[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 65 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5547-S5552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BRYAN:
  S. 712. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize 
the award of fees and expenses to prevailing parties in frivolous civil 
litigation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    frivolous lawsuit prevention act

 Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Frivolous 
Lawsuit Prevention Act of 1995. This legislation will increase 
sanctions on lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits.
  Almost daily we hear stories about some individual or business 
settling a lawsuit which has little merit just to avoid the costs 
associated with a drawn out case. The manhours and resources that can 
be drained from a business while it goes through such a process can be 
devastating.
  Many of us had hoped that the rules governing the conduct of court 
behavior would deter frivolous lawsuits. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure authorize judges to impose ``an appropriate 
sanction'' upon an attorney which is ``interposed for any improper 
purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless 
increase in the cost of litigation.'' Unfortunately, rule 11 has not 
lived up to our expectations in curbing abusive lawsuits and, in fact, 
has been recently watered down.
  This legislation is intended to force judges to punish lawyers or 
litigants who file or pursue cases which the judge regards as 
frivolous. Judges would be required to impose sanctions when they find 
frivolous suits, thereby, taking away their discretion. This step needs 
to be taken because judges have been reluctant to impose sanctions on 
fellow attorneys. It has always been difficult to get any group to 
discipline their colleagues, where it is doctors, lawyers or realtors. 
That is why we must force judges to impose sanctions when frivolous 
case are filed.
  Frivolous lawsuits are a terrible drain on the competitiveness of our 
Nation. We must provide those who want to fight these frivolous suits 
rather than settle them the power to go after the perpetrators. I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD.
  S. 713. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 to provide that the preemption provisions shall not apply to 
certain State of Oregon laws applicable to health plans; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


              universal access and the oregon health plan

 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, during the 1989 and 1991 
legislative sessions, Oregon's Legislature passed a comprehensive 
health care reform proposal known as the Oregon Health Plan. The Oregon 
Health Plan consists of four major reform packages. First, the Medicaid 
expansion which received a Federal waiver and has provided an 
additional 100,000 Oregonians with basic health care since it was 
implemented in February 1994. Second, the high-risk insurance pool 
which covers Oregonians who are unable to obtain insurance coverage due 
to preexisting conditions or the exhaustion of their current benefits. 
Third, the small employer basic health plan which provides for a low-
cost insurance plan for small businesses of 25 or fewer employees. And 
finally, the employer mandate which by 1998 will require all employers 
in Oregon to provide health benefits for their employees or to pay into 
a State pool which will then purchase insurance for uninsured 
employees. When fully implemented the Oregon Health Plan will provide 
near universal access to health care for all Oregonians.
  As my colleagues know, I have spoken many times on this floor about 
the need to allow States to proceed with innovative health care reform 
proposals. That is why I have joined with the Senator from Florida [Mr. 
Graham] in introducing the Health Partnership Act of 1995. The 
Congress' failure to act on comprehensive national health care reform 
should not prevent innovative States like Oregon, Florida, Washington, 
Minnesota, and others from enacting their own health care reform 
proposals.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government has stymied these efforts in 
several ways. It took Oregon two administrations and almost 3 years to 
get the approval necessary to move forward with the Oregon Medicaid 
expansion. The current waiver process at the Health Care Financing 
Administration is burdensome and at times overregulatory.
  Another major roadblock to State reform is the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act, otherwise known as ERISA. Due to the broad 
interpretation courts have given to the so-called ERISA preemption 
clause contained in section 514(a) of the act, which states that ERISA 
``shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or 
hereafter relate to any employee 
 [[Page S5548]] benefit plan'', States have been limited in enacting 
comprehensive reforms that attempt to provide universal access to all 
their State's citizens and to control costs throughout the entire 
insurance market.
  Mr. President, once again I find myself before this body asking for 
another waiver of Federal law to permit Oregon to go forward with 
reform that has been advanced by my State. This time it is to allow 
Oregon to implement the last part of the Oregon Health Plan--the 
employer mandate.
  Oregon's employer mandate is a pay-or-play mandate--in other words, 
the State will tax employers who choose not to provide health benefits 
which will be defined by the State for their employees, and then 
provide health insurance to those uninsured employees through a State 
insurance pool. While the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled that this 
kind of access mechanism violates the ERISA preemption clause, it is 
certainly subject to an ERISA challenge based on the premise that 
Oregon is trying to regulate self-insured plans in a way that relates 
to employee benefit plans.
  Under the current ERISA statute, only Congress may statutorily grant 
ERISA waivers to States. At this time, only one State, Hawaii, has an 
ERISA exemption and that is only because Hawaii enacted its law before 
ERISA was enacted. Hawaii's waiver has not been updated since it was 
granted 20 years ago.
  While Senator Graham and I have proposed a mechanism for broad ERISA 
changes in our health care reform bill which will begin to address the 
ERISA roadblocks States face, I feel it is necessary to introduce 
legislation which provides for a specific waiver of ERISA for the State 
of Oregon. I introduce it as a separate vehicle to underscore the point 
that one way or another, Oregon needs a green light from the Federal 
Government in order to fully implement the Oregon Health Plan.
  Of course, I understand the concern multi-State employers have about 
the prospect of administering fifty different health plans across the 
Nation. This is a valid concern which I hope we can accommodate as we 
continue to debate the issue of ERISA reform further.
  Let me conclude by saying that I hope my colleagues will make note of 
this problem. Oregon is not the only State that is attempting to enact 
comprehensive health care reform and if the Supreme Court continues its 
broad application of ERISA, it is likely that the voices of other 
States will soon be heard. Comprehensive national reform may be dead 
for now, but let us not give up on the States to help us find the right 
answers and make health care available to all Americans.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 714. A bill to require the Attorney General to study and report to 
Congress on means of controlling the flow of violent, sexually 
explicit, harassing, offensive, or otherwise unwanted material in 
interactive telecommunications systems; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


