[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1018-S1027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. MCCAIN:
S. 264. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to
provide an incentive for the reporting of inaccurate Medicare claims
for payment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the Medicare Whistleblower Act
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to be introducing legislation
today which will significantly reduce fraud and abuse by providers in
the Medicare program. The Medicare Whistleblower Act of 1997 will
provide strong incentives for Medicare beneficiaries to identify
provider fraud in the Medicare system.
As I travel around my home State of Arizona, seniors keep telling me
about the fraudulent and negligent billings which are rampant
throughout the Medicare Program. Over and over again, they tell me
about their personal experiences with fraud and overbillings in the
Medicare system. Many of the seniors say that their Medicare bills
frequently include charges for medical services which they never
received, double billings for a specific treatment, or charges which
are disproportionate and severely marked up. Usually, most of these
seniors have no idea what Medicare is being billed on their behalf and
they have no way to obtain a detailed explanation from the Medicare
providers.
These personal stories from senior citizens are confirmed by analyses
and detailed studies. According to the General Accounting Office, fraud
and abuse in our Nation's health care system costs taxpayers as much as
$100 billion each year. Medicare fraud alone costs about $17 billion
per year which is about 10 percent of the program's costs.
This is quite disconcerting, especially in light of the financial
problems facing our Medicare system. Currently, the Medicare system is
expected to run out of funds in the year 2001.
A fundamental problem with the Medicare system is that most
beneficiaries are not concerned with the costs of the program because
the Government is responsible for them. One of my constituents shared
with me an experience he had when his provider double-billed Medicare
for his treatment and the provider told him not to be concerned about
it because, ``Medicare is paying the bill.'' This is an outrage and we
cannot allow this flagrant abuse of taxpayers dollars to continue.
Remember, when Medicare overpays, we all overpay, and costs to
beneficiaries and the taxpayers spiral while the financial
sustainability of the program is violated.
My bill, the Medicare Whistleblower Act addresses this fundamental
problem in the Medicare Program. This legislation strengthens the
procedures for detecting and identifying fraud and waste in the
Medicare system. This bill provides beneficiaries with incentives for
carefully scrutinizing their bills and actively pursuing corrections
when they believe there has been an inappropriate or unjustified charge
made to the Medicare Program. The beneficiaries would be
financially rewarded if they detect negligent or fraudulent charges in
their Medicare bill.
I recognize that provider fraud is not the sole source of waste and
abuse in the Medicare system, and I wholeheartedly support other
initiatives which address beneficiary fraud. However, studies indicate
that provider fraud is most prevalent and the greatest concern for the
system, making initiatives such as this one which specifically target
provider fraud very important.
The Medicare Whistleblower Act will give beneficiaries the right to
request and receive a written itemized copy of their medical bill from
their Medicare health care provider. This itemized bill should be
provided to the beneficiary within 30 days of the provider's receipt of
their request. Once the beneficiary receives the itemized bill they
would have 90 days to report any inappropriate billings to Medicare.
The Medicare intermediaries and carriers would then have to review the
bills and determine whether an inappropriate payment has been made and
what amount should be reimbursed to the Medicare system.
If the Secretary of Health and Human Services confirms that the
charges were either negligent or fraudulent, the beneficiary would
receive an award equal to 1 percent of the overpayment reimbursed up to
$10,000. The financial awards given to the beneficiaries would not
increase costs to the Federal Government since they would be paid
directly from the overpayment. In cases of fraud, the rewards would be
paid directly by the fraudulent provider as a penalty, and would
therefore not even reduce the amount of the overpayment reimbursed to
the Federal Treasury.
Several important safeguards have been built into this legislation.
First, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be required to
establish appropriate procedures to ensure that the incentive system is
not abused by overzealous beneficiaries. Second, an incentive payment
would be awarded only to the extent that the Health Care Financing
Administration HCFA is able to recover the overpayment from the
provider. Finally, there would be no incentive payment if HCFA can
demonstrate that it had identified the overpayment prior to receiving
the beneficiary's complaint.
Some may argue that seniors and other beneficiaries should not
receive financial rewards for fighting fraud--that it should be their
civic responsibility. While I may agree with this contention, I also
recognize that these seniors would not be able to detect and report
fraud or abuse without having access to the itemized bills that this
legislation provides. Besides, I do not see anything wrong with
providing beneficiaries with a financial incentive for fighting waste.
After all, we currently pay Federal employees for suggestions which
result in savings for the taxpayers, and we pay private citizens for
identifying fraud by defense contractors.
It is imperative that we put an end to the rampant abuse and fraud in
the Medicare system. This bill would contribute significantly to this
effort.
Mr. President, I believe that a very effective approach for detecting
and fighting fraud is to provide individuals with a personal financial
interest in the process. By passing this legislation, Congress would be
empowering over 36 million Medicare beneficiaries to protect their
program from fraud, waste, and abuse. I ask unanimous consent that the
following letters of support from the Seniors Coalition and the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare be included
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare,
Washington, DC, January 27, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the 5.5 million members
and supporters of the national Committee to Preserve Social
Security and Medicare, we offer our endorsement of the
Medicare Whistleblower Act of 1997, legislation to strengthen
procedures for identifying fraud and waste in the Medicare
program.
A major effort to prevent fraud and abuse is essential and
appropriate--particularly at a time when Congress is
considering ways to ensure the solvency of the Medicare
program for current and future beneficiaries. It is essential
that we enlist the cooperation of the public, beneficiaries,
providers and carriers to curb fraud and waste in the
Medicare program and ensure that Medicare funds go toward
patient care. As you know, major and increasingly complex
patterns of fraud and abuse have infiltrated many health
sectors.
Your legislation will strengthen the role of beneficiaries
in detecting and reporting fraud and waste. Of particular
importance are the provisions ensuring that beneficiaries be
provided, upon request, copies of itemized bills submitted on
their behalf. Beneficiaries must have accurate information
about bills submitted on their behalf in order to
meaningfully participate in this
[[Page S1019]]
program. It is also important for the Secretary to establish
procedures to prevent abuse or over-use of the reporting
system.
Seniors thank you for your help in combating this growing
problem.
Sincerely,
Martha A. McSteen,
President.
____
The Seniors Coalition,
Fairfax, VA, January 30, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: The Seniors Coalition, representing
2.4 million senior citizens nationwise, is pleased to support
the legislation you have recently introduced to reduce waste
and fraud in the Medicare system. Our members report to us
the same kinds of experiences as your constituents do to you,
and we are certain that your legislation will help.
However, I must note that while these are desirable
reforms, they do not correct the basic flaws in the Medicare
program, and it is these flaws which make Medicare ultimately
unsustainable.
By separating those who receive benefits from those who
pay, Medicare encourages overuse, waste, fraud, abuse, and
cheating. Passage of legislation such as yours, which creates
some incentives to discover fraud and abuse, can never
substitute for the self-policing systems of true free
markets, where every patient has an incentive to find the
least expensive, most cost-effective treatment, and to
monitor for double-billing, mistakes, and fraud in a way no
artificial system can ever re-create.
The Seniors Coalition is happy to support your efforts, but
we urge you to undertake a thorough and long-overdue
revamping of the entire program, before its internal
contradictions bring it crashing down on the heads of seniors
who deserve better treatment.
Please let us know what we can do to help you with your
efforts.
