[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 84 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7014-S7020]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Simpson):
  S. 831. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 
the tax treatment of certain contributions made pursuant to veterans' 
reemployment; to the Committee on Finance.


             the veterans' reemployment rights act of 1995

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am today introducing, with 
the cosponsorship of my good friend from Wyoming, Al Simpson, chairman 
of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, legislation that involves 
a matter related to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 
Rights Act of 1994 [USERRA], Public Law 103-353. This landmark rewrite 
of a 1940's law, which provides employment protections to returning 
servicemembers, was derived from legislation reported by the House and 
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. There was one issue, however, 
related to USERRA which falls under the jurisdiction of the Finance 
Committee, a committee on which Al Simpson and I also serve. It was not 
possible to get this issue resolved last year before final passage of 
the USERRA legislation, and the bill we are introducing today would 
accomplish that goal.
  Mr. President, the matter in question relates to provisions in USERRA 
which address a returning servicemember's rights to participate in the 
employer's pension plan and, more specifically, to the relationship 
between USERRA and the Internal Revenue Code. Under USERRA, it is 
possible that a pension plan, by seeking to comply with USERRA, could 
have to make payments on behalf of now returned servicemembers that 
could cause the plan to go out of compliance with the Internal Revenue 
Code [IRC] because of the total amount of payments made by the plan in 
a given year. Obviously, this is a result that is not intended and 
which should be avoided. The appropriate remedy--an amendment to the 
Internal Revenue Code--is in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, 
and thus the matter must be resolved in legislation developed by that 
committee.
  Mr. President, so as to allow time for an amendment to the IRC to be 
considered, USERRA provides a 2-year period before compliance with the 
pension provisions in the new law would be required. As I noted during 
Senate debate last September on the final compromise of the USERRA 
legislation, it was my intention, which I communicated at the time to 
Senator Moynihan in his then-role as chairman of the Finance Committee, 
to take the lead in the Finance Committee in proposing the appropriate 
amendment to the Internal Revenue Code as part of the first appropriate 
tax bill. I also indicated to Senator Moynihan that, should such an 
amendment not be in law as the 2-year window provided in USERRA nears 
its end, I would work to amend USERRA so as to provide for a further 
delay in the effective date of the pension provisions.
  Mr. President, our introduction of this bill today is the initial 
step in seeking to fulfill the pledges made last fall. I look forward 
to working with Senator Simpson and all the members of the Finance 
Committee on this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill we 
are introducing be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 831

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

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS MADE PURSUANT 
                   TO VETERANS' REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(u) Special Rules Relating to Veterans' Reemployment 
     Rights.--
       ``(1) Treatment of certain required contributions.--If any 
     contribution is made by an employer under an individual 
     account plan with respect to an employee and such 
     contribution is required by reason of such employee's rights 
     under chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, resulting 
     from qualified military service--
       ``(A) such contribution shall not be subject to any 
     otherwise applicable limitation contained in section 402(g), 
     403(b), 404(a), 408, 415, or 457, and
       ``(B) such plan shall not be treated as failing to meet any 
     requirement of this part or section 457 by reason of the 
     making of such contribution and such contribution shall not 
     be taken into account in applying the limitations referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) to other contributions.

     For purposes of the preceding sentence, any additional 
     elective deferral made under paragraph (2) shall be treated 
     as an employer contribution required by reason of the 
     employee's rights under such chapter 43.
       ``(2) Reemployment rights with respect to elective 
     deferrals.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an employee is entitled to the 
     benefits of chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, with 
     respect to any plan which provides for elective deferrals, 
     such employer shall be treated as meeting the requirements of 
     such chapter 43 with respect to such elective deferrals if 
     such employer--
       ``(i) permits such employee to make additional elective 
     deferrals under such plan (in the amount determined under 
     subparagraph (B)) during the period which begins on the date 
     of the reemployment and whose duration is the lesser of--
       ``(I) 5 years; or
       ``(II) 3 times the period of qualified military service 
     which resulted in such rights; and
       ``(ii) makes a matching contribution in respect of any 
     additional elective deferral made pursuant to clause (i) 
     which would have been required had such deferral actually 
     been made during the period of such qualified military 
     service.
       ``(B) Amount of makeup required.--The amount determined 
     under this subparagraph is the maximum amount of elective 
     deferrals that the individual would have been permitted to 
     make under the plan during his period of qualified military 
     service if he had continued to be employed by the employer 
     during such period and received compensation at the rate 
     computed in accordance with section 4318(b)(3) of title 38. 
     Proper adjustment shall be made to the amount determined 
     under the preceding sentence for any elective deferrals 
     actually made during the period of such qualified military 
     service.
       ``(C) Elective deferral.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `elective deferral' has the meaning given to such 
     term by section 402(g)(3); except that such term shall 
     include any deferral of compensation under an eligible 
     deferred compensation plan (as defined in section 457(b)).
       ``(3) Loan repayment suspensions permitted.--If any plan 
     suspends the repayment of any loan made to an individual for 
     the period while such individual is performing qualified 
     military service, such suspension shall not be taken into 
     account for purposes of section 72(p).
       ``(4) Qualified military service.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `qualified military service' means any 
     service in the uniformed services (as defined in chapter 43 
     of title 38, United States Code) by any individual if such 
     individual is entitled to reemployment rights under such 
     chapter 43, with respect to such service.
       ``(5) Individual account plan.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `individual account plan' means any 
     defined contribution plan and any eligible deferred 
     compensation plan (as defined in section 457(b)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as of September 2, 1974, and shall apply to 
     plans as if such amendment were enacted on such date as part 
     of section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