CHILD PROTECTION, USER EMPOWERMENT, AND FREE EXPRESSION IN INTERACTIVE 
                            MEDIA STUDY ACT

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I introduce a bill calling for a 
study by the Department of Justice, in consultation with the U.S. 
Department of Commerce on how we can empower parents and users of 
interactive telecommunications systems, such as the Internet, to 
control the material transmitted to them over those systems. We must 
find ways to do this that do not invite invasions of privacy, lead to 
censorship of private online communications, and undercut important 
constitutional protections.
  Before legislating to impose Government regulation on the content of 
communications in this enormously complex area, I feel we need more 
information from law enforcement and telecommunications experts. My 
bill calls for just such a fast-track study of this issue.
  There is no question that we are now living through a revolution in 
telecommunications with cheaper, easier to use, and faster ways to 
communicate electronically with people within our own homes and 
communities, and around the globe.
  A byproduct of this technical revolution is that supervising our 
children takes on a new dimension of responsibility. Very young 
children are so adept with computers that they can sit at a keypad in 
front of a computer screen at home or at school and connect to the 
outside world through the Internet or some other on-line service. Many 
of us are, thus, justifiably concerned about the accessibility of 
obscene and indecent materials on-line and the ability of parents to 
monitor and control the materials to which their children are exposed. 
But Government regulation of the content of all computer and telephone 
communications, even private communications, in violation of the first 
amendment is not the answer--it is merely a knee-jerk response.
  Heavy-handed efforts by the Government to regulate obscenity on 
interactive information services will only stifle the free flow of 
information, discourage the robust development of new information 
services, and make users avoid using the system.
  The problem of policing the Internet is complex and involves many 
important issues. We need to protect copyrighted materials from illegal 
copying. We need to protect privacy. And we need to help parents 
protect their children. Penalties imposed after the harm is done is not 
enough. We need to find technical means from stopping the harm before 
it happens.
  My bill calls for a study to address the legal and technical issues 
for empowering users to control the information they receive over 
electronic interactive services. Instead of rushing to regulate the 
content of information services, we should encourage the development of 
technology that gives parents and other consumers the ability to 
control the information that can be accessed over a modem.
  Empowering parents to manage what their kids access over the Internet 
with technology under their control is far preferable to some of the 
bills pending in Congress that would criminalize users or deputize 
information services providers as smut police.
  Let's see what this study reveals before we start legislating in ways 
that could severely damage electronic communications systems, sweep 
away important constitutional rights, and undercut law enforcement at 
the same time.
  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. 714

