[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1383-S1407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENT ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 320. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
comprehensive pension protection for women; to the Committee on
Finance.
the comprehensive women's pension protection act of 1997
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I introduce the Comprehensive
Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997. At the end of the 104th
Congress, Congresswoman Kennelly and I introduced the Comprehensive
Women's Pension Protection Act of 1996. When we introduced that
legislation at the end of the last Congress we made a commitment to
reintroduce this legislation at the beginning of the 105th Congress and
to make women's retirement security a priority in the 105th Congress.
Today we are keeping that promise.
The Comprehensive Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997 combines
some of the best ideas on women's pension legislation that have come
before the House or the Senate and new proposals to increase the
security, equity, and accessibility of our pension system.
Many of America's women are facing a retirement without economic
security. The majority of the elderly in this country are, and will
continue to be, women, and our retirement system is failing them.
Younger women are not earning sufficient pension benefits to provide
for their secure retirement. Due to the demands of child rearing and
elder care, which often take women out of the workforce for a time, and
to lower life-time earnings due to continuing wage inequities, the
average 35-year-old woman with a $50,000 salary must have accumulated
retirement savings of $35,000 in order to have a comfortable
retirement. A man need only have saved $3,000 by the time he is 35.
Many older women worked in the home or took time off to raise
families, and when pension benefits of their own. For many older women
too, widowhood or divorce can rob them of their part of their husband's
pension benefits. To ensure that the golden years are not the
disposable years women need to take charge of their own retirement, but
Congress must ensure that the Nation's retirement system enables them
to do so.
On May 14, of last year I introduced, and many of my colleagues
cosponsored, the Women's Pension Equity Act of 1996, to begin to
address one of the leading causes of poverty for the elderly--little or
no pension benefits. Less than a third of all female retirees have
pensions, and the majority of those that do earn less than $5,000 a
year. The lack of pension benefits for many women means the difference
between a comfortable retirment and a difficult one. Three of the six
provisions of that bill are now law.
This legislation is a continuation of my effort to enact real pension
reforms that will allow women to achieve a secure retirement. Since
introducing the first of my women's pension equity bills, I have heard
from hundreds of women from States across the country about the need
for pension policy that allows women to retire with dignity.
Addressing pension issues is an integral part of the solution to
women's economic insecurity. In addition, pension issues are critical
to our Nation as a whole. In light of the demographic trends facing
America, retirement security is increasingly important to the quality
of life of all of our citizens. Social Security is the focus of much
discussion and debate in Congress and throughout the Nation, and it
should be. However, addressing the problems facing Social Security
alone will not provide women, or any American, with the tools to create
a secure retirement. The intent, from its inception, was that Social
Security would provide a floor--a minimum amount of resources for
retirement. The average retiree will only have about 40 percent of his
or her wages replaced by Social Security.
Clearly, women must take charge of their own retirement and not just
rely on Social Security. I have advocated that every woman create her
own ``pension eight'' checklist to prepare for economic security. The 8
items that should be on any woman's checklist include: (1) finding out
if she is earning or has ever earned a pension; (2) learning if her
employer has a pension plan, and how to be eligible for the plan; (3)
contributing to a pension plan if she has the chance; (4) not spending
pension earnings if given a one-time payment when leaving a job: (5) if
married, finding out if her husband has a pension; (6) not signing away
a future right to her husband's pension if he dies; (7) during a
divorce, considering the pension as a valuable, jointly earned asset to
be divided; and (8) finding out about pension rights and fighting for
them.
Even when women take charge of their own retirement, however, they
can face a brick wall of pension law that prevents them from investing
enough for their future. Pension laws were not written to reflect the
patterns of women's work or women's lives. Women are more likely to
move in and out of the workforce, work at home, earn less for the work
they do, and work in low paying industries. These factors limit our
ability to access or accrue pension benefits. Women are also more
likely to be widowed or divorced, live alone, and live longer in their
retirement years, leaving them without adequate coverage.
This bill, which is also being introduced in the House of
Representatives today by Congresswoman Kennelly, a long-time champion
of women's pension rights, addresses the range of concerns that women
face as they consider retirement.
This legislation preserves women's pensions by ending the practice of
integration by the year 2004, the practice whereby pension benefits are
reduced by a portion of Social Security benefits. It provides for the
automatic division of pensions upon divorce if the divorce decree is
silent on pension benefits. It allows a widow or divorced widow to
collect her husband's civil service pension if he leaves his job and
dies before collecting benefits. And it continue the payment of court
ordered Tier II railroad retirement benefits to a divorced widow.
This legislation protects women's pensions by prohibiting 401(k)
plans, the fastest growing type of plans in the country, from investing
employee contributions in the company's own stock. It requires annual
benefits statements for plan participants. And it applies spousal
consent rules governing pension fund withdrawals to 401(k) plans.
This legislation helps prepare women for retirement by creating a
women's pension hotline, providing a real opportunity for women to get
answers to their questions.
By preserving and protecting women's pensions, we in Congress can
provide women with the tools they need to prepare for their own
retirement. By reintroducing this legislation today we are giving
notice that pension policy will be at the top of the agenda for the
105th Congress.
Pension policy decisions will determine, in no small part, the kind
of life Americans will live in their older
[[Page S1384]]
years. With a baby boomer turning 50 every 9 seconds, we cannot ignore
the problems facing people as they grow older. Now, more than ever, all
Americans need to consider the role that pensions play in determining
the kind of life every American will lead. We look forward to being
joined, on a bipartisan basis, by all of our colleagues in the fight
for pension equity.
Senator Murray joins me today in introducing the Comprehensive
Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997. Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that a summary of the bill and a copy of the legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 320
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Comprehensive Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title.
TITLE I--PENSION REFORM
Sec. 101. Pension integration rules.
Sec. 102. Application of minimum coverage requirements with respect to
separate lines of business.
Sec. 103. Division of pension benefits upon divorce.
Sec. 104. Clarification of continued availability of remedies relating
to matters treated in domestic relations orders entered
before 1985.
Sec. 105. Entitlement of divorced spouses to railroad retirement
annuities independent of actual entitlement of employee.
Sec. 106. Effective dates.
TITLE II--PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF FORMER SPOUSES TO PENSION BENEFITS
UNDER CERTAIN GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED RETIREMENT PROGRAMS
Sec. 201. Extension of tier II railroad retirement benefits to
surviving former spouses pursuant to divorce agreements.
Sec. 202. Survivor annuities for widows, widowers, and former spouses
of Federal employees who die before attaining age for
deferred annuity under civil service retirement system.
Sec. 203. Court orders relating to Federal retirement benefits for
former spouses of Federal employees.
TITLE III--REFORMS RELATED TO 401(K) PLANS
Sec. 301. Requirement of annual, detailed investment reports applied to
certain 401(k) plans.
Sec. 302. Section 401(k) investment protection.
TITLE IV--MODIFICATIONS OF JOINT AND SURVIVOR ANNUITY REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 401. Modifications of joint and survivor annuity requirements.
TITLE V--SPOUSAL CONSENT REQUIRED FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM SECTION 401(K)
PLANS
Sec. 501. Spousal consent required for distributions from section
401(k) plans.
TITLE VI--WOMEN'S PENSION TOLL-FREE PHONE NUMBER
Sec. 601. Women's pension toll-free phone number.
TITLE VII--PERIODIC PENSION BENEFITS STATEMENTS
Sec. 701. Periodic pension benefits statements.
TITLE I--PENSION REFORM
SEC. 101. PENSION INTEGRATION RULES.
(a) Applicability of New Integration Rules Extended to All
Existing Accrued Benefits.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1)
of section 1111 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (relating to
effective date of application of nondiscrimination rules to
integrated plans) (100 Stat. 2440), effective for plan years
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
amendments made by subsection (a) of such section 1111 shall
also apply to benefits attributable to plan years beginning
on or before December 31, 1988.
(b) Integration Disallowed for Simplified Employee
Pensions.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (D) of section 408(k)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to permitted
disparity under rules limiting discrimination under
simplified employee pensions) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of such section
408(k)(3) is amended by striking ``and except as provided in
subparagraph (D),''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to taxable years beginning on or
after January 1, 1998.
(c) Eventual Repeal of Integration Rules.--Effective for
plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2004--
(1) subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 401(a)(5) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to pension
integration exceptions under nondiscrimination requirements
for qualification) are repealed, and subparagraph (E) of such
section 401(a)(5) is redesignated as subparagraph (C); and
(2) subsection (l) of section 401 of such Code (relating to
nondiscriminatory coordination of defined contribution plans
with OASDI) is repealed.
SEC. 102. APPLICATION OF MINIMUM COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO SEPARATE LINES OF BUSINESS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 410 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to minimum coverage
requirements) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``A trust'' and inserting
``In any case in which the employer with respect to a plan is
treated, under section 414(r), as operating separate lines of
business for a plan year, a trust'', and by inserting ``for
such plan year'' after ``requirements''; and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as
paragraphs (4) through (7), respectively and by inserting
after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rule where employer operates single line of
business.--In any case in which the employer with respect to
a plan is not treated, under section 414(r), as operating
separate lines of business for a plan year, a trust shall not
constitute a qualified trust under section 401(a) unless such
trust is designated by the employer as part of a plan which
benefits all employees of the employer.''.
(b) Limitation on Line of Business Exception.--Paragraph
(6) of section 410(b) of such Code (as redesignated by
subsection (a)(2) of this section) is amended by inserting
``other than paragraph (1)(A)'' after ``this subsection''.
SEC. 103. DIVISION OF PENSION BENEFITS UPON DIVORCE.
(a) Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 414(p) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified domestic
relations order defined) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) Deemed domestic relations order upon divorce.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iv), a
domestic relations order with respect to a marriage of at
least 5 years duration between the participant and the former
spouse (including an annulment or other order of marital
dissolution) shall, if the former spouse, within 60 days
after the receipt of notice under paragraph (6)(B)(i)(II), so
elects, be deemed by the plan to be a domestic relations
order that specifies that 50 percent of the marital share of
the participant's accrued benefit is to be provided to such
former spouse.
``(ii) Marital share.--The marital share shall be the
accrued benefit of the participant under the plan as of the
date of the first payment under the plan (to the extent such
accrued benefit is vested at the date of the divorce or any
later date) multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which
is the period of participation by the participant under the
plan starting with the date of marriage and ending with the
date of divorce, and the denominator of which is the total
period of participation by the participant under the plan.
``(iii) Interpretation as qualified domestic relations
order.--Each plan shall establish reasonable rules for
determining how any such deemed domestic relations order is
to be interpreted under the plan so as to constitute a
qualified domestic relations order that satisfies paragraphs
(2) through (4) (and a copy of such rules shall be provided
to such former spouse promptly after delivery of the divorce
decree). Such rules--
``(I) may delay the effect of such an order until the
earlier of the date the participant is fully vested or has
terminated employment,
``(II) may allow the former spouse to be paid out
immediately,
``(III) shall permit the former spouse to be paid not later
than the earliest retirement age under the plan or the
participant's death,
``(IV) may require the submitter of the divorce decree to
present a marriage certificate or other evidence of the
marriage date to assist in benefit calculations, and
``(V) may conform to the rules applicable to qualified
domestic relations orders regarding form or type of benefit.
``(iv) Application.--This subparagraph shall not apply--
``(I) if the domestic relations order states that pension
benefits were considered by the parties and no division is
intended, or
``(II) to the extent that a qualified domestic relations
order issued in connection with such divorce provides
otherwise.''.
(2) Notification procedures.--Section 414(p)(6) of such
Code (relating to plan procedures with respect to orders) is
amended by striking subparagraph (A), by redesignating
subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), and by inserting before
subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(A) Notice and determination by administrator.--In the
case of any domestic relations order received by a plan,
including such an order received under subparagraph (B) or
section 4980B(f)(6)(C)--
``(i) within 14 days after receipt of such order, the plan
administrator shall--
[[Page S1385]]
``(I) notify the participant and each alternate payee of
the receipt of such order and the plan's procedures for
determining the qualified status of domestic relation orders,
and
``(II) notify the former spouse of such former spouse's
rights under paragraph (1)(C), and
``(ii) within a reasonable period after receipt of such
order, the plan administrator shall determine whether such
order is a qualified domestic relations order and notify the
participant and each alternate payee of such determination.
``(B) Notification of plan administrator.--In the case of a
domestic relations order which is not a qualified domestic
relations order, each plan--
``(i) shall require that each participant is responsible
for notifying the plan administrator of the occurrence of a
divorce of the participant from the former spouse and for
delivery to the plan administrator of the domestic relations
order along with the information required by paragraph (2)(A)
within 60 days after the date of the divorce, and
``(ii) shall allow a former spouse to so notify the plan
administrator and deliver to the plan administrator the
domestic relations order within 60 days after the date of the
divorce.''.
(b) Amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (d)(3)(B) of section 206 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1056) is amended--
(A) by striking ``this paragraph--'' and inserting ``this
paragraph:'',
(B) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``the term'' and inserting ``The term'',
and
(ii) by striking ``met, and'' and inserting ``met.'',
(C) in clause (ii), by striking ``the term'' and inserting
``The term'', and
(D) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii)(I) Except as provided on subclause (IV), a domestic
relations order with respect to a marriage of at least 5
years duration between the participant and the former spouse
(including an annulment or other order of marital
dissolution) shall, if the former spouse, within 60 days
after the receipt of notice under subparagraph
(G)(ii)(I)(bb), so elects, be deemed by the plan to be a
domestic relations order that specifies that 50 percent of
the marital share of the participant's accrued benefit is to
be provided to such former spouse.
``(II) The marital share shall be the accrued benefit of
the participant under the plan as of the date of the first
payment under the plan (to the extent such accrued benefit is
vested at the date of the divorce or any later date)
multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the
period of participation by the participant under the plan
starting with the date of marriage and ending with the date
of divorce, and the denominator of which is the total period
of participation by the participant under the plan.
``(III) Each plan shall establish reasonable rules for
determining how any such deemed domestic relations order is
to be interpreted under the plan so as to constitute a
qualified domestic relations order that satisfies
subparagraphs (C) through (E) (and a copy of such rules shall
be provided to such former spouse promptly after delivery of
the divorce decree). Such rules--
``(aa) may delay the effect of such an order until the
earlier of the date the participant is fully vested or has
terminated employment,
``(bb) may allow the former spouse to be paid out
immediately,
``(cc) shall permit the spouse to be paid not later than
the earliest retirement age under the plan or the
participant's death,
``(dd) may require the submitter of the divorce decree to
present a marriage certificate or other evidence of the
marriage date to assist in benefit calculations, and
``(ee) may conform to the rules applicable to qualified
domestic relations orders regarding form or type of benefit.
``(IV) This clause shall not apply--
``(aa) if the domestic relations order states that pension
benefits were considered by the parties and no division is
intended, or
``(bb) to the extent that a qualified domestic relations
order issued in connection with such divorce provides
otherwise.''.
(2) Notification procedures.--Section 206(d)(3)(G) of such
Act (29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(G)) is amended by striking all
matter before clause (ii), by redesignating clause (ii) as
clause (iii), and by inserting before clause (iii) (as so
redesignated) the following:
``(G)(i) In the case of any domestic relations order
received by a plan, including such an order received under
clause (ii) or section 606(a)(3)--
``(I) within 14 days after receipt of such order, the plan
administrator shall--
``(aa) notify the participant and each alternate payee of
the receipt of such order and the plan's procedures for
determining the qualified status of domestic relation orders,
and
``(bb) notify the former spouse of such former spouse's
rights under subparagraph (B)(iii), and
``(II) within a reasonable period after receipt of such
order, the plan administrator shall determine whether such
order is a qualified domestic relations order and notify the
participant and each alternate payee of such determination.
``(ii) In the case of a domestic relations order which is
not a qualified domestic relations order, each plan--
``(I) shall require that each participant is responsible
for notifying the plan administrator of the occurrence of a
divorce of the participant from the former spouse and for
delivery to the plan administrator of the domestic relations
order along with the information required by subparagraph
(C)(i) within 60 days after the date of the divorce, and
``(II) shall allow a former spouse to so notify the plan
administrator and deliver to the plan administrator the
domestic relations order within 60 days after the date of the
divorce.''.
SEC. 104. CLARIFICATION OF CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF REMEDIES
RELATING TO MATTERS TREATED IN DOMESTIC
RELATIONS ORDERS ENTERED BEFORE 1985.
(a) In General.--In any case in which--
(1) under a prior domestic relations order entered before
January 1, 1985, in an action for divorce--
(A) the right of a spouse under a pension plan to an
accrued benefit under such plan was not divided between
spouses,
(B) any right of a spouse with respect to such an accrued
benefit was waived without the informed consent of such
spouse, or
(C) the right of a spouse as a participant under a pension
plan to an accrued benefit under such plan was divided so
that the other spouse received less than such other spouse's
pro rata share of the accrued benefit under the plan, or
(2) a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any
further action is appropriate with respect to any matter to
which a prior domestic relations order entered before such
date applies,
nothing in the provisions of section 104, 204, or 303 of the
Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-397) or the
amendments made thereby shall be construed to require or
permit the treatment, for purposes of such provisions, of a
domestic relations order, which is entered on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act and which supersedes,
amends the terms of, or otherwise affects such prior domestic
relations order, as other than a qualified domestic relations
order solely because such prior domestic relations order was
entered before January 1, 1985.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) In general.--Terms used in this section which are
defined in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002) shall have the meanings
provided such terms by such section.
(2) Pro rata share.--The term ``pro rata share'' of a
spouse means, in connection with an accrued benefit under a
pension plan, 50 percent of the product derived by
multiplying--
(A) the actuarial present value of the accrued benefit, by
(B) a fraction--
(i) the numerator of which is the period of time, during
the marriage between the spouse and the participant in the
plan, which constitutes creditable service by the participant
under the plan, and
(ii) the denominator of which is the total period of time
which constitutes creditable service by the participant under
the plan.
(3) Plan.--All pension plans in which a person has been a
participant shall be treated as one plan with respect to such
person.
SEC. 105. ENTITLEMENT OF DIVORCED SPOUSES TO RAILROAD
RETIREMENT ANNUITIES INDEPENDENT OF ACTUAL
ENTITLEMENT OF EMPLOYEE.
Section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C.
231a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(4)(i), by striking ``(A) is entitled
to an annuity under subsection (a)(1) and (B)''; and
(2) in subsection (e)(5), by striking ``or divorced wife''
the second place it appears.
SEC. 106. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
amendments made by this title, other than section 101, shall
apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after
January 1, 1998, and the amendments made by section 103 shall
apply only with respect to divorces becoming final in such
plan years.
(b) Special Rule for Collectively Bargained Plans.--In the
case of a plan maintained pursuant to 1 or more collective
bargaining agreements between employee representatives and 1
or more employers ratified on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act, subsection (a) shall be applied to
benefits pursuant to, and individuals covered by, any such
agreement by substituting for ``January 1, 1998'' the date of
the commencement of the first plan year beginning on or after
the earlier of--
(1) the later of--
(A) January 1, 1999, or
(B) the date on which the last of such collective
bargaining agreements terminates (determined without regard
to any extension thereof after the date of the enactment of
this Act), or
(2) January 1, 2000.