[[Page S7015]]

      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 832. A bill to require the Prospective Payment Assessment 
Commission to develop separate applicable percentage increases to 
ensure that Medicare beneficiaries who receive services from Medicare-
dependent hospitals receive the same quality of care and access to 
services as Medicare beneficiaries in other hospitals, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


           the medicare dependent hospital relief act of 1995

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce timely legislation that 
addresses the problems of a special class of institutions--
Medicare-dependent hospitals--that have Medicare patient loads of 60 
percent or more. These hospitals, both rural and urban, have 
significantly higher Medicare losses and lower overall margins than 
other hospitals. This problem, particularly in light of Medicare 
payment reductions in this year's forthcoming budget reconciliation 
package, threatens the viability of these hospitals and the access to 
and quality of services to Medicare beneficiaries.
  The legislation I am introducing in conjunction with my good friend, 
Florida Congressman Clay Shaw, is called the Medicare Dependent 
Hospital Relief Act of 1995. The bill would simply require that the 
Prospective Payment Advisory Commission [ProPAC], in addition to its 
recommendations on payment rate updates for all hospitals, makes a 
separate recommendation on updates for Medicare-dependent hospitals. 
This recommendation would be required to be budget neutral.
  In addition, the bill would require ProPAC's annual report to 
Congress to include recommendations ensuring that beneficiaries served 
by Medicare-dependent hospitals retain the same access and quality of 
care as Medicare beneficiaries nationwide.
  The need for this legislation is rather simple. In 1992, ProPac 
estimates that Medicare payments were $11 billion below the level 
needed to fully cover the cost of treating Medicare beneficiaries. For 
the Nation's 1,400 Medicare-dependent hospitals, their high Medicare 
patient loads limits their ability to cost shift to other payors. In 
those hospitals with 80 percent Medicare patients, this is particularly 
difficult--if not impossible.
  As the March 1995 ProPAC report notes:

       The ability to use cost shifting to fill the revenue gap 
     where Medicare cost increases exceed payment increases varies 
     across hospitals. Facilities that treat larger shares of 
     Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured patients have a lesser 
     ability to cost shift to the private sector. In view of 
     growing price competition in the marketplace, these 
     facilities will face a greater risk of declining margins, 
     which eventually could threaten their financial viability and 
     their ability to care for Medicare beneficiaries.

  According to 1992 cost reports, profit margins for hospitals ranged 
from positive margins as great as 12 percent to losses of 17 percent. 
Medicare-dependent hospitals, on average, have margins 3 percent below 
the average Medicare margin. In effect, these hospitals would seem to 
pay a penalty for their service to the elderly.
  In fact, due to low margins, limited ability to cost shift and 
payments from all payors ratcheting down, Medicare-dependent hospitals 
will have to either close or reduce services. In either case, the 
ultimate losers will be the Medicare beneficiaries these hospitals 
serve.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous 
consent to have the bill printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 832

       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 ``Medicare Dependent Hospital 
     Relief Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF SEPARATE APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE 
                   INCREASES FOR MEDICARE DEPENDENT HOSPITALS AND 
                   OTHER HOSPITALS BY THE PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT 
                   ASSESSMENT COMMISSION.

       (a) Development of Separate Applicable Percentage 
     Increases.--
       (1) In general.--The Prospective Payment Assessment 
     Commission established under section 1886(e)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(e)(2)) (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Commission'') shall, in accordance with 
     paragraph (2), develop for fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter separate applicable percentage increases 
     described in section 1886(b)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(b)(3)(B)) for medicare dependent hospitals and 
     subsection (d) hospitals which are not medicare dependent 
     hospitals.
       (2) Equalization of medicare margins.--The Commission shall 
     develop separate applicable percentage increases under 
     paragraph (1) such that, if such increases were in effect, 
     the estimated average annual medicare margins of all medicare 
     dependent hospitals in furnishing inpatient hospital services 
     to medicare beneficiaries in such fiscal year would be equal 
     to the average annual medicare margins of all subsection (d) 
     hospitals which are not medicare dependent hospitals in 
     furnishing inpatient hospital services to medicare 
     beneficiaries in such fiscal year.
       (3) Budget neutrality.--The Commission shall provide that 
     the separate applicable percentage increases developed under 
     paragraph (1) would, if in effect, not result in aggregate 
     payments under section 1886 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395ww) to medicare dependent hospitals and subsection 
     (d) hospitals which are not medicare dependent hospitals for 
     the furnishing of inpatient hospital services in a fiscal 
     year in excess of the aggregate payments under such section 
     to such hospitals in such fiscal year if such increases were 
     not in effect.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning in March 1996, the Commission 
     shall, in each of the Commission's March reports to the 
     Congress required under section 1886(e)(3) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(e)(3)), include--
       (A) the separate applicable percentage increases developed 
     by the Commission under subsection (a)(1) for the upcoming 
     fiscal year; and
       (B) recommendations on methods to ensure that medicare 
     beneficiaries who receive services furnished by medicare 
     dependent hospitals have the same access and quality of care 
     as medicare beneficiaries who are furnished services by 
     subsection (d) hospitals which are not medicare dependent 
     hospitals.
       (2) Annual review of medicare margins.--The Commission 
     shall develop the recommended methods under paragraph (1)(B) 
     after annually reviewing the average medicare margins in 
     medicare dependent hospitals and the impact of such medicare 
     margins on the medicare dependent hospitals' overall profit 
     margins.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Medicare beneficiary.--The term ``medicare 
     beneficiary'' means an individual who is entitled to benefits 
     under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395c et seq.).
       (2) Medicare dependent hospital.--The term ``medicare 
     dependent hospital'' means any subsection (d) hospital--
       (A) that is not classified as a sole community hospital 
     under section 1886(d)(5)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(D)); and
       (B) for which not less than 60 percent of its inpatient 
     days were attributable to medicare beneficiaries during 2 of 
     the last 3 preceding fiscal years for which data is 
     available.
       (3) Medicare margin.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``medicare margin'' means for a 
     fiscal year the ratio expressed as a percentage equal to--
       (i) the difference between all medicare revenues paid to a 
     hospital for the operating costs of inpatient hospital 
     services in a fiscal year and all medicare program eligible 
     expenses for such operating costs for such fiscal year (as 
     shown by each hospital's HCFA 2552 report submitted annually 
     to the Health Care Financing Administration); divided by
       (ii) all medicare revenues paid to the hospital for the 
     operating costs of inpatient hospital services for such 
     fiscal year.
       (B) Operating costs of inpatient hospital services.--The 
     term ``operating costs of inpatient hospital services'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 1886(a)(4) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(a)(4)).
       (4) Subsection (d) hospital.--The term ``subsection (d) 
     hospital'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     1886(d)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(d)(1)(B)).
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dole, Mr. Campbell, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Bennett, 
        Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Burns, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mrs. 
        Boxer):
  S. 833. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to more 
accurately codify the depreciable life of semiconductor manufacturing 
equipment; to the Committee on Finance.