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

     SECTION 1. STUDY ON MEANS OF RESTRICTING ACCESS TO UNWANTED 
                   MATERIAL IN INTERACTIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
                   SYSTEMS.

       (a) Study and Report.--Not later than 150 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     complete a study and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary 
     of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
     of Representatives a report containing--
       (1) an evaluation of whether current criminal laws 
     governing the distribution of obscenity over computer 
     networks and the creation and distribution of child 
     pornography by means of computers are fully enforceable in 
     interactive media;
       (2) an assessment of the Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement resources that are currently available to enforce 
     those laws;
       (3) an evaluation of the technical means available to--
       (A) enable parents to exercise control over the information 
     that their children receive and enable other users to 
     exercise control over the commercial and noncommercial 
     information that they receive over interactive 
     telecommunications systems so that they may avoid violent, 
     sexually explicit, harassing, offensive, or otherwise 
     unwanted material; and
       (B) promote the free flow of information consistent, with 
     Constitutional values, in interactive media; and
       (4) recommendations to encourage the development and 
     deployment of technical means, including hardware and 
     software, to enable parents to exercise control over the 
     information that their children receive and enable other 
     users to exercise control over the information that they 
     receive over interactive telecommunications systems so that 
     they may avoid harassing, violent, sexually explicit, 
     harassing, offensive, or otherwise unwanted material.
       (b) Consultation.--In conducting the study and preparing 
     the report under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall 
     consult with the National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration of the Department of Commerce.

[[Page S5549]]

      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 715. A bill to provide for portability of health insurance, 
guaranteed renewability, high risk pools, medical care savings 
accounts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


      health insurance portability and guaranteed renewability act

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Health Insurance Portability and Guaranteed Renewability Act of 1995. I 
am pleased to be joined by Senators Inhofe and Hatch an introducing 
this important legislation.
  President Clinton, in his 1993 joint session address, said that 
``Millions of Americans are just a pink slip away from losing their 
health insurance, and one serious illness away from losing all their 
savings.''
  While the President's statement was right, his prescription for 
reform--as the American people told us in no uncertain terms--was dead 
wrong. We must find a way to give Americans greater health security 
without turning the whole system over to the Federal Government, as the 
President had proposed. We must address the public's insecurities 
regarding their health insurance while preserving what works in the 
American health care system and allowing the free market to work.
  That is why I am today introducing the Health Insurance Portability 
and Guaranteed Renewability Act of 1995. This is a bill which I am 
confident will go a long way toward accomplishing these goals.
  First, our bill would eliminate job lock by guaranteeing that people 
who change jobs will be covered by their new employer's plan without 
regard to preexisting medical conditions.
  It will expand COBRA to provide for continuation of coverage for all 
individuals employed by firms of two or more employees, and extends 
COBRA coverage from 18 to 36 months. Therefore, employees losing their 
jobs will have the opportunity to continue their health coverage for an 
additional 18 months under their current plan. Present COBRA law 
benefits only those employers with more than 20 employees.
  It will help control health costs by changing the tax law to allow 
tax-free medical savings accounts. Empirical evidence demonstrates that 
medical saving accounts can control costs and promote wellness without 
jeopardizing quality of care. Money saved in such accounts by employees 
can be used to pay COBRA premiums, if needed.
  It will provide a safety net for people who cannot qualify for health 
insurance by giving them access to health insurance through high-risk 
pools.
  Finally, it will prevent insurance companies from singling out any 
individual or small group for rate increases or cancellation based on 
claims experience.
  I believe this bill goes a long way toward giving the American people 
what they want--greater health security without a Big Government 
takeover of our Nation's health care system. The fact that it can be 
implemented without new taxes, and without adding to the deficit, is 
further reason that the Health Insurance Portability and Guaranteed 
Renewability Act of 1995 should be enacted without delay.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 716. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to provide for 
criminal penalties for acts involving Medicare or State health care 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                     health reform enhancement act