(c) Plan Amendments.--If any amendment made by this title
requires an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall
not be required to be made before the first plan year
beginning on or after January 1, 2000, if--
(1) during the period after such amendment made by this
title takes effect and before such first plan year, the plan
is operated in accordance with the requirements of such
amendment made by this title, and
(2) such plan amendment applies retroactively to the period
after such amendment
[[Page S1386]]
made by this title takes effect and such first plan year.
A plan shall not be treated as failing to provide definitely
determinable benefits or contributions, or to be operated in
accordance with the provisions of the plan, merely because it
operates in accordance with this subsection.
TITLE II--PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF FORMER SPOUSES TO PENSION BENEFITS
UNDER CERTAIN GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED RETIREMENT PROGRAMS
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF TIER II RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS
TO SURVIVING FORMER SPOUSES PURSUANT TO DIVORCE
AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 5 of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231d) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
payment of any portion of an annuity computed under section
3(b) to a surviving former spouse in accordance with a court
decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation or the
terms of any court-approved property settlement incident to
any such court decree shall not be terminated upon the death
of the individual who performed the service with respect to
which such annuity is so computed unless such termination is
otherwise required by the terms of such court decree.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 202. SURVIVOR ANNUITIES FOR WIDOWS, WIDOWERS, AND FORMER
SPOUSES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO DIE BEFORE
ATTAINING AGE FOR DEFERRED ANNUITY UNDER CIVIL
SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
(a) Benefits for Widow or Widower.--Section 8341(f) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by--
(A) by inserting ``a former employee separated from the
service with title to deferred annuity from the Fund dies
before having established a valid claim for annuity and is
survived by a spouse, or if'' before ``a Member''; and
(B) by inserting ``of such former employee or Member''
after ``the surviving spouse'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``former employee or'' before ``Member
commencing''; and
(B) by inserting ``former employee or'' before ``Member
dies''; and
(3) in the undesignated sentence following paragraph (2)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting
``former employee or'' before ``Member''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``former employee or''
before ``Member''.
(b) Benefits for Former Spouse.--Section 8341(h) of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by adding after the first sentence
``Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5) of this subsection, a
former spouse of a former employee who dies after having
separated from the service with title to a deferred annuity
under section 8338(a) but before having established a valid
claim for annuity is entitled to a survivor annuity under
this subsection, if and to the extent expressly provided for
in an election under section 8339(j)(3) of this title, or in
the terms of any decree of divorce or annulment or any court
order or court-approved property settlement agreement
incident to such decree.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii) by striking ``or annuitant,''
and inserting ``annuitant, or former employee''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(iii) by inserting ``former employee
or'' before ``Member''.
(c) Protection of Survivor Benefit Rights.--Section
8339(j)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting at the end the following:
``The Office shall provide by regulation for the
application of this subsection to the widow, widower, or
surviving former spouse of a former employee who dies after
having separated from the service with title to a deferred
annuity under section 8338(a) but before having established a
valid claim for annuity.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply only in the case of a former employee who
dies on or after such date.
SEC. 203. COURT ORDERS RELATING TO FEDERAL RETIREMENT
BENEFITS FOR FORMER SPOUSES OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES.
(a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
(1) In general.--Section 8345(j) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Payment to a person under a court decree, court
order, property settlement, or similar process referred to
under paragraph (1) shall include payment to a former spouse
of the employee, Member, or annuitant.''.
(2) Lump-sum benefits.--Section 8342 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (c) by striking ``Lump-sum benefits'' and
inserting ``Subject to subsection (j), lump-sum benefits'';
and
(B) in subsection (j)(1) by striking ``the lump-sum credit
under subsection (a) of this section'' and inserting ``any
lump-sum credit or lump-sum benefit under this section''.
(b) Federal Employees Retirement System.--Section 8467 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Payment to a person under a court decree, court
order, property settlement, or similar process referred to
under subsection (a) shall include payment to a former spouse
of the employee, Member, or annuitant.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--REFORMS RELATED TO 401(K) PLANS
SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT OF ANNUAL, DETAILED INVESTMENT REPORTS
APPLIED TO CERTAIN 401(K) PLANS.
(a) In General.--Section 104(b)(3) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1024(b)(3))
is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B)(i) If a plan includes a qualified cash or deferred
arrangement (as defined in section 401(k)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) and is maintained by an employer with
less than 100 participants, the administrators shall furnish
to each participant and to each beneficiary receiving
benefits under the plan an annual investment report detailing
such information as the Secretary by regulation shall
require.
``(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply with respect to any
participant described in section 404(c).''.
(b) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, in prescribing
regulations required under section 104(b)(3)(B)(i) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1023(b)(3)(B)(i)), as added by subsection (a), shall consider
including in the information required in an annual investment
report the following:
(A) Total plan assets and liabilities as of the beginning
and ending of the plan year.
(B) Plan income and expenses and contributions made and
benefits paid for the plan year.
(C) Any transaction between the plan and the employer, any
fiduciary, or any 10-percent owner during the plan year,
including the acquisition of any employer security or
employer real property.
(D) Any noncash contributions made to or purchases of
nonpublicly traded securities made by the plan during the
plan year without an appraisal by an independent third party.
(2) Electronic transfer.--The Secretary of Labor in
prescribing such regulations shall also make provision for
the electronic transfer of the required annual investment
report by a plan administrator to plan participants and
beneficiaries.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to plan years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 302. SECTION 401(K) INVESTMENT PROTECTION.
(a) Limitations on Investment in Employer Securities and
Employer Real Property by Cash or Deferred Arrangements.--
Paragraph (3) of section 407(d) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1107(d)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) The term `eligible individual account plan' does not
include that portion of an individual account plan that
consists of elective deferrals (as defined in section
402(g)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) pursuant to a
qualified cash or deferred arrangement as defined in section
401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and earnings
thereon), if such elective deferrals (or earnings thereon)
are required to be invested in qualifying employer securities
or qualifying employer real property or both pursuant to the
documents and instruments governing the plan or at the
direction of a person other than the participant (or the
participant's beneficiary) on whose behalf such elective
deferrals are made to the plan. For the purposes of
subsection (a), such portion shall be treated as a separate
plan. This subparagraph shall not apply to an individual
account plan if the fair market value of the assets of all
individual account plans maintained by the employer equals
not more than 10 percent of the fair market value of the
assets of all pension plans maintained by the employer.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Transition rule for plans holding excess securities or
property.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a plan which on the date of
the enactment of this Act, has holdings of employer
securities and employer real property (as defined in section
407(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(29 U.S.C. 1107(d)) in excess of the amount specified in such
section 407, the amendment made by this section applies to
any acquisition of such securities and property on or after
such date, but does not apply to the specific holdings which
constitute such excess during the period of such excess.
[[Page S1387]]
(B) Special rule for certain acquisitions.--Employer
securities and employer real property acquired pursuant to a
binding written contract to acquire such securities and real
property entered into and in effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act, shall be treated as acquired
immediately before such date.
TITLE IV--MODIFICATIONS OF JOINT AND SURVIVOR ANNUITY REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 401. MODIFICATIONS OF JOINT AND SURVIVOR ANNUITY
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Amendments to ERISA.--
(1) Amount of annuity.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 205(a) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1055(a)) is amended by inserting ``or, at the election of the
participant, shall be provided in the form of a qualified
joint and \2/3\ survivor annuity'' after ``survivor
annuity,''.
(B) Definition.--Subsection (d) of section 205 of such Act
(29 U.S.C. 1055) is amended--
(i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively,
(ii) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(d)'', and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) For purposes of this section, the term ``qualified
joint and \2/3\ survivor annuity'' means an annuity--
``(A) for the participant while both the participant and
the spouse are alive with a survivor annuity for the life of
surviving individual (either the participant or the spouse)
equal to 67 percent of the amount of the annuity which is
payable to the participant while both the participant and the
spouse are alive,
``(B) which is the actuarial equivalent of a single annuity
for the life of the participant, and
``(C) which, for all other purposes of this Act, is treated
as a qualified joint and survivor annuity.''.
(2) Illustration requirement.--Clause (i) of section
205(c)(3)(A) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1055(c)(3)(A)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(i) the terms and conditions of each qualified joint and
survivor annuity and qualified joint and \2/3\ survivor
annuity offered, accompanied by an illustration of the
benefits under each such annuity for the particular
participant and spouse and an acknowledgement form to be
signed by the participant and the spouse that they have read
and considered the illustration before any form of retirement
benefit is chosen,''.
(b) Amendments to Internal Revenue Code.--
(1) Amount of annuity.--
(A) In general.--Clause (i) of section 401(a)(11)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirement of
joint and survivor annuity and preretirement survivor
annuity) is amended by inserting ``or, at the election of the
participant, shall be provided in the form of a qualified
joint and \2/3\ survivor annuity'' after ``survivor
annuity,''.
(B) Definition.--Section 417 of such Code (relating to
definitions and special rules for purposes of minimum
survivor annuity requirements) is amended by redesignating
subsection (f) as subsection (g) and by inserting after
subsection (e) the following new subsection:
``(f) Definition of Qualified Joint and \2/3\ Survivor
Annuity.--For purposes of this section and section
401(a)(11), the term ``qualified joint and \2/3\ survivor
annuity'' means an annuity--
``(1) for the participant while both the participant and
the spouse are alive with a survivor annuity for the life of
surviving individual (either the participant or the spouse)
equal to 67 percent of the amount of the annuity which is
payable to the participant while both the participant and the
spouse are alive,
``(2) which is the actuarial equivalent of a single annuity
for the life of the participant, and
``(3) which, for all other purposes of this title, is
treated as a qualified joint and survivor annuity.''.
(2) Illustration requirement.--Clause (i) of section
417(a)(3)(A) of such Code (relating to explanation of joint
and survivor annuity) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) the terms and conditions of each qualified joint and
survivor annuity and qualified joint and \2/3\ survivor
annuity offered, accompanied by an illustration of the
benefits under each such annuity for the particular
participant and spouse and an acknowledgement form to be
signed by the participant and the spouse that they have read
and considered the illustration before any form of retirement
benefit is chosen,''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 1998.
(2) Special rule for collectively bargained plans.--In the
case of a plan maintained pursuant to 1 or more collective
bargaining agreements between employee representatives and 1
or more employers ratified on or before the date of enactment
of this Act, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to the first plan year beginning on or after the earlier of--
(A) the later of--
(i) January 1, 1999, or
(ii) the date on which the last of such collective
bargaining agreements terminates (determined without regard
to any extension thereof after the date of enactment of this
Act), or
(B) January 1, 2000.
(3) Plan amendments.--If any amendment made by this section
requires an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall
not be required to be made before the first plan year
beginning on or after January 1, 2000, if--
(A) during the period after such amendment made by this
section takes effect and before such first plan year, the
plan is operated in accordance with the requirements of such
amendment made by this section, and
(B) such plan amendment applies retroactively to the period
after such amendment made by this section takes effect and
such first plan year.
A plan shall not be treated as failing to provide definitely
determinable benefits or contributions, or to be operated in
accordance with the provisions of the plan, merely because it
operates in accordance with this paragraph.
TITLE V--SPOUSAL CONSENT REQUIRED FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM SECTION 401(k)
PLANS
SEC. 501. SPOUSAL CONSENT REQUIRED FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM
SECTION 401(K) PLANS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 401(k) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified cash or
deferred arrangement) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) which provides that no distribution may be made
unless--
``(i) the spouse of the employee (if any) consents in
writing (during the 90-day period ending on the date of the
distribution) to such distribution, and
``(ii) requirements comparable to the requirements of
section 417(a)(2) are met with respect to such consent.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions in plan years beginning on or
after January 1, 1998.
TITLE VI--WOMEN'S PENSION TOLL-FREE PHONE NUMBER
SEC. 601. WOMEN'S PENSION TOLL-FREE PHONE NUMBER.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Labor shall contract with
an independent organization to create a women's pension toll-
free telephone number and contact to serve as--
(1) a resource for women on pension questions and issues;
(2) a source for referrals to appropriate agencies; and
(3) a source for printed information.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $500,000 for each of the fiscal years
1998, 1998, 2000, and 2001 to carry out subsection (a).
TITLE VII--PERIODIC PENSION BENEFITS STATEMENTS
SEC. 701. PERIODIC PENSION BENEFITS STATEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 105 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1025) is amended by striking ``shall furnish to any plan
participant or beneficiary who so requests in writing,'' and
inserting ``shall furnish at least once every 3 years, in the
case of a defined benefit plan, and annually, in the case of
a defined contribution plan, to each plan participant, and
shall furnish to any plan participant or beneficiary who so
requests,''.
(b) Rule for Multiemployer Plans.--Subsection (d) of
section 105 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1025) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Each administrator of a plan to which more than 1
unaffiliated employer is required to contribute shall furnish
to any plan participant or beneficiary who so requests in
writing, a statement described in subsection (a).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after the earlier of--
(1) the date of issuance by the Secretary of Labor of
regulations providing guidance for simplifying defined
benefit plan calculations with respect to the information
required under section 105 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1025), or
(2) December 31, 1997.
____
Comprehensive Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997
Section-by-Section Summary
section 101--integration
Problem--Social Security integration is a little known, but
potentially devastating mechanism whereby employers can
reduce a portion of employer-provided pension benefits by the
amount of Social Security to which an employee is entitled.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 limited integration so as to
guarantee a minimum level of benefits, but the formula only
applied to benefits accrued in plan years beginning after
December 31, 1998. Low wage workers are disproportionately
affected by integration and are often left with minimal
benefits.
Solution--Apply the integration limitations of Tax Reform
Act of 1986 to all plan years prior to 1988, thereby
minimizing integration for low and moderate wage workers. In
addition, eliminate integration entirely for plan years
beginning on or after January 1, 2004. The lag between
enactment and 2004 is designed to be a transition period for
employers. No integration would be permissible for Simplied
Employee Pensions for taxable years beginning after January
1, 1998.
[[Page S1388]]
section 102--application of minimum coverage requirements with Respect
to separate lines of business
Problem--Current law allows companies with several lines of
business to deny a substantial percentage of employees
pension coverage. The employees denied coverage are
disproportionately low-wage workers.
Solution--Requires that all employees within a single line
of business be provided pension coverage to the extent the
employer provides coverage and the employee meets other
statutory requirements such as minimum age and hours.
section 103--division of pension benefits upon divorce
Problem--Pension assets are often overlooked in divorce
even though they can be a couple's most valuable asset.
Solution--Using COBRA as a model for the process, provide
for an automatic division of defined benefit pension benefits
earned during the marriage upon divorce, provided that the
couple has been married for five years. The employee would
notify his or her employer of a divorce. The employer would
then send a letter to the ex-spouse informing him or her that
he or she may be entitled to half of the pension earned while
the couple was married. The ex-spouse would then have 60
days, as under COBRA, to contact the employer and determine
eligibility. If a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)
dealt with the pension benefits, then this provision would
not apply.
section 104--clarification of continued availability of remedies
relating to matters treated in domestic relations orders entered into
before 1985
Problem--In response to both the greater propensity of
women to spend their retirement years in poverty and the fact
that women were much less likely to earn private pension
rights based on their own work history, the Retirement Equity
Act of 1984 gave the wife the right to a share of her
husband's pension assets in the case of divorce. This law
only applied to divorces entered into after January 1, 1985.
Solution--Where a divorce occurred prior to 1985, allow the
Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to be reopened to
provide for the division of pension assets pursuant to a
court order.
section 105--entitlement of divorced spouses to railroad retirement
annuities independent of actual entitlement of employee
Problem--Under the Railroad Retirement System a divorced
wife is automatically entitled to 50% of her husband's
pension under Tier I benefits as long as four conditions are
met: 1) the divorced wife and her husband must both be at
least 62 years old; 2) the couple must have been married for
at least 10 consecutive years; 3) she must not have remarried
when she applies; and 4) her former husband must have started
collecting his own railroad retirement benefits. There have
been situations where a former husband has delayed collection
of benefits so as to deny the former wife benefits.
Solution--Eliminate the requirement that the former husband
has started collecting his own railroad retirement benefits.
section 201--extension of tier ii railroad retirement benefits to
surviving former spouses pursuant to divorce agreements
Problem--The Tier I benefits under the Railroad Retirement
Board take the place of social security. The Tier II benefits
take the place of a private pension. Under current law, a
divorced widow loses any court ordered Tier II benefits she
may have been receiving while her ex-husband was alive,
leaving her with only a Tier I annuity.
Solution--All payment of a Tier II survivor annuity after
divorce.
section 202--court orders relating to federal retirement benefits for
former spouses of federal employees
Problem--Currently, under CSRS, if the husband dies after
leaving the government (either before or after retirement
age) and before starting to collect retirement benefits, no
retirement or survivor benefits are payable to the spouse or
former spouse.
Solution--Make widow or divorced widow benefits payable no
matter when the ex-husband dies or starts collecting his
benefits.
section 203--survivor annuities for widows, widowers, and former
spouses of federal employees who die before attaining age for deferred
annuity under csrs
Problem--In the case of a husband dying before collecting
benefits, his contributions to the Civil Service Retirement
System are paid to the person named as the ``beneficiary.''
The employee may name anyone as the beneficiary. A divorce
court cannot order him to name his former spouse as the
beneficiary to receive a refund of contributions upon his
death, even if she was to receive a portion of his pension.
Solution--Authorize courts to order the ex-husband to name
his former wife as the beneficiary of all or a portion of any
refunded contributions.
section 301--small 401(k) plans required to provide annual investment
reports to participants
Problem--Current law requires that pension plans file an
annual detailed investment report with the Treasury
Department and make it available to any participant upon
request. Pension plans, including 401(k)s, with fewer than
100 participants and beneficiaries are not required to file
or make detailed investment reports available to
participants. 401(k)s, unlike traditional pension plans, do
not have the plan sponsor guaranteeing their pension benefits
nor do they have PBGC pension insurance. Consequently small
401(k) participants bear the investment risks, but are not
told what the investments are.
Solution--The Secretary of Labor must issue regulations
requiring small 401(k) plans to provide each participant with
an annual investment report. The details of the report are
left to the Secretary.
section 302--section 401(k) investment protection
Problem--Under federal law, a traditional defined benefit
pension plan may not invest more than 10 percent of its
assets in the company sponsoring the plan. The purpose of the
limitation is to protect employees from losing their jobs and
pensions at the same time. The 10 percent limitation does not
apply to 401(k) plans, despite their having become the
predominant form of pension plan, enrolling 23 million
employees and investing more than $675 billion.
Solution--Apply the 10 percent limit to employee
contributions to 401(k) plans--unless the participants, not
the company sponsoring the plan, make the investment
decisions.
section 401--modifications of joint and survivor annuity requirements
Problem--Under current federal law, traditional defined
benefit pension plans can offer unequal survivor benefit
options. That option can pay the surviving spouse (most often
the wife) only half the survivor's benefit paid to the spouse
who participated in the plan. Plans may, but are not
required, to offer more equitable options. Current law also
requires that pension plans disclose retirement benefit
options to one spouse, the spouse who participated in the
plan. This leaves the other spouse (usually the wife)
uninformed about an irrevocable decision that affects her
income for the rest of her life.