                 the semiconductor investment act of 1995

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Semiconductor 
Investment Act of 1995. I am joined by Senators Baucus, Dole, Campbell, 
Feinstein, Cohen, Cochran, Kyl, Bennett, Craig, D'Amato, Burns, 
Rockefeller, and Boxer. This bill is designed to help the American 
semiconductor industry compete globally by shortening the depreciable 
life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment from 5 years to 3. 
Congresswoman Nancy Johnson of Connecticut has introduced identical 
legislation in the House of Representatives.

[[Page S7016]]

  The U.S. semiconductor industry employs more than 200,000 Americans, 
sells over $40 billion of products annually, and currently controls 40 
percent of the world market. Its products form the foundation of 
practically every electronic device used today. The American 
semiconductor industry is a success story because it has invested 
heavily in the most productive, cutting-edge technology available, and 
currently spends a full 25 percent of its revenues on capital 
investment. Unfortunately, Mr. President, our semiconductor industry is 
threatened.
  While the equipment used to manufacture semiconductors has a useful 
life of only about 3 years, current tax depreciation rules require that 
cost of the equipment be written off over a full 5 years. The 
Semiconductor Investment Act would correct this flaw, Mr. President, by 
allowing equipment used in the manufacture of semiconductors to be 
depreciated over a more appropriate 3-year period. Given the massive 
level of investment in the semiconductor industry, accurate 
depreciation is critical to industry success.
  The key reason for this 3-year depreciation period is that the 
equipment used to make semiconductors grows technologically obsolete 
more quickly than does other manufacturing equipment. Mr. President, 
recent research indicates that semiconductor manufacturing equipment 
almost completely loses its ability to produce sellable products after 
only 3 years. Today's 5-year period simply doesn't reflect reality. A 
quicker write-off period would help semiconductor manufacturers finance 
the large investment in equipment they need for the next generation of 
products.
  The National Advisory Committee on Semiconductors reinforced this 
conclusion. Congress founded the committee in 1988, and it consisted of 
Presidential appointees from both the public and private sectors. In 
1992, the committee recommended a 3-year depreciation period and stated 
that the shift from a 5-year to a 3-year schedule would increase the 
industry's annual capital investment rate by a full 11 percent.
  By comparison, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea employ much more generous 
depreciation schedules for similar equipment, and all three nations 
provide stiff competition for America's semiconductor manufacturers. 
For example, under Japanese law, a company can depreciate up to 88 
percent of its semiconductor equipment cost in the first year, while 
United States law permits a mere 20-percent depreciation over the same 
period. When multinational semiconductor firms are deciding where to 
invest, a depreciation gap this large can be decisive.
  This legislation will help ensure that America's semiconductor 
industry retains its hard-earned preeminence, a preeminence that yields 
abundant opportunities for high-wage, high-skill employment. Mr. 
President, my home State of Utah, provides an outstanding example of 
the industry's job-creating capacity. Thousands of Utahns earn their 
living in the State's flourishing semiconductor industry. Firms such as 
Micron Technology, National Semiconductor, and Varian have reinforced 
Utah's strong position in high-technology industries. With the fair tax 
treatment this bill brings, all Utahns can look forward to a more 
secure and prosperous future.
  Mr. President, the Semiconductor Investment Act of 1995 will help 
level the playing field between U.S. and foreign semiconductor 
manufacturers, and provides fair tax treatment to an industry that is 
one of the Nation's greatest success stories of recent years. I hope 
that my fellow Senators will join me in supporting this legislation. 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 833

