[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 16 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1191-S1194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 292. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of certain ambulance services; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                   the ambulance services act of 1997

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the 
Ambulance Services Act of 1997 today to ensure that Medicare 
beneficiaries are covered for necessary transport for emergency 
treatment.
  I am deeply concerned that Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas have 
a difficult time gaining access to emergency care, and there are 
relatively few hospitals in these areas, and patients must often travel 
a great distance to reach them. The Medicare ambulance transport 
reimbursement regulations have not kept pace with changes in the health 
care system that have occurred as a result of efforts to improve care 
while decreasing the cost of care.
  In many locales, clinics and ambulatory surgery centers staffed by 
physicians have developed the ability to provide routine emergency 
care. The local physicians are often available at the clinic, which has 
facilities and capability for emergency treatment. In fact, patients 
who are transported to the hospital emergency department during the day 
wait longer to see a physician than those at the clinic, as the 
physician must travel from the clinic to the hospital in order to see 
the patient.
  It is often necessary for seniors who are experiencing a medical 
emergency to be transported via an ambulance. Under current regulation, 
seniors who require ambulance transport to an emergency care facility 
must be taken to a hospital. Therefore, the senior is left with a 
difficult choice: be transported to the hospital facility, which may 
take longer and is likely to involve a longer waiting time for 
emergency care, or be transported to a local facility that provides 
emergency care to other citizens, and pay for the ambulance transport 
out of pocket. Neither of these is an optimal choice.
  As the reimbursement policy stands now, patients are required to use 
a more expensive facility when it may not be necessary. It would seem 
that allowing reimbursement for transport to nonhospital facilities 
that provide emergency care could result in fiscal savings in that the 
cost of ambulance transport combined with a clinic visit bill would be 
less than that of ambulance transport and a hospital emergency 
department bill. In addition, it would allow our senior citizens to 
have a health care benefit that is available to other members of the 
community.
  Concerns that might arise about the medical necessity of transporting 
certain patients to a hospital emergency department can and should 
continue to be addressed by local and regional emergency medical 
service systems, based on levels of care that are available in the 
area. These systems set standards and protocols for emergency medical 
service providers and work with the health care community in developing 
protocols for transport and patient care.
  Mr. President, I remain concerned about providing all of our citizens 
with an adequate level of health care. Our seniors need to be able to 
avail themselves of expeditious emergency care, without having to worry 
about how transport for this care will be paid for. The Ambulance 
Services Act of 1997 will go a long way toward this goal.
  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. 292

       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 ``Ambulance Services Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF CERTAIN AMBULANCE SERVICES.

       (a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(7) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(7)) is amended by striking 
     ``regulations;'' and inserting ``regulations, except that 
     such regulations shall not fail to treat ambulance services 
     as medical and other health services solely because, in the 
     case of an emergency, the individual is transported to a 
     clinic or to an ambulatory surgical center;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to items and services provided on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 293. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 
permanent the credit for clinical testing expenses for certain drugs 
for rare diseases or conditions; to the Committee on Finance.


                      THE ORPHAN DRUG ACT OF 1997

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Orphan Drug Act 
of 1997, legislation to extend permanently the orphan drug tax credit. 
I am pleased that my good friend and colleague from Montana, Senator 
Baucus, is joining me. Similar legislation was introduced in the House 
last year by Representatives Nancy Johnson and Robert Matsui. I am 
confident that they will once again introduce legislation this year to 
make the credit permanent.
  Mr. President, this credit encourages private firms to develop 
treatments for rare diseases. As many of my colleagues know, we 
extended this medical research tax credit last year, but, it will 
expire on May 31 of this year.
  Since the 1983 enactment of the orphan drug tax credit we have seen 
very encouraging progress in developing new drugs to alleviate 
suffering from a number of so-called orphan diseases, those diseases 
that afflict a relatively small number of people. Because the process 
of research, development, and approval for new pharmaceuticals is so 
costly--running into hundreds of millions of dollars--the small market 
for a drug discourages drug companies from undertaking it.
  Mr. President, the incentive provided by this credit gives hope to 
individuals who suffer from such rare but devastating conditions as 
Tourette's syndrome. Huntington's disease, and neuro- fibromatosis, to 
name a few. Many