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to clarify 
that States which already use, or which seek to utilize, Medicaid 
dollars to pay private health insurance premiums would be allowed to do 
so.
  Unfortunately, a recent interpretation of the anti-kickback statute 
by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human 
Services has placed at risk innovative Government programs that attempt 
to channel Medicaid and Medicare dollars through the private sector 
through mechanisms such as the purchase of health insurance policies or 
the payment for managed care. That interpretation, which could apply 
the anti-kickback statute to insurance agent commissions, came as part 
of Florida's waiver request for a Medicaid demonstration project. Such 
an interpretation ignores the fact that insurance agents are an 
integral part of any system relying in whole or in part on private 
health insurance coverage.
  In the State's submission of its Florida Health Security [FHS] waiver 
on February 9, 1994, the proposal would--if enacted--provide 1.1 
million additional Floridians with insurance coverage up to 250 percent 
of the poverty level. FHS participants would buy a standard benefit 
package offered through a community health purchasing alliance and 
receive, according to their income, a premium discount to make the 
package affordable.
  Florida's proposal is innovative but in many ways simple. As the 
State has explained in its proposal,

       Through the managed competition system developed in Florida 
     and improved program management, the [State] expects to 
     reduce the cost of health care, thereby increasing the funds 
     available for subsidizing insurance for Florida's uninsured. 
     The net result of this arrangement will be lower health care 
     costs overall in the State and greater access to health care 
     for a significant portion of Florida's currently uninsured 
     residents.