       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 ``Semiconductor Investment Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. 3-YEAR DEPRECIABLE LIFE FOR SEMICONDUCTOR 
                   MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 168(e)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to classification 
     of property) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     clause (i), by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) 
     and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the 
     following new clause:
       ``(iii) any semiconductor manufacturing equipment.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking clause (ii) and 
     by redesignating clauses (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) as 
     clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v), respectively.
       (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(g)(3) of such Code is 
     amended by striking the following:

``(B)(ii)...........................................................5''

     and inserting the following:

``(A)(iii).........................................................3''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to equipment placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Lott, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
        Burns, Mr. Craig, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. 
        McConnell, and Mr. Thurmond):
  S. 834. A bill to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, 
and reduce welfare dependence; to the Committee on Finance.


                  the real welfare reform act of 1995

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, before coming to the Senate I spent 45 
years in the private sector meeting a payroll as a businessman and a 
farmer. Every year I watched as the Congress went into session and 
adjourned, leaving it more difficult for working taxpayers to make ends 
meet because of the out-of-control government spending programs that 
have put our country on the path to a fiscal disaster.
  Of all the spending programs implemented by the Federal Government, I 
do not know of a group that has been a bigger failure than those 
collectively known as welfare. President Johnson's War on Poverty, 
although launched with good intentions, has failed. And in many ways it 
has made the plight of the poor worse instead of better.
  The problem is not a lack of spending. Welfare spending has cost 
taxpayers $5.3 trillion in constant 1993 dollars since 1965, when the 
War on Poverty began. Currently, the Federal Government runs 
approximately 76 means-tested welfare programs, at a cost in 1994 of 
$350 billion. And this amount is projected to reach $538 billion by 
1999 if current trends continue.
  A simple commonsense principle has gotten our Nation and the poor 
into the present fix: You get more of what you pay for. And for the 
past 30 years we have subsidized and thus promoted self-destructive 
behavior like illegitimacy and family disintegration.
  This explosion in entitlement spending has fueled an entitlement 
mentality. Millions of Americans live day after day, month after month 
and year after year on paychecks from the government and give nothing 
in return--except their assurance that they will stay poor, and 
continue to fuel the government poverty machine.
  What is needed is a dramatic change, a reversal of the trends of the 
last 30 years.
  Today, I intend to re-introduce a welfare reform bill similar to one 
which I introduced last year with Senator Grassley and Senator Brown. 
The bill has three central purposes: to reduce illegitimacy, promote 
work, and control the growth of welfare costs.
  The bill will convert 67 means-tested welfare programs into a single 
block grant to the States. Spending on this block grant, and several 
other Federal programs, will be subject to an aggregate cap of 3 
percent per year.
  This single block grant will give States the flexibility to design 
programs which meet the specific needs of their poor citizens. If one 
State has had particular success with the Head Start Program, for 
example, and the State wanted to double the Head Start budget or triple 
it, they could do so, as long as the aggregate cap held growth to 3 
percent.
  Welfare should no longer be a one-way handout which destroys the 
desire of able-bodied people to work. Real reform would tansform 
welfare into a system of mutual responsibility in which welfare 
recipients who can work would be required to contribute something back 
to society in return for assistance given.
  My proposal will require able-bodied welfare recipients to work in 
return for their benefits. By 1997, the second year after enactment, 
half of all welfare beneficiaries will be required to do 
[[Page S7017]] community service or to work in public or private sector 
jobs in return for their benefits.
  This bill would target work requirements first on the most employable 
welfare recipients: single, able-bodied males, married couples 
receiving benefits, and single mothers of older children. The last 
group effected would be the least employable recipients: single mothers 
of preschool children. This avoids the extremely high cost of child 
care associated with putting these young mothers to work.
  One of the most insidious aspects of the welfare system is its 
destructive effect on the family. Our welfare system tells a young 
unwed mother, in effect, that she can collect up to $15,000 per year in 
benefits as long as she does not work or marry an employed male. Under 
such conditions, it makes more sense to remain unmarried. Welfare has 
transformed the low-income working husband from a necessary breadwinner 
into a net financial handicap.
  When the Great Society antipoverty programs were instituted in 1965, 
the out-of-wedlock birth rate in the United States was 7 percent. 
Thirty years later the rate has jumped to 30 percent. At this rate of 
growth it is projected to reach 50 percent by the year 2015, an 
alarming prospect by anyone's standards. Fifty percent, Mr. President. 
That means that, within just 20 years, half of all American children 
could be born to single women.
  Real welfare reform must discourage destructive behavior and 
encourage constructive behavior. Starting prospectively 1 year after 
enactment, the bill would eliminate direct welfare subsidies--except 
medical aid--to unmarried women under age 21 who have children out of 
wedlock. State governments may use Federal block grant funds to develop 
alternative strategies for assisting children born out of wedlock. The 
bill also encourages marriage by providing a tax credit to low-income 
married couples with children where at least one parent is employed.
  We all recognize the need, and share the desire, to reverse the 
corrupting incentives in our current welfare system. Welfare recipients 
must work for their benefits, and must not have children that they 
cannot support. This is the foundation on which real welfare reform 
rests, and welfare legislation that does not address both of these 
issues does not represent true reform.
  Finally, the Senate will soon take up welfare reform, and we must be 
willing to make the kinds of tough decisions necessary to reduce 
illegitimacy and promote work, or we will condemn yet another 
generation to the crippling effects of welfare dependency. The current 
state of our welfare system demands that we take immediate action, but 
we must do so with a clear purpose, in mind.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 835. A bill to provide for the operation of laboratories to carry 
out certain public-health functions for the region along the 
international border with Mexico, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                    southwest public laboratory act