Solution--Require that pension plans offer an additional
option that provides either surviving spouse with two-thirds
of the benefit received while both were alive. Require that
both spouses be given a illustration of benefits before any
benefit can be chosen.
Section 501--Spousal Consent Required for Distributions from Section
401(k) Plans
Problem--Under current federal law, in order for a plan
participant to take a lump sum distribution from a defined
benefit plan, the participant must have the consent of his or
her spouse. This is not true of a 401(k) plan. This means
that a participant can, at any time, drain his or her pension
plan and leave the spouse with no access to retirement
savings.
Solution--Require that 401(k) plans be covered by the same
spousal consent protections as defined benefit plans when it
comes to lump-sum distributions.
Section 601--Women's Pension Toll-free Phone Number
Problem--One of the key obstacles to women's pension
security is lack of information. Too many women do not know
whether or not they are eligible for retirement income, the
implications of the decisions they are asked to make
regarding divorce and survivor benefits, the steps they
should take to provide for a secure retirement, or even how
to gather the necessary information.
Solution--Create a women's pension hotline that can provide
basic information to women regarding pension law and their
options under that law.
Section 701--Periodic Pension Benefits Statements
Problem--Under federal law, pension plans are required to
provide a benefits statement annually, upon request by the
employee. Many employees, especially young employees, do not
consider pension income or do not feel secure requesting
information from their employer. Thus, many employees do not
know the amount of their accrued benefits, or payout upon
retirement. In addition, there are numerous instances of
defined contribution plans misappropriating money by failing
to place funds in the employee's account. Unless an employee
asks for a statement, he or she does not have a clear idea of
the state of his or her retirement security, or if the funds
are being properly placed.
Solution--Require that 401(k) plans provide benefits
statements automatically at least once a year. For defined
benefit plans, due to the more complicated calculations
required to produce an accurate future benefits statement be
automatically provided every three years.
______
By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Abraham, Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Levin,
Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 322. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to
repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact provision; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
THE NORTHEAST INTERSTATE DAIRY COMPACT REPEAL ACT OF 1997
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to introduce the Dairy Fairness Act. In
short, this bill repeals the provision in the 1996 farm bill creating
the so-called Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
Senator Feingold and I offer this legislation with 10 other
colleagues,
[[Page S1389]]
both Democrats and Republicans, for two basic reasons: Fair process and
sound policy. The compact sets a very dangerous precedent by violating
both. Let me be specific, first regarding process.
Back in the 103d Congress--to give history--the Senate Judiciary
Committee held a business meeting to consider the compact, without the
benefit of a prior public hearing, and reported the bill to the floor.
The full Senate never considered it. A House Judiciary subcommittee
held a hearing on the proposal, but eventually sent it to full
committee without a recommendation because the vote was evenly divided
for and against the compact. The bill died in full committee. It is
important to note that the official Department of Agriculture witness
at the House hearing stated the administration had no position and
twice stated that, we believe this is a matter that warrants further
review and consideration.
In the 104th Congress, the compact was the subject of not one single
hearing in either the Judiciary Committee or the Agriculture Committee
of the Senate. Nor was it the topic of a single hearing in counterpart
committees in the House. The importance of all this is that veteran
lawmakers knew, at best, that the Department of Agriculture was not
sure about the compact. And, 11 freshmen senators and 87 House freshmen
knew little-to-nothing about the compact because of the lack of any
public record.
Despite this, the compact was exhumed from its crypt and found its
way into the Senate's version of the farm bill. Fortunately, many of my
colleagues and I led a successful bipartisan effort to strip the
compact from the farm bill. The House had never included the compact in
its version.
Now, here is the kicker. The compact never had ample consideration in
the 103d Congress. It never had a single hearing in the 104th. The
compact was not included in the House version of the farm bill. And, it
was stripped out of the Senate's version. But the compact came back to
life in conference. It was included in the 1996 farm bill and, due to
time constraints on passage of farm legislation, as we know, the
compact became law.
Now, my purpose in reciting this litany of events is not to disparage
the respective committees for not considering the compact. They have
their priorities. Nor do I mean to disparage those in the conference
committee for agreeing to the compact.
They worked hard to present a timely and--aside from the compact--
excellent farm bill for farmers who were already making planting
decisions, if not already planting at the time the bill was passed.
Now my point is best summarized by the late Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes who said that ``the best test of truth is the power of the
thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and
that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes can be carried
out.''
I would like to think that my colleagues in what's been called the
most deliberative body in the world would want nothing less for the
compact or any other proposal. Unfortunately, the compact never faced
the test and, as a consequence it has never been accepted.
Mr. President, there is no doubt about it, the compact circumvented a
very important process.
In regard to policy, the scenario does not improve. In a nutshell,
the compact would permit a six-State compact commission to fix prices
for that region's dairy producers. Yet, simple economics tells us that
the higher minimum price set by the commission will result in even more
milk production in the six-State region--which is great news for
producers in those six States. But the overproduction will undoubtedly
further depress producer income for every other region of the country.
Unfortunately, as many of my colleagues know, producer income
nationally is already so depressed that the Secretary announced some
emergency steps to correct the problem including the purchase of $5
million in cheese and advanced cheese purchases for the School Lunch
Program. In the Midwest, it's reported to be so bad that small- and
mid-sized producers aren't even recovering the cost of production. But
despite all this, the compact will drive national dairy prices down
even further in 44 States in order to boost producer income in 6, even
though the 6 have traditionally received higher class I prices in the
first place.
The compact is patently unfair. The inequity it creates for dairy
farmers in 44 States is exactly the problem the Framers of the
Constitution thought Congress would protect against in providing us
with the power to regulate commerce among the States.
Now, I understand that even more States are pondering the idea of a
compact of their own. I cannot underscore how destructive this course
is: using government-condoned, anticompetitive programs to the
disadvantage of other domestic producers in other regions of the
country. In an era of freer and fairer trade, I find it very troubling
that what we don't want to do with our foreign competitors, we're now
doing to ourselves. That's no way to encourage a national industry and
that's no way to compete abroad.
Of course, it is not just dairy producers who are hurt by the
compact. According to Public Voice, a leading consumer advocacy group,
the compact will cost New England consumers over $300 million in just 3
years, especially affecting the region's poor, and drive up the cost of
Federal, State, and local food nutrition programs. Indeed, the St. Paul
Pioneer Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Boston
Herald--whose employees as New Englanders are ostensibly served by the
compact--have called it ``noxious,'' ``absurd,'' an ``ugly precedent,''
and the ``OPEC of milk.''
The compact is being challenged in Federal court. In fact, last week,
the court issued an order allowing the Secretary of Agriculture 45 days
to bolster his arguments for the compact before the case proceeds any
further. But what was most telling was the tenor of the order and I'll
offer just an excerpt. The order reads:
As the Court tried to make plain in its December 11, 1996
Opinion, [the court] could not even tell whether anyone at
the Department of Agriculture had read all the comments in
the administrative record or just counted them since the only
expressed reason . . . for his finding of compelling public
interest . . . was that 95 percent of the comments . . .
supported the implementation of the Compact. But, a simple
head count will not do . . . particularly in view of the
numerous concerns the Secretary himself expressed [about the
Compact]. Those concerns, expressed in four paragraphs,
overshadow the four reasons, expressed in two sentences, that
the Secretary gave for finding a compelling public interest.
I ask unanimous consent to have the order printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 96-
2027 (PLF)]
Milk Industry Foundation, plaintiff, v. Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, defendant, and Northeast Dairy Compact
Commission, defendant-intervenor
order
This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for a
stay of proceedings in this case to allow the Secretary of
Agriculture 45 days to provide what defendant characterizes
as ``an Amplified Decision on its finding that there is
compelling public interest in the compact region for the
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.'' Plaintiff opposes the
motion for a variety of reasons, while defendant-intervenor
supports it.
The parties to this case are all aware that Congress placed
a particular condition on its consent to the Compact--that
the Secretary make a finding of compelling public interest.
As the Court tried to make plain in its December 11, 1996
Opinion, it could not even tell whether anyone at the
Department of Agriculture had read all the comments in the
administrative record or just counted them, since the only
expressed reason the secretary gave for his finding of
compelling public interest (other than congressional consent
and state approval) was that 95 percent of the comments the
Department received supported implementation of the Compact.
Opinion at 8, 24-25. But ``a simple head count will not do,''
id. at 24, particularly in view of the numerous concerns the
Secretary himself expressed about the potential adverse
effects the Compact might have, concerns presumably based on
material in the record. Id. at 9-10, 25. ``Those concerns,
expressed in four paragraphs, overshadow the four reasons,
expressed in two sentences, that the Secretary gave for
finding a compelling public interest.'' Id. at 25.
If the Secretary wants time now ``to amplify'' his
decision, he must make sure that the entire administrative
record, including the comments submitted, is thoroughly
reviewed and analyzed and approached from a
[[Page S1390]]
fresh perspective. It is not open to the Secretary under this
Court's Opinion of December 11, 1996, to approach his task
with a preconceived view that a compelling public interest
exists. His job is not merely to cull out from the favorable
comments reasons to support a pre-determined decision. His
responsibility is to review the quality of the comments in
the record and to decide whether his earlier finding is
justified at all.
The Court is prepared to grant the stay requested by the
defendant, so long as the Secretary of Agriculture and his
counsel understand what is required over the course of the
next 45 days. The Court agrees with plaintiff that if a stay
is granted the Secretary's responsibility is much broader
than he and defendant-intervenor suggest. The Secretary must
now be as open to reaching a finding of no public interest as
he is to concluding that there is one. Regardless of which
conclusion he reaches, he must articulate his reasons in
accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and the case
law. With the foregoing in mind, it is hereby
Ordered that all proceedings in this case are stayed until
March 20, 1997, during which time the Secretary of
Agriculture shall review the Administrative Record in this
case, reach a conclusion with respect to the existence of a
compelling public interest, and provide a reasoned
explanation for that decision in accordance with this Court's
Opinion of December 11, 1996, and today's order, it is
Further ordered that the stay does not preclude plaintiff
from renewing its motion for a preliminary injunction should
the Compact attempt to move forward and impose higher milk
prices or for any other appropriate reason; it is
Further ordered that the briefing and argument schedule set
forth in this Court's Order of December 11, 1996, is
rescinded; and it is
Further ordered that the parties shall jointly propose
within ten days from the date of this Order a revised
briefing and argument schedule.
So ordered.
Paul L. Friedman,
United States District Judge.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, in short, a Federal judge cannot even find
the merit behind the compact. But, despite earlier misgivings, the
Department seems resigned to embarking on what appears to be the
herculean task of making some sense out of the compact in order to save
it from a court.
Now, Mr. President, I believe this Congress has a unique opportunity
to save an overcrowded court some time, help the Department focus its
energies on the consolidation and reform of milk marketing orders, and
do it all while guaranteeing New England consumers and dairy producers
in 44 States a little fairness. We can do this by passing the Dairy
Fairness Act.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
I see some of my other colleagues who have helped sponsor this
legislation, including Senator Kohl and Senator Feingold, are on the
floor, and I yield some time to them if they would like to add their
support to this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my continued opposition to
the Northeast Dairy Compact. As I have said many times in the past, it
does not make me happy to oppose efforts by dairy farmers in other
parts of the country to reap a higher price for their milk. For years,
I have worked with many of the proponents of the compact in efforts to
help farmers get a better price for their product. But in the past,
these efforts have been national. And I believe we should continue with
national efforts to bring farmers together, instead of regional efforts
that pit farmer against farmer.
The Northeast Compact is an effort by six Northeastern States to
establish a regional cartel, to guarantee the farmers in that region
alone get a higher price for their milk, to the detriment of the
consumers in the Northeast, and farmers in other parts of the country,
including Wisconsin. In my view, it is the exact opposite of what we
should be doing; which is establishing a fair and reasonable national
dairy policy that gives farmers in all regions an opportunity to
prosper, free of structural impediments from the Federal Government.
In my region of the country, the discriminatory nature of the current
milk pricing system has contributed to a dangerous erosion of our farm
economy. In Wisconsin alone, we have lost 12,000 dairy farms in the
last 10 years. And I believe that the Northeast Compact will worsen the
regional inequities that exist today, and be detrimental to farmers in
regions outside the Northeast.
To those outside the upper Midwest, who have not witnessed the
destruction caused by the current milk pricing system, it may be
difficult to understand how pricing schemes in one region could affect
other regions of the country. But we cannot ignore that dairy markets
are national, and any effort to artificially boost prices in one region
alone will have effects throughout the national system. History has
proven that point time and time again, and unfortunately, Wisconsin is
the proving ground of that destruction.
And even prior to its implementation, the evidence is beginning to
build proving that the Northeast Dairy Compact sets a dangerous
precedent in U.S. economic policy. Recently, the secretaries of
agriculture from 15 southeastern States announced that they would be
seeking to establish a Southeastern Dairy Compact, citing the precedent
established by the Northeast Compact. So we must ask ourselves, where
does it stop? A 6-State dairy cartel in the Northeast, a 15-State dairy
cartel in the Southeast. This disintegration of our national economic
unity does not come without cost. We may not be able to predict where
this new regional cartel movement will stop, but it is clearly
dangerous.
So I join my colleagues in introducing this legislation that would
repeal the section of the 1996 farm bill that gives the Secretary of
Agriculture authority to approve the Northeast Compact. Whether it is
stopped legislatively, or by the Secretary of Agriculture, to whom it
has been returned by a Federal judge for reconsideration, I believe it
should be stopped. And I urge my colleagues to join us in opposing this
dangerous precedent for U.S. economic policy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the junior Senator from
Wisconsin under time controlled by the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, am pleased to rise in
support of the legislation introduced by the Senator from Minnesota,
and also by my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Wisconsin,
Senator Kohl.
I was prepared to give a longer speech but I am informed that the
mother-in-law of the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, has passed away,
and he is not able to be here today because of that. For that reason, I
simply associate my remarks with the Senator from Minnesota, and the
senior Senator from Wisconsin so we can take this debate up on another
day when Senator Leahy is able to respond. He is very able to respond
himself. We have a strong disagreement on this issue, but I am a great
friend of his and I believe he is a fine Senator and prefer at this
point to wait.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation introduced by the
Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, to repeal the Northeast
Interstate Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact was included in
the 1996 farm bill during conference negotiations after it had been
struck from the Senate version of the farm bill during floor
consideration of the farm bill early last year.
Mr. President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact establishes a
commission for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--empowered to set minimum
prices for fluid milk above those established under Federal Milk
Marketing Orders. Ironically, the Federal milk marketing order system
already provides farmers in the designated compact region with minimum
milk prices higher than those received by most other dairy farmers
throughout the nation. The compact not only allows the six States to
set artificially high fluid milk prices for their producers, it also
allows those States to keep out lower priced milk from producers in
competing States and provides processors within the region with a
subsidy to export their higher priced milk to noncompact States.
Mr. President, the arguments against this type of price-fixing scheme
are numerous: It interferes with interstate commerce by erecting
barriers around one region of the Nation; It provides preferential
price treatment for farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers
nationally; It encourages excess milk production in one region without
establishing effective supply control which may drive down milk prices
for producers throughout the
[[Page S1391]]
country; It imposes higher costs on the millions of consumers in the
Compact region; It imposes higher costs to taxpayers who pay for
nutrition programs such as food stamps and the national school lunch
programs which provide for milk and other dairy products in their
programs; and as a price-fixing compact it is unprecedented in the
history of this Nation.
Most important to my home State of Wisconsin, Mr. President, is that
the Northeast Dairy Compact exacerbates the inequities within the
Federal milk marketing orders system that already discriminates against
dairy farmers in Wisconsin and throughout the upper Midwest. Federal
orders provide higher fluid milk prices to producers the further they
are located from Eau Claire, WI, for markets east of the Rocky
Mountains.
Wisconsin farmers have complained for many years that this inherently
discriminatory system provides other regions, such as the Northeast,
the Southeast, and the Southwest with milk prices that encourage excess
production in those regions. Of course, that excess production drives
down prices throughout the Nation and results in excessive production
of cheese, butter, and dry milk. Cheese and other manufactured dairy
products constitute the pillar of our dairy industry in Wisconsin.
Competition for the production and sale of these products by other
regions spurred on by artificial incentives under milk marketing orders
has eroded our markets for cheese and other products.
Mr. President, my State of Wisconsin loses more than 1,000 dairy
farms per year either through bankruptcy or attrition. The number of
manufacturing plants has declined from 400 in 1985 to less than 230 in
1996. These losses are due in part, to the systematic discrimination
and market distortions created by Federal dairy policies that provide
artificial regional advantages that cannot be justified on any rational
economic grounds.
Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams and I are
on the floor today offering this legislation because the Northeast
Dairy Compact reinforces the discrimination that has so damaged the
dairy industry in our States. We have fought to change Federal milk
marketing orders and we will fight to prevent the Northeast Dairy
Compact from ever going into effect.
Less damaging but more insulting to Wisconsin dairy farmers than the
increase in regional inequities is the inherent assumption of the
compact proponents that either the financial distress of Northeast
dairy farmers is worse than that experienced by farmers in other
regions or that farmers in the Northeast are more important than
farmers elsewhere. Either assumption is ludicrous.
As all Senators are aware, when milk prices plummet, as they did last
fall by 26 percent in 3 months, the financial pain is felt by farmers
throughout the Nation, no worse and no less by any particular region.
And yet the Northeast Compact provides price protection for dairy
farmers in six States, insulating them from market conditions which
noncompact farmers must confront and to which they must adjust. Compact
proponents have never been able to explain how conditions in the
Northeast merit greater protection from market price fluctuations than
other regions of the country. The fact that there are no compelling
arguments made in favor of the compact that justified special treatment
for the Northeast was emphasized by a vote in the full Senate to strike
the compact from the 1996 farm bill. It was the only recorded vote on
approval or disapproval of the Northeast Dairy Compact--and it killed
the compact in the Senate. The way in which the compact was ultimately
included in the 1996 farm bill also illustrates the weak justification
and the lack of support for its approval. It was never included in a
House version of the farm bill and yet emerged as part of the bill
after a closed door Conference negotiation. Legislation which is
difficult to defend must frequently be negotiated behind closed doors
rather than in the light of day.
The 1996 farm bill provided authority to approve the compact to the
Secretary of Agriculture if he found a compelling public interest for
the compact in the Northeast. Congress, still unwilling to accept
responsibility for what I believe to be an unjustifiable compact,
delegated their authority to the Secretary. The Secretary approved the
compact last August but even he, with his teams of economists and
marketing specialists, was unable to come up with an economic
justification for the compact. The Secretary's finding of ``compelling
public interest'' justifying his approval of the compact was so weak
and unsupported by the public record that a suit was filed by compact
opponents in Federal court charging that the Secretary violated the
Administrative Procedures Act. Last December, a Federal District Court
judge found that, in fact, the plaintiffs in that suit were likely to
prevail on their claim that the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and
capricious. More recently, the same Federal judge told USDA to review
the public record and determine whether in fact that compact should
have been approved.
Mr. President, the Northeast Dairy compact can't be justified because
it is just plain bad policy. It is bad public policy because it
increases costs to taxpayers nationally and consumers in the Northeast
to benefit few. It is bad dairy policy because it exacerbates regional
discrimination of existing Federal milk marketing orders by providing
artificial advantages to a small group of producers at the expense of
all others. And it is bad economic policy because it establishes
barriers to interstate trade--barriers of the type the United States
has been working hard to eliminate in international markets.