  Through the community health purchasing alliances established by the 
State, private sector small businesses are already seeing reductions in 
their health premiums of between 10 to 50 percent across the State. The 
State would like to see its Medicaid Program and other small businesses 
achieve similar results.
  On September 14, 1994, after 7 months of negotiations with the 
Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice, 
the Federal Government granted a conditional waiver approval to allow 
Florida to implement the State's proposed reforms. By granting this 
important request, Florida would be allowed to use Medicaid funds to 
provide insurance premium discounts to working, uninsured Floridians 
traditionally ineligible for Medicaid.
  As a result, despite the Federal Government's failure to move toward 
the goals of health reform such as increased access, cost containment 
and quality, Florida could do so through Florida health security.
  First and foremost, let me reemphasize that this waiver program would 
allow an additional 1.1 million Floridians obtain health insurance 
coverage--thereby reducing the State's uninsured rate by over 40 
percent. Moreover, of the 2.7 million Floridians presently without 
health insurance, 1 million are children. With the plan's requirement 
that 80 percent of the enrollment spaces be reserved for lower-income, 
uninsured families, children will disproportionately benefit from this 
initiative.
  In addition, this waiver would eliminate the all-or-none approach of 
Medicaid by creating a sliding scale of contributions for those above 
the Medicaid poverty threshold and up to 250 percent of poverty. At 
present, Medicaid's all-or-none approach creates the perverse incentive 
of encouraging people to remain unemployed and in poverty in order to 
continue to have health care coverage. Florida's approach would clearly 
help get people off welfare and be a much fairer system than what we 
have now.
  The waiver also allows Florida and the Federal Government better 
control over the costs of the Medicaid Program. Since 1982, Florida's 
Medicaid Program has increased from $1 billion to $7 billion. From 1990 
through 1993, Florida saw its Medicaid budget expand by 30, 26, and 19 
percent, respectively. Instead, over the 5-year period of Florida's 
waiver program, costs would be controlled and managed through the 
increased use of case management and managed care in the private 
sector. Through these savings, the State and the Federal Government 
will be able to provide coverage to over 1 million previously uninsured 
Floridians without spending additional revenue.
  In short, Florida's Health Security Program would expand access and 
health coverage without raising taxes, control costs and break the 
categorical link between health care and welfare.
  To implement this program, Florida Health Security will utilize the 
already successfully established community health purchasing alliances, 
which have reduced premiums for participating small businesses by 10 to 
50 percent 
 [[Page S5550]] this year. As a result of this, private health plans 
and insurance agents will be integrally involved in the Florida Health 
Security Program.
  In fact, under Florida Health Security, accountable health 
partnerships would submit bids on premium rates for the standard 
benefit plan, with a portion of the premium to be paid by Medicaid. 
Insurance agents would be directly involved in the process due to the 
fact that they are an integral part of this process. The alternative 
would be to employ a statewide force of State workers to provide such 
enrollment services, which would be wasteful and inefficient in 
comparison such agents are already trained and available in all areas 
across the State.
  Unfortunately, HHS and the Department of Justice have expressed 
concern that payments to insurance agents by accountable health plans 
might violate the Social Security anti-kickback statute. Clearly, the 
1977 anti-kickback statute was not intended or even contemplated to 
apply to programs like Florida's demonstration project.
  In fact, there are already numerous and widespread examples of 
Medicare and Medicaid funds being used for the payment, directly or 
indirectly, to insurance agents. These include Medicaid revisions in 
the Family Support Act of 1988, which creates a Medicaid wrap-around 
option allowing States to use Medicaid funds to pay a family's expenses 
for premiums, deductibles and coinsurance for any health care coverage 
offered by the employer.
  As the State argued while pursuing the waiver, since insurance 
companies use insurance agents, the purchase of insurance and the 
payment of premiums of necessity results in the payment of a commission 
to an insurance agent. This is also true when Medicaid funds health 
maintenance organizations [HMO's], the Medicare Risk Program and 
various State plans relating to areas such as the enrollment of 
Medicaid eligibles in group health plans.
  Through the section 1115 Medicaid demonstration project waiver 
process, Florida is attempting, for the first time, to use Medicaid 
funds to purchase private health insurance on a wide scale. However, by 
mistakenly applying the anti-kickback statute beyond its intended scope 
to insurance agent commissions, the Departments of Justice and Health 
and Human Services would effectively and radically alter the 
demonstration. As noted before, insurance agents are an integral part 
of the existing health insurance system and our critical to the 
implementation of Florida's Health Security Program.
  As a result, this legislation focuses narrowly on clarifying
   that the 1977 anti-kickback statute would not unnecessarily be 
applied to Medicaid demonstration projects and Medicaid managed care 
programs, which were initiatives that were not anticipated in the 
original adoption of the statute. Failure to adopt this language, with 
Justice's and HHS's present interpretation of the statute, could very 
well jeopardize every State or Federal health plan which already uses, 
or which seeks to use, Federal moneys to fund private health insurance 
coverage.

  Through either payments to employers or directly to individuals, many 
States have Medicaid programs that buy private insurance policies and 
thereby result in the payment of insurance agent commissions. States 
such as Oregon, California, Vermont, Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, 
Massachusetts, Missouri, Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, and New Jersey have such 
arrangements and do not withhold payment for commissions or limit the 
commissions which can be paid. These innovative Medicaid programs and 
Medicare risk contracts could all be jeopardized without language 
clarifying the intent of the anti-kickback statute.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and 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. 716

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

     SECTION 1. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR ACTS INVOLVING MEDICARE OR 
                   STATE HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS.