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that is 
critically needed along our southern border. The Southwest Public 
Health Laboratory Act was approved by the Senate last year as part of 
S. 1569, the Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act. 
Unfortunately, Congress never completed action on S. 1569 and 
consequently the grave health and environmental risks along the United 
States-Mexico border continue to spread.
  This legislation will allow for the establishment and operation of 
State health and environmental labs along the United States-Mexico 
border. The grants made available by this act will support and leverage 
the important laboratory work our border States are already providing. 
Currently, all the border States suffer from a critical shortage of 
environmental and occupational health monitoring. The laboratory 
services provided by this legislation will support both local and State 
health and environmental agencies. As population and commerce increases 
along the border as a result of our commitment to hemispheric free 
trade, the need for state-of-the-art laboratory capacity will only 
increase.
  We have all seen the media accounts from California to New Mexico to 
Texas spotlighting the deplorable environmental conditions along the 
border. Beyond those television reports are millions of border 
residents, primarily minority, who are subject to health risks 
incumbent to these conditions.
  We are already aware of some of these risks, such as polluted water 
sources, untreated sewage, and pesticides, but there are others we may 
not be aware of simply because there are not enough facilities to 
analyze them.
  Let me give you an example of this problem from my home State of 
Texas. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, researchers obtained 
samples of fish from nearby waterways, a regular staple of many local 
diets, and it was determined that the edible tissue of the fish 
contained an unacceptable amount of the highly toxic chemical PCB. 
After further analysis, the Texas Department of Health promptly issued 
an advisory strongly recommending that fish taken from the waterways 
and reservoirs in the area may not be eaten.
  Of course, this discovery and analysis was given prompt attention. 
However, there are many potential risks along the border that are going 
unchecked. There simply is more work of that nature in the United 
States-Mexico border area than there are facilities to do it. There is 
an intolerable potential cost--the health of the citizens in the border 
area. So Federal support will mean badly needed improvement in the 
border States' abilities to respond to the health and environmental 
risks facing all citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that is 
critical to the health of citizens not only along the southern border 
but also across the United States. The health and environmental 
problems along the border do not check with customs or immigration 
before crossing the border. The Southwest Border Health Laboratory is 
an essential component in battling these risks before they have a 
chance to spread beyond the border.
                                 ______

      By Mr. EXON:
  S. 836. A bill to authorize appropriations for pipeline safety for 
fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    the pipeline safety act of 1995

 Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce by request 
the administration's proposed pipeline safety bill.
  This legislation builds on a continuing record of success that 
administrations of both parties and the Congress have made in ensuring 
the safe operation of America's vast network of natural gas, petroleum, 
water, and other types of pipelines.
  Pipeline safety is one of the lesser known, but more important 
responsibilities of the Senate Commerce Committee. As a former chairman 
of the Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee I am proud of the 
progress we have made in advancing safety. With this legislation, the 
Congress can open a new chapter of safety.
  This legislation gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to 
make grants to States to encourage the adoption of effective 
comprehensive one-call legislation. It also authorizes the Secretary to 
enter into cooperative agreements with the private sector to bring new 
efficiencies to pipeline safety research, risk assessment, and mapping.
  In a time of tight budgets, the bill also introduces the concept of 
risk management to pipeline safety activities. With fewer dollars 
available the Congress must be certain that we get the most bang for 
the buck or more appropriately, in the area of energy pipeline safety, 
we need to get no bang for the buck.
  Mr. President, as a member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
this important legislation, I want to mention some areas of concern 
which I would like our committee to address. In the area of mapping of 
pipeline locations, the Congress must assure that public and private 
funds are not wasted on duplicative efforts. The Government's mapping 
needs must be better coordinated with the private sector and existing 
mapping operations within the U.S. Government. There is no need to 
reinvent the wheel when it comes to pipeline mapping.
  I am also concerned about the way pipeline safety user fees are 
calculated [[Page S7018]] for natural gas suppliers in rural areas. The 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] maintains a fee schedule 
for their activities which more fairly takes into account the risk, 
volume, and economics of serving rural areas. I have urged the 
Department of Transportation to consider the FERC schedule and its 
appropriateness for their operations.
  Finally, Mr. President, I am committed to enacting a meaningful 
comprehensive one-call bill. Last year I was pleased to propose a 
compromise and work with Senators Bradley and Lautenberg to enact 
comprehensive one-call legislation. Meaningful call-before-you-dig 
programs will save lives, dollars, and productivity. I would certainly 
support the addition of the Bradley-Exon bill to this legislation. That 
bill represents the one-call compromise worked out last year.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the swift enactment of pipeline 
safety legislation this year and ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill and a section-by-section analysis prepared by the Department 
of Transportation be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 836

       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 ``Pipeline Safety Act of 
     1995.''

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or a repeal of, a section or other provision, 
     the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of title 49, United States Code.

                  TITLE I--PIPELINE SAFETY AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 101. RISK MANAGEMENT.