[[Page S1192]]

drugs designated as orphan drugs have a much small potential market 
than even the 200,000 patients referred to in the definition in this 
credit--sometimes they are for conditions that affect as few as 1,000 
persons in the United States. This means that without some incentive 
there is simply no possibility for a firm to profit from its decisions 
to develop drugs that treat these diseases.
  Fortunately, the orphan perception has been changing over the years 
that this research credit has been in effect. In fact, Mr. President, 
pharmaceutical companies have made great strides in discovering 
treatments for these orphan diseases. While only seven orphan drugs 
were approved by the FDA in the decade before the credit's initial 
passage, over 100 have been approved since and approximately 600 are 
now in development.
  Last year, I mentioned the first-ever treatment for Gaucher disease, 
a debilitating and sometimes fatal genetic disorder. This disease 
afflicts fewer than 5,000 people worldwide, yet the company who 
discovered the treatment expended its time and money to search for a 
treatment precisely because of the orphan drug credit's incentives. 
There are other examples as well.

  Mr. President, this credit's effectiveness has been tested for the 
past 14 years, and it has passed with flying colors. Few provisions of 
the tax code can claim to have clearly reduced human suffering and to 
have expanded our store of medical knowledge. This credit has done 
both.
  By helping small, entrepreneurial firms to take advantage of the 
orphan drug credit, we can make it even more effective. Before last 
year, the tax credit only served as an incentive for companies that 
earn a current-year-profit. If the credit could not be used 
immediately, it was lost forever. For large, profitable drug companies, 
this was rarely a problem.
  However, for many small, start-up pharmaceutical companies, this 
current-year restriction made the credit of little or no use. These 
firms typically lose money in the early years since they put all 
available funding into research. They only expect to see profits many 
years into the future.
  In order to improve the credit's usefulness, we modified the credit 
in legislation last year to allow firms to carry the credit back 3 
years and carry it forward 15 years. This will give small, growing 
companies an incentive to find ways to treat these rare diseases that 
cause so many to suffer. I have been impressed by the strides being 
made in the biomedical field, including growing firms in my home State 
of Utah.
  In the course of research, scientists often stumble upon treatments 
that could, if developed, improve the lives of victims of rare 
diseases. However, because of the high cost of drug experiments and the 
enormous expense involved in gaining FDA approval, many researchers 
reluctantly set these promising drug innovations aside. Mr. President, 
this should not happen, not when so many are suffering from these rare 
diseases, and we have an effective credit available that has proven its 
benefits.
  The following national groups officially endorse the Orphan Drug Act 
of 1997: National Organization for Rare Disorders [NORD], National 
Multiple Sclerosis Society, Tourette Syndrome Association, United 
Parkinson Foundation, American Autoimmune Related Disease Association, 
Leukemia Society of American, Cystinosis Foundation, New England 
Biomedical Research Coalition, Biotechnology Industry Organization, and 
the Epilepsy Foundation.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in sponsoring this bipartisan 
legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 293

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

     SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN CLINICAL TESTING EXPENSES MADE 
                   PERMANENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 45C of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to clinical testing expenses for certain 
     drugs for rare diseases or conditions) is amended by striking 
     subsection (e).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after May 31, 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
        Hagel, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gramm, and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 294. A bill to amend chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, 
to establish Federal penalties for the killing or attempted killing of 
a law enforcement officer of the District of Columbia, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


  THE OFFICER BRIAN GIBSON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE PROTECTION ACT