       Section 1128B(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1320a-7b(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F)(i) any premium payment made to a health insurer or 
     health maintenance organization by a State agency in 
     connection with a demonstration project operated under the 
     State medicaid program pursuant to section 1115 respect to 
     individuals participating in such project; or
       ``(ii) any payment made by a health insurer or a health 
     maintenance organization to a sales representative or a 
     licensed insurance agent for the purpose of servicing, 
     marketing, or enrolling individuals participating in such 
     demonstration project in a health plan offered by such an 
     insurer or organization.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 717. A bill to extend the period of issuance of Medicare select 
policies for 12 months, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                        health care legislation

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation with 
Senators Pryor and Rockefeller to extend the reauthorization of the 
Medicare Select Program from July 1, 1995, to July 1, 1996. Florida is 
one of the 15 States originally authorized to participate in the 
program and more than 20,000 people in Florida were participating in 
Medicare select by the end of 1994.
  Medicare select has created a more uniform and understandable set of 
policies for seniors to choose from in the Medicare supplemental 
market. As the August 1994 article entitled ``Filling the Gaps in 
Medicare'' in Consumer Reports said.

       The law has had positive effects. It eliminated the 
     bewildering variety of benefits that insurance companies had 
     been selling. It made agents wary of selling a prospect more 
     than one Medicare-supplement policy, a useless and costly 
     duplication of coverage.

  The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida's select policy ranks among the 
best values in the Nation.
  However, the expiration date is quickly approaching for this 
demonstration program. Florida Blue Cross Blue Shield would have 
preferred the program to have already been extended by April 1, 1995, 
so that Florida's Medicare beneficiaries and providers could have 
avoided any disruption in the program. That date has passed. In fact, 
if not extended shortly, health plans and providers will have to 
prepare to close the program to new Medicare enrollees on June 30. The 
consequences would be to significantly increase premiums for current 
Medicare select enrollees and could lead to deterioration of networks 
as providers choose to leave the expired program.
  In S. 308, the Health Partnership Act, that I introduced with Senator 
Hatfield on February 1, 1995, our legislation would have made the 
program permanent and expanded the program to all 50 States. I no 
longer believe this is possible in time to prevent disruption to plans. 
Although the House passed a version to extend the program for 5 years 
with an accompanying study to determine whether the program results in 
savings to enrollees, reduces expenditures in the Medicare Program, and 
impacts access to and quality of care, Senate review of the program 
could not take place quickly enough to prevent disruption in the 15 
States.
  Moreover, a study of the items called for by the House is already 
being conducted by the Health Care Financing Administration through the 
Research Triangle Institute. Rather than commissioning yet another 
analysis of Medicare select, wasting the money already being spent to 
study the program and waiting another 3 years to make potential 
improvements in the program, it would be better to immediately move 
forward with a 1-year reauthorization of the program. In the meantime, 
Congress should consider improvements to Medicare select based upon the 
forthcoming study and other information we will receive. At that time, 
Congress should extend the program to all 50 States.
  During the next year, there are many questions we should be asking of 
this program. For one, what impact is this program having on Medicare? 
Moreover, there have been questions raised as to the rating methods 
used to price and sell these products. According to Consumer Reports,

       [[Page S5551]] Unless state regulations outlaw attained-age 
     pricing or national health reform makes community rating 
     mandatory for Medicare-supplement policies . . . attained-age 
     pricing will take over the marketplace, with serious 
     consequences to the oldest policyholders.

  This is something both Congress and the States should be reviewing.
  As a result, Mr. President, I urge urgent and immediate consideration 
of this legislation by the Senate and ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill be placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 717

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

     SECTION 1. 12-MONTH EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF 
                   MEDICARE SELECT POLICIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4358(c) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1320c-3 note) is 
     amended by striking ``3\1/2\-year'' and inserting ``54-
     month''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 718. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to establish an Environmental Financial Advisory 
Board and Environmental Finance Centers, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                       environmental finance act