Mr. President, Congress should never have provided Secretary Glickman
with authority to approve the compact. That in my view, was an improper
and potentially unconstitutional delegation of our authority and it was
irresponsible. It is the role of Congress to approve interstate
compacts and we irresponsibly abrogated our responsibility in this
matter. It is time to make it right.
I hope the Secretary rescinds his earlier decision to approve the
compact in the additional time the courts have provided him. If he does
not, I hope the courts strike down the compact both on the grounds that
it violated the APA and on constitutional grounds. However, in any
event, it is incumbent upon Congress to undo the mistake it made in the
1996 farm bill. Congress can and should act independently of both the
administrative and judicial process to repeal the Northeast Interstate
Dairy compact. As the other branches of Government are doing their
jobs, we must continue to do ours.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Hagel):
S. 323. A bill to amend title 4, United States Code, to declare
English as the official language of the Government of the United
States; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
THE LANGUAGE OF GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1997
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce what I consider
to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be
offered this year. It is the Language of Government Act of 1997, which
designates English as the official language of the U.S. Government. I
have as original cosponsors on that legislation Senators Byrd,
Coverdell, Craig, Faircloth, Gregg, Helms, Hutchinson of Arkansas,
Inhofe, Lugar, Santorum, Thurmond, Cochran, and Sessions.
Mr. President, language, as we all know, is a powerful factor in
society. As de Tocqueville observed more than a hundred years ago,
``The tie of language is perhaps the strongest and the most durable
that can unite mankind.'' That was true then, and it is true today.
Just as surely as language has the power to unite us, it has the
power to divide us. One year after French-speaking Quebec rejected by a
razor-thin margin the referendum to secede from Canada, our neighbor to
the north is still grappling with the repercussions of the vote.
English-speaking residents of Quebec have threatened to secede if
Quebec proceeds with another referendum. There are many examples in the
world of what happens to nations that are divided among language and
ethnic lines. Bosnia, as we all know, has been decimated by ethnic
strife. The countries of the former Soviet Union are in constant
internal conflict and turmoil.
[[Page S1392]]
Today, more than 320 different languages are spoken in our country.
We should respect each of these languages and those individuals who
speak them. But in order to assimilate the various cultures and ethnic
groups that comprise our great Nation, I believe we must use English.
Furthermore, the Federal Government should not, in my opinion, be
expected to administer its official business in all of these languages.
Yet, the Federal Government continues to expand the number and types of
services that it administers in foreign languages.
Layers of bureaucracy have been added as these governmental agencies
have evolved into permanent multi-language service providers. In light
of this fact, Mr. President, I believe it is imperative that we
establish in America a responsible, coherent language policy for all of
us.
The legislation that I offer today, on behalf of myself and the
colleagues I mentioned earlier, is simple and straightforward. It
designates English as the language of the Federal Government and
requires that most Government functions be performed in English. There
are exceptions to that rule, Mr. President, for safety, emergencies,
and health-related services.
I want to emphasize that ``official English'' is directed at the
Federal Government and its agents, but does not cover private citizens.
In no way, Mr. President, does the bill limit an individual's use of
his or her native language in home, church, community, or other private
communications.
Mr. President, since last December, the Nation has engaged in a
heated debate over using ``ebonics'' in public schools. We are all
familiar with that. I do not intend to join that debate today. Instead,
I raise this in order to mention a fundamental point. In the words of
Maya Angelo, ``The very idea * * * can be very threatening, because it
can encourage young men and women not to learn standard English.''
Without mastering English, our children and grandchildren cannot
succeed. Indeed, as so many Americans know from their own experiences,
proficiency in English propelled them from a life of poverty to a
future full of opportunity.
A substantial body of evidence supports that notion and confirms that
there is a direct correlation between an individual's ability to speak
English in America and that person's economic fortunes.
A recent Ohio University study concluded that if immigrant knowledge
of English were raised to that of native-born Americans, their income
levels would increase by $63 billion annually. In 1994, the Texas
Office of Immigration and Refugee Affairs published a study of
Southeast Asian refugees in Texas. It conclusively demonstrated that in
that population, individuals proficient in English earned over 20 times
the annual income of those who could not speak English. Analysis of
1990 census data shows that immigrants' incomes rise 30 percent as a
result of being able to communicate in English.
So, without question, fluency in the English language will do more to
empower people coming to America than all Federal Government services
combined. The Federal Government, however, is offering more services
and producing more publications in a multitude of foreign languages, at
a cost of $14 billion annually. Conducting official Government
functions in a foreign language supposedly facilitates assimilation
into our society. What began in a piecemeal fashion to facilitate
assimilation has mutated into institutionalized and permanent
multilingual programs and services.
The effect, Mr. President, is that it destroys the incentive to learn
English, which undermines one of the key objectives of integration in
this country. As I stated earlier, the plain truth is that immigrants
who do not develop proficiency in English will almost always be
relegated to a lower rung on the economic ladder, often far below their
earnings potential.
By designating English as the official language of our Government, we
send a clear and unmistakable message that English is a necessary part
of life in America. But it is not just a symbolic gesture. If most
communication with the Federal Government is conducted in English, it
encourages fluency in English. At the same time, establishing a
language policy will stop the frivolous expenditure of printing
Government documents in foreign languages. There is no justification
for the money wasted to produce, for example, ``The Reproductive
Behavior of Young People in the City of Sao Paulo'' in Portuguese or
publication on the U.S. Mint in Chinese. The money squandered on those
documents would be better spent teaching English to those who cannot
speak it. My bill states that the savings from this initiative be used
to teach English in America.
Mr. President, national polling indicates that 86 percent of
Americans support making English the official language of this country.
In fact, Mr. President, 8 out of 10 first-generation immigrants in
America support this legislation. As our Nation becomes more diverse,
it becomes more and more important for Congress to deal with the
establishment of an official language policy. Our consideration of this
bill shows that we take our national heritage and democracy seriously.
______
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. Campbell):
S. 324. A bill to amend title 32, United States Code, to provide that
performance of honor guard functions at funerals for veterans by
members of the National Guard may be recognized as a Federal function
for National Guard purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
NATIONAL GUARD LEGISLATION
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr President, I come to the floor today to introduce a
common sense piece of legislation of great importance to the veterans
of our country.
Let me begin by thanking the veterans of my State for bringing this
important issue to my attention. I particularly want to thank Mr. Fran
Agnes, past national chairman, with the Former Prisoners of War
veterans service organization. Fran is a champion for the veterans of
my State and he never lets an opportunity pass to share with me the
views of Washington State veterans.
My State is home to nearly 700,000 veterans, and one of the few
States with a growing veterans population. Washington State vets are
active; virtually every veterans service organization has chapters,
posts, and members all across my State. At the State level, Washington
veterans are also blessed with a team of dedicated veterans' advocates.
For me, this means I have a statewide ``unofficial'' advisory team to
provide me with regular information about the issues of importance to
veterans. I hear from Washington vets in the classroom, in the grocery
store, at VA facilities, on the street, in my office and through the
mail. My service on the Veterans' Affairs Committee is a genuine
partnership with the veterans of my State.
The bill I am introducing today is a direct result of this
partnership. Simply stated, my bill proposes to allow the performance
of honor guard functions by members of the National Guard at funerals
for veterans.
It may shock my colleagues to know why this legislation is so
important. Sadly, decorated U.S. veterans are being laid to rest all
across this country without the appropriate military honors.
For years, military installations trained personnel to provide color
guard services at the funerals of veterans. Oftentimes, as many as 10
active duty personnel were made available by local military
installations to provide funeral services for a compatriot and his or
her grieving family. These services were immensely important to the
veterans community. It allowed veterans to see fellow veterans treated
with the appropriate respect and admiration they deserved, and to know
that they would also be afforded a dignified service.
As the military has downsized in recent years, many installations are
no longer able to provide personnel to perform color guard services and
aid the veteran's family. Some installations do provide limited
assistance if the deceased served in that branch of the military. In my
State, that means very little to the Navy family who loses a loved one
near the Air Force or Army installations nearby. And we all know, when
a family member passes away there is little time or emotional capacity
to plan a funeral. Too often, the result for a veteran is a funeral
service
[[Page S1393]]
without the requested and the deserved military honors. This must
change.
Veterans' service organizations have stepped in and tried to provide
the color guard services for fellow deceased veterans. By most
accounts, they do a very good job. But VSO's cannot meet the need for
color guard services. By their own admission, they often lack the
crispness and the precision of trained military personnel. Our veterans
population is getting older, and we cannot expect a group of older
veterans to provide these services day in and day out for their
military peers. We are simply asking too much of a generation that has
already given so much.
My bill is an important first step toward ensuring that every veteran
receives a funeral worthy of the valiant service he or she has given to
our country. I believe every single Member of Congress believes our
veterans deserve to be remembered with the appropriate military honors
during a funeral service. By passing my legislation, the Congress can
send a message to veterans that their service to us all will never be
forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to pass this
legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. President, I also want to thank Senator and Korean war veteran
Ben Nighthorse Campbell for joining me in this effort. Senator Campbell
also serves on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and I know personally of
his great commitment to the veterans of our country. And I'd also like
to thank Congressman Paul Kanjorski, who has previously introduced this
legislation on the House side. As I understand it, his constituents in
Pennsylvania originally asked him to get involved in this effort. I
look forward to working closely with both Senator Campbell and
Congressman Kanjorski in support of this legislation.
______
By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Leahy, and Mr.
Kohl):
S. 325. A bill to repeal the percentage depletion allowance for
certain hardrock mines; to the Committee on Finance.
______
By Mr. BUMPERS:
S. 326. A bill to provide for the reclamation of abandoned hardrock
mines, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
______
By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold,
and Mr. Kohl):
S. 327. A bill to ensure that Federal taxpayers receive a fair return
for the extraction of locatable minerals on public domain lands, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
hardrock mining reform legislation
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills
which are intended to reform hardrock mining on public land and
recover, for taxpayers, lost revenues resulting from the patenting
process under the 1872 mining law.
The 1872 mining law was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant
during a time when our national policy was to encourage the settlement
of the West with the enticement of free land and minerals. However, 124
years have now passed and the mining law has become a relic. Rather
than serve the interests of the public, the mining law gives away
billions of dollars worth of land and minerals to mining companies for
practically nothing.
While there are many flaws with the 1872 law, some of the most
outrageous include: allowing the sale of public lands and minerals for
$2.50 to $5.00 per acre; allowing the mining of valuable minerals
without a dime in royalty payments to the taxpayers for those minerals;
allowing patented land bought for $2.50 an acre to be resold at market
prices--sometimes thousands of dollars per acre; and not adequately
protecting the environment.
Our attitudes toward public resources have changed since the 19th
century and so have most of our public policies. While the mining law
has been amended indirectly over the years, its basic provisions remain
unchanged and are in dire need of reform. Over the years numerous
private, government and congressional studies have recommended either
revising the mining law or repealing it completely. One of the most
thorough modern studies of the mining law was conducted by the Public
Land Law Review Commission during the 1960's. The commission's work
formed the basis for the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
[FLPMA]. In ``One Third of the Nation's Land--A Report to Congress and
the President'' the commission stated:
The general mining law of 1872 has been abused, but even
without that abuse, it has many deficiencies. Individuals
whose primary interest is not in mineral development and
production have attempted, under the guise of that law, to
obtain use of public lands for various other purposes. The
1872 law offers no means by which the Government can
effectively control environmental impacts.
While the Public Land Review Commission and many others have called
for comprehensive mining law reform for some time now, Congress has
failed to respond. At a time when the public is clamoring for a more
efficient government and a government that treats the taxpayers with
dignity and respect, the 1872 mining law instead condones the giveaway
of public lands and valuable minerals worth billions of dollars for
practically nothing and which permits long-term environmental
degradation of our public lands.
In the last four Congresses I introduced legislation which would have
comprehensively reformed the mining law. On each occasion the mining
industry went to great lengths to successfully ensure that the 1872
mining law would not be comprehensively reformed. However, Mr.
President, as we continue to strive to balance the Federal budget, the
day of reckoning for beneficiaries of corporate welfare is getting
closer. Eventually, Congress is going to enact real mining law reform.
The legislation I am introducing today is an effort to seek to
protect the interests of the very people that Members of Congress
purport to represent--the American people. One hundred twenty-four
years after Ulysses Grant signed the mining law the time has come to
bring our Nation's mineral policy into the present.
As always, I am willing to work with people on all sides of this
issue in an attempt to develop a solution amenable to all. However, I
will not be a party to the efforts of those who, in an effort to end
debate on the subject, attempt to enact ``sham reform'' legislation
drafted by the mining industry.
The problems of the mining law and the proposed solutions contained
in the three bills I am introducing today are described more fully
below.
Under the existing mining law, a patent-fee simple title--to a mining
claim on Federal lands may be obtained for the purchase price of $2.50
an acre for a placer claim--or $5 an acre for a lode claim--a price
which has not changed since 1872. During the last 124 years, the
Government has sold more than 3.2 million acres of land under the
patent provision of the 1872 mining law, an area similar to the size of
the State of Connecticut. This is a giveaway--pure and simple--and is
directly contrary to the national policy enunciated in the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act--that, in most cases, public lands should be
retained in public ownership.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that $5 an acre is
far less than the fair market value of the patented land and the
minerals thereon. In 1994 we witnessed one of the biggest taxpayer
ripoffs in the history of the mining law when the Federal Government
was forced to grant patents to a subsidiary of a Canadian-owned mining
company. In exchange for 1,800 acres of land in Nevada containing more
than $10 billion in gold, the Federal Government received the princely
sum of less than $10,000. Mr. President, believe it or not, the
taxpayers stand to do worse in the very near future. The Stillwater
Mining Co., which is jointly owned by Chevron and Manville, has applied
for patents on approximately 2,000 acres of Forest Service land in
Montana. In exchange for $10,000, the company will receive fee title to
land containing, according to Stillwater's own reserve estimates, $35
billion worth of platinum and palladium.
Congress finally took action in 1994 by imposing a 1-year moratorium
on the processing of new patent applications and those applications
that were still in the early stages of processing. This moratorium has
been renewed the last 2 years, albeit after an effort was made by
Senators from the West to repeal it.
Under the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act of 1997, which I am introducing
[[Page S1394]]
today, mining claim holders would no longer be able to patent their
claims. The sale of Federal lands for $2.50 or $5.00 an acre would be
permanently halted.
In addition to allowing the sale of lands for far less than fair
market value, the mining law also permits corporations to mine valuable
minerals from public domain lands without paying a nickel in royalties
to the landowner--the taxpayers. While oil, gas, and coal producers all
pay royalties to the U.S. Treasury for production on Federal lands, the
Government doesn't receive anything for hardrock minerals produced on
Federal lands subject to the 1872 mining law.
The hardrock mining companies contend that they would be forced to
shut down operations if they were required to pay royalties to the
Federal Government. However, these same companies find themselves able
to pay royalties for mining operations on State and private lands. In
fact, the Newmont Mining Co. pays an 18 percent royalty on land
acquired from private interests on a portion of its gold quarry mine in
Nevada's Carlin Trend. Ironically, a hardrock miner operating on
acquired Federal lands pays a royalty to the Federal Government while
his counterpart on lands subject to the mining law pays nothing. There
is no justifiable reason for this difference.
Billions of dollars' worth of hardrock minerals are extracted from
the public lands. It is absolutely unfair to the taxpayers of this
country to permit hardrock mining companies to enjoy the same tax
breaks as others, while failing to adequately compensate the public
landowners. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to remedy this
result. First, the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act of 1997 would require
the payment of a royalty of 5 percent of the net smelter return from
mineral production on public lands. Because the royalty would not apply
to minerals extracted on lands already patented under the mining law,
the Abandoned Mines Reclamation Act of 1997 would required mining
companies operating on patented land to pay a net-income-based
reclamation fee. Finally, because it makes absolutely no sense to
permit mining companies to take advantage of a mineral depletion
allowance when they are using taxpayer land without compensating the
taxpayers, the elimination of double subsidies for the Hardrock Mining
Industry Act of 1997 would repeal the depletion allowance for mining
operations on land subject to the 1872 mining law.
Originally, the mining law required claimants to certify that they
performed 100 dollars' worth of work on their mining claims each year
in order to maintain their claims. Because many claimants were not
serious about mining their claims, Congress replaced the work
requirement with a $100 per claim maintenance fee. In conjunction with
the administration's proposal the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act increases
the fee for new claims to $125.
Mr. President, past mining activities have left a legacy of
unreclaimed lands, acid mine drainage, and hazardous waste. More than
50 abandoned hardrock mining sites are currently on the Superfund
national priority list. Some estimate that it could cost taxpayers
upward of $70 billion to clean all the abandoned mining sites.
The legislation I am introducing today would create an abandoned mine
reclamation fund to help reclaim the many hardrock mining sites which
have been abandoned. Money for the fund would come from the royalties
and holding fees collected under the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act of
1997 and the reclamation fees collected under the Abandoned Hardrock
Mining Reclamation Act of 1997.
Mr. President, the mining industry knows that the public is slowly
learning about the 1872 mining law and the associated atrocities and
believe me, the industry is worried. As they have done in the past, I
suspect the mining industry will once again raise a smokescreen by
proposing so-called reforms. For instance, the mining industry has
proposed that instead of paying $2.50 or $5.00 an acre for patents,
that instead they pay the fair market value of the surface, regardless
of the value of the minerals located on the land. While the concept of
fair market value is certainly a good one, it is absurd to argue that
the Stillwater Mining Co. would really be paying fair market value if
they paid for the surface--probably worth less than $100 an acre--and
ignored the value of the platinum and palladium--estimated to be $35
billion. Mr. President, if you or I ran a company which sold land for
such fair market value, we would be fired in a New York minute. Mr.
President, I urge my colleagues to beware of such sham reform.
Mr. President and colleagues, I urge you to support the long overdue
reform of the 1872 mining law and to cosponsor my three bills. Both
Republicans and Democrats are always talking about change and the need
to end business as usual in Washington. My legislation is intended to
end business as usual and bring the 1872 mining law into the 20th
century. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 325
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 ``Elimination of Double
Subsidies for the Hardrock Mining Industry Act of 1997.''
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN HARDROCK
MINES.
(a) In General.--The first sentence of section 611(a) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 611(a), is
amended by inserting immediately after ``mines'' the
following: ``(except for hardrock mines located on land
currently subject to the general mining laws or on land
patented under the general mining laws)''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 611 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as
subsection (d) and inserting after subsection (b) the
following new subsection:
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
``(1) `general mining laws' means those Acts which
generally comprise chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and sections 161
and 162 of title 30 of the United States Code.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 1996.
____
S. 326
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 ``Abandoned Hardrock Mines
Reclamation Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. RECLAMATION FEE.