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I appreciate this opportunity. I 
came to the floor because I want to introduce a bill today that I think 
is very important. It is the Officer Brian Gibson District of Columbia 
Police Protection Act. I send this bill to the desk and ask for its 
appropriate referral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately 
referred.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I am introducing this 
bill today on behalf of myself, Senator Lott, Senator Thurmond and 
Senator Sessions, because I think that today when we are laying to rest 
a person who has given his life for the public protection, Officer 
Gibson, in the District of Columbia, who was brutally murdered in his 
squad car. A person went up to his car, stuck a gun in his face and 
shot it.
  If we cannot protect that man and make sure that he has every 
possible ounce of support that we can give to protect him, then I do 
not know what we can do to help the crime rate in the District.
  I hope very much that the Mayor of the District and Congresswoman 
Norton will be helpful on this. I have not yet been able to talk to 
them though I have put in a call. But the bottom line is we are trying 
to make the Capital City good for the people who live here but also 
good for any American or any foreign visitor, so they can come and see 
the most beautiful symbol of America possible. And that is not the case 
today.
  So we are asking for the death penalty for the murder of a police 
officer in the District of Columbia, the same protection that a member 
of the Capitol Police now has and that police in 38 States now have. I 
think this is one way to say that if you are going to commit a heinous 
crime like this, you are going to face the ultimate of penalties.
  I want Officer Gibson and his family to know that we appreciate that 
he gave his life in the line of duty. I want them to know that in the 
future, in his memory, we are going to not only give the highest 
penalty to someone who would kill one of his comrades, but we will also 
give restitution to the family that is suffering from the loss of their 
breadwinner, their father, their husband.
  So I will introduce this bill today. I hope that we can get immediate 
action on it because it is time for us to say that the District of 
Columbia is going to be the model Capital City. I know all of us, on a 
bipartisan basis, want to make that happen. We want to come together to 
make this city work. After all, it is the beacon to the world for what 
is good about America. It is time that the Capital City met that test.
  So in memory of Officer Gibson, I hope we will pass this bill. I hope 
we will do everything possible to get the crime rate in our Capital 
City down so that visitors from all over America will want to come and 
see this beautiful city that is our Capital.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Coats, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Frist, 
        Mr. DeWine, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Collins, Mr. Warner, 
        Mr. McConnell, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 295. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow 
labor management cooperative efforts that improve economic 
competitiveness in the United States to continue to thrive, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


          the teamwork for employees and managers act of 1997

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing, together with a 
number of my colleagues, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of

[[Page S1193]]