       Chapter 601 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 60126. Risk Management

       ``(a) The Secretary shall, based on information collected 
     and maintained by the Secretary, conduct an assessment of the 
     risk to public safety and the environment posed by pipeline 
     transportation. The assessment shall--
       ``(1) rank the risks identified by the Secretary in terms 
     of their probability of occurrence and their likely 
     consequences, and any other factors the Secretary considers 
     relevant;
       ``(2) identify, in priority order, technically feasible and 
     economically justified actions that should be taken to lessen 
     the risks identified; and
       ``(3) address, at a minimum, the following subjects:
       ``(A) Inspection by internal instrumented devices.
       ``(B) Hydrostatic testing.
       ``(C) Installation of emergency flow restricting devices, 
     including leak detection systems, for natural gas and 
     hazardous liquid pipelines.
       ``(D) Inspection and burial of underwater pipelines.
       ``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 
     if the Secretary determines that rulemaking regarding a 
     subject listed in subsection (a)(3) is not practicable, 
     appropriate, or reasonable, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress, not later than 60 days after the date of such 
     determination, an explanation of the reasons for that 
     determination.
       ``(c) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
     of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1995, the Secretary shall 
     transmit to Congress a report including the assessment 
     required under subsection (a) and a plan setting forth the 
     actions proposed by the Secretary to address each risk 
     identified in the assessment. Within 30 days after any 
     substantive change to the action plan, including the addition 
     or deletion of any subject or action in the plan, the 
     Secretary shall inform Congress in writing of the reasons for 
     the change.''.
     SEC. 102. ONE CALL NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS.

       Section 60114 (relating to one-call notification systems) 
     is amended by striking subsections (b) and (d), and 
     redesignating subsections (c) and (e) as (b) and (d), 
     respectively.

     SEC. 103. INTERNATIONAL UNIFORMITY.

       Section 60117 (relating to administration) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) International Uniformity of Standards.--
       ``(1) Participation in international forums.--Subject to 
     guidance and direction from the Secretary of State, the 
     Secretary of Transportation may participate in international 
     forums that establish or recommend pipeline safety standards 
     for transporting natural gas and hazardous liquids.
       ``(2) Consultation.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
     consult with interested authorities to ensure that, to the 
     extent practicable, regulations the Secretary prescribes 
     under this chapter are consistent with standards related to 
     pipeline safety transportation adopted by international 
     authorities.
       ``(3) Differences with international standards and 
     requirements.--The section does not require the Secretary to 
     prescribe a standard identical to, less stringent than, or 
     more stringent than a standard adopted by an international 
     authority or otherwise limit the Secretary's discretion in 
     issuing standards.''.

     SEC. 104. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

       Section 60117 (relating to administration), as amended by 
     section 103, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(l) Funding Authority.--To carry out this chapter, the 
     Secretary may enter into grants, cooperative agreements, and 
     other transactions with any person, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States, any unit of State or 
     local government, any educational institution, and any other 
     entity to further the objectives of this chapter, including 
     the development, improvement, and promotion of one-call 
     damage prevention programs, research, risk assessment, and 
     mapping.''.

     SEC. 105. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       Section 60124 (relating to annual reports) is repealed.

     SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 60125 (relating to authorization of appropriations) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``gas:'' and all that follows in subsection 
     (a) and inserting ``gas, $16,450,000 for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and such sums as may be necessary 
     for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999.'';
       (2) by striking ``liquid:'' and all that follows in 
     subsection (b) and inserting ``liquid, $10,968,000 for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999.'';
       (3)(A) by striking the heading of subsection (c) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``State Pipeline Safety Grants.--
     '';
       (B) by striking ``title:'' and all that follows in 
     subsection (c)(1) and inserting ``title, $15,000,000 for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999.'';
       (4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       (d) Other Transactions.--Not more than the following 
     amounts may be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out 
     section 60117(1) of this title: $5,000,000 for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1996, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Special Projects.--For each of fiscal years 1996, 
     1997, 1998, and 1999, not more than $500,000 or 0.5 percent 
     of the amount appropriated annually to carry out chapter 601, 
     whichever is less, may be appropriated to the Secretary to 
     fund special projects undertaken jointly with other offices 
     within the Department to improve the administration of 
     transportation safety programs.''.

     SEC. 107. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Section 60105 is amended by inserting ``Pipeline Safety 
     Program'' after ``State'' in the heading.
       (b) Section 60106 is amended by inserting ``Pipeline 
     Safety'' after ``State'' in the heading.
       (c) Section 60107 is amended by inserting ``Pipeline 
     Safety'' after ``State'' in the heading.
       (d) Section 60114(a)(9) is amended by striking ``, 60122, 
     and 60123'' and inserting ``and 60122''.

                  TITLE II--AVIATION TARIFF AMENDMENT

     SEC. 201. AVIATION TARIFF AMENDMENT.

       Section 40114(b) (relating to reports and records), is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' in the second sentence 
     and inserting ``With the exception of tariffs, the Secretary; 
     and''
       (2) by inserting ``The Secretary shall ensure that tariff 
     records are available to the public on a permanent basis.'' 
     after the second sentence.