Sincerely,
Thair Phillips,
Chief Executive Officer.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 265. A bill to provide off-budget treatment for the highway trust
fund; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Government
Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with
instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee have 30
days to report or be discharged.
THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND PROTECTION ACT OF 1997
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have just come from my office where I had
a number of meetings. I met with a group of lawyers this morning. They
were talking about issues that are going to come before the Congress
that are important to them. But in the course of the conversation, I
talked to them about the days when I was an attorney and practiced law.
One of the things that has been brought to my mind as a result of my
meeting with those lawyers today is how important it is to protect your
client's assets. If you had a case for a client, any money that came in
that was that client's property, you had to put that money in a trust
account. None of that money in that trust account could be used to make
a house payment or make a car payment of yours. Those moneys could only
be used for the benefit of your client. If a lawyer violated the trust
that he or she had with his client, you could lose your license to
practice law. You could, in fact, be prosecuted criminally and go to
jail.
It seems around here that we handle people's trust accounts, the
taxpayers' trust accounts in a very cavalier fashion. Today I want to
talk about one of those trust funds. I want to talk about the highway
trust fund. It is coincidental that I am here introducing legislation
after having met in my office just a short time ago with Nevada's head
of the department of transportation, a man by the name of Tom Stephens.
He was back here with other Nevadans to tell me the problems that the
State of Nevada has. I am a member of the Environment and Public Works
Committee and we will have to address the problems of this entire
country when we reauthorize the highway transportation bill this year.
The people from Nevada were telling me about the problems we have in
Nevada. They are significant. We are the most rapidly growing State in
the Union. We have traffic jams where we never had them before,
especially in the southern part of the State. He proceeded to tell me
about five projects that will cost about $1 billion--extension of
Highway 95, I-15 to the California border, in the Reno-Carson City area
we have to get the freeway completed between Carson City and Reno, and
a number of other very difficult projects that cost a lot of money. He
was looking to me for guidance and direction as to how some of these
very difficult projects could be directed--how moneys in the bill could
be directed toward the State of Nevada.
There is no question, Mr. President, that this is going to be a busy
legislative year. As I have indicated, one of the things we will work
on is the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, what we
call ISTEA, reauthorization of the highway bill. This legislation plays
an integral role in the financing of our Nation's transportation
infrastructure. It is a bill that will receive bipartisan support, I
hope, for a number of reasons. Most recognize the need to invest in our
transportation infrastructure. It is that way all over the country.
The Presiding Officer of this body today is from a very sparsely
populated State, but it is a big State and covers a lot of area. I have
driven much of the State of Wyoming. The State of Wyoming has, like
Nevada but in a more exaggerated sense, a very small population base.
However, the people of Wyoming travel these long distances and they
want to travel these distances on good roads. Not only do the people
that live in Wyoming need those good roads, but the State of Wyoming is
surrounded by States that people are trying to get to. Wyoming is a
bridge State. Thousands and thousands of people come to Wyoming every
year to go to Yellowstone National Park. Should the people of Wyoming
alone be responsible for those roads? Well, the answer is no, we have a
Federal policy that helps the State of Wyoming in the road
construction. You have demand in the State of Wyoming that cannot be
met by the State of Wyoming. Your transportation director, I am sure,
will come and visit the Presiding Officer, just like my State of Nevada
head of transportation came and visited me, to talk about particular
specific problems that you have in the State of Wyoming which are
compounded by the bad weather that you have there.
I am sure a lot of people do not know that this money we collect in
the highway trust fund is not used for highway construction. What is it
used for? It is used to mask the Federal deficit to the tune of about
$20 billion. All of us agree that we need to invest in our highway
transportation system. We all agree that there is a need to provide a
safe, efficient, and modern transportation infrastructure, and most
agree that too little is being spent on this important investment. The
biggest reason, though, we are spending too little on this investment
is we are not spending the money we have in trust to spend. Just like
the example I gave earlier where I, as an attorney, would take my
client's money, just as we as a Federal Government take our client's
money, the taxpayer, every time a gallon of gas is purchased, we take
approximately 19 cents. Most of that money is required by law to be
spent on the infrastructure of this country and it is not. That is what
is wrong. Finances that should go to the highway construction is being
use for other purposes. The money collected is not being used, I
repeat, for its intended purpose. It is a perversion of the whole
notion of how a trust fund should operate.
There have been earlier attempts to end this misspending by taking
the transportation trust fund moneys off budget. In the House it has
been successful. I am going to initiate an effort here in the Senate
too to do likewise. They have not only gotten it out of committee in
the House, they passed it on the floor. I support these efforts that
they have initiated in the House because I believe we need to protect
the integrity of these trust funds. I believe we should attempt to get
these funds off budget and we should do it now.
That is why I am introducing this bill, the Highway Trust Fund
Protection Act of 1997. It is very straightforward. It is a short bill.
By taking the highway trust fund off budget we will be fulfilling our
commitment to the taxpayer. We will be spending the revenues on the
specific activities identified as the purpose of these trust funds. Mr.
President, the trust fund is financed by sales taxes on tires, trucks,
buses, trailers, as well as truck usage taxes. But about 90 percent of
the trust fund revenue comes from excise taxes
[[Page S1020]]
on motor fuels. As I have indicated earlier, the majority of the motor
fuel revenue dedicated to the trust fund is derived from 18.4 cents per
gallon tax on gasoline. Of this, 14 cents is dedicated directly to the
highway trust fund. Of the remaining 4.5 cents, 4.3 cents go to deficit
reduction and one-tenth of 1 percent goes to the leaky underground
storage fund.
Mr. President, there are many arguments for taking these trust funds
off budget. I will talk about a few. First of all, it represents a
contract with the people of this country. We pass legislation that
tells someone when they buy a gallon of gasoline, part of that money is
going to go into a trust fund to improve the roads--the roads in
Wyoming, the roads in Nevada, and all over this country. If the highway
trust funds are not going to be used for their stated purpose, we
should eliminate the tax, or part of it.
According to the Federal Highway Administration there are significant
infrastructure needs not being met. We do not need to go to the Highway
Administration. We know by our own individual experiences in our
individual States that it is important we spend more money on this
construction. The trust fund inclusion in the unified budget subjects
our outlays to the budget process. As a result, they are liable to
legislative spending limitations. These limits are not based on
analysis of national transportation spending need. Not once in the 5
years since ISTEA was enacted have Federal highway programs been funded
at their authorized levels; this, despite the fact that the Department
of Transportation has identified billions of dollars in need.
Remember, Mr. President, we have approximately $20 billion in excess
funds not being spent and going into our infrastructure needs. The
balances we run in the transit highway accounts makes no sense. This
money should and could be invested in our Nation's highway system. It
is estimated that to maintain--not improve, just maintain--our current
highway system would cost over $200 billion. Taking the highway trust
funds off budget will have limited effect on the deficit. The highway
trust fund is user fee supported. The highway trust fund is deficit
proof and has never contributed a single penny to the budget deficit.
The highway trust fund supports long-term capital investments that
produce economic benefits, which in turn generate increased revenue for
the Federal Government.
This bill is about protecting the integrity of the highway trust
fund. All taxpayers have an interest in this. We are told when we pay
taxes at the pump that this money goes toward maintaining and improving
our roads. I wish that were so. It is a myth. It is a myth of the
highway trust fund. My legislation provides truth and budgeting and
would simply do away with this myth.