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator 
D'Amato, I introduce the Environmental Finance Act of 1995. This bill 
will make permanent the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental 
Financial Advisory Board.
  As my colleagues are well aware, Congress has appropriated billions 
of dollars in the last 20 years for environmental improvements. While 
great progress has been made, much remains to be done. Over the last 
several years the EPA has produced significant data showing a shortfall 
between the need for environmental infrastructure and the resources 
available to meet that need.
  Environmental problems are some of the more compelling, complex, and 
controversial issues confronting the more than 83,000 local governments 
in the United States. Government officials are increasingly held liable 
for violations of environmental statutes, and have to finance 
environmental requirements imposed from Washington. Reporting 
requirements are increasing not only in frequency but in technical 
difficulty.
  With this burden now falling heavily on State and local governments, 
new means to pay for environmental services and infrastructure must be 
found. This is imperative if we are to maintain and build upon the 
significant environmental gains made thus far.
  In 1989, the Environmental Financial Advisory Board [EFAB] was 
created for the reasons I have just described. Over the last 4 years, 
the EFAB has provided advice and analysis to the EPA on how to pay for 
environmental protection and leverage public and private resources. The 
EFAB was initially a committee of the National Advisory Council for 
Environmental Technology Policy, and in 1991 it became an independent 
advisory board consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act.
  The EFAB has been assigned the role
   of providing advice on environmental financing. Its objectives 
include the following: Reducing the cost of financing environmental 
facilities and discouraging pollution; creating incentives to increase 
private investment in the provision of environmental services; removing 
or reducing constraints on private involvement in environmental 
financing; identifying approaches specifically targeted to small 
community financing; assessing government strategies for implementing 
public-private partnerships; and reviewing governmental principles of 
accounting and disclosure standards for their effect on environmental 
programs.

  The EFAB charter terminated on February 25, 1993. I am greatly 
pleased that EPA has initiated a renewal of the EFAB charter. It is, 
indeed, the intention of this legislation to help the EPA by creating 
in statute this most worthy program. Former EPA Administrator William 
K. Reilly testified before the House Appropriations Committee in 1991 
and expressed his hope that the EFAB would eventually become for the 
financing field what the Science Advisory Board has become to the field 
of environmental science. I share his determination.
  Mr. President, my legislation also will establish Environmental 
Finance Centers at universities throughout the country. This 
legislation will establish environmental finance centers in each of the 
10 Federal regions. These permanent centers will be effective vehicles 
for the promotion of innovative financing techniques. Currently, two 
pilot environmental finance centers at the Universities of New Mexico 
and Maryland promote new financing options by providing training to 
State and local officials, distributing publications, giving technical 
assistance targeted to local needs, and hosting meetings and workshops 
for State and local officials. These centers will work in conjunction 
with the EFAB to help States build their capacity to protect the 
environment. The Environmental Finance Centers are initially to be 
partially funded through Federal grants, with the goal that they 
eventually will become self-sufficient.
  In my own State, Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship 
and Public Affairs, drawing on the talents Syracuse's Schools of 
Engineering and Law, and the State University of New York's School of 
Forestry, is the EPA's Region II Environmental Finance Center. The 
Maxwell School ranks among the country's finest institutions; its 
applied research centers in public finance, metropolitan studies, and 
technology and information policy are ranked among the nation's top 
three such centers. The Metropolitan Studies Program is a national 
leader in examining a broad range of issues involving regional economic 
development and public finance in the United States.
  The Maxwell School has established a Center for Environmental Policy 
and Administration in which analysis of environmental issues, such as 
those envisioned for the EFAB and the regional Environmental Finance 
Centers, will play a major role. In addition, the Syracuse Law School 
is establishing an environmental law center that will complement the 
Finance Center.
  Mr. President, I ask 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. 718
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Finance Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to require--
       (1)(A) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to establish an Environmental Financial Advisory Board 
     to provide expert advice and recommendations to Congress and 
     the Administrator on issues trends, options, innovations, and 
     tax matters affecting the cost and financing of environmental 
     protection by State and local governments; and
       (B) the Board to study methods to--
       (i) lower costs of environmental infrastructure and 
     services;
       (ii) increase investment in public and private 
     environmental infrastructure; and
       (iii) build State and local capacity to plan and pay for 
     environmental infrastructure and services; and
       (2)(A) the Administrator to establish and support 
     Environmental Finance Centers in institutions of higher 
     education;
       (B) the Centers to carry out activities to improve the 
     capability of State and local governments to manage 
     environmental programs; and
       (C) the Administrator to provide Federal funding to the 
     Centers, with a goal that the Centers will eventually become 
     financially self-sufficient.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Environmental 
     Financial Advisory Board established under section 4.
       (3) Center.--The term ``Center'' means an Environmental 
     Finance Center established under section 5.

     SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish an 
     Environmental Financial Advisory Board to provide expert 
     advice on issues 
      [[Page S5552]] affecting the costs and financing of 
     environmental activities at the Federal, State, and local 
     levels. The Board shall report to the Administrator, and 
     shall make the services and expertise of the Board available 
     to Congress.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall consist of 35 members 
     appointed by the Administrator.
       (2) Terms.--A member of the Board shall serve for a term of 
     2 years, except that 20 of the members initially appointed to 
     the Board shall serve for a term of 1 year.
       (3) Qualifications.--The members of the Board shall be 
     individuals with expertise in financial matters and shall be 
     chosen from among elected officials and representatives of 
     national trade and environmental organizations, the 
     financial, banking, and legal communities, business and 
     industry, and academia.
       (4) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The members of the 
     Board shall elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, who 
     shall each serve a term of 2 years.
       (c) Duties.--After establishing appropriate rules and 
     procedures for the operations of the Board, the Board shall--
       (1) work with the Science Advisory Board, established by 
     section 8 of the Environmental Research, Development, and 
     Demonstration Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365), to identify and 
     develop methods to integrate risk and finance considerations 
     into environmental decisionmaking;
       (2) identify and examine strategies to enhance 
     environmental protection in urban areas, reduce 
     disproportionate risks facing urban communities, and promote 
     economic revitalization and environmentally sustainable 
     development;
       (3) develop and recommend initiatives to expand 
     opportunities for the export of United States financial 
     services and environmental technologies;
       (4) develop alternative financing mechanisms to assist 
     State and local governments in paying for environmental 
     programs;
       (5) develop alternative financing mechanisms and strategies 
     to meet the unique needs of small and economically 
     disadvantaged communities; and
       (6) undertake such other activities as the Board determines 
     will further the purpose of this Act.
       (d) Recommendations.--The Board may recommend to Congress 
     and the Administrator legislative and policy initiatives to 
     make financing for environmental protection more available 
     and less costly.
       (e) Open Meetings.--The Board shall hold open meetings and 
     seek input from the public and other interested parties in 
     accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
     App.) and shall otherwise be subject to the Act.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.

     SEC. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish and 
     support an Environmental Finance Center in an institution of 
     higher education in each of the regions of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.
       (b) Duties and Powers.--A Center shall coordinate the 
     activities of the Center with the Board and may--
       (1) provide on-site and off-site training of State and 
     local officials;
       (2) publish newsletters, course materials, proceedings, and 
     other publications relating to financing of environmental 
     infrastructure;
       (3) initiate and conduct conferences, seminars, and 
     advisory panels on specific financial issues relating to 
     environmental programs and projects;
       (4) establish electronic database and contact services to 
     disseminate information to public entities on financing 
     alternatives for State and local environmental programs;
       (5) generate case studies and special reports;
       (6) develop inventories and surveys of financial issues and 
     needs of State and local governments;
       (7) identify financial programs, initiatives, and 
     alternative financing mechanisms for training purposes;
       (8) hold public meetings on finance issues; and
       (9) collaborate with another Center on projects and 
     exchange information.
       (c) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants to 
     institutions of higher education to carry out this section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
     

                          ____________________