1997. This bill is identical to the TEAM Act approved by the Senate 
last year.
  This bill responds to a series of decisions by the National Labor 
Relations Board which have cast doubt on the legality of many forms of 
workplace cooperation. Specifically, the Board held in the 
Electromation case that certain employer-employee committees violated 
the National Labor Relations Act's prohibition against employer-
assisted labor organizations.
  This ruling has had a chilling effect on some 30,000 companies that 
have employee involvement programs. The TEAM Act amends Federal labor 
law to allow voluntary workplace cooperation to continue. The 
legislation allows employers and employees to meet together to address 
issues of mutual interest, including issues related to quality, 
productivity, and efficiency as long as the committees or other joint 
programs do not engage in collective bargaining.
  This last point is important. The bill does not allow employers to 
establish company unions or sham unions that undermined independent 
collective bargaining back in the 1930's. Under the TEAM Act, workers 
retain the right, as well they should, to choose an independent union 
to engage in collective bargaining.
  More importantly, the TEAM Act gives workers the opportunity for 
greater input and involvement in the workplace. Not only does this 
allow workers to improve and expand their skills, but workplace 
cooperation also increases our productivity and competitive edge in the 
global marketplace.
  This bill received bipartisan support in the last Congress, and I am 
confident it will again this year. This bill is not about labor versus 
management. It's about clarifying the law so that workers and 
management can work together to their mutual benefit and to the benefit 
of our economy as a whole. I look forward to working with Members on 
both sides of the aisle so that the TEAM Act becomes law in the very 
near future.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise in support of my colleague 
from Vermont in his introduction of the Team Work for Employees And 
Management Act. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his leadership in 
helping American workers develop the capacity to be competitive, to be 
productive, and to maintain our standard of excellence throughout the 
world. The Team Act, which passed both the Senate and the House during 
the 104th Congress, but was vetoed by President Clinton, is vital to 
the survivability and strength of our Nation's economy.
  Our Nation's strength is a result of recognizing the importance of 
the human resource in the equation. You simply cannot be competitive 
without tapping every part of the resource that you have. When we think 
of the NCAA basketball tournament next month, it is unthinkable that we 
would send teams into competition and forbid the coaches to talk to the 
players. What nonsense that would be.
  It is fundamental recognition of the fact that the people on the 
court will have a different perspective than the people off the court. 
The people on the field will have an awareness of how things are going 
that is special, different, unique, and of value.
  The same is true in industry. No matter how hard a compassionate 
manager tried to observe the process from outside, no matter how well 
the engineer from the design room tries to structure the environment 
for productivity, the person who actually is on the floor is going to 
have the ability to say, ``This doesn't work here. It may look good in 
theory, but it doesn't work in practice.''
  I think that is what the TEAM Act is all about. It is about 
understanding and recognizing the tremendous resource that workers are, 
that they can be to the competitive position of this country by 
outproducing, outworking, outthinking, outsmarting, and out- 
cooperating workers anyplace else in the world.
  Most Americans would believe, and it is because we are commonsense 
people, that it is OK for employees and employers to talk. If you would 
have listened to the debate in this Chamber, you would have heard from 
those on the other side of the aisle, ``Why, it's all right, it's all 
OK, it's perfectly legal right now. We don't need this.''
  When opponents of the TEAM Act say it is perfectly legal now, we do 
not need this law, it confounds me. Let me read from a list of things 
that have been ruled inappropriate for nonunion employers to talk to 
their nonunion employees on, so the American people have an 
understanding of what the law is and whether it needs to be changed.
  If you discuss the extension of the employees' lunch breaks by 15 
minutes, that is illegal, from the case of Sertafilm and Atlas 
Microfilming; the length of the workday, to discuss how long each 
workday is going to be, that is illegal, from Weston & Booker Co. A 
decrease in rest breaks from 15 to 10 minutes, that is illegal to talk 
about with workers. What paid holidays you have--the Singer 
Manufacturing case held that was illegal to talk about. The extension 
of store hours during wheat harvest season--the Dillon's company case 
said you cannot talk with workers about that to get their input.
  Workers know what kind of break they need. Workers know what kind of 
workday they would like to work. I know of one plant in my home State 
where workers decided they wanted to work 4 days of 10 hours a day 
instead of 5 days of 8 hours a day and have 3-day weekends every week. 
Why would Government stand between workers and manufacturers, between 
managers and employees or their associates to say you cannot discuss 
those things, and yet that is what the law is for 8 out of 9 American 
workers, because 8 out of 9 American workers are nonunion workers.
  The National Labor Relations Act governs election of unions and 
collective bargaining. Section 8(a)(2) was passed in 1935 to prohibit 
the establishment of sham company unions, a tactic commonly used by 
employers to defeat union organizing. These organizations pretended to 
engage in collective bargaining, but followed management's dictates and 
typically were run by officers handpicked by management. Companies then 
pretended to enter into collective-bargaining agreements with these 
sham organizations so that when a union attempted to organize the 
workers, the companies could hide behind the exclusive representation 
and contract bar tenets of the law.
  Vigorous enforcement of section 8(a)(2) resulted in the demise of the 
company unions by the early 1950's. While sham unions should continue 
to be prohibited under our labor laws--and would remain so under the 
TEAM Act--the broad prohibition that remains in effect today prevents 
the types of legitimate cooperative working relationships that 
encourage worker participation and decisionmaking.
  Let me give you an example. When I was Governor of the State of 
Missouri, I had the opportunity to work with companies. Like I do 
today, I would go and work on the assembly line. I would go and work 
with people to learn about their jobs and talk to them about their 
concerns.
  One of the companies that was hauled into the justice system of the 
Labor Department for cooperating with its employees was a company 
called EFCO Corp. It was a small company in Missouri, having 
approximately 60 jobs. Now it has over 1,000 jobs. Much of its capacity 
was to increase its on-time deliveries, which went from the low 
seventies up into the high nineties, and which allowed workers to start 
working 4 days a week instead of 5 days a week, get their 40 hours in 4 
days and have long weekends, spend more time with their kids, 
accommodate the demands of their families. It all came from these 
programs.
  What was most distressing was that when EFCO wanted to be involved, 
it was said to have dominated its discussion groups or teams because 
they provided employees with pencils and pens and allowed them to have 
access to the financial records of the company. That was what the NLRB 
said was a violation.
  You would say this company is bending over backward. It opens up the 
books to the workers and says: How can we do better for and how can we, 
as a team, do better, how can we as a company have the kind of 
performance and productivity that will recommend us to the world? And 
indeed they are now a world-class company. But because they provided 
the pens and pencils and they allowed the workers to have access to the 
company's financial records, the NLRB filed charges