It is unfair that we take a trust fund and use it for purposes other
than for which the trust fund moneys were dedicated. I ask all of my
colleagues to follow the example of the other body, the House of
Representatives, and join me in supporting this legislation, which
would take these moneys off budget and would allow us to spend the
money that is so badly needed for highway construction in the United
States.
______
By Mr. ROTH:
S. 266. A bill to establish the Government 2000 Commission to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Government, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
the government 2000 commission act
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill which would
establish a bipartisan Government 2000 Commission, charged with
developing a comprehensive legislative proposal to reorganize,
consolidate, and streamline Federal departments, agencies, and
activities.
Mr. President, this Commission is very similar to the one that was
included in S. 929 in the 104th Congress which was reported out of the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee under my chairmanship.
To make clear our objectives, this legislation includes specific
goals for reducing costs and improving the performance.
These goals include: a 35-percent reduction in the costs of
administration, a tenfold increase in the timeliness of service
delivery, a compound annual improvement in productivity of 6 percent,
and customer service levels comparable to the private sector.
The Commission's reorganization plan must include no more than 10
Cabinet Departments--a reduction from 14--and a substantial reduction
in the number of agencies and subdepartmental bureaus, offices,
divisions, and other program operating units to eliminate duplication
and fragmentation. It is also required to achieve a reduction in the
layers of organizational hierarchy and a substantial reduction in the
total number of midlevel supervisory, administrative, and political
positions.
The Commission is charged with considering the consolidation of
program service delivery functions into operating units that are
independent of individual executive departments, to maximize service
coordination, and whether the heads of such program operating units
should be nonpolitical, noncareer appointments hired for a fixed-term
under an employment contract with specific, measurable program
performance goals, to maximize accountability.
There will be nine Commission members: Two each appointed by the
President, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate majority leader,
and one each by the House and Senate minority leaders. The Chairman
shall be appointed by agreement of the President, the Speaker, and the
Senate majority leader. The Commission is authorized an appropriation
of $5 million for fiscal year 1998.
The Commission shall report its recommendations in a single
legislative package by June 1, 1998. The act provides for fast-track
consideration of this legislation. In the Senate, there is no time
limit on debate, and only germane amendments will be order. In the
House, there will be 10 hours of general debate followed by 20 hours of
debate on all amendments.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 267. A bill to provide for the imposition of administrative fees
for medicare overpayment collection, and to require automated
prepayment screening of Medicare claims, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
The Medicare Overpayment Reduction Act of 1997
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which
addresses a very serious problem in the Medicare system--Medicare
overpayments. Medicare overpayments are costing the Medicare trust
funds billions of dollars each year.
This bill imposes an administrative fee on providers who submit
inaccurate Medicare claims and are overpaid by the Health Care
Financing Administration [HCFA]. The purpose of the fee is to
discourage overpayments and to offset the costs which HCFA incurs while
recovering overpayments.
In addition, this bill requires HCFA to screen claims for accuracy,
paying particular attention to procedures and services which have high
rates of overbillings and inaccurate billings.
Under Medicare part A, hospitals and providers are prepaid annually
by HCFA for expected Medicare expenditures. Currently, many hospitals
grossly overestimate their Medicare funding needs and use the
overpayment to subsidize services delivered at their facility which are
not Medicare related. This is an abuse which must be stopped. This
legislation will impose an administrative fee if a hospital
overestimates its Medicare needs by more than 30 percent and does not
repay the overpayment to HCFA within 30 days.
Unlike hospitals, doctors must submit claims for payment to Medicare
part B after they provide services to beneficiaries. However, these
claims sometimes are submitted for services that were never provided or
that are incorrectly coded. The fee which this bill would impose will
discourage physicians from submitting false or misleading claims and
will help HCFA cover the costs incurred while recovering overpayments
to providers.
Most importantly, prepayment screening will help eliminate
overpayments in the first place. The technology for prescreening is
available and already used extensively in the private sector. I believe
that it is imperative that we start using prescreening
[[Page S1021]]
to improve Medicare payment accuracy.
As my colleagues know, the Medicare system is in serious financial
condition and will be bankrupt in 2001 if we do not make necessary
reforms. We have an obligation to take every possible step to protect
the Medicare trust funds and preserve them for current beneficiaries
and future generations.
I recognize that overpayments are not the only financial problem with
Medicare, but they are a significant problem within the system. GAO
reported that over $4.1 billion was overpaid from the trust funds in
1995. Had this legislation been in place, I believe that we could have
prevented a large portion of these overpayments if not prevented we
could have at least imposed the administrative fee and recouped a
significant amount.
This bill is not the cure for what ails our Medicare system, but it
is a step in the right direction. Overpayments are costly and
contribute to the Medicare solvency problem. This legislation will help
stop them.
I ask unanimous consent a letter of support from the National
Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare be included in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Committee To Preserve
Social Security and Medicare,
Washington, DC; January 23, 1997.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: The national Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare, on behalf of our 5.5 million
members and supporters, endorses the ``Medicare Overpayment
Reduction Act.'' This important legislation will improve the
Medicare program by encouraging greater care in claim
submission and reducing the incentive to overbill the
Medicare program.
The ``Medicare Overpayment Reduction Act'' addresses the
significant problem of waste and abuse in the Medicare
program by restoring to the Medicare program expenditures
that were the result of overpayments to providers. The bill
imposes a one percent administration fee on overpayments not
returned within 30 days by Medicare providers. By encouraging
a careful review of Medicare claims submissions by providers,
this legislation is an important step toward preserving the
Medicare program for current and future beneficiaries.
Thank you, Senator McCain, for your outstanding work on
behalf of older Americans.
Sincerely,
Martha A. McSteen,
President.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Frist):
S. 268. A bill to regulate flights over national parks, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
THE NATIONAL PARKS OVERFLIGHTS ACT OF 1997
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
promote safety and quiet in our national parks. I want to thank Senator
Frist for joining me as an original cosponsor of this bill.
Under this legislation, the Secretary of the Interior would develop
recommendations which may include flight-free zones, curfews, and other
flight restrictions for aircraft operating over certain national parks.
The Federal Aviation Administrator would then develop a plan, based
upon these recommendations, to promote quiet and safety in our parks.
Under the bill, the entire process would be completed within months
after enactment of this legislation.
To ensure that we take immediate action in those parks experiencing
the greatest threats to their natural resources from aircraft noise,
this bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to recommend a
proposal for prioritizing the implementation of appropriate flight
restrictions at certain parks. The bill also requires the Secretary and
the Administrator to work together on recommendations that propose
methods to encourage the use of quiet aircraft in our parks, unless
such proposals are not needed to meet the goals of protecting quiet and
promoting safety.
This bill promotes safety in our national parks by allowing the FAA
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, to set minimum
altitudes for overflights in certain parks and to prohibit flights
below those minimum altitudes where necessary to meet safety goals. The
bill makes safety the paramount concern for the Administrator in
developing an overflight plan for a national park. Under the bill, the
Administrator may revise the Secretary of the Interior's
recommendations to ensure public health and safety goals are met.
Mr. President, this bill is intended to begin a dialog on how we can
best promote safety and quiet in our national parks. I am sure that
this legislation can be refined to better meet its essential goals and
I am eager to start that process.