(a) Reservation of Reclamation Fee.--Any person producing
hardrock minerals from a mine that was within a mining claim
that has subsequently been patented under the general mining
laws shall pay a reclamation fee to the Secretary under this
section. The amount of such fee shall be equal to a
percentage of the net proceeds from such mine. The percentage
shall be based upon the ratio of the net proceeds to the
gross proceeds related to such production in accordance with
the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate of Fee as
Net Proceeds as Percentage of Gross Proceeds Percentage of Net
Proceeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 10......................................... 2.00
10 or more but less than 18.......................... 2.50
18 or more but less than 26.......................... 3.00
26 or more but less than 34.......................... 3.50
34 or more but less than 42.......................... 4.00
42 or more but less than 50.......................... 4.50
50 or more........................................... 5.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Exemption.--Gross proceeds of less than $500,000 from
minerals produced in any calendar year shall be exempt from
the reclamation fee under this section for that year if such
proceeds are from one or more mines located in a single
patented claim or on two or more contiguous patented claims.
(c) Payment.--The amount of all fees payable under this
section for any calendar year shall be paid to the Secretary
within 60 days after the end of such year.
(d) Disbursement of Revenues.--The receipts from the fee
collected under this section shall be paid into an Abandoned
Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect with
respect to hardrock minerals produced in calendar years after
December 31, 1996.
SEC. 3. ABANDONED MINERALS MINE RECLAMATION FUND.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) There is established on the books of the Treasury of
the United States an interest-bearing fund to be known as the
Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund (hereinafter
referred to in this section as the ``Fund''). The Fund shall
be administered by the Secretary.
(2) The Secretary shall notify the Secretary of the
Treasury as to what portion of the Fund is not, in his
judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. The Secretary
of the Treasury shall invest such portion of the Fund in
public debt securities with maturities suitable for the needs
of such Fund and
[[Page S1395]]
bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields on
outstanding marketplace obligations of the United States of
comparable maturities. The income on such investments shall
be credited to, and from a part of, the Fund.
(b) Use and Objectives of the Fund.--The Secretary is,
subject to appropriations, authorized to use moneys in the
Fund for the reclamation and restoration of land and water
resources adversely affected by past mineral (other than coal
and fluid minerals) and mineral material mining, including
but not limited to, any of the following:
(1) Reclamation and restoration of abandoned surface mined
areas.
(2) Reclamation and restoration of abandoned milling and
processing areas.
(3) Sealing, filling, and grading abandoned deep mine
entries.
(4) Planting of land adversely affected by past mining to
prevent erosion and sedimentation.
(5) Prevention, abatement, treatment and control of water
pollution created by abandoned mine drainage.
(6) Control of surface subsidence due to abandoned deep
mines.
(7) Such expenses as may be necessary to accomplish the
purposes of this section.
(c) Eligible Areas.--
(1) Land and waters eligible for reclamation expenditures
under this section shall be those within the boundaries of
States that have lands subject to the general mining laws--
(A) which were mined or processed for minerals and mineral
materials or which were affected by such mining or
processing, and abandoned or left in an inadequate
reclamation status prior to the date of enactment of this
title;
(B) for which the Secretary makes a determination that
there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under State
or Federal laws; and
(C) for which it can be established that such lands do not
contain minerals which could economically be extracted
through the reprocessing or remining of such lands.
(2) Sites and areas designated for remedial action pursuant
to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
(42 U.S.C. 7901 and following) or which have been listed for
remedial action pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601 and following) shall not be eligible for expenditures
from the Fund under this section.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
As sued in this Act:
(1) The term ``gross proceeds'' means the value of any
extracted hardrock mineral which was:
(A) solid;
(B) exchanged for any thing or service;
(C) removed from the country in a form ready for use of
sale; or
(D) initially used in a manufacturing process or in
providing a service.
(2) The term ``net proceeds'' means gross proceeds less the
sum of the following deductions:
(A) The actual cost of extracting the mineral.
(B) The actual cost of transporting the mineral to the
place or places of reduction, refining and sale.
(C) The actual cost of reduction, refining and sale.
(D) The actual cost of marketing and delivering the mineral
and the conversion of the mineral into money.
(E) The actual cost of maintenance and repairs of:
(i) All machinery, equipment, apparatus and facilities used
in the mine.
(ii) All milling, refining, smelting and reduction works,
plants and facilities.
(iii) All facilities and equipment for transportation.
(F) The actual cost of fire insurance on the machinery,
equipment, apparatus, works, plants and facilities mentioned
in subseciton (E).
(G) Depreciation of the original capitalized cost of the
machinery, equipment, apparatus, works, plants and facilities
mentioned in subsection (E).
(H) All money expended for premiums for industrial
insurance, and the actual cost of hospital and medical
attention and accident benefits and group insurance for all
employees.
(I) The actual cost of developmental work in or about the
mine or upon a group of mines when operated as a unit.
(J) All royalties and severance taxes paid to the Federal
government or State governments.
(3) The term ``hardrock minerals'' means any mineral other
than a mineral that would be subject to disposition under any
of the following if located on land subject to the general
mining laws:
(A) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 and following);
(B) the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 100 and
following);
(C) the Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the
Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 and following); or
(D) the Mineral Leasing for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C.
351 and following).
(4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
(5) The term ``patented mining claim'' means an interest in
land which has been obtained pursuant to sections 2325 and
2326 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein
or lode claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36 and 37) for placer claims,
or section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for
mill site claims.
(6) The term ``general mining laws'' means those Acts which
generally comprise Chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and sections 161
and 162 of title 30 of the United States Code.
____
S. 327
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 ``Hardrock Mining Royalty Act
of 1997''.
SEC. 2. ROYALTY.
(a) Reservation of Royalty.--Each person producing
locatable minerals (including associated minerals) from any
mining claim located under the general mining laws, or
mineral concentrates derived from locatable minerals produced
from any mining claim located under the general mining laws,
as the case may be, shall pay a royalty of 5 percent of the
net smelter return from the production of such locatable
minerals or concentrates, as the case may be .
(b) Royalty Payments.--Each person responsible for making
royalty payments under this section shall make such payments
to the Secretary not later than 30 days after the end of the
calendar month in which the mineral or mineral concentrates
are produced and first placed in marketable condition,
consistent with prevailing practices in the industry.
(c) Reporting Requirements.--All persons holding mining
claims located under the general mining laws shall provide to
the Secretary such information as determined necessary by the
Secretary to ensure compliance with this section, including,
but not limited to, quarterly reports, records, documents,
and other data. Such reports may also include, but not be
limited to, pertinent technical and financial data relating
to the quantity, quality, and amount of all minerals
extracted from the mining claim.
(d) Audits.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct such
audits of all persons holding mining claims located under the
general mining laws as he deems necessary for the purposes of
ensuring compliance with the requirements of this section.
(e) Disposition of Receipts.--All receipts from royalties
collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into
the Fund established under section 3.
(f) Compliance.--Any person holding mining claims located
under the general mining laws who knowingly or willfully
prepares, maintains, or submits false, inaccurate, or
misleading information required by this section, or fails or
refuses to submit such information, shall be subject to a
penalty imposed by the Secretary.
(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect with
respect to minerals produced from a mining claim in calendar
months beginning after enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. ABANDONED MINERALS MINE RECLAMATION FUND.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) There is established on the books of the Treasury of
the United States a trust fund to be known as the Abandoned
Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund (hereinafter referred to as
the ``Fund''). The Fund shall be administered by the
Secretary.
(2) The Secretary shall notify the Secretary of the
Treasury as to what portion of the Fund is not, in his
judgement, required to meet current withdrawals. The
Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of the
Fund in public debt securities and maturities suitable for
the needs of such Fund and bearing interest at rates
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into
consideration current market yields on outstanding
marketplace obligations of the United States of comparable
maturities. The income on such investments shall be credited
to, and from a part of, the Fund.
(b) Amounts.--The following amounts shall be credited to
the Fund for the purposes of this Act:
(1) All moneys received from royalties under section 1 of
this Act and the mining claim maintenance fee under section 4
of this Act.
(2) All donations by persons, corporations, associations,
and foundations for the purposes of this title.
(c) Use and Objectives of the Fund.--The Secretary is,
subject to appropriations, authorized to use moneys in the
Fund for the reclamation and restoration of land and water
resources adversely affected by past mineral (other than coal
and fluid minerals) and mineral material mining, including
but not limited to, any of the following:
(1) Reclamation and restoration of abandoned surface mined
areas.
(2) Reclamation and restoration of abandoned milling and
processing areas.
(3) Sealing, filling, and grading abandoned deep mine
entries.
(4) Planting of land adversely affected by past mining to
prevent erosion and sedimentation.
(5) Prevention, abatement, treatment and control of water
pollution created by abandoned mine drainage.
(6) Control of surface subsidence due to abandoned deep
mines.
(7) Such expenses as may be necessary to accomplish the
purposes of this section.
[[Page S1396]]
(d) Eligible Areas.--
(1) Land and waters eligible for reclamation expenditures
under this section shall be those within the boundaries of
States that have lands subject to the general mining laws--
(A) which were mined or processed for minerals and mineral
materials or which were affected by such mining or
processing, and abandoned or left in an inadequate
reclamation status prior to the date of enactment of this
Act;
(B) for which the Secretary makes a determination that
there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under State
or Federal laws; and
(C) for which it can be established that such lands do not
contain minerals which could economically be extracted
through the reprocessing or remining of such lands.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), sites and areas
designated for remedial action pursuant to the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 and
following) or which have been listed for remedial action
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and
following) shall not be eligible for expenditures from the
Fund under this section.
(e) Fund Expenditures.--Moneys available from the Fund may
be expended directly by the Director, Bureau of Land
Management. The Director may also make such money available
through grants made to the Chief of the United States Forest
Service, and the Director of the National Park Service.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Amounts credited to
the Fund are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of
this title without fiscal year limitation.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON PATENT ISSUANCE.
No patents shall be issued by the United States for any
mining or mill site claim located under the general mining
laws unless the Secretary determines that, for the claim
concerned a patent application was filed with the Secretary
on or before September 30, 1994, and all requirements
established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode claims and
sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36 and 37) for place claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for
mill site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied
with by the applicant by that date.
SEC. 5. MINING CLAIM MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Effective October 1, 1998, the holder of each mining
claim located under the general mining laws prior to the date
of enactment shall pay to the Secretary an annual claim
maintenance fee of $100 per claim per calendar year.
(2) The holder of each mining claim located under the
general mining laws subsequent to the date of enactment shall
pay to the Secretary an annual claim maintenance fee of $125
per claim per calendar year.
(b) Purchasing Power Adjustment.--The Secretary shall
adjust the amount of the claim maintenance fee payable
pursuant to subsection (a) for changes in the purchasing
power of the dollar after the calendar year 1993, employing
the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by
the Department of Labor as the basis for adjustment, and
rounding according to the adjustment process of conditions of
the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990.
(c) Time of Payment.--Each claim holder shall pay the claim
maintenance fee payable under subsection (a) for any year on
or before August 31 of each year, except that for the initial
calendar year in which the location is made, the initial
claim maintenance fee shall be paid at the time the location
notice is recorded with the Bureau of Land Management.
(d) Oil Shale Claims Subject to Claim Maintenance Fees
Under Energy Policy Act of 1992.--The section shall not apply
to any oil shale claims for which a fee is required to be
paid under section 2511(e)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (30 U.S.C. 242(e)(2))
(e) Claim Maintenance Fees Payable Under 1993 Act.--The
claim maintenance fees payable under this section for any
period with respect to any claim shall be reduced by the
amount of the claim maintenance fees paid under section 10101
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 with respect
to that claim and with respect to the same period.
(f) Waiver.--
(1) The claim maintenance fee required under this section
may be waived for a claim holder who certifies in writing to
the Secretary that on the date the payment was due, the claim
holder and all related parties held not more than 10 mining
claims on land open to location. Such certification shall be
made on or before the date on which payment is due.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, with respect to any
claim holder, the term ``related party'' means each of the
following:
(A) The spouse and dependent children (as defined in
section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), of the
claim holder.
(B) Any affiliate of the claim holder.
(g) Co-ownership.--Upon the failure of any one or more of
several co-owners to contribute such co-owner or owners'
portion of the fee under this section, any co-owner who has
paid such fee may, after the payment due date, give the
delinquent co-owner or owners notice of such failure in
writing (or by publication in the newspaper nearest the claim
for at least once a week for at least 90 days). If at the
expiration of 90 days after such notice in writing or by
publication, any delinquent co-owner fails or refused to
contribute his portion, his interest, in the claim shall
become the property of the co-owners who have paid the
required fee.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) The term ``affiliate'' means with respect to any
person, each of the following:
(A) Any partner of such person.
(B) Any person owning at least 10 percent of the voting
shares of such person.
(C) Any person who controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with such person.
(2) The term ``locatable minerals'' means minerals not
subject to disposition under any of the following:
(A) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 and following);
(B) the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 100 and
following);
(C) the Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the
Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 and following); or
(D) the Mineral Leasing for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C.
351 and following).
(3) The term ``net smelter return'' has the same meaning
provided in section 613 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(26 U.S.C. 613) for ``gross income from mining''.
(4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
(5) The term ``general mining laws'' means those Acts which
generally comprise chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and sections 161
and 162 of title 30, United States Code.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Mack, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Allard, Mr. Lott,
Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Faircloth):
S. 328. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect
employer rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources.
Truth in Employment Act of 1997
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today an
important piece of legislation which will enable thousands of
businesses in my home State of Arkansas, and across the Nation, to
avoid an unscrupulous practice which is literally crippling business.
The Truth in Employment Act will protect these businesses and curtail
the destructive union tactic known as salting. It may not be in the
same magnitude of issues as the balanced budget amendment, which I am
deeply concerned about and in which we have had prolonged debate, but
it is nonetheless a very, very significant issue that is affecting the
economic well-being of thousands of businesses across America. So I am
glad to be able to introduce this today with 14 cosponsors joining me
on S. 328.
Salting is the calculated practice of placing trained union
professional organizers and agents in a nonunion workplace whose sole
purpose is to harass or disrupt company operations, apply economic
pressure, increase operating and legal costs, and ultimately the
purpose of putting that company out of business. The objectives of
these union agents are accomplished through filing frivolous and unfair
labor practice complaints or discrimination charges against the
employer with the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC]. Salting campaigns have been
used successfully to cause economic harm to construction companies and
are quickly expanding into other industries across the country as well.
To my colleagues I would say, Mr. President, the average cost to the
employer to defend himself or defend herself against this practice runs
upwards of $5,000 per case.
Salting is not merely a union organizing tool. It has become an
instrument of economic destruction aimed at nonunion companies. This is
what happens. Unions send their agents into nonunion workplaces under
the guise of seeking employment. Hiding behind the shield of the
National Labor Relations Act, these salts use its provisions
offensively to bring hardship on their employers. They deliberately
increase the operating costs of their employers through actions such as
sabotage and frivolous discrimination complaints.
In the 1995 Town & Country decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
paid union organizers are employees within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act. Because of their broad interpretation of this act,
employers who
[[Page S1397]]
refuse to hire paid union employees or their agents violate the act if
they are shown to have discriminated against the union salts.
This leaves employers in a precarious and vulnerable situation. If
employers refuse to hire union salts, they will file frivolous charges
and accuse the employer of discrimination. Yet if salts are employed,
they will create internal disruption through a pattern of dissension
and harassment. They are not there to work--only to disrupt. For many
small businesses this means that whenever hiring decisions are made,
the future of the company may actually be at stake. A wrong decision
can mean frivolous charges, legal fees, and lost time, which may
threaten the very existence of their business.
I have received many accounts from across the Nation of how salting
is affecting small businesses. In Carmel, IN, John Gaylor, of Gaylor
Electric, is a favorite target of the local International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers. Mr. Gaylor has to budget almost $200,000
annually to defend himself against frivolous charges. In fact, Gaylor
has been forced to defend himself against at least 80 unfair labor
practice complaints. However, in each case the charges against him were
dismissed as frivolous. Nonetheless, he is bound to pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars to attorneys to defend himself.
In a classic example of salting tactics, Gaylor had to fire one
employee after his refusal to wear his hardhat on his head. This
employee would strap the hardhat to his knee and then dare Gaylor, his
boss, to fire him because he said the employee manual stated only that
he had to wear the hardhat, it did not state where he had to wear it.
Another common salting practice is for salts to actually create
Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] violations and
then report those violations to OSHA. When the employer terminates
these individuals, they file frivolous unfair labor practice violations
against the employer. This results in wasted time and money, as well as
bad publicity for the company.
These are just a few of the many examples of how devastating this
practice can be to small businesses. What makes this practice even more
appalling is how organized labor openly advocates its use. According to
the group, ``Workplaces against Salting Abuse,'' the labor unions are
even advocating this practice in their manuals.
The Union Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers explains why salts are used. Their purpose is to
gather information that will
* * * shape the strategy the organizer will use later in
the campaign to threaten or actually apply the economic
pressure necessary to cause the employer to * * * raise his
prices to recoup additional costs, scale back his business,
leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business, * * *
The International Vice President of the United Food and Commercial
Workers Union has been quoted as saying that:
If we can't organize them, the best thing to do is erode
their business as much as possible.
That is what we are facing. The balance of rights must be restored
between employers, employees, and labor organizations. The Truth in
Employment Act seeks to do this by inserting a provision in the
National Labor Relations Act establishing that an employer is not
required to employ a person seeking employment for the primary purpose
of furthering the objectives of an organization other than that
employer. Furthermore, this legislation will continue to allow
employees to organize and engage in activities designed to be protected
by the National Labor Relations Act.
This measure is not intended to undermine those legitimate rights or
protections that employees have had. Employers will gain no ability to
discriminate against union membership or activities. This bill only
seeks to stop the destructive practice of salting. Salting abuses must
be curtailed if we are to protect the small business owners of this
Nation. This legislation will ensure these protections are possible.
I am glad that Senator Nickles, Senator Warner, Senator Mack, Senator
Kyl, Senator Brownback, Senator Cochran, Senator Roberts, Senator
Hatch, Senator Gorton, Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, Senator Allard,
Senator Sessions, Senator Faircloth, and the majority leader, Senator
Lott, have joined as original cosponsors of this legislation.
It is for these reasons I am introducing the Truth in Employment Act.
I ask more of my colleagues to support this bill and restore fairness
to the American workplace.
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. 328
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 ``Truth in Employment Act of
1997''.
SEC. 2 FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in labor-management
relationships is essential to a productive workplace and a
healthy economy.
(2) The tactic of using professional union organizers and
agents to infiltrate a targeted employer's workplace (a
practice commonly referred to as ``salting'') has evolved
into an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when
the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) was
enacted and threatens the balance of rights that is
fundamental to the collective bargaining system of the United
States.
(3) Increasingly, union organizers are seeking employment
with nonunion employers not because of a desire to work for
such employers but primarily to organize the employees of
such employers or to inflict economic harm specifically
designed to put nonunion competitors out of business.
(4) While no employer may discriminate against employees
based upon the views of the employees concerning collective
bargaining, an employer should have the right to expect job
applicants to be primarily interested in utilizing the skills
of the applicants to further the goals of the business of the
employer.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to preserve the balance of rights between employers,
employees, and labor organizations that is fundamental to a
system of collective bargaining;
(2) to preserve the rights of employees to organize, or
otherwise engage in concerted activities protected under the
National Labor Relations Act; and
(3) to alleviate pressure on employers to hire individuals
who seek or gain employment in order to disrupt the workplace
of the employer or otherwise inflict economic harm designed
to put the employer out of business.
SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS.
Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
158(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following flush
sentence:
``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring
an employer to employ any person who seeks or has sought
employment with the employer in furtherance of the objectives
of an organization other than the employer.''.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. 329. A bill to provide that pay for Members of Congress shall be
reduced whenever total expenditures of the Federal Government exceed
total receipts in any fiscal year, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to reduce the salaries of Members of Congress by 10 percent for every
year that the budget remains out of balance or Congress fails to enact
a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Since the Senate is
currently debating a balanced budget to the Constitution, I think it is
an appropriate time to renew this legislation.
Mr. President, the Federal budget has been out of balance since 1969.
If you exclude trust fund surpluses--as some argue we should--then the
Federal Government has not had a surplus since the Kennedy
administration. Since that time, the on-budget deficit has risen from
$4 billion in 1961 to $26 billion in 1971, $74 billion in 1981, and
$321 billion in 1991. According to the CBO, despite recent
improvements, the deficit will continue to be a problem--over $200
billion per year out into the future.
Uninterrupted deficits mean rising debt and debt service costs. The
gross debt right now is over $5 trillion. By 2002, it will be over $6
trillion. At that time, as we all have been warned, interest payments
on the debt will be the largest single portion of the Federal budget. A
child born today faces close to $200,000 in extra taxes over his/her
lifetime just to pay interest on the Federal debt.
In other words, Mr. President, after 35 years of uninterrupted
presence, I
[[Page S1398]]
think we can call the Federal deficit an institution here in Washington
and admit that there's an institutional bias toward operating in the
red. The legislation I am reintroducing today would create an
institutional bias in the other direction--toward balance.
Specifically, the bill provides that the salary of Members of
Congress be reduced by 10 percent whenever the Federal Government is
unable to balance the budget at the close of a fiscal year. It further
provides that such a reduced salary level remain in effect until the
Government is successful in achieving a balanced budget. The bill's
requirements would sunset, however, upon passage of a balanced budget
constitutional amendment by both Houses of the Congress.
Mr. President, I believe it is a fundamental responsibility of
Government to live within its means. Yet, Members of Congress find it
tempting to spend more money than they are willing to take from
taxpayers. On the one hand, they reap the benefits by pleasing their
constituents. On the other hand, they avoid displeasing the taxpayers
who have to foot the bill. In the end, it is future generations of
taxpayers who will pick up the tab.
Last Congress, we came close to reversing this destructive trend. We
came within one vote of adopting a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution, and we came within one Presidential veto of instituting a
plan to reduce spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget by the year
2002. As we all know, however, close does not count, and the debt we
impose upon our children continues to rise.
For that reason, I will continue to fight for a balanced budget
constitutional amendment and I will continue to work as a member of the
Budget Committee to enact a balanced budget plan. Until either of these
initiatives is adopted, however, I will continue to propose holding
Members collectively responsible for year-end deficits by reducing
their pay.
Mr. President, as I said last year, the Congressional Fiscal Policy
Act of 1997 is not a panacea for our current fiscal problems. However,
until such time as a balanced budget amendment is placed into the
Constitution, it would effect a small but potentially important step
toward more responsible Government.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Conrad,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Daschle):
S. 331. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide a
minimum allocation of highway funds for States that have low population
densities and comprise large geographic areas; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a
piece of legislation on behalf of myself, Senator Kempthorne, Senator
Bingaman, Senator Conrad, Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, Senator
Thomas, and Senator Daschle.
At the conclusion of my remarks I will send a copy of the bill and
the statement to the desk.
Mr. President, we will have in this Congress a lot of debates about a
lot of issues. One of them that will be very interesting and have great
consequence will be the issue of reauthorizing the highway bill. And
the question of how much money is available to which States and under
what conditions will the money be available to build, to construct, and
to maintain highways, roads, and bridges across our country. And to
some that may seem like kind of a dull uninteresting subject. But the
development, the building, and the maintenance of highways and bridges
is critically important to regions of our country. It determines where
people live, and where people can travel. It determines economic
development, jobs and opportunity.
I come from a rural State. I recognize that there will be a formula
fight, as there always is--a formula fight about how to apportion the
highway dollars, and who gets what. I do not intend to take sides
between one big State and another big State. But I come from a State
that is rather large in geography but small in population simply to say
that when all of the fighting is over we want to make certain that
States like North Dakota and others, where you have large expanses of
territory and relatively few people living in those States, are not
left out of this process.
Some may not understand the frame of reference to a North Dakota. Let
me describe it, if I might, as I begin talking about this bill.
I come from southwestern North Dakota, a town of 300 people, and
graduated from a high school class of 9. The county I come from is
called Hettinger County. The county next to Hettinger is Slope County,
a wonderful territory. Southwestern North Dakota is ranching country
with wonderful people. Slope County has fewer than 1,000 people. It is
a land mass the size the State of Rhode Island. Slope County is the
size of the State of Rhode Island but has fewer than 1,000 people.
There were a lot of births in Slope County last year. There were
7,900 calves born. There were 2,500 pigs born. There were about 1,500
lambs born. And there were seven children born in Slope County; seven
children born in Slope County, a land expanse the size of the State of
Rhode Island.
I have said--and I do it just I guess because it is obvious--that
there is not a lot of childbearing going on in the Medicare years. The
fact is that the average age of the population in counties like Slope
County, a rural county, is increasing, and there just are not a lot of
children born in those counties. In North Dakota, we have 11 counties
that are growing and 42 counties that are shrinking. Slope County is an
example of that.
I mention all of this to you for one reason. Roads are important. How
hard do you think it is to support road building or road maintenance in
a county that size with so few people? I can say the same thing about
Hettinger County not only in North Dakota, but in South Dakota, New
Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, and other States as well. It is very hard
with a small population base and a lot of miles of road to support them
with our current circumstance.
As we have a fight about highway funding here in the Congress--and
the fight is a big-stakes fight over billions and tens of billions of
dollars to be sliced up and divided between 50 States, and the big
States have an enormous amount of money at stake, New York, Florida,
California, and others--an enormous amount of money is at stake for
these States. I am going to be someone who helps move this along by
saying that I think highway building, highway maintenance, highway
construction, and bridge repair is very important for our country's
future. We must rebuild our country's infrastructure. We must pay
attention to these kinds of things. All you have to do is go to some
less-developed country and drive the first mile and understand how
important infrastructure is and what we have here versus what they have
in many other areas of the world.
But much of our infrastructure is in trouble, and we must reauthorize
a highway funding bill that gives us the resources across this country
to rebuild our infrastructure.
How do we divide up the money? Well, that then becomes part of this
formula fight. How much does one State get versus another?
There are about eight States in this country where you have a large
land mass, and only a few people. That makes it very difficult for the
few people living in those States to maintain the network of highways
necessary. Why is it necessary? It is necessary for the country. It is
necessary for an entire transportation system.
You can imagine perhaps President Eisenhower sitting at the White
House probably having Speaker Rayburn down to talk about his idea of an
Interstate Highway System across our country connecting various parts
of our country. And, if someone in that meeting when they talked about
building an interstate highway program had said, ``Well, gee, how could
you conceivably support building a four-lane, expensive interstate
highway that goes among other places from Fargo, ND, in the east and
exits at Beach, ND, in the west as it enters Montana, for the number of
people it serves in North Dakota, how on Earth could this country
justify that investment in the interstate highway program?'' the answer
was simple. It was a national program. And the fact that you build a
highway across a State with low populations such as North Dakota means
that frozen fish and fresh fruit move from Boston to Seattle, not
across gravel roads
[[Page S1399]]
in the center of the country because there are only a few people living
there, but across an interstate highway system that is part of a
national network of highways and roads that are important for our
entire country. That is the purpose of all of it this.
Those of us that come from the less-densely populated States drive a
lot. Gas taxes mean a lot to us. The price of gasoline means a lot to
us. In North Dakota, for example, we drive exactly twice as much per
person as they do in New York.
Why? Well, if you are going to go someplace in North Dakota, it is
not two blocks to the hospital. It might be 50 miles to the hospital.
It might not be a block and a half to a movie. It might be 10 miles or
15 miles from the farmstead to the small town with a theater.
The fact is we drive just almost exactly twice as much in North
Dakota per person as they do in New York City. Therefore, per person we
pay twice as much in highway taxes as they do, for example, in New York
City or the State of New York. Is that unfair, unfortunate? Probably
unfortunate. We do not like that necessarily, but we choose where we
live.
The point I am making with that is that in terms of burden, we have a
very substantial burden with respect to highway taxes. Our burden is
much higher than the burden per person in other States.
The contribution to the Federal highway trust fund in terms of gas
taxes by the average North Dakotan is $116 a year; the average Florida
resident, $73; Massachusetts, $61; Rhode Island, $55, and the list goes
down. We are fourth from the top in per person contribution to the
Federal highway trust fund.
Some will come to this floor in all of this fight about money and
they will say, well, there are donor States and donee States, and the
donor States are the ones that pay more into the highway trust fund
than they get back and that ought to change; it is unfair. The donee
States are the recipient States and they are the ones that get more
back than they paid in and they ought not to.
That is one way of looking at it. I suppose if you want to look at
that in the context of funding the Coast Guard, we do not have any
coast to guard up in North Dakota so whatever our taxpayers in North
Dakota are paying into the Federal Government for the purpose of
running a Coast Guard, I suppose we are a donor State. We are a donor
State for the Coast Guard. But so what. That is not the way you ought
to measure this, nor should you measure it that way from a highway
funding standpoint. Measure it in terms of what citizens are having to
contribute to the highway trust funds relative to the amount of driving
they are doing and the amount of tax they are having to pay, and what
you will see is a State such as North Dakota is right near the top.
A group of us who come from States similarly situated, States with
very large expanses of land and not as many people, and therefore not
having the tax base to raise the funds necessary to meet the needs of
road maintenance and road building and bridge making, and so on, want
to be a part of this debate on the reauthorization of ISTEA or the
highway reauthorization bill in a manner that says the following. We
want at the end of this discussion for these eight States that are
situated in this manner not to be a part of the juggling between the
formula fights that will go on on this floor from time to time this
year on highway funding, but instead to be a part of a solution that
says with respect to those States with unique circumstances, we will
provide a guarantee that those States will receive what they have
received in the past in terms of the percentage of the highway funds
that have gone to these eight States with large expanses of land, many
miles of highway to maintain and a lower population base, and in
addition to that we will have a highway preservation fund of 1
percent--1 percent out of 100 percent of the money that is available--
to be put in a pool to be distributed back to those eight States on a
need basis to preserve those highways, roads and bridges, build and
maintain and preserve that infrastructure in those eight States that
face this unique challenge and face these unique circumstances.
That is all we say in this legislation--two things. One, North
Dakota's share, for example, of the current formula is about .62 of 1
percent. North Dakota and the other seven States would be guaranteed
that allocation at the end of the reauthorization bill for the coming
years, plus we would be the recipients on a need basis of a pool equal
to 1 percent of the highway fund that would then be reallocated on a
need basis to the eight States that face these special and unique
challenges.
There are a number of us, 16 Senators specifically that come from
these 8 States, who have already cosponsored this legislation. I hope
others will. And when we do, I hope we will be able to make a case to
the rest of the Congress that we want to be helpful to others. We want
to be helpful to all of those who believe there ought to be a robust
highway funding program, that funding for it ought to be certain, that
funding for it ought to be adequate to meet the needs in this country
and we are prepared to support that. But that when the larger formula
fights are completed, those eight States, uniquely situated, the eight
States which include North Dakota, situated in a circumstance where
their population base does not allow them to raise the resources to
meet their infrastructure and transportation needs, they will be dealt
with in a fair and equitable way. That is what our legislation does. It
is what it would provide. And we hope that when this is over at the end
of this Congress, we will look back and say we did something that was
important for our States.
I want to mention one additional point. Some say let us not have a
Federal highway program anymore. Let us abolish the Federal gas tax,
and then say to the States, you go ahead and raise your own money. All
that I have been discussing so far describes the unique problem we have
raising our own money with a large road network to deal with and a
smaller population base. If we were required under a program like that,
a devolution of the highway program, saying we will not have a Federal
program, let us let the States do it, and therefore a State like North
Dakota, we were told, you go ahead and raise this yourself, just to
meet the current revenue stream we now have from the Federal highway
program in North Dakota, we would be required to raise the current
State gas tax by 27 cents per gallon simply to replace the revenue the
State currently receives. Other States would not fare the same way.
Other States would be able to decide they could raise their gas tax at
the State level by a very small amount of money.
For example, Florida would have to raise their State gas tax 11 cents
to raise the amount of money they now have under their road program. So
when you take a look at the impact and the burden on taxpayers here,
that approach, the devolution approach, saying let us not have a
Federal highway program, let us tell the States raise your own money by
your own gas tax, would say to Florida, you raise your gas tax by 11
cents, and would say to North Dakota, you raise yours by 27 cents.
That is the inequity of it. That moves us away from the notion that
highways represent a national need, that transportation is a national
system and is part of a unifying force in this country that we have
always felt should work to meet our country's universal needs, and that
includes especially the area of transportation.
Mr. President, this year the Congress will be debating the
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
[ISTEA]. Some have focused the debate around the question of the ratio
between how much States receive in highway funding related to what they
pay in. However, framing the debate around the donor verses donee State
concept fails to address the real issues in the reauthorization of
ISTEA: that is, how do we allocate resources to maintain a national
transportation system and ensure that all States have the necessary
resources to participate in that system. If the heavily populated
States want to ship their frozen fish and fresh fruit from coast to
coast in trucking convoys, they don't want to be shipping it on gravel
roads in parts of the country where the local tax base is not
sufficient to maintain a national network of good roads. It is in the
interest of all Americans to have a national network. That is why the
[[Page S1400]]
donor verses donee formula fights are so counterproductive.
If we are interested in maintaining a national transportation system,
the question should be how do we allocate resources to meet all the
Nation's highway needs. This includes meeting the unique needs of rural
States with low-density populations and large geographic areas. If
there is a national need, there's a national responsibility and we
ought not to have formula fights in ways that hurt small population
States with large networks of highways to maintain.
I am not a bit uncomfortable that North Dakota receives more money
back in highway funding than it sends into the highway trust fund
through gas taxes. In fact, if measured on a per capita basis, North
Dakota is actually one of the highest contributors to the Federal
highway trust fund. Some of the so-called ``donor States'' contribute
has as much in gas taxes per capita than many of the ``donee States''
contribute. That happens because we have a small population and are
required to maintain a large highway system on a small local tax base.
Without a Federal program to make up for scarce local resources in low-
density States, we could not have a national network of highways.
Those who frame the debate as one between donor or donee States beg
the question as to why does this notion only apply to highway funding.
Should we treat all transportation programs the same way? Why single
out only highway funding? Why not apply the same ``return to the
states'' approach for mass transit, disaster relief for hurricanes and
earthquakes, or the Airport Improvement Program? Should the same
principle be applied to funding the Coast Guard and the Maritime
Administration whose services are almost entirely used by coastal
States? We don't have much of a Coast Guard in North Dakota, but our
taxpayers still help pay for it. Thus, North Dakota is a donor State
when it comes to these programs. Why should landlocked States support
these programs?
The reason is simple--we have a national economy, not a State-by-
State economy. If such approach were adopted, it would represent a
dramatic abandonment from the basic principle that has been vital to
our national economic and social well being: a quality national
transportation system. And that is why the debate about the
reauthorization of ISTEA must meet the unique needs of rural States.
A network of efficient and well-maintained roads in rural areas is
just as important to densely population urban centers that export
products across the country as the roads are to middle America.
We need a national transportation system that reflects a commitment
to all regions of the Nation as the principle priority. To do this,
highway funding formulas must provide for the unique needs of every
region. Currently, the needs of States with small populations but that
maintain highways for large geographic areas are not reflected under
ISTEA formulas and this ought to be changed. ISTEA formulas need to
reflect the needs of the national system and the unique circumstances
of various geographic regions. While major urban areas need support for
relieving congestion and heavy traffic loads, rural States with low
populations need additional assistance to maintain long stretches of
roads with smaller local tax bases.
Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to ensure that rural
States with low-density populations and large geographic land areas get
an adequate share of Federal support under the Federal Aid to Highways
Program. There are two major provisions under this legislation. First,
low-density States with large geographic land areas will be held
harmless under the same percentage distribution of total highway funds
as they received under ISTEA. In addition, these same States would
qualify for a rural State adjustment, which would be established by
setting aside 1 percent of the total highway program for rural States.
These funds would be distributed by a formula that takes into account
the number of National Highway System [NHS] miles of road in a
qualifying State and the number of NHS vehicle miles traveled in that
State. Certainly, this legislation does not resolve the matter as to
how Federal highway funds will be distributed to all States. Rather,
this bill only focuses on one aspect of the picture--that is, it
emphasizes the unique circumstances of a small number of States that
ought to have their needs recognized in the final formula.
Those of us from rural States are not suggesting that all we care
about is meeting our unique needs. Much to the contrary. We desire to
work cooperatively with all our colleagues to develop a strong and
effective highway bill that meets the needs of all regions. Our
objective is to have a fair formula that ensures that our Nation
maintains a truly national system. To that end, we pledge our good
faith and determination to develop the best reauthorization of ISTEA
possible.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kempthorne, Senator Conrad, and
I in supporting this legislation. It is our hope that the Congress will
succeed this year in passing a strong reauthorization of ISTEA and
hopefully, that legislation will reflect the concerns raised in the
bill we are introducing today.
So, Mr. President, I am sending the legislation to the desk, and I
hope in the coming week or so to add cosponsors to the legislation. I
hope when the debate occurs on the reauthorization of the highway
program, the ideas embodied in this bipartisan piece of legislation
will be ideas that we will see incorporated in the final legislation
passed by this Congress.
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. 331
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 ``Rural States Highway
Preservation Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) a national surface transportation system that includes
a national network of highways and that provides for
efficient and safe interstate travel in every State is vital
to the economic and social wellbeing of the United States;
(2) Federal policy for allocating resources to maintain an
efficient and safe national surface transportation system
should reflect the unique needs and circumstances of each
State's ability to participate in the transportation system;
(3) low-density States that comprise large geographic land
areas--
(A) bear unique financial burdens in maintaining their
share of the national surface transportation system; and
(B) typically support higher per-mile costs of maintaining
highways and contribute more per capita to the Highway Trust
Fund than other States;
(4) many rural States have to maintain large highway
systems, which provide interstate access between major
population centers, but have small local populations to
support their highways;
(5) since the approval and implementation of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, many rural States along the
northern border of the United States have experienced
increased use of, and demands on, their share of the national
surface transportation system due to increased international
trade activities;
(6) Federal funding for surface transportation should
include adjustments that reflect reasonable and appropriate
resource allocations to ensure that rural, low-density States
that comprise large geographic land areas can adequately
participate in the national surface transportation system;
and
(7) contributions from all States permit the Federal
Government to provide support for essential intermodal
national priorities, such as a national system of highways,
mass transit, maritime activities, airports and air service,
and passenger rail service.
SEC. 3. MINIMUM HIGHWAY FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR CERTAIN TYPES
OF STATES.