               TITLE III--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 301. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 5107(j)(4)(A) (relating to employee training 
     requirements) is amended by striking ``section 5127(c)(3)'' 
     and inserting ``section 5127(b)(1)''.
       (b) Section 5116(j)(4)(A) (relating to supplemental 
     training grants) is amended by striking ``subsection (g)'' 
     and inserting ``section 5115''.
       (c) Section 5110(e) (relating to retention of shipping 
     papers) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Retention of Shipping Papers.--''; and
       (2) by striking the first sentence and inserting ``A person 
     required to provide a shipping paper to a carrier and a 
     carrier to which a shipping paper is provided shall retain, 
     at or accessible through its principal place of business, a 
     paper or electronic image copy of each shipping paper for one 
     year from the date the shipping paper has been provided to 
     the carrier.''.
                                                                    ____

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


                  TITLE I. PIPELINE SAFETY AMENDMENTS

       Sections 101 and 102. These sections contain the short 
     title for title I of the Act, and clarify that references in 
     title I to amendments of sections or other provisions are 
     [[Page S7019]] considered to be amendments to title 49, 
     United States Code.
       Section 103. This section would incorporate in the pipeline 
     safety statute a framework for risk management that would 
     facilitate the introduction of risk-based decisionmaking into 
     the pipeline safety program. Basing pipeline safety and 
     environmental decisionmaking on risk management principles 
     assures that the safety investments of pipeline operators can 
     be directed to those risks that pose the greatest threat to 
     the public and the environment.
       Both the Department and pipeline operators have been 
     working diligently to develop national standards for pipeline 
     system risk assessment (the tool) and risk management (the 
     safety program). In order to accommodate this new approach to 
     safety and environmental decisionmaking, the traditional 
     regulatory program framework, which focuses almost 
     exclusively on regulations to address every risk, would be 
     changed. This proposal has the benefit of facilitating a 
     determination before a rulemaking or other action is begun as 
     to what is the best risk-reduction action. In addition, the 
     proposal supplies the means for determining among identified 
     risks which ones should be addressed in what order and with 
     what resources.
       Section 104. This section removes the provision authorizing 
     grants to States for development of one-call systems. The 
     grant authority would be consolidated in 49 U.S.C. 60117(1) 
     (discussed in section 106 of this bill).
       Section 105. This section would allow the Secretary to 
     participate in international forums that establish pipeline 
     safety standards for transporting natural gas and hazardous 
     liquids. The Secretary would be authorized to consult with 
     international authorities to ensure that, to the extent 
     practicable, United States regulations are consistent with 
     international standards. The Secretary would not be required 
     to adopt identical standards and would not be prohibited from 
     adopting more, or less, stringent standards.
       Section 106. This section provides the Secretary with 
     general authority to enter into grants, cooperative 
     agreements and other transactions with States, industry, non-
     profit institutions, and other entities to support activities 
     that will achieve the objectives of the statute. These 
     activities include, but are not limited to, one-call 
     notification, research, risk assessment, and mapping.
       This section would expand the Secretary's current authority 
     to make grants to state pipeline safety agencies, by allowing 
     the Secretary to make grants to other State agencies, 
     operators of one-call notification systems, and non-profit 
     organizations to actively promote the use of one-call 
     notification systems. Prevention of damage to underground 
     facilities such as pipelines, water and sewer lines, fiber 
     optic cables, and electric lines represents one of the 
     Nation's most important and relevant safety initiatives. 
     Damage to pipelines from excavation and other powered 
     equipment is the leading cause of pipeline failures. The best 
     opportunity to avoid damage to underground facilities is 
     through use of one-call systems whereby excavators can 
     receive information, before they dig, from a single source 
     about all underground facilities at risk from the excavation. 
     However, the effectiveness of state laws and programs and 
     one-call centers themselves varies widely throughout the 
     country, and the need for uniformity is great as many 
     underground facilities, and the excavators that threaten 
     them, operate in many states and localities.
       Grants provided for in this provision could be used to 
     establish, modify, improve, and promote the use of one-call 
     systems, including publicizing the risks involved in pipeline 
     transportation and the benefits of one-call systems in 
     addressing those risks.
       This authority is central to execution of the Department's 
     pipeline safety risk management program for it will enable 
     the agency to obtain the data it will need continually to 
     determine risks, quantify and rank those risks, adopt 
     strategies and solutions to meet those risks, and identify 
     available and new technologies necessary to keep pace with 
     safety needs. This authority resides in other Federal 
     agencies, and offers excellent opportunities to leverage 
     Federal resources with other entities who have a role to play 
     in risk management and accident prevention.
       Section 107. This section would repeal the requirement that 
     the Secretary report annually on pipeline safety activities 
     conducted under 49 U.S.C. chapter 601. The information 
     required in this report, and more, is provided at least 
     annually to Congress during the appropriations process, as 
     well as to the authorizing committees on a periodic basis. In 
     addition, widespread dissemination of pipeline safety data is 
     made to our state partners, and is the subject of an 
     increasing number of requests under the Freedom of 
     Information Act. The time spent to compile the report has 
     resulted in the report being at least two years out of date 
     by the time it is issued. The Department's new data 
     capabilities enable it to provide up-to-date information on 
     an ``as requested'' basis in response to routine requests for 
     information. This capability meets the needs of our 
     stakeholders, while not requiring the resources to assemble 
     what, under the best of circumstances, is outdated 
     information for the annual report.
       Section 108. This section would authorize appropriations 
     for the Department of Transportation to carry out the 
     pipeline safety provisions of 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. For 
     fiscal year 1996, this section would authorize $16,450,000 
     for gas, $10,968,000 for hazardous liquid, and $15,000,000 
     for State grants. This provision also authorizes $5,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1996 to fund activities conducted under 
     section 60117(1) (see discussion under Section 106 of the 
     bill), and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 
     1997, 1998, and 1999. Finally, for fiscal years 1996 through 
     1999, this section authorizes not more than $500,000 or 0.5% 
     of the amount appropriated annually to carry out chapter 601, 
     whichever is less, to fund special projects. This provision 
     is intended to provide a small amount of funding for projects 
     undertaken jointly with other agencies within the Department 
     to improve the administration of transportation safety 
     programs.
       Section 109. The first three subsections amend the titles 
     of three sections to clarify their applicability. Subsection 
     (d) corrects one of the requirements for qualified state one-
     call programs by deleting the reference to state adoption of 
     Federal criminal sanctions. The reference was inadvertently 
     added to the list of requirements when the pipeline safety 
     laws were enacted into positive law in Pub. L. No. 103-272.