I also want to make clear that I fully appreciate that air tourism
provides a legitimate way for visitors to see national parks and also
provides an important opportunity for disabled persons to view certain
parks. I want to ensure that this legislation provides a balanced and
fair approach to solving safety and noise problems in our national
parks.
I believe this bill takes a crucial first step toward restoring and
preserving a vital resource within many national parks--natural quiet.
The natural ambient sound conditions found in a park, or natural quiet,
as it is commonly called, is precisely what many Americans seek to
experience when they visit some of our most treasured national parks.
Natural quiet is as crucial an element of the natural beauty and
splendor of certain parks as those resources that we visually observe
and appreciate.
I also believe that this bill provides important safety protections.
As the air tour industry in many parks continues to grow, safety
concerns also increase. By addressing safety now, before tragic
accidents occur, we can assure the public that we have taken every
precaution to protect visitors in our parks.
Ten years ago, legislation I authored to promote safety and provide
for the substantial restoration of natural quiet in the Grand Canyon
was signed into law. This year, the Federal Aviation Administration
[FAA] issued a final rule which modifies and expands flight-free zones
in the canyon. The final rule is scheduled to go into effect on May 1,
1997. But lawsuits threaten to further delay implementation of
additional measures to meet the goals of the 1987 law.
Moreover, the final rule does not contain incentives for operators to
convert to quiet aircraft, although the FAA recognizes that moving to
quiet aircraft technology offers the most promising approach to
providing for the substantial restoration of natural quiet in the
Canyon. Rather, a notice of proposed rulemaking was issued outlining a
proposal for mandating conversion to quiet aircraft. This proposed
rulemaking must now undergo public comment and agency review of those
comments before it becomes final. In the meantime, natural quiet still
has not been restored at the Grand Canyon.
There are many lessons to be learned from our efforts to restore
natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon experience teaches
us that we cannot afford to wait until natural quiet has been lost
before we take steps to protect and preserve that resource. Simply put,
we have found that it is very difficult to undo what has already been
done. Thus, wherever possible, we must strive to prevent the impairment
of natural resources in our national parks. To that end, this bill sets
up a process for achieving balanced and fair approach to resolving
noise concerns in other national parks before any problems get out of
hand in those parks, too.
In addition, as a result of the Grand Canyon experience, we have
learned some very valuable lessons about what we can and must do to
ensure safety in the air above our national parks. Providing for public
health and safety in our national parks must always be a foremost
concern in our minds when developing any park overflight plan.
Finally, I expect the administration, in exercising its authority
under this bill, to meet with interested groups and affected
communities, including local chambers of commerce. These groups should
be involved in the process before implementing any flight restrictions
in order to ensure that proposed actions are appropriate and necessary
and that all important issues have been thoroughly considered and
addressed.
Again, Mr. President, this bill is intended to begin an open dialog
on how we can best achieve our safety and natural quiet goals. Many
parks throughout America are now being threatened
[[Page S1022]]
by the same kind of air pollution problems and noise pollution problems
that we had over the Grand Canyon. I believe we can begin to work on
ways in which we can protect and preserve one of the most precious
natural resources within many of our national parks--natural quiet. At
the same time, the bill seeks to ensure that public health and safety
is not compromised as a result of increasing park overflights. I urge
my colleagues to join me in this effort to reach an important balance
and preserve our natural heritage while we provide for the safe and
continued enjoyment of our parks.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. 269. A bill to provide that the Secretary of the Senate and the
Clerk of the House of Representatives shall include an estimate of
Federal retirement benefits for each Member of Congress in their
semiannual reports, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
The Congressional Pension Disclosure Act
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 269
which would require the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
House of Representatives to disclose information relating to the
pensions of Members of Congress. This legislation would require these
officers to include in their semiannual reports to Congress detailed
information relating to the Members pensions. The semiannual reports
would then be available to the public for inspection.
The reports would include the individual pension contributions of
Members; an estimate of annuities which they would receive based on the
earliest possible date they would be eligible to receive annuity
payments by reason of retirement; and any other information necessary
to enable the public to accurately compute the Federal retirement
benefits of each Member based on various assumptions of years of
service and age of separation from service by reason of retirement.
The purpose of this legislation is to afford citizens their rightful
opportunity to learn how public funds are being utilized. The taxpayers
are not only entitled to know the various forms of compensation their
elected officials are being paid, they are also entitled to make
decisions about the reasonableness of such compensation.
My bill, S. 269, would make this information conveniently available
to the public. I believe that this bill would eliminate the present
shroud of secrecy which has surrounded the congressional pension system
and give the public better access to information regarding their
representatives in Congress.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 271. A bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that at
least an equivalent level of service will be supplied to the public and
affected agencies before closing National Weather Service field
stations; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the national weather service office closure criteria act of 1997
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to create additional office closure certification criteria for National
Weather Service offices located in geographical areas of concern
designated by the National Research Council. The amendment is designed
to guarantee that weather services will be fully maintained in these
areas after the National Weather Service completes its modernization
plan.
My bill adds a new paragraph to section 706(e) of the Weather Service
Modernization Act of 1992. This section deals with ``special
circumstances'' under which the Secretary may not close or relocate a
NWS field office unless he meets certain specified certification
criteria in addition to the standard certification criteria that apply
to all field offices.
This legislation would create another special circumstance category
for offices that serve parts of the country identified as ``areas of
geographic concern'' in the National Research Council's June 1995,
report on the modernization program. The NRC identified 32 such areas
of concern across the country, including Caribou, ME, Williston, ND,
Baton Rouge, LA, and Kalispell, MT, in which a National Weather Service
field office has been proposed for closure under the modernization plan
and the people who live in the area have expressed serious concerns
about the impacts of it.
My bill would prohibit the Secretary from closing or relocating these
offices unless he first evaluates the effect of a closing or relocation
on all weather information and services provided to local users; and,
second, he includes in the standard certification required under
section 706(b), a determination that at least an equivalent level of
weather services will be provided in the future.
This amendment provides an additional but very important layer of
scrutiny to NWS plans to close field offices in areas of the country--a
number of which are sparsely populated and rural--specified in the NRC
report. It provides an extra safeguard for these communities to ensure
that they will continue to receive at least the same level of weather
information and services that they currently receive. Without adequate
safeguards, the rural communities described in the amendment will face
greater threats to public safety, infrastructure, private property,
agricultural production, and the economy generally when a local weather
office closes.
As experience shows, the rural field offices, in particular, play a
special role in gathering weather information from diverse and
disparate locales across a large region, and in disseminating this
information, along with standard NWS forecasts and flood warnings, to
all citizens of the region. Field offices located outside these service
areas may not be able to devote the same level of comprehensive, real-
time attention to weather events affecting these areas. Given the
importance of accurate and timely weather information to rural areas
subject to severe weather conditions, we cannot let the quality of
weather services for these areas diminish. My legislation will help to
prevent that from happening.
Mr. President, this is good-government legislation. It helps to
ensure that an essential Federal agency makes very well-informed and
prudent decisions, and it enhances the protection of our citizens'
lives and property.
