[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.

                          ____________________