Section 157(a)(4) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``In fiscal'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--In fiscal''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Low-density, large-geographic-area states.--
``(i) Definition of eligible state.--In this subparagraph,
the term `eligible State' means a State that--
``(I) has a population density of less than 20 individuals
per square mile; and
``(II) comprises a land area of 10,000 square miles or
more.
``(ii) Historical apportionments.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, for fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal
year thereafter, the Secretary shall increase the amount of
funds that, but for this clause, would be apportioned to an
eligible State
[[Page S1401]]
under section 104(b)(3) so that each eligible State receives
not less of the apportioned and allocated funds described in
section 1015(a)(1) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 104 note; 105 Stat. 1943)
(as in effect on October 1, 1996) than the percentage listed
for the State in section 1015(a)(2) of that Act (as in effect
on October 1, 1996).
``(iii) Set-aside.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, on October 1 of fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year
thereafter, the Secretary shall--
``(I) before making any funds available out of the Highway
Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for the
fiscal year, set aside from the amounts authorized to be
appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the
Mass Transit Account) for the fiscal year an amount equal to
1 percent of the funds that were made available out of the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for
the preceding fiscal year;
``(II) after making any increase for an eligible State
necessary to carry out clause (ii), allocate 50 percent of
the amount set aside under subclause (I) among eligible
States in the ratio that--
``(aa) the number of miles of highways on the National
Highway System in the eligible State; bears to
``(bb) the number of miles of highways on the National
Highway System in all eligible States; and
``(III) after making any increase for an eligible State
necessary to carry out clause (ii), allocate 50 percent of
the amount set aside under subclause (I) among eligible
States in the ratio that--
``(aa) the number of vehicle miles traveled on the National
Highway System in the eligible State during the latest 1-
year-period for which data are available; bears to
``(bb) the number of vehicle miles traveled on the National
Highway System in all eligible States during the latest 1-
year-period for which data are available.''.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I might say to my friend from North Dakota
that he raises a most important issue, and it is obviously one that we
are going to have a tremendous tug-of-war on around here. It is my
hope, representing a State with very old infrastructure and with
enormous public works projects, a very large population in an urban
area, that as we approach this we are not going to get dragged into a
fractionalized, regionalized, State-versus-State, haves-versus-have-
nots issue. But, rather, that we are going to think this through in
terms of the overall needs of the Nation which he has appropriately
addressed with respect to his State and his region. I think the key
here is to make sure we come out with an adequate amount of
infrastructure investment for the country as a whole and with an
appropriate division of that. I certainly intend to work with him and
others, but I think we need to guarantee that.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the
Rural States Highway Preservation Act. This is an act that would ensure
fairness in the distribution of funds from the Highway Trust Fund. But
more importantly, Mr. President, this bill ensures that we continue our
commitment to maintain a national transportation system, that in doing
so, we meet all the Nation's transportation needs and, just as
importantly, the unique needs of our States that have small populations
and very large geographic areas, States such as New Mexico, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Alaska, Nevada, Montana, and Wyoming.
My home State of New Mexico has only 14 people per square mile and
its total land area is 121,335 square miles. Residents of large, rural
States like New Mexico pay more per person in gas taxes because of the
long driving distances. It is not uncommon for New Mexicans to travel
50 or more miles to their nearest large town or country seat, where
they have to go to get essential supplies, health care, school, or
interact with their government. To maintain this infrastructure, New
Mexicans currently pay one of the highest per capita State taxes to
maintain the same highways used by interstate trucks or the tourists
who visit our beautiful State. Under any eventual ISTEA reauthorization
that does not address these unique characteristics, New Mexico and
similar States would lose highway funding that it could never recover.
Under devolution, for example, New Mexico would have to impose at least
a 17.8-cent gas tax just to generate the same revenue as it received
from the Highway Trust Fund in 1995. Such a proposal would be
devastating not only for our residents, but for the many trucks that
cross our State, and for the increasing traffic between Mexico and the
United States. Such a proposal would impair new Mexico's highways, but
because we are but one part of a national transportation system, it
would impair our national system.
The Rural States Highway Preservation Act would ensure that
transportation funds that will be distributed under a reauthorized
ISTEA will be done fairly, with consideration to the uniqueness of
States with low population density and high geographic area, and with
our national transportation needs as a priority.
Thank you, Mr. President.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dorgan,
Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Levin):
S. 332. A bill to prohibit the importation of goods produced abroad
with child labor, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE CHILD LABOR DETERRENCE ACT OF 1997
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Child Labor
Deterrence Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today prohibits the
importation of any product made, whole or in part, by children under
the age of 15 who are employed in manufacturing or mining. This is the
fourth time I have come to the floor of the Senate to introduce this
bill, and I will continue to introduce it until it becomes law.
Mr. President, recently, the International Labor Organization [ILO]
released a very grim report about the number of children who toil away
in abhorrent conditions. The ILO estimates that over 200 million
children worldwide under the age of 15 are working instead of receiving
a basic education. Many of these children begin working in factories at
the age of 6 or 7, some even younger. They are poor, malnourished, and
often forced to work 60-hour weeks for little or no pay.
Child labor is most prevalent in countries with high unemployment
rates. According to the ILO, some 61 percent of child workers, nearly
153 million children, are found in Asia; 32 percent, or 80 million, are
in Africa and 7 percent, or 17.5 million, live in Latin America. Adult
unemployment rates in some nations runs over 20 percent. In Latin
America, for example, about 1 in every 10 children are workers.
Furthermore, in many nations where child labor is prevalent, more money
is spent and allocated for military expenditures than for education and
health services.
The situation is as deplorable as it is enormous. In many developing
countries children represent a substantial part of the work force and
can be found in such industries as rugs, toys, textiles, mining, and
sports equipment manufacturing.
For instance, it is estimated that 65 percent of the wearing apparel
that Americans purchase is assembled or manufactured abroad, therefore,
increasing the chance that these items were made by abusive and
exploitative child labor. In the rug industry, Indian and Pakistan
produce 95 percent of their rugs for export. Some of the worst abuses
of child labor have been documented in these countries, including
bonded and slave labor.
Venezuela and Colombia exported $6,084,705 and $1,385,669 worth of
mined products respectively to the United States in 1995. Both were
documented by the Department of Labor as using child labor in mining.
Mining hazards for children include exposure to harmful dusts, gases,
and fumes that cause respiratory diseases that can develop into
silicosis, pulmonary fibrosis, asbestosis and emphysema after some
years of exposure. Child miners also suffer from physical strain,
fatigue and musculoskeletal disorders, as well as serious injuries from
falling objects.
Children may also be crippled physically by being forced to work too
early in life. For example, a large scale ILO survey in the Philippines
found that more than 60 percent of working children were exposed to
chemical and biological hazards, and that 40 percent experienced
serious injuries or illnesses.
These practices are often underground, but the ILO report points out
that children are still being sold outright for a sum of money. Other
times, landlords buy child workers from their tenants, or labor
contractors pay rural families in advance in order to take their
children away to work in carpet weaving, glass manufacturing or
prostitution. Child slavery of this type has long been reported in
South Asia,
[[Page S1402]]
South East Asia and West Africa, despite vigorous official denial of
its existence.
Additionally, children are increasingly being bought and sold across
national borders by organized networks. The ILO report states that at
least five such international networks trafficking in children exist:
from Latin America to Europe and the Middle East; from South and South
East Asia to northern Europe and the Middle East; a European regional
market; an associated Arab regional market; and, a West Africa export
market in girls.
In Pakistan, the ILO reported in 1991 that an estimated half of the
50,000 children working as bonded labor in Pakistan's carpet-weaving
industry will never reach the age of 12--victims of disease and
malnutrition.
I have press reports from India of children freed from virtual
slavery in the carpet factories of northern India. Twelve-year-old
Charitra Chowdhary recounted his story--he said, ``If we moved slowly
we were beaten on our backs with a stick. We wanted to run away but the
doors were always locked.''
Mr. President, that's what this bill is about, children, whose dreams
and childhood are being sold for a pittance--to factory owners and in
markets around the globe.
It is about protecting children around the globe and their future. It
is about eliminating a major form of child abuse in our world. It is
about breaking the cycle of poverty by getting these kids out of
factories and into schools. It is about raising the standard of living
in the Third World so we can compete on the quality of goods instead of
the misery and suffering of those who make them. It is about assisting
Third World governments to enforce their laws by ending the role of the
United States in providing a lucrative market for goods made by abusive
and exploitative child labor and encouraging other nations to do the
same.
Mr. President, unless the economic exploitation of children is
eliminated, the potential and creative capacity of future generations
will forever be lost to the factory floor.
Mr. President, the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1997 is intended to
strengthen existing U.S. trade laws and help Third World countries
enforce their child labor laws. The bill directs the U.S. Secretary of
Labor to compile and maintain a list of foreign industries and their
respective host countries that use child labor in the production of
exports to the United States. Once the Secretary of Labor identifies a
foreign industry, the Secretary of the Treasury is instructed to
prohibit the importation of a product from an identified industry. The
entry ban would not apply if a U.S. importer signs a certificate of
origin affirming that they took reasonable steps to ensure that
products imported from identified industries are not made by child
labor. In addition, the President is urged to seek an agreement with
other governments to secure an international ban on trade in the
products of child labor. Further, any company or individual who would
intentionally violate the law would face both civil and criminal
penalties.
This legislation is not about imposing our standards on the
developing world. It's about preventing those manufacturers in the
developing world who exploit child labor from imposing their standards
on the United States. They are forewarned. If manufacturers and
importers insist on investing in child labor, instead of investing in
the future of children, I will work to assure that their products are
barred from entering the United States.
Mr. President, as I said when I first introduced this bill 4 years
ago, it is time to end this human tragedy and our participation in it.
It is time for greater government and corporate responsibility. No
longer can officials in the Third World or U.S. importers turn a blind
eye to the suffering and misery of the world's children. No longer do
American consumers want to provide a market for goods produced by the
sweat and toil of children. By providing a market for goods produced by
child labor, U.S. importers have become part of the problem by
perpetuating the impoverishment of poor families. Through this
legislation, importers now have the opportunity to become part of the
solution by ending this abominable practice.
Mr. President, countries do not have to wait until poverty is
eradicated or they are fully developed before eliminating the economic
exploitation of children. In fact, the path to development is to
eliminate child labor and increase expenditures on children such as
primary education. In far too many countries, governments spend
millions on military expenditures and fail to provide basic educational
opportunities to its citizens. As a result, over 130 million children
are not in primary school.
In conclusion, Mr. President, my bill places no undue burden on U.S.
importers. I know of no importer, company, or department store that
would willingly promote the exploitation of children. I know of no
importer, company, or department store that would want their products
and image tainted by having their products produced by child labor. And
I know that no American consumer would knowingly purchase something
made with abusive and exploitative child labor. These entities take
reasonable steps to ensure the quality of their goods; they should also
be willing to take reasonable steps to ensure that their goods are not
produced by child labor.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 333. A bill to increase the period of availability of certain
emergency relief funds allocated under section 125 of title 23, United
States Code, to carry out a project to repair or reconstruct a portion
of a Federal-aid primary route in San Mateo, CA.
THE DEVIL'S SLIDE TUNNEL ACT
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Devil's
Slide Tunnel Act to allow previously appropriated funds to be used for
a tunnel project in San Mateo County, CA. This bill is essentially a
technical change to a 1984 emergency spending bill to provide relief
for heavy winter storms that occurred during the winter of 1982-83.
These rains caused a mountain mud slide to block the use of California
Highway 1, a key coastal highway linking San Mateo County to San
Francisco.
This section of highway has become known as Devil's Slide because it
crosses a sea cliff 600 feet above the Pacific Ocean surf about 12
miles south of San Francisco. Perennial closures because of mud slides
have cut off coastal communities, particularly access to emergency
services during disasters as well as to local businesses. Congress
approved the supplemental appropriations for permanent repair after
exhaustive study, including field hearings by the House Surface
Transportation Subcommittee.
The California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] made temporary
repairs and proposed a bypass construction. The bypass was opposed by
environmental interests and construction was blocked in court for
years. This battle fortunately ended in November when voters
overwhelming approved a referendum calling for construction of a mile-
long tunnel as a project alternative.
Congressman Tom Lantos has introduced legislation in the House to
carry out the voters' request. I am introducing an identical bill. Our
legislation simply amends the law to allow for previously appropriated
funds to be used for a project alternative and that the amount is
available until expended.
It is time that we fix this dangerous highway section that threatens
many people's lives and livelihoods. I urge my colleagues to join me
and take swift action to allow the project alternative to proceed.
I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 333
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 ``Devil's Slide Tunnel Act''.
SEC. 2. PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY.
Section 6 of the Act entitled ``An Act to apportion certain
funds for construction of the National System of Interstate
and Defense Highways for fiscal year 1985 and to increase the
amount authorized to be expended for emergency relief under
title 23, United States Code, and for other purposes'',
approved March 9, 1984 (98 Stat. 55), is amended--
[[Page S1403]]
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``A
project''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Availability of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, sums that are allocated under section 3 for
any project alternative selected under this section before,
on, or after the date of enactment of this subsection shall
remain available until expended.''.
______
By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 334. A bill to amend section 541 of the National Housing Act with
respect to the partial payment of claims on health care facilities; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
partial payment of claims legislation
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that makes a
small but significant change in the hospital mortgage program and the
nursing home mortgage program administered by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. The Section 242 Program, as it is known, enables
HUD to guarantee to private lenders that they will not lose money on a
construction loan to a hospital. If the hospital cannot make its
payments, HUD will assume the mortgage. The program insures loans for
renovation, modernization, and new construction, and also covers the
refinancing of existing mortgages. The Section 232 program does the
same for nursing home projects.
In August, 1995 the portfolio included 100 projects in 18 States. It
is particularly important in New York where State regulations require
hospitals to secure such insurance and where construction costs are
high. Further, because New York is deregulating its hospitals, in the
next few years the hospitals need as much flexibility as possible,
including the ability to refinance existing debt. The program will be
more important than ever.
Ensuring hospital mortgages may seem to be a risky venture, but this
program is successful. Since 1969 it has made a net contribution to the
government of $221 million through fees it charges the hospitals, and
in only three years has it had a negative net cash flow. The most
recent was 1991.
The bill I am offering today would strengthen the program by giving
HUD partial payment of claims authority. Currently, if a hospital or
nursing home cannot make a mortgage payment, HUD must assume the entire
mortgage at considerable cost and administrative effort. Partial
payment of claims would prevent this. If, for example, a hospital owes
a $10 million payment and only has $6 million available, HUD would
simply provide the $4 million shortfall. There would be no requirement
nor necessity of assuming the mortgage.
HUD already has partial payment of claims authority in most of its
other mortgage insurance programs, such as the multifamily housing
program, and it works well. There is no reason for the Agency not to
have this authority in the hospital and the nursing home program, and
in fact it makes eminent sense.
My friend and colleague, Senator D'Amato, joins me as a cosponsor of
this bill. I ask my other colleagues to join us in supporting this
bill.
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. 334
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PARTIAL PAYMENT OF CLAIMS ON HEALTH CARE
FACILITIES.
Section 541(a) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1735f-19) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by adding ``and health care
facilities'' at the end; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``or a health care facility (including a
nursing home, intermediate care facility, or board and care
home (as those terms are defined in section 232)), a hospital
(as that term is defined in section 242), or a group practice
facility (as that term is defined in section 1106))'' after
``1978''; and
(B) by inserting ``or for keeping the health care facility
operational to serve community needs,'' after ``character of
the project,''.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hollings, Mr.
Faircloth, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Helms, Mr. Coats, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Shelby, Mr. Bond, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hutchinson,
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Robb, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Cleland and Mr. Grams):
S. 335. A bill to authorize funds for construction of highways, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
THE STEP-21 ISTEA INTEGRITY RESTORATION ACT
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by
Senator Bob Graham and so many of my colleagues in introducing the
STEP-21, ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act, to reauthorize our Nation's
surface transportation programs.
The current legislation--commonly known as ISTEA--expires on
September 30 of this year. New legislation must be passed for our
States and local governments to receive any transportation funds on the
beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1.
Mr President, my bill presents a regionally balanced, multimodal
approach for establishing a new transportation policy that will
successfully carry us into the 21st century.
STEP-21 is a 5-year authorization bill that maintains a strong
Federal role in transportation. It responds to the mobility and
accessibility needs of all Americans to a modern and safe
transportation system. It provides the resources and policies necessary
for our American products to compete in a global marketplace. And, we
continue the guiding principles of ISTEA committed to a system that is
economically efficient and environmentally sound.
Our STEP-21 proposal is grounded in two fundamental principles--
funding equity and a streamlined program.
Already much attention has focused on the regional disparities in the
funding distribution formulas. But, our legislation recognizes that all
regions of the Nation have important transportation needs. We are
committed to devising a program that--for the first time--responds to
our transportation demands using current needs information. In doing
so, we provide a program that acknowledges that sparsely populated
States with large land areas or States with small populations cannot go
it alone. We are committed to continuing a national transportation
system--to provide effective connections among the States. I believe
the needs of these States must be addressed and we do so in our
legislation.
STEP-21 has a much broader focus than just the single issue of
funding distribution.
STEP-21 moves us beyond the advances of ISTEA with further
streamlining of the current bureaucratic maze of Federal programs. We
reduce the number of program categories, thus increasing the
flexibility permitted for our State and local partners to determine
their own transportation priorities.
STEP-21 also continues and builds upon the many successes of ISTEA.
Mr. President, this legislation maintains our national focus on
multimodal solutions to moving people and goods efficiently.
We continue the flexibility of State and local decisionmakers to
invest their resources in nonhighway alternatives--such as transit or
commuter rail options.
We continue the important role of metropolitan planning organizations
and their need to have an identified funding source.
We recognize a full and open planning process that stimulates public
participation at both the State and local level will foster
transportation solutions that respond to larger community goals.
We provide a program that is environmentally sound, recognizing that
transportation plays an important part in our national goal to improve
the quality of the air we breathe. States can continue to invest in
those transportation choices that move people and goods without
degrading air quality. The enhancements program that invests in
alternative forms of transportation--bike paths and pedestrian
walkways--and mitigates the impacts of past transportation choices on
our communities quality of life will be continued.
In brief, STEP-21 ensures that we have a national multimodal
transportation policy that is ready to meet the economic demands of a
global marketplace. It provides solutions to the regional disparities
of the current program and the Federal second-guessing of State and
local transportation
[[Page S1404]]
choices. It does not retreat from the principles of ISTEA to provide
for an open decisionmaking process permitting States and localities to
invest in different modes of transportation.
______
By Mr. SARBANES:
S. 336. A bill to convert certain excepted service positions in the
United States Fire Administration to competitive service positions, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
u.s. fire administration legislation
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation to convert eight remaining excepted service positions at
the U.S. Fire Administration to competitive service status.
During its first few years of operation, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency used an excepted service authority provided under the
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 in order to quickly staff the
National Fire Academy with personnel who were uniquely qualified in
fire education.
In the early 1980's, after the Academy's original vacancies had been
filled and the Academy was up and running, it became FEMA's policy to
fill openings at the NFA through a competitive civil service hiring
system. Today, 91 of the NFA's 99 employees are under the general
schedule with only eight employees who were hired in the 1970's and
early eighties remaining in excepted service status. As a result, these
remaining eight are subject to significant limitations within the USFA.