I introduced this legislation as an amendment to the NOAA
reauthorization bill in the Commerce Committee last year. The amendment
was adopted unanimously, but unfortunately the full Senate did not have
an opportunity to consider the bill before adjournment. I intend to
resume my efforts on this issue at the earliest opportunity in the new
Congress. I hope other Senators will join me in cosponsoring this bill
and in working toward its enactment.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 272. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
defense contractors a credit against income tax for 20 percent of the
defense conversion employee retraining expenses paid or incurred by the
contractors; to the Committee on Finance.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 273. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax incentives relating to the closure, realignment, or downsizing of
military installations; to the Committee on Finance.
DEFENSE CONVERSION TAX CREDIT LEGISLATION
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing two bills today to
assist workers who have lost their jobs as a result of closure or
cutbacks at defense installations or the loss of defense contracts by
private industry. The first bill extends the existing targeted jobs tax
credit to employers who hire individuals who have lost their jobs at a
Federal military installation through a closing, realignment or
reduction in force. The credit equals 40 percent of the first $6,000 in
wages paid to each newly hired worker. The second bill I am introducing
provides defense contractors with an income tax credit for 20 percent
of costs incurred in retraining employees for nondefense-related jobs.
Since 1988, the Department of Defense has undertaken four base
realignment and closure [BRAC] rounds--in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995.
In total the BRAC process has authorized the closing of 261 military
facilities, including 98 major defense installations where 300 or more
civilian and/or military jobs were eliminated. Many base closings and
realignments under the BRAC
[[Page S1023]]
process are still in progress and their full impact has not yet been
felt. In addition, reductions in force continue to be the order of the
day at the Pentagon. In December, the Navy announced plans to reduce
civilian employment by 11,000 positions at 240 facilities.
The economic impact of defense downsizing on the affected individuals
and surrounding communities can be devastating. In my own State of
Maine, the closure of Loring Air Force Base in 1994 resulted in the
loss of nearly 20 percent of the jobs in Aroostook County, affecting
3,000 military personnel, 900 civilians and an additional 6,000 private
sector jobs which were dependent on the air base. The annual loss of
income to Maine's economy from the Loring closure totaled more than
$370 million.
At the other end of the State, Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has
seen its workforce cut from 8,600 employees in 1989, when the Berlin
wall fell, to 3,600 today with another reduction of 454 Navy civilian
jobs planned for 1997. And Bath Iron Works, Maine's largest defense
contractor, has seen its employment level drop from a high of 12,000 in
1990 to 7,500 today. Smaller defense contractors in Maine have
experienced similar job losses.
Mr. President, defense downsizing and economic conversion can be an
excruciatingly slow and painful process for those households and
communities in Maine and across the country who are going through it. I
feel strongly that our obligation to the military and civilian workers
who, after all, helped win the cold war, does not end with adoption of
the BRAC recommendations. Successful defense conversion is a long-term
process requiring a multi-pronged strategy that must include
coordinated Government assistance to affected communities, workers, and
businesses.
The two tax credit proposals I am introducing today form an essential
part of that strategy. They will encourage the private sector to hire
workers whose jobs have been lost from Federal defense facilities and
will encourage defense contractors to retrain workers for employment in
nondefense areas. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting
these important legislative initiatives.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 274. A bill to establish a Northern Border States-Canada Trade
Council, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE NORTHERN BORDER STATES COUNCIL ACT
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
that would establish a Northern Border States Council on United States-
Canada Trade.
The purpose of this Council is to oversee cross-border trade with our
Nation's largest trading partner--an action that I believe is long
overdue. The Council will serve as an early warning system to alert
State and Federal trade officials to problems in cross-border traffic
and trade. The Council will enable the United States to more
effectively administer trade policy with Canada by applying the wealth
of insight, knowledge and expertise that resides in our northern border
States on this critical policy issue.
Within the U.S. Government we already have the Department of Commerce
and a U.S. Trade Representative. But the fact is that both are Federal
entities, responsible for our larger, national U.S. trade interests.
Too often, such entities fail to give full consideration to the
interests of the 12 northern States that share a border with Canada,
the longest demilitarized border between 2 nations anywhere in the
world. The Northern Border States Council will provide State trade
officials a mechanism to share information about cross-border traffic
and trade. The Council will then advise the Congress, the President,
the U.S. Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and other
Federal and State trade officials on United States.-Canada trade
policies, practices, and problems.
Canada is America's largest and most important trading partner.
Canada is by far the top purchaser of U.S. export goods and services,
as it is the largest source of U.S. imports. With an economy one-tenth
the size of our own, Canada's economic health depends on maintaining
close trade ties with the United States. While Canada accounts for
about one-fifth of U.S. exports and imports, the United States is the
source of two-thirds of Canada's imports and provides the market for
fully three-quarters of all of Canada's exports.
The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trade
relationship in the world, a relationship that is remarkable not only
for its strength and general health, but also for the intensity of the
trade and border problems that do frequently develop. Over the last
decade, Canada and the United States have signed two major trade
agreements--the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1989, and
the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. Notwithstanding these
trade accords, numerous disagreements have caused trade negotiators to
shuttle back and forth between Washington and Ottawa. Most of the more
well-known trade disputes with Canada have involved agricultural
commodities such as durum wheat, peanut butter, dairy products, and
poultry products, and these disputes have impacted more than just the
12 northern border States.
Each and every day, however, an enormous quantity of trade and
traffic crosses the United States-Canada border. There are literally
thousands of businesses, large and small, that rely on this cross-
border traffic and trade for their livelihood.
My own State of Maine has had a long-running dispute with Canada over
that nation's unfair policies in support of its potato industry.
Specifically, Canada protects its domestic potato growers from United
States competition through a system of nontariff trade barriers, such
as setting container size limitations and a prohibition on bulk imports
from the United States. This bulk import prohibition effectively blocks
United States potato imports into Canada. At the same time, Canada
artificially enhances the competitiveness of its product through
domestic subsidies for potato growers.
Another trade dispute with Canada, specifically with the province of
New Brunswick, served as the inspiration for this legislation. In July
1993, Canadian federal customs officials began stopping Canadians
returning from Maine and collecting from them the 11-percent New
Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax [PST] on goods purchased in Maine.
Canadian Customs Officers had already been collecting the Canadian
federal sales tax all across the United States-Canada border. The
collection of the New Brunswick PST was specifically targeted against
goods purchased in Maine--not on goods purchased in any of the other
provinces bordering New Brunswick.
After months of imploring the U.S. Trade Representative to do
something about the imposition of the unfairly administered tax,
Ambassador Kantor agreed that the New Brunswick PST was a violation of
NAFTA, and that the United States would include the PST issue in the
NAFTA dispute settlement process. But despite this explicit assurance,
the issue was not, in fact, brought before NAFTA's dispute settlement
process, prompting Congress last year to include an amendment I offered
to immigration reform legislation calling for the U.S. Trade
Representative to take this action without further delay.
Throughout the early months of the PST dispute, we in the State of
Maine had enormous difficulty convincing our Federal trade officials
that the PST was in fact an international trade dispute that warranted
their attention and action. We had no way of knowing whether problems
similar to the PST dispute existed elsewhere along the United States-
Canada border, or whether it was a more localized problem. If a body
like the Northern Border State Trade Council had existed when the
collection of the PST began, it could have immediately started
investigating the issue to determine its impact and make
recommendations on how to deal with it.