[[Page S1194]]

against the company. This is not the kind of thing that recommends 
America for leadership. It is the kind of thing that takes correction.
  Opponents say if you talk about those things, the workers will think 
you have union when you don't. It will be a sham union. Frankly, I do 
not underestimate the American worker that severely.
  Over the Christmas break I went to and worked in about five or six 
places in Missouri, actually on the job side-by-side with people. I 
never met a single worker who did not know whether he or she was in a 
union. They know. Workers know whether union dues are being deducted. 
The know whether they are in a separate organization. It is not hard. 
This is not above the capacity of the American worker. The idea somehow 
that if we allow managers to talk to employees, employees will be 
tricked into thinking they have a union when they do not have a union 
is ludicrous. It underestimates the intelligence of the American work 
force.

  A second objective from the other side is, ``Well, maybe if we allow 
people to talk, they will be just talking to certain employees who only 
have limited views, and they will not reflect the views of employees 
generally.'' There is a safeguard. If there is an unfair system 
established where workers and employers are communicating with each 
other and it is working against the interests of the workers, it is 
easy. Workers have every right to unionize. They can form a labor 
union. They can petition for a labor union. They can ask that unions 
come in if they think it is unfair.
  There is a structural guarantee of competition. If nonunion systems 
are not working well for employees, if these things are likely to be so 
distorted or so unfair, nothing in this law, nothing in this proposal, 
in any way derogates, undermines, erodes, or otherwise lessens the 
right of a worker to petition for an election to organize or unionize a 
plant.
  There are about 30,000 employers that would like to have such 
employee-involvement programs. Why is it they would like to have such 
programs? Because they have seen that when we work together we succeed. 
Strange to me, that is basically a quote from President Clinton's 1996 
State of the Union Address. He said, and I agree, ``When companies and 
workers work as a team, they do better, and so does America.''
  The real truth of the matter is understood in the hearts and minds of 
everyone who has every worked on a team, knowing that when you work 
together, you do better than when you work at odds with each other.
  The ability of union workers to collaborate with employers is well 
ensconced. It is fought for by the unions and protected by the 
employers, recognized as a great benefit. But why should we limit that 
great benefit to 11 or 12 percent of our society, to the 1 out of 9 
workers in America that are in unions? Why not extend this benefit to 
all workers in America saying that it is entirely appropriate for 
nonunion workers, as well as union workers, to be involved in 
collaborating and cooperating, in providing their good judgment of how 
best to improve the situation for workers and to improve the 
productivity and profitability of the business?
  No. I do not think we would send our teams to the NCAA tournament 
forbidding the players to talk to the coaches. We have too much sense 
to do that. No, I do not think that union companies are going to stop 
having team discussions between employees and the company owners and 
managers. They have too much sense to do that. And, no, I do not think 
that this Government should stand between the owners of corporations 
and their managers and the employees who work hard and want to succeed 
and want to be productive and keep them from talking to each other, 
because I believe the American people have too much sense to do that.
  I urge my colleagues to extend this benefit which now inures to the 
benefit of 1 out of 9 workers in America to the rest of the working 
population. Let us give everyone an opportunity to contribute to a 
winning effort, to succeed. That will maintain America's position as 
the most productive and most profitable and most rewarding place, not 
just for companies, but for citizens, not just for institutions, but 
for individuals. It is, in fact, a reason that America continues to 
draw people from around the globe. It is the fact that we have 
recognized the worth and value of individuals. And for us to deny their 
value in a commercial setting would be a substantial error which we 
must not make.

                          ____________________