[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18442-S18444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HEFLIN:
  S. 1468. A bill to extend and improve the price support and 
production adjustment program for peanuts, to establish standards for 
the inspection, handling, storage, and labeling of all peanuts and 
peanut products sold in the United States, and for other purposes, to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


             the heflin-rose peanut improvement act of 1995

 Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Heflin-Rose Peanut 
Program Improvement Act of 1995.
  Auburn University recently released a study based on the same 
economic impact model employed by the Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission to determine the effects of various proposals that were 
being considered before the Lugar-Armey peanut program compromise was 
reached and made part of the Roberts farm bill, which is part of the 
budget reconciliation bill. Using the figures and calculations of the 
Auburn report, the Lugar-Armey compromise would result in an industry-
wide, negative economic impact totalling $375 million and will cause 
the loss of 5,400 jobs throughout the peanut industry.
  While the Lugar-Armey compromise is touted as an effort to achieve a 
no-net-cost program, in reality it will cost taxpayers $60 million over 
7 years. As a matter of fact, the Lugar-Armey compromise actually kills 
the program over 7 years, encourages peanut imports, and cuts peanut 
farmer income by nearly 30 percent.
  Congressman Charlie Rose and I have worked on a peanut program which 
we feel is a much better bill. This proposal guarantees a no-net-cost 
program saves some $43 million above what the Lugar-Armey compromise 
saved. Our cost savings come from making foreign importers of peanuts 
pay the same assessments that U.S. peanut farmers have to pay and uses 
this money to offset the cost of the peanut program. In addition, to 
imposing assessments on importers, our proposal directs that the NAFTA 
and 

[[Page S18443]]
GATT revenue derived from imported peanuts go toward paying for the 
peanut program rather than reducing farmer income.
  The Heflin-Rose peanut program refrains from reducing farmer income 
by cutting the loan rate, and therefore, maintains the current law loan 
rate for quota and additional peanuts. Unlike the Lugar-Armey peanut 
program, which would allow unlimited cross-country transfers, the 
Heflin-Rose bill also measure infrastructure stability by permitting 
only limited transfers across county lines.
  Furthermore, our legislation addresses health and food safety 
concerns due to the increased level of imports resulting from GATT and 
NAFTA. The American peanut farmer is held to the highest safety and 
inspection levels of any domestically-produced commodity. To not 
require at least an equivalent level of protection from foreign-grown 
peanuts jeopardizes American consumers.
  For example, the Heflin-Rose bill requires that foreign-grown peanuts 
be inspected to determine whether or not they were produced with 
pesticides and other chemicals banned for use in this country. This 
legislation applies the same standards for quality, freedom from 
aflatoxin and procedures for the inspection and entry of imported 
peanuts that currently apply to domestically-produced peanuts under 
Marketing Agreement No. 146.
  Peanut farmers strongly support achieving a no-net-cost peanut 
program. However, this goal can be achieved without slashing farmer 
income and with consideration to the economic costs on the communities 
that work and depend on the production of peanuts. If the Republicans 
are serious about deficit reduction, then this is a plan that saves a 
significant amount above their proposal, ensures a no-net-cost peanut 
program, and preserves farmer income while safeguarding American 
consumers with food safety provisions for imported peanuts and peanut 
products.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Dole)
  S. 1470. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
provide for increases in the amounts of allowable earnings under the 
social security earnings limit for individuals who have attained 
retirement age, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


            the senior citizens freedom to work act of 1995

 Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, with Senator McCain, I am 
introducing the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. This bill raises 
the Social Security earnings limit for workers age 65 to 69 to $30,000 
by the year 2002. I am happy to say that this increase in the earnings 
limit is fully paid for over the 7-year period. In addition, this bill 
will protect the Social Security trust fund from disinvestment or 
underinvestment by the Secretary of the Treasury or any other Federal 
officials.
  Under current law, seniors in this age group, who earn more than 
$11,280 this year, are penalized by forfeiting $1 for every $3 they 
earn over that limit. When coupled with other Federal taxes, these 
workers who earn above this $11,280 mark face a 56-percent marginal tax 
rate.
  As I have often said, this is not fair. The earnings penalty sends a 
message to senior citizens that we no longer value their experience and 
expertise in the work force. I am happy to introduce this legislation 
that will provide equity to these hard-working seniors.
  I must note that a large part of the credit for this legislation in 
the Senate is due to the efforts of the senior Senator from Arizona, 
Senator John McCain, who has tirelessly championed this cause. I thank 
him for his work on this issue.
       By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):

  S. 1471. A bill to make permanent the program of malpractice coverage 
for health centers under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


  THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT MALPRACTICE COVERAGE FOR HEALTH CENTERS 
                         EXTENSION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today Senator Kennedy and I are pleased to 
introduce S. 1471, the Federal Tort Claims Act Malpractice Coverage for 
Health Centers Extension Act of 1995. Our bill will make permanent an 
exemption in current law that provides medical malpractice coverage 
under the Federal Tort Claims Act [FTCA] to federally funded community 
health center personnel.
  The current law is due to expire on December 31, necessitating speedy 
consideration of this legislation in the Congress.
  I am pleased to announce that the House passed this afternoon a 
similar bill, H.R. 1747, authored by my good friend from Connecticut, 
Representative Nancy Johnson and I am hopeful the Senate can take up 
the Johnson bill forthwith.
  A brief recitation of the legislative history on this issue may be 
useful to my colleagues at this point.
  In 1992, Senator Kennedy and I worked with our colleagues in the 
House to treat community health center [CHC] physicians, nurses, and 
other personnel as Federal employees under the FTCA for the purpose of 
defending against malpractice claims.
  Substituting the FTCA remedy for private lawsuits relieves CHC's from 
devoting their limited program funds to purchase costly private 
malpractice insurance. Purchase of such insurance had proven an 
extremely costly burden to the centers, which, I believe, have been 
doing a marvelous job in providing excellent care in underserved areas 
on what amounts to a shoestring budget.
  The Federal Tort Claims Act, which falls under the jurisdiction of 
the Judiciary Committee, stipulates strict procedural requirements for 
the consideration of claims. For example, it does not provide for jury 
trials or the award of punitive damages. These streamlined procedures 
act to reduce the number of, and costs associated with, tort claims.
  By reducing insurance costs, the more than 500 community and migrant 
health centers can provide more direct medical services to the 5 
million Americans who rely on these centers for their primary health 
care needs.
  In the initial 3 years of our experience under the FTCA, it is 
encouraging to find that all experience suggests that health centers 
have a lower incidence of malpractice claims than comparable private 
insurance providers.
  Through fiscal year 1995, it has been estimated that only 15 claims 
have been filed nationwide against the 119 participating health 
centers. Thus far, no funds have been required to be paid out under the 
statute to satisfy claims. In fact, the Department of Health and Human 
Services estimates that the 1992 law has saved over $14.3 million to 
date. This is consistent with the 1992 House Judiciary Committee report 
on this topic which noted that the savings from the law would far 
exceed the costs of coverage.
  I want to take a moment to discuss the history of this legislation in 
the 104th Congress.
  As I noted earlier, the House passed a similar bill today under 
suspension of the rules.
  The version reported from the House Commerce Committee on September 
27 was very similar to the approach that Senator Kennedy and I were 
developing. However, that bill recommended a 3-year extension whereas 
we believed a permanent extension was warranted.
  Ultimately, through discussions with our House colleagues, we were 
able to reach an agreement and the bill that passed the House today 
makes the FTCA coverage for CHC's permanent.
  The bill that passed the House today also differs from our approach 
in two other areas.
  First, I understand that the House bill makes explicit that centers 
are not required to operate under the FTCA aegis. In other words, 
centers are free to purchase insurance on their own if they so desire. 
I believe this is appropriate, and have no objection to this provision. 
It clearly was our intent in drafting S. 1471.
  Second, in order to address concerns that our claims experience may 
be too limited in the first 3 years of operation to predict the 
adequacy of future reserves, we have provided for a General Accounting 
Office study of the medical liability risk exposure of centers. If--as 
seems unlikely based on the past experience and future expectations--
unforeseen problems develop in this program, this issue can be 
revisited.
  The House bill contains a GAO study provision which is much more 
detailed 

[[Page S18444]]
than that embodied in the bill we introduce today. Again, I have no 
objection to the House alternative.
  Mr. President, in closing, I note that the administration is 
supportive of this legislation and of making the program permanent. 
According to a recent administration report in support of extending 
FTCA coverage: ``Our experience to date * * * is sufficiently positive 
that we believe that it is advisable to adopt FTCA coverage without a 
time limitation, rather than to continue to insert sunset provisions.''
  The legislation that Senator Kennedy and I are introducing today will 
result in the delivery of more public health services to underserved 
areas throughout the country, whether these areas are urban or rural. 
It is no secret to my colleagues that I am a tremendous fan of the work 
that CHC's are doing, especially in Utah, and I think it behooves the 
Congress to give them this added tool to help improve health care 
services in areas in which access has traditionally suffered.
  At the bottom line, the 1992 legislation achieved more public health 
bang-for-the-buck and should be made permanent.
  It is important that a bill be acted upon in the near future to 
extend coverage so that centers will know whether or not they have to 
purchase private coverage for 1996. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
support a permanent extension of the legislation authorizing Federal 
Tort Claims Act coverage of community health centers.

                          ____________________