In short, the Northern Border States Council will serve as the eyes
and ears of our States that share a border with Canada, and are most
vulnerable to fluctuations in cross-border trade and traffic. The
Council will be a tool for Federal and State trade officials to use in
monitoring their cross-border trade. It will help ensure that national
trade policy regarding America's largest trading partner will be
developed and
[[Page S1024]]
implemented with an eye towards the unique opportunities and burdens
present to the northern border States.
The Northern Border States Council will be an advisory body, not a
regulatory one. Its fundamental purpose will be to determine the nature
and cause of cross-border trade issues or disputes, and to recommend
how to resolve them.
The duties and responsibilities of the Council will include, but not
be limited to, providing advice and policy recommendations on such
matters as taxation and the regulation of cross-border wholesale and
retail trade in goods and services; taxation, regulation and
subsidization of food, agricultural, energy, and forest-products
commodities; and the potential for Federal and State/provincial laws
and regulations, including customs and immigration regulations, to act
as nontariff barriers to trade.
As an advisory body, the Council will review and comment on all
Federal and/or State reports, studies, and practices concerning United
States-Canada trade, with particular emphasis on all reports from the
dispute settlement panels established under NAFTA. These Council
reviews will be conducted upon the request of the United States Trade
Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, a Member of Congress from
any Council State, or the Governor of a Council State.
If the Council determines that the origin of a cross-border trade
dispute resides with Canada, the Council would determine, to the best
of its ability, if the source of the dispute is the Canadian Federal
Government or a Canadian provincial government.
The goal of this legislation is not to create another Federal trade
bureaucracy. The Council will be made up of individuals nominated by
the Governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Each northern
border State will have two members on the Council. The Council members
will be unpaid, and serve a 2-year term.
The Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade will
not solve all of our trade problems with Canada. But it will ensure
that the voices and views of our northern border States are heard in
Washington by our Federal trade officials. For too long their voices
were ignored, and the northern border States have had to suffer severe
economic consequences at times because of it. This legislation will
bring our States into their rightful position as full partners in
issues that affect cross-border trade and traffic with our country's
largest trading partner.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 274
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 ``Northern Border States
Council Act''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a council to be
known as the Northern Border States-Canada Trade Council
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Council'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The Council shall be composed of 24
members consisting of 2 members from each of the following
States:
(A) Maine.
(B) New Hampshire.
(C) Vermont.
(D) New York.
(E) Michigan.
(F) Minnesota.
(G) Wisconsin.
(H) North Dakota.
(I) Montana.
(J) Idaho.
(K) Washington.
(L) Alaska.
(2) Appointment by state governors.--Not later than 6
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Commerce (hereafter in this Act referred to as
the ``Secretary'') shall appoint 2 members from each of the
States described in paragraph (1) to serve on the Council.
The appointments shall be made from the list of nominees
submitted by the Governor of each such State.
(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for terms that are coterminous with the term of the
Governor of the State who nominated the member. Any vacancy
in the Council shall not affect its powers, but shall be
filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
(d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Council have been appointed, the
Council shall hold its first meeting.
(e) Meetings.--The Council shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Council shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold
hearings.
(g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Council shall
select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its
members. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall each
serve in their respective positions for a period of 2 years,
unless such member's term is terminated before the end of the
2-year period.
SEC. 3. DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL.
(a) In General.--The duties and responsibilities of the
Council shall include--
(1) advising the President, the Congress, the United States
Trade Representative, the Secretary, and other appropriate
Federal and State officials, with respect to--
(A) the development and administration of United States-
Canada trade policies, practices, and relations,
(B) taxation and regulation of cross-border wholesale and
retail trade in goods and services between the United States
and Canada,
(C) taxation, regulation, and subsidization of agricultural
products, energy products, and forest products, and
(D) the potential for any United States or Canadian customs
or immigration law or policy to result in a barrier to trade
between the United States and Canada,
(2) monitoring the nature and cause of trade issues and
disputes that involve one of the Council-member States and
either the Canadian Government or one of the provincial
governments of Canada; and
(3) if the Council determines that a Council-member State
is involved in a trade issue or dispute with the Government
of Canada or one of the provincial governments of Canada,
making recommendations to the President, the Congress, the
United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary
concerning how to resolve the issue or dispute.
(b) Response to Requests by Certain People.--
(1) In general.--Upon the request of the United States
Trade Representative, the Secretary, a Member of Congress who
represents a Council-member State, or the Governor of a
Council-member State, the Council shall review and comment
on--
(A) reports of the Federal Government and reports of a
Council-member State government concerning United States-
Canada trade,
(B) reports of a binational panel or review established
pursuant to chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade
Agreement concerning the settlement of a dispute between the
United States and Canada,
(C) reports of an arbitral panel established pursuant to
chapter 20 of the North American Free Trade Agreement
concerning the settlement of a dispute between the United
States and Canada, and
(D) reports of a panel or Appellate Body established
pursuant to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
concerning the settlement of a dispute between the United
States and Canada.
(2) Determination of scope.--Among other issues, the
Council shall determine whether a trade dispute between the
United States and Canada is the result of action or inaction
on the part of the Federal Government of Canada or a
provincial government of Canada.
(c) Council-Member State.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``Council-member State'' means a State described in
section 2(b)(1) which is represented on the Council
established under section 2(a).
SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act and at the end of each 2-year period thereafter, the
Council shall submit a report to the President and the
Congress which contains a detailed statement of the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Council.
SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COUNCIL.
(a) Hearings.--The Council may hold such hearings, sit and
act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Council considers advisable to
carry out the provisions of this Act. Notice of Council
hearings shall be published in the Federal Register in a
timely manner.
(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Council may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the Council considers necessary to carry out
the provisions of this Act. Upon the request of the
Chairperson of the Council, the head of such department or
agency shall furnish such information to the Council.
(c) Postal Services.--The Council may use the United States
mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as
other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(d) Gifts.--The Council may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
SEC. 6. COUNCIL PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) Members To Serve Without Compensation.--Except as
provided in subsection (b), members of the Council shall
receive no compensation, allowances, or benefits by reason of
service to the Council.
(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Council shall be
allowed travel expenses,
[[Page S1025]]
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from
their homes or regular places of business in the performance
of services for the Council.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Council may,
without regard to the civil service laws, appoint and
terminate an executive director and such other additional
personnel as may be necessary to enable the Council to
perform its duties. The employment of an executive director
shall be subject to confirmation by the Council and the
Secretary.
(2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Council may fix
the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
such title.
(d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Council without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Council may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of such title.
(f) Office Space.--The Secretary shall provide office space
for Council activities and for Council personnel.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF THE COUNCIL.
The Council shall terminate on the date that is 54 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall submit
a final report to the President and the Congress under
section 4 at least 90 days before such termination.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from amounts made available by appropriations to the
Department of Commerce an amount not to exceed $250,000 for
fiscal year 1996 and for each fiscal year thereafter to the
Council to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the
authorization contained in this section shall remain
available, without fiscal year limitation, until
expended.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr.
Bond):
S. 275. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for tax-exempt financing of private sector highway infrastructure
construction; to the Committee on Finance.
the highway infrastructure privatization act
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation which
will allow the private sector to take a more active role in building
and operating our Nation's highway infrastructure. The Highway
Infrastructure Privatization Act will allow the private sector to gain
access to tax-exempt bond financing for a limited number of highway
projects. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators
Warner, Moynihan, and Bond, have agreed to join me in this effort.