Although they each average over 17 years of Federal service and were
hired solely because of their strong backgrounds and unique
qualifications in fire education, they are legally barred from
competing for management positions within the Fire Administration. The
remaining eight excepted service employees are not even allowed to
serve on details to competitive service jobs--even within their own
organization--without an official waiver from the Office of Personnel
Management.
Mr. President, I am proposing to remedy this situation. The
legislation which I am introducing will enable the Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management to convert any employees appointed to the Fire
Administration under the Federal Fire Protection and Control Act, to
competitive service--without any break in service, diminution of
service, reduction of cumulative years of service, or requirement to
serve any additional probationary period with the Administration. Those
converted under this legislation shall also remain in the Civil Service
Retirement System and retain their seniority. This practice is
consistent with other federally supported training academies. The
Congressional Budget Office has indicated that there would be no cost
for this conversion, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of
this legislation.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Abraham, Mr.
Nickles, and Mr. Helms):
S. 337. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to
restrict assistance to foreign organizations that perform or actively
promote abortions; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
the foreign assistance act of 1961 amendment act of 1997
Mr. HUTCHINSON. 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. 337
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN ORGANIZATIONS
THAT PERFORM OR ACTIVELY PROMOTE ABORTIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(h) Restriction on Assistance to Foreign Organizations
That Perform or Actively Promote Abortions.--
``(1) Performance of abortions.--
``(A) Restriction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds appropriated for population planning activities
under subsection (b) or other population assistance may be
made available for any foreign private, nongovernmental, or
multilateral organization until the organization certifies to
the President that it will not, during the period for which
the funds are made available, perform abortions in any
foreign country, except where the life of the mother would be
endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term or in cases
of forcible rape or incest.
``(B) Statutory construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A)
may be construed to apply to the treatment of injuries or
illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions or to
assistance provided directly to the government of a country.
``(2) Lobbying activities.--
``(A) Restriction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds appropriated for population planning activities
under subsection (b) or other population assistance may be
made available for any foreign private, nongovernmental, or
multilateral organization until the organization certifies to
the President that it will not, during the period for which
the funds are made available, violate the laws of any foreign
country concerning the circumstances under which abortion is
permitted, regulated, or prohibited, or engage in any
activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental policies
of any foreign country concerning the circumstances under
which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited, except
as provided in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
activities in opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization.
``(3) Application to subcontractors and subgrantees.--The
prohibitions of this subsection shall apply to funds made
available to a foreign organization either directly or as a
subcontractor or subgrantee, and the certifications required
by this subsection shall apply to activities in which the
organization engages either directly or through a
subcontractor or subgrantee.''.
(b) Appropriations Covered.--The amendment made by
subsection (a) shall apply to appropriations made before, on,
or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. Abraham, Mr. President: I rise to join my colleague, Senator
Hutchinson, as an original cosponsor of S. 337, his amendment to the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
This legislation, Mr. President, will subject our nation's funding of
international population control programs to appropriate restrictions,
seeing to it that American monies are not used to promote or perform
abortions.
In adopting this amendment we will continue our country's long
established policy of opposing the use of our taxpayer's money to fund
controversial procedures. First, this bill prohibits funding to any
foreign organization, whether nongovernmental, multilateral or private,
that performs or actively promotes abortion. Second, it prohibits
organizations receiving U.S. funds from violating any of the host
country's laws concerning abortion and from engaging in efforts to
alter the host country's abortion laws. There is an exception for
activities in opposition to coercive abortions or involuntary
sterilizations. Third, this legislation extends these prohibitions to
subcontractors and subgrantees of foreign organizations which receive
funding under the population assistance program.
I strongly support this legislation because I believe that it will be
insure that U.S.-funded population planning programs are administered
in an appropriate manner. By this I mean that they will abide by the
guidelines Congress laid down for 10 years, under both the Reagan and
the Bush administrations. S. 337 will continue our established practice
of protecting taxpayers from misuse of their funds and protecting
unborn children around the world. It is a worthy piece of legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Helms and
Mr. Robb:)
S. 339. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to revise the
requirements for procurement of products of Federal Prison Industries
to meet needs of Federal agencies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
THE FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the
Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. This bill,
which is cosponsored by Senators Abraham, Akaka, Helms, and Robb, would
implement the recommendation of the National Performance Review that we
should ``require [Federal Prison Industries] to compete commercially
for federal agencies' business'' instead of having a legally protected
monopoly. Our bill would ensure that the taxpayers get the best
possible value for their Federal procurement dollars. If a Federal
agency could get a better product at a lower
[[Page S1405]]
price from the private sector, it would be permitted to do so--and the
taxpayers would get the savings.
Mr. President, many in both Government and industry believe that FPI
products are frequently overpriced, inferior in quality, or both. For
example, I understand that the Veterans Administration has sought
repeal of FPI's mandatory preference on several occasions, on the
grounds that FPI pricing for textiles, furniture, and other products
are routinely higher than identical items purchased from commercial
sources. Most recently, VA officials estimated that the repeal of the
preference would save $18 million over a 4-year period for their agency
alone, making that money available for veterans services.
Similarly, the Deputy Commander of the Defense Logistics Agency,
wrote in a May 3, 1996, letter to Members of the House that FPI has had
a 42 percent delinquency rate in its clothing and textile deliveries,
compared to a 6 percent rate for commercial industry. For this record
of poor performance, FPI has charged prices that were an average of 13
percent higher than commercial prices.
On July 30, 1996, the master chief petty officer of the Navy
testified before the House National Security Committee that the FPI
monopoly on Government furniture contracts has undermined the Navy's
ability to improve living conditions for its sailors. Master Chief
Petty Officer John Hagan stated, and I quote:
In order to efficiently use our scarce resources, we need
congressional assistance in changing the Title 18 statute
that requires all the Services to obtain a waiver for each
and every furniture order not placed with the Federal Prison
Industry/UNICOR. * * * Speaking frankly, the FPI/UNICOR
product is inferior, costs more, and takes longer to procure.
UNICOR has, in my opinion, exploited their special status
instead of making changes which would make them more
efficient and competitive. The Navy and other Services need
your support to change the law and have FPI compete with GSA
furniture manufacturers. Without this change, we will not be
serving Sailors or taxpayers in the most effective and
efficient way.
In the last Congress this bill was supported by the National
Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
National Federation of Independent Business, the Business and
Industrial Furniture Manufacturers' Association, the American Apparel
Manufacturers' Association, the Industrial Fabrics Association
International, and the Competition in Contracting Act Coalition. It has
also received support from hundreds of small businesses from Michigan
and around the country that have seen FPI take jobs away from their
businesses and give them to FPI with a guaranteed purchase--regardless
of price and quality.
We all want to do what we can to ensure that we make constructive
work available for Federal prisoners, but the way we are doing it is
wrong. As one small businessman in the furniture industry put it in
emotional testimony at a House hearing last year:
Is it justice that Federal Prison Industries would step in
and take business away from a disabled Vietnam veteran who
was twice wounded fighting for our country and give that work
to criminals who have trampled on honest citizens' rights,
therefore effectively destroying and bankrupting that hero's
business which the Veteran's Administration suggested he
enter?
At the end of the last Congress, I received a letter indicating the
Administration's agreement that the process by which Federal agencies
purchase products from Federal Prison Industries needs to be reformed.
That letter states:
The Administration favors reform of Federal Prison
Industries to improve its customer service, pricing, and
delivery while not endangering its work program for Federal
inmates. * * * The Administration will present reform
proposals for the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in
the next session of Congress.
With this letter, the administration has promised to join us in a
serious reevaluation of the process by which Federal Prison Industries
sells its products to other Federal agencies. The heart of that process
is, of course, FPI's mandatory source status. The administration has
made a commitment to work with us on reforming the Federal Prison
Industries procurement process in this Congress, and I intend to hold
the administration to that commitment.
Mr. President, our bill would not require FPI to close any of its
facilities, force FPI to eliminate any jobs for Federal prisoners, or
undermine FPI's ability to ensure that inmates are productively
occupied. It would simply require FPI to compete for Federal contracts
on the same terms as all other Federal contractors. That is
simple justice to the hard-working citizens in the private sector, with
whom FPI would be required to compete.
Mr. President, I am a supporter of the idea of putting Federal
inmates to work. A strong prison work program not only reduces inmate
idleness and prison disruption, but can also help build a work ethic,
provide job skills, and enable prisoners to return to productive
society upon their release.
However, I believe that a prison work program must be conducted in a
manner that does not unfairly eliminate the jobs of hard-working
citizens who have not committed crimes. FPI will be able to achieve
this result only if it diversifies its product lines and avoids the
temptation to build its work force by continuing to displace private
sector jobs in its traditional lines of work. We need to have jobs for
prisoners, but it is unfair and wasteful to allow FPI to designate
whose jobs it will take, and when it will take them. Competition will
be better for FPI, better for the taxpayer, and better for working men
and women around the country.
I had hoped to get a vote on this bill last year, but the
parliamentary situation at the end of the Congress made that
impossible. However, this issue is not going to go away. The issue is
too important to the taxpayers, and too important to the many small
businesses adversely affected by unfair competition from Federal Prison
Industries, to be ignored. I look forward to working with my colleagues
to make reform of the Federal Prison Industries procurement process a
reality in this Congress.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 341. A bill to establish a bipartisan commission to study and
provide recommendations on restoring the financial integrity of the
Medicare Program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act; to the
Committee on Finance.
the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished
colleague, Senator Moynihan, the ranking member of the Senate Committee
on Finance, to introduce legislation establishing a National Commission
on the Future of Medicare.
This Medicare Commission will serve as an essential catalyst to
congressional action, and ultimately lead to a solution that will
preserve and protect the Medicare Program for current beneficiaries,
their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
Mr. President, we have two immense challenges presented by the
Medicare crisis. First, we have the short-term problem, the looming
insolvency date of 2001. Second, in the not distant future, the vast
numbers of baby boomers will challenge the long-term viability of
Medicare. Congress must take action immediately on the short-term
bankruptcy crisis, where the Commission will help us solve the longer
term problem.
I am encouraged that President Clinton has moved in our direction by
offering in his budget package a $100 billion reduction in Medicare
spending growth over the next 5 years. I must admit, however, that I
was somewhat concerned when the President, in his State of the Union
Address last week, devoted only one sentence to discussing his plans
for Medicare. And half of that sentence was devoted to expanding the
program.
The President stated that his plan extends the life of the Medicare
trust fund until 2007. However, in order to achieve this, the
President's budget resorts to a budgetary sleight of hand. If we truly
are to consider taking steps to preserve and protect the Medicare
Program as a whole for future generations, shifting money from one
trust fund account to the other does nothing for its long-term health.
It only buys us a little extra time. Instead, we should take steps to
extend the short-term solvency without budget accounting gimmicks.
Relying on a gimmick like the home health transfer has a certain
appeal--it buys us some time by extending the short-term life of the
Medicare hospital insurance, HI or part A, trust
[[Page S1406]]
fund which is headed for bankruptcy in 2001. Quite simply, Medicare is
spending more than it collects from all sources of revenues.
Transferring the majority of the outlays for home health care extends
the life of the HI trust fund without having to make any real
decisions.
Gail Wilsnsky, a well-known health economist, stated recently ``[t]he
terms of the transfer of 480 billion of home care should be considered
carefully because of the precedent it sets in transferring an
obligation into what effectively is the general revenue of the
Treasury. Normally, when an expense is brought into part B, a portion
of the total spending becomes part of the premium paid by the elderly
and the expense itself is subjected to a 20 percent coinsurance charge.
This is not being done for the home health care transfer. While an
argument can be made that the separation of Medicare into parts A and
B, with two separate streams of funding is an archaic holdover from
Medicare's inception, removing the limited cost constraints that now
exist without reforming the entire program is very risky.''
The anticipated bankruptcy of the trust fund in 2001 means there will
not be money to pay the hospital, skilled nursing care, home health
care, and hospice care bills of our senior citizens and disabled
individuals who reply on Medicare. If we change current law, Medicare
trends will continue on a collision course.
In 1995, expenditures out of the HI trust fund exceeded all sources
of revenues into the trust fund. The Congressional Budget Office
predicts that in 2001 Medicare will out spend its revenues and spend
down its current surplus, becoming insolvent with a $4.5 billion
shortfall. This shortfall grows rapidly to over one half trillion
dollars--$556 billion--in 2007. And, this is before the baby-boomers
begin to retire in 2010.
In the long-term, demographic trends will continue to increase
financial pressure on the trust fund, challenging its ability to
maintain our promise to beneficiaries. Today, there are less than 40
million Americans who qualify to receive Medicare. By the year 2010,
the number will be approaching 50 million, and by 2020, it will be over
60 million. While these numbers are increasing, the number of workers
supporting retirees will decrease. Today, there are almost four workers
per retiree, but in 2030 there will be only about two per retiree.
The supplemental medical insurance [SMI] trust fund does not have the
same solvency problem, as it has an unlimited claim on the U.S.
Treasury. The SMI trust fund is financed by a monthly premium paid by
beneficiaries, which covers 25 percent of the cost of Medicare part B.
The remaining costs are paid by general revenues. The SMI trust fund is
solvent because the Federal Government is obligated to make up the
difference between beneficiary premium amounts and part B costs.
Spending for the SMI trust Fund is unsustainable. According to CBO,
SMI spending is expected to increase at an annual rate of 9.1 percent
between 1997 and 2007, while its premium receipts will grow by only 4.5
percent a year. Under current law, the percentage of costs paid from
general revenues will steadily increase. In recent testimony, Joseph
Antos, the Assistant Director for Health and Human Resources at CBO,
described this situation precisely, ``The SMI program is no more
financially sound than the HI program, in the sense that both
components of Medicare are growing more rapidly than the economy's
capacity to finance them.''
The Commission should also consider that since Medicare's enactment
in 1965, there has been a great deal of change in the private health
care system in the United States, yet Medicare has remained
fundamentally unchanged. Indeed, Medicare beneficiaries do not enjoy
the same benefits private sector plans often offer their enrollees.
This rigid 31-year-old program is unable to offer the private sector
improvements in alternative systems of delivery of care or many
technological advances. If Medicare were a television, it would be a
30-year-old, 12-inch black and white model.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is modeled
after two well-known previous bipartisan, bicameral national
commissions.
First, the mission of the Commission is similar to the 1983 National
Commission on Social Security Reform, established by President Reagan
by Presidential Executive Order, December 16, 1981. As was the charge
to this 1983 Blue Ribbon Commission, the Medicare Commission is
directed to thoroughly review Medicare and make appropriate
recommendations. The Medicare Commission will review and analyze the
long-term financial condition of both the Federal hospital insurance,
HI or Part A, trust fund and the Federal supplementary medical
insurance, SMI or Part B, trust fund.
Second, the structure of the 15-member Medicare Commission follows
more closely the model established by the 1990 U.S. Bipartisan
Commission on Comprehensive Health Care, known as the Pepper
commission. The Pepper commission was chaired by Senator Rockefeller
and issued a report making recommendations on comprehensive health care
reform.
The Medicare Commission will facilitate our ability to address the
Medicare crisis. Ultimately, I hope to see the Medicare Commission put
forward a proposal after thoroughly analyzing the options that will
truly preserve and protect the Medicare Program, not just through the
next 5 years, but for the next generation so that we can leave a legacy
of a robust Medicare Program for our children and our grandchildren.
Mr. President, now is the time to put partisanship aside. Time is
running short, and we need to work together to avert the crisis.
Given the very short time that Medicare will remain solvent, and
given the demographic facts of the American population, we cannot
afford more delay. We need to preserve and protect the Medicare
Program. We need to make sure we leave a solid legacy for the next
generations. It is no longer time for rhetoric, but time for action.
Playing politics with Medicare is simply wrong. Putting off what needs
to be done is the cruelest tactic.
I encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important
legislation.
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:
Summary of Legislation Establishing the National Bipartisan Commission
on the Future of Medicare
Establishes a 15 member commission.
Based on the membership structure of the 1990 US Bipartisan
Commission on Comprehensive Health Care (also known as The
Pepper Commission), the 15 members are appointed in the
following manner: 3 by the President; 6 by the House of
Representatives (not more than 4 from the same political
party); 6 by the Senate (not more than 4 from the same
political party); and the Chairman is designated by the joint
agreement of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the Majority Leader of the Senate.
Duties are similar to the 1983 National Commission on
Social Security Reform:
1. review and analyze the long-term financial condition of
both Medicare Trust Funds;
2. identify problems that threaten the financial integrity;
3. analyze potential solutions that ensure the financial
integrity and the provision of appropriate benefits;
4. make recommendations to restore solvency of the HI Trust
Fund and the financial integrity of the SMI Trust Fund;
5. make recommendations for establishing the appropriate
financial structure of the program as a whole;
6. make recommendations for establishing the appropriate
balance of benefits covered and beneficiary contributions;
and
7. make recommendations for the time periods during which
the Commission recommendations should be implemented.
Must submit a report to the President and Congress no later
than 12 months from the date of enactment.
Commission terminates 30 days after report is submitted.
Funding authorized to be appropriated from both Medicare
Trust Funds.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the
chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, in introducing a bill that
would establish a commission to address the long term problems
confronting the Medicare Program.
In 1983, I joined with then-Senator Bob Dole as a member of the
Greenspan Commission, which proposed a series of reforms and
improvements in the Social Security program. Congress' ability to
resolve the complex and controversial issues facing Social Security
[[Page S1407]]
at that time were in doubt up until the last minute. In the end, it was
the bipartisan nature of the Greenspan Commission that allowed Congress
to agree on a solution.
This year, combined tax income to the Medicare and OASDI trust funds
has been less than the amount paid out of these trust funds. The
trustees of the Federal hospital insurance trust fund, the independent
actuaries at the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] and the
Congressional Budget Office all agree that the HI trust fund will run
out of money in the year 2001.
Near-term insolvency can be resolved by reducing the rate of growth
in the Medicare Program in legislation implementing the federal budget
for fiscal year 1998. Yet current proposals do not address the
demographic and structural factors that threaten the solvency of the
Medicare Program over the longer term. Approaching changes in our
Nation's demographics are well known. The so-called ``baby boom,''
consisting of individuals born between 1946 and 1964, will begin
turning 65 in the year 2011. The sheer number of people in this
demographic bulge will be overwhelming to the Medicare Program.
At the same time, the number of people in the generations that follow
is significantly smaller, such that by the year 2030 there will be only
2.2 workers for each individual over 65, and thus eligible for
Medicare. In 1995 there were 3.9 workers per beneficiary. These
demographic changes, combined with projected growth in program costs
under its current structure, guarantee an imbalance between the amount
of money we will have to pay for the program and the cost of the
benefits that it is expected to cover.
During the recent Presidential campaign, the Republican candidate,
Bob Dole, asked if I would sit on a Medicare Commission that he wanted
to set up if he were elected President. I responded that I would be
happy to serve on any such commission, regardless of which candidate
won the White House. In the meantime, President Clinton has also called
for a bipartisan process to address the long term difficulties facing
Medicare. The President's most recent call for such a process came in
his State of the Union Address last week.
The bipartisan bill we are introducing today will begin this process.
We urge our colleagues to join this important effort.
____________________