                  TITLE II. AVIATION TARIFF AMENDMENT

       Section 201. This section would amend section 40114 of 
     title 49, United States Code, which sets out the requirements 
     for maintaining as public records those materials filed with 
     the Department on aviation matters, including voluminous 
     international passenger fare tariff filings. Currently, 
     section 40114 requires the Department to maintain physical 
     custody of tariff filings.
       In the spirit of reinventing government, the Department has 
     reexamined the manner in which it performs its tariff 
     custodianship function and found that the costs of the system 
     greatly outweigh the benefits. The Department has concluded 
     that the custodianship requirement, which was first enacted 
     in 1938, has outlived its usefulness to the public, the 
     airline industry, and the Government.
       In 1989, the Department instituted a system by which air 
     carriers may file international passenger tariffs 
     electronically as an alternative to filing paper tariffs. To 
     be eligible for the benefits of automated filing, a carrier 
     is required to accept responsibility for maintaining a secure 
     and accessible on-line tariff database. The major air 
     carriers responded to this opportunity by contracting with 
     tariff publishing agents to manage these electronic filing 
     functions. Currently, the agents' on-line databases store 
     over 95 percent of all tariffs. The Department strictly 
     regulates these databases. Filers are required to keep the 
     databases available for public and departmental access at no 
     cost, secure against destruction, alteration, or tampering, 
     and open to inspection by the Department to ensure security 
     and integrity. The amended section would ensure continued 
     public access to historical tariff data contained in the 
     database currently used by the Department.
       Although the Department has met its custodianship 
     requirement by mandating a daily tape from the on-line tariff 
     databases, it stores this data in a fashion that allows very 
     limited flexibility in retrieving it. In contrast, the 
     agents' databases are modern, flexible, and freely accessible 
     to Department officials. As a result, the departmental 
     archive serves no purpose except to comply with the 
     statutorily-mandated custodianship requirement. Removing the 
     statutory requirement that copies of the tariffs be preserved 
     in the physical custody of the Department would enable the 
     Department to cease its duplicative archival efforts and 
     realize a savings.


               title iii. hazardous materials amendments

       Section 301. This section amends 49 U.S.C. 5107(e) and 
     5116(j) to correct cross-references. This section also amends 
     49 U.S.C. 5110(e) to specify that the one-year retention 
     period for a shipping paper begins when the shipping paper is 
     provided to a carrier instead of when transportation is 
     completed, because it would be very difficult for the 
     originator of a shipment to determine when transportation of 
     that shipment has been completed.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Robb):
  S. 837. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins 
in commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the birth of James 
Madison; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                the james madison commemorative coin act

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend, Senator 
Robb, to introduce legislation to establish an endowment to be a 
permanent source of support for Montpelier, the life-long home of James 
Madison, the fourth President of the United States and the Father of 
the U.S. Constitution. President Madison was the third generation of 
his family to live on this extensive estate located in the lush 
Piedmont of Virginia. Montpelier was settled by James Madison's 
grandparents in 1723 and prospered under the ownership of his parents, 
James (Sr.) and Nelly Conway Madison. In 1794, James Madison, a 43-
year-old bachelor, met and fell in love with Dolley Payne Todd, a 26-
year-old widow and mother. They were married later the same year. 
[[Page S7020]] After the completion of his second Presidential term in 
1817, the Madisons retired to Montpelier, where their legendary 
hospitality kept them in touch with world affairs. At his death in 
1836, Madison was buried on the estate. Dolley Madison later returned 
to Washington where she died in 1849.
  Following Madison's death, the contents of the house were auctioned 
off. Montpelier then changed hands six times, until it was purchased in 
1900 by William and Anna Rogers duPont. The National Trust for Historic 
Preservation received the property in 1983, and opened it for public 
tours in 1987 as part of the celebration of the bicentennial of the 
U.S. Constitution. Today, under the stewardship of the National Trust, 
Montpelier is beginning a long-term research and preservation process. 
Unfurnished and as yet unrestored, Montpelier is the focus of a major 
archaeological and architectural research effort.
  The legislation which I am introducing today would authorize the U.S. 
Mint to produce a commemorative coin to honor the 250th birthday of 
James Madison. After recovery of minting and production costs, the 
proceeds from the sale of the James Madison Commemorative Coin, 
conservatively estimated at $5 to $10 million, will be used as the core 
of a capital campaign to establish an endowment and preserve 
Montpelier. This campaign will assure the full preservation and 
restoration of Montpelier and the development of all of the related 
programmatic activities.
  Mr. President, an intensive effort must be mounted to achieve the 
goal of securing the future of Montpelier. I am committed to making my 
colleagues in the House and Senate aware of the benefits to be derived 
from the minting of a coin to honor James Madison, and I am confident 
that this support can be secured. Our national legislature, indeed, our 
Nation, owes a great debt to the vision of James Madison. Throughout 
his life, Montpelier helped shape Madison's character and values. This 
legislation is an important step toward bringing all Americans closer 
to this great man.


                          ____________________