One needs only to venture a few blocks from here to see the terrible
condition of many of the Nation's roads and bridges. Regrettably, the
United States faces a significant shortfall in funding for our highway
and bridge infrastructure needs.
The investment need comes at a time when we in Congress are
desperately looking for ways to reduce spending to balance the budget.
State governments face similar budget pressures. It is incumbent upon
us to look at new and innovative ways to make the most of limited
resources to address significant needs.
In the United States, highway and bridge infrastructure is the
responsibility of the Government. Governments build, own, and operate
public highways, roads, and bridges. In many other countries, however,
the private sector, and private capital, construct and operate
important facilities. These countries have found that increasing the
private sector's role in major highway transportation projects offers
opportunities for construction cost savings and more efficient
operation. They also open the door for new construction techniques and
technologies.
To help meet the Nation's infrastructure needs, we must take
advantage of private sector resources by opening up avenues for the
private sector to take the lead in designing, constructing, financing,
and operating highway facilities.
A substantial barrier to private sector participation in the
provision of highway infrastructure is the cost of capital. Under
current Federal tax law, highways built by Government can be financed
using tax-exempt debt, but those built by the private sector, or those
with substantial private sector participation, cannot. As a result,
public/private partnerships in the provision of highway facilities are
unlikely to materialize, despite the potential efficiencies in design,
construction, and operation offered by such arrangements.
To increase the amount of private sector participation in the
provision of highway infrastructure, the Tax Code's bias against
private sector participation must be addressed.
The Highway Infrastructure Privatization Act creates a pilot program
aimed at encouraging the private sector to help meet the transportation
infrastructure needs for the 21st century. It makes tax-exempt
financing available for a total of 15 highway privatization projects.
The total face value of bonds that can be issued under this program is
limited to $25 billion.
The 15 projects authorized under the program will be selected by the
Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury. To qualify under this program, projects selected must: serve
the general public; be on publicly owned rights-of-way; revert to
public ownership; and, come from a State's 20-year transportation plan.
These criteria ensure that the projects selected meet a State or
locality's broad transportation goals.
A revenue estimate for this legislation has not yet been completed,
however we anticipate that the bill will not result in a revenue loss
for the Federal Government. The projects that are candidates to
participate in this pilot program are ones that are likely to be funded
by tax-exempt bonds issued by State and local governments. Therefore,
the bill should not result in an increase in the amount of tax-exempt
bonds that will be issued. Furthermore, it is possible, depending on
the efficiencies resulting from substantial private sector
participation, that the bill actually would result in fewer bonds being
issued and therefore would provide a revenue increase for the Federal
Government.
The bonds issued under this pilot program will be subject to the
rules and regulations governing private activity bonds. Moreover, the
bonds issued under the program will not count against a State's tax-
exempt volume cap.
This legislation has been endorsed by Project America, a coalition
dedicated to improving our Nation's infrastructure, and the Public
Securities Association.
I hope that this bill can be one in a series of new approaches to
meeting our substantial transportation infrastructure needs and will be
one of the approaches that will help us find more efficient methods to
design and to build the Nation's transportation infrastructure.
I encourage my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important
initiative.
______
By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Helms):
S. 277. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to restore
the effectiveness of certain provisions regulating Federal milk
marketing orders; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
FEDERAL MILK MARKETING ORDERS LEGISLATION
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to reauthorize seasonal base plans for Federal milk marketing orders.
This program encourages dairy farmers to stabilize their milk
production seasonally. This results in more stable production in the
fall and winter, when there is an economic disincentive for dairy
farmers to produce milk, and thereby ensures stable milk prices to
consumers.
Mr. President, this is a matter of fairness. Seasonal base plans were
instituted under the Agricultural Act of 1933. Currently, seasonal base
plans are included in five Federal milk marketing orders that affect
producers in 25 States. Without extension of this authority
expeditiously, dairy producers
[[Page S1026]]
in those five orders who adjusted their production last fall will
receive lower average prices while those who made no adjustments will
receive higher average prices.
This is not a new issue to my colleagues. In fact, during
consideration of the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Act,
the Senate approved the extension of seasonal base plan authority until
the year 2002. The 1996 farm bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture
to submit a reform plan for Federal milk marketing orders by 1999 and
this bill reauthorizes the base excess plans until 1999. This will
ensure that the market environment the Secretary was directed to reform
exists until he has a chance to submit his plan.
I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.
______
By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Sessions, and Mr.
Coverdell):
S. 278. A bill to guarantee the right of all active military
personnel, merchant mariners, and their dependents to vote in Federal,
State, and local elections; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
the military voting rights act of 1997
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this bill would guarantee that
active duty military personnel and their dependents have the right to
vote in Federal, State, and local elections.
On December 19, 1996, Texas Rural Legal Aid [TLRA] filed suit against
Val Verde County, TX, alleging that 800 military absentee ballots were
improperly counted in local races. The challenge argues that the
Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act was not intended to allow
voting in State and local elections.
The Military Voting Rights Act of 1997 amends the Uniformed and
Overseas Absentee Voting Act to make explicit the right of active duty
military personnel and their dependents to vote in all Federal, State,
and local elections. This change is consistent with the way the law has
historically been interpreted by State election officials.
In addition, the Military Voting Rights Act of 1997 amends the
Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 to extend additional
voting rights protections to our Nation's military forces. This section
guarantees that extended absences incurred as a result of service to
the Nation do not result in the loss of residency for voting purposes.
The assertion of TLRA that our soldiers can lose the right to vote in
State and local elections by virtue of service-connected absences is
absurd and must not be allowed to go unanswered. The Military Voting
Rights Act of 1997 makes it clear that those who protect our freedom
should not be denied the right to exercise freedoms they protect.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 278
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 ``Military Voting Rights Act
of 1997''.
SEC. 2. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY.
Article VII of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act
of 1940 (50 U.S.C. 700 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Sec. 704. (a) For purposes of voting for an office of the
United States or of a State, a person who is absent from a
State in compliance with military or naval orders shall not,
solely by reason of that absence--
``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in
that State;
``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in
any other State; or
``(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a resident
of any other State.
``(b) In this section, the term `State' includes a
territory or possession of the United States, a political
subdivision of a State, territory, or possession, and the
District of Columbia.''.
SEC. 3. STATE RESPONSIBILITY TO GUARANTEE MILITARY VOTING
RIGHTS.
(a) Registration and Balloting.--Section 102 of the
Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-
1) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Elections for Federal Offices.--''
before ``Each State
shall--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Elections for State and Local Offices.--Each State
shall--
``(1) permit absent uniformed services voters to use
absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee
ballot in general, special, primary, and run-off elections
for State and local offices; and
``(2) accept and process, with respect to any election
described in paragraph (1), any otherwise valid voter
registration application from an absent uniformed services
voter if the application is received by the appropriate State
election official not less than 30 days before the
election.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for title I of such
Act is amended by striking out ``FOR FEDERAL OFFICE''.
____
The Retired
Officers Association,
Alexandria, VA, February 5, 1997.
Hon. Phil Gramm,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gramm: On behalf of the nearly 400,000 members
of the Retired Officers Association, of which 33,000 members
plus their families reside in Texas, I want to express our
strong support for the ``Military Voting Rights Act of
1997.'' It's a travesty that a taxpayer-funded group like the
Texas Rural Legal Aid (TRLA) would represent individuals in
an action to deny military members the right to vote by
absentee ballot in Val Verde County, Texas.
