clearinghouse for Great Lakes information and research findings and
develop a uniform, multimedia, data collection protocol for use across
the Great Lakes basin.
The multimedia approach of this legislation allows our experts to
share scientific knowledge and address air, water, soil, and wildlife
factors in our efforts toward responsible stewardship of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. This ecosystem perspective on the natural environment,
if incorporated into our Federal environmental policy, promises to
fundamentally improve the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental
management.
The Great Lakes Federal Effectiveness Act will provide Federal,
State, academic and private sector officials with a vehicle through
which information can be compiled and ultimately shared among the
region's research community. The act will stretch our research dollars
and help us to better tap scientific resources within the private
sector, the academic community, and Federal agencies. I urge my
colleagues of the Senate to endorse this legislation and move toward
its timely enactment.
____________________