Although TRLA has now withdrawn from the suit and deferred
to a private attorney, the case remains a threat to the
voting rights of active duty personnel and their families.
Should the view enunciated by TRLA prevail, military
personnel who were absent because of exigencies of the
service would be denied a fundamental right to vote. Many of
these individuals, who are daily placed in ``harms way'' in
areas like Bosnia, would rightfully question why they should
be treated like second class citizens and be subjected to
different registration procedures than individuals who
register to vote by any other means under state law.
The current practice that enables an absentee voter to
submit a Federal Post Card Application has long-standing
roots and should not be altered to require supplementary
information and to specifically discriminate against
servicemembers. Therefore, we strongly support your effort to
preclude unfair sanctions from being imposed on members of
the uniformed services and will do our utmost to generate
strong grassroots support for the enactment of the ``Military
Voting Rights Act of 1997.''
Sincerely,
Paul W. Arcari,
Colonel, USAF (Ret),
Director, Government Relations.
____
The American Legion,
National Headquarters,
Indianapolis, IN, February 5, 1997.
Hon. Phil Gramm,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gramm: On behalf of The American Legion, I
want to note our appreciation and express our support for The
Military Voting Rights Act of 1997 which, I understand, will
soon go to the floor of the United States Senate.
One of the most important responsibilities for the people
of a free nation is exercising their franchise. One of the
most precious rights we have as Americans is access to the
ballot box. That right and that responsibility is as
important to our nation's active duty military as it is to
the rest of the population.
Anyone who has served the nation in its military knows that
every right enjoyed and exercised by the average American is,
of necessity, not inherent in military service. The human
body is a remarkable thing. When one of the senses is
diminished, others increase to compensate. The loss of sight
may well lead to an acute sense of hearing. This concept
could be applied to military service. Forfeiting the comforts
of home and family, of occupational pursuits and the
protection of our borders, the opportunity to vote becomes a
more cherished right, a more heightened responsibility.
Those whose lives are on the line daily will someday return
to their homes. They will return to a government that shapes
their community and effects the lives of all those within. It
follows then that those on active duty in a foreign country
should be accorded every opportunity help structure that
government locally, across the state, and at the federal
level.
To you and other supporters of The Military Voting Rights
Act of 1997 goes the gratitude of our Organization. I believe
it accurate to say that the young men and women who protect
our nation and its interests through military service have
the full support of our nation's people and its government.
And they should have every chance to exercise their franchise
in support of it.
Sincerely,
Joseph E. Caouctte, Jr.,
Chairman, National
Americanism Commission.
____
National Association for
Uniformed Services,
Springfield, VA, February 5, 1997.
Hon. Phil Gramm,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gramm: The National Association for Uniformed
Services thanks you for your action to ensure active duty
personnel and their family members have the right to vote in
federal, state, and local elections.
[[Page S1027]]
We support strongly your ``Military Voting Rights Act of
1997'' which amends the ``Unformed and Overseas Absentee
Voting Act''. Your bill will make more explicit the right of
active duty personnel and their family members to vote in
federal, state, and local elections with absentee ballots as
the ``Soldier's and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940'' has
historically been interpreted by state election officials.
Any assertion that military personnel, who are serving
their country, can lose their right to vote in state and
local elections because of their service-connected absences
is outrageous! All the brave men and women of the armed
forces serving throughout the world are grateful for your
prompt, decisive action to preserve their Constitutional
right to vote.
Sincerely,
J.C. Pennington,
Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.),
President.
____
Air Force Association
Arlington, VA, February 5, 1997.
Hon. Phil Gramm,
Senate Russell Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gramm: The Air Force Association strongly
endorses your sponsorship of ``The Military Voting Rights Act
of 1997.'' The right of active duty military personnel and
their dependents to vote in all federal, state and local
elections needs to again be reemphasized to state and local
election officials. Recent problems in Texas have again
reminded us that the right to vote must be fought for time
and time again. Your legislation, once enacted, will help to
correct this inequity.
We pledge our support to assist you by seeking additional
cosponsors, to inform our members nationwide of your effort
and to help in any appropriate way.
Sincerely,
Doyle E. Larson.
______
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Harkin, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 280. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to
allow employees to take school involvement leave to participate in the
school activities of their children or to participate in literacy
training, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
the time for schools act of 1997
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 4 years ago today, thanks to the hard
work of Senator Dodd, we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act. It
was one of the first things I did as a newly elected Senator. And I am
proud of its success. In fact, it is probably the single most effective
law passed by Congress this decade.
Now I want to expand the scope of FMLA to apply to participation in
our schools. The Time for Schools Act of 1997 will allow parents 24
hours per year to participate in activities in their child's school.
As the mother of two children--one a teenager in high school--I know
how difficult and how important it is to participate in their
education. I have been lucky to have had the opportunity to be involved
in their lives. But many parents do not have the time it takes to do
those little things that will assure their child's success in school.
By expanding the uses of one of the most successful laws in years, I
want to give parents something they don't have enough of--time.
When I tour schools in my home State of Washington, I often hear
young people say, ``Adults don't seem to care about me.'' We know
that's not true, but we need to show them that adults do care. And one
of the best places to start is to reaffirm the importance of their
education by taking steps to help their families get more involved in
schools.
These days we have many dual-income families and single parents
struggling to work to make ends meet. All of these families know how
important it is to be involved in their children's learning.
However, a recent study, Parents as School Partners research
initiative, sponsored by the National Council of Jewish Women's Center
for the Child, found that a basic lack of time was one of the main
barriers to more parental involvement at schools.
Educational studies have shown that family involvement is more
important to student success than family income or education. In fact,
things parents control, such as limiting excess television watching and
providing a variety of reading materials in the home, account for
almost all the differences --nearly 90 percent--in average student
achievement across States.
All sectors of our communities want more time for young people.
Students, teachers, parents and businesses feel something must be done
to improve family involvement. In fact, 89 percent of company
executives identified the biggest obstacle to school reform as the lack
of parental involvement.
And, a 1996 postelection poll commissioned by the national PTA and
other organizations found that 86 percent of people favor legislation
that would allow workers unpaid leave to attend parent-teacher
conferences, or to take other actions to improve learning for their
children.
A commitment to our children is a commitment to the future. I want to
make sure all young people receive the attention they need to succeed.
My legislation will allow parents time to: First, attend a parent/
teacher conference; second, interview a new school for their child; and
third, participate in family literacy training.
Just last week, I talked to a woman from Bellevue who has an 11-year-
old special needs daughter in school. Both she and her husband work
during the day, but he cannot get away for school activities. She told
me my legislation would allow her husband to attend school conferences
and participate in their child's education for the first time.
I look at the Family and Medical Leave Act--which has helped one in
six American employees take time to deal with serious family health
problems, and which 90 percent of businesses had little or no cost
implementing--and I see success. People in my State have been able to
deal with urgent family needs, without having to give up their jobs.
My bill expands the uses of Family and Medical Leave to another
urgent need families face--the need to help their children learn.
Now we need to grant employees the same peace of mind about
preventing problems in school that can lead to bigger problems for
their children later on. The time is right for the Time for Schools
Act.
____________________