[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2570-S2574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Graham, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1856. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
equitable treatment for contributions by employees to defined 
contribution pension plans; to the Committee on Finance.


                  the enhanced savings opportunity act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that lifts the unfair limits on how much people can save in their 
employer's pension plan. Last year, Congress took an important first 
step in helping people prepare for retirement through educating the 
public about private savings and pensions. But education can only go so 
far. We also must remove the barriers that prevent working Americans 
from achieving a secure retirement.

  Removing the barriers means taking a fresh look at some of the 
provisions in the Internal Revenue Code which discourage workers and 
employers from putting money into pension plans. One of the most 
burdensome provisions in the Internal Revenue Code is the 25 percent 
limitation contained within section 415(c). Under 415(c), total 
contributions by employer and employee into a defined contribution (DC) 
plan are limited to 25 percent of compensation or $30,000 for each 
participant, whichever is less. That limitation applies to all 
employees. If the total additions into a DC plan exceed the lesser of 
25 percent or $30,000, the excess money will be subject to income taxes 
and a penalty in some cases.
  To illustrate the need for elimination of the 25 percent limit let me 
use an example. Bill works for a medium size company in my home state 
of Iowa. His employer sponsors a 401(k) plan and a profit sharing plan 
to help employees save for retirement. Bill makes $25,000 a year and 
elects to put in 10 percent of his compensation into the 401(k) plan, 
which amounts to $2,500 per year. His employer will match the first 5 
percent of his compensation, which comes out to be $1,250, into the 
401(k) plan. Therefore, the total 401(k) contribution into Bill's 
account in this year is $3,750. In this same year Bill's employer 
determines to set aside a sufficient amount of his profits to the 
profit sharing plan which results in an allocation to Bill's account in 
the profit sharing plan the sum of $3,205. This brings the total 
contribution into Bill's retirement plan this year up to $6,955.
  Unfortunately, because of the 25 percent of compensation limitation 
only $6,250 can be put into Bill's account for the year. The amount 
intended for Bill's account exceeds that limitation by $705. Hence, the 
profit sharing plan administrator must reduce the amount intended for 
allocation to Bill's account by $705 in order to avoid a penalty. Bill 
is unlikely to be able to save $705, a significant amount that would 
otherwise be yielding a tax deferred income which would increase the 
benefit Bill will receive at retirement. Bill's retirement saving is 
shortchanged by $705 plus the tax-deferred earnings it would have 
generated.
  Now let us look at Irene. Irene works for the same company, but she 
makes $45,000 a year. She also puts in 10 percent of her compensation 
into the 401(k) plan, and her employer matches five percent of her 
salary into the account. That brings the combined contribution of Irene 
and her employer up to $6,750. She would also receive a contribution of 
$3,205 from the profit sharing plan. This brings the total contribution 
into Irene's pension plan for that year to $9,955. She is also subject 
to the 25 percent limit, but for Irene, her limit would not be reached 
until $11,200. She is able to put in her 10 percent, receive the five 
percent match and receive the full amount from the profit share because 
her amount doesn't exceed the limit.
  Despite the fact that Bill and Irene have the same discipline to add 
to their pension plans and save for their retirements, Bill is 
penalized by the 25 percent limitation. By lifting the 25 percent 
limit, we can provide a higher threshold of savings for those who need 
it most.
  Permitting additional contributions to DC plans will help women 
``catch up'' on their retirement savings goals. Women are more likely 
to live out the last years of their retirement in poverty for a number 
of reasons. Women have longer lifespans, they are more likely to leave 
the workforce to raise children or care for elderly parents, are more 
likely to have to use assets to pay for long-term care for an ill 
spouse, and traditionally make less money than their male counterparts. 
Anyone who has delayed saving for retirement will get a much needed 
boost to their retirement savings strategy if the 25 percent limit is 
eliminated for employees.
  Not only does this proposal help individual employees save for 
retirement but it also helps the many businesses, both small and large 
which are affected by 415(c). First, the 25 percent limitation causes 
equity concerns within businesses. Low and mid-salary workers do not 
feel as if the Code treats them equitably, when their higher-paid 
supervisor is permitted to save more in dollar terms in a tax-qualified 
pension plan.
  Second, one of the primary reasons businesses offer pension plans is 
to reduce turnover and retain employees. Employers often supplement 
their 401(k) plans with generous matches or a profit-sharing plan to 
keep people on the job. The 415(c) limitation inhibits their ability to 
do that, particularly for the lower-paid workers who are unfairly 
affected.
  Third, this legislation will ease the administrative burdens 
connected with the 25 percent limitation. Dollar limits are easier to 
track than percentage limits.
  Finally, I want to placate any concerns that repealing the 25 percent 
limit will serve as a windfall for high-paid employees. The Code 
contains other limitations which provide protection against abuse. 
First, the Code limits the amount an employee can defer to a 401(k) 
plan. Under section 402(g) of the Code, workers can only defer up to 
$10,000 of compensation into a 401(k) plan in 1998. In addition, plans 
still must meet strict non-discrimination rules that ensure that 
benefits provided to highly-compensated employees are not overly 
generous.
  The value to society of this proposal, if enacted, is undeniable. 
Increased savings in qualified retirement plans can prevent leakage, 
meaning the money is less likely to be spent, or cashed out as might 
happen in a savings account or even an IRA.
  There will be those out there who recognize that this bill does not 
address the impact of the 415 limit for all of the plans that are 
subject to it. I have included language that would provide relief to 
401(k) plans and 403(b)

[[Page S2571]]

plans, for example. Plans authorized by section 457 of the Code--used 
by state and local governments and non-profit organizations have not 
been specifically addressed. I want to assure organizations who sponsor 
457 plans that I support ultimate conformity for all plans affected by 
the 415(c) percentage limitation. Over the next couple of weeks, I hope 
to work with these organizations to identify the changes that are 
necessary to achieve equity and simplicity for their employees. In the 
mean time, this is a positive step toward enhancing the retirement 
savings opportunities of working Americans.
  We have begun to educate all Americans about the importance of saving 
for retirement, but if we educate and then do not give them the tools 
to allow people to practically apply that knowledge, we have failed in 
our ultimate goal to increase national savings. Let's help Americans 
succeed in saving for retirement. In helping them achieve their 
retirement goals, they help us to achieve our goal as policymakers of 
improving the quality of life for Americans.
  I would like to thank the Profit Sharing Council of America and the 
many members of the Retirement Savings Network for their considerable 
help in championing this proposal. I ask unanimous consent that their 
letter of support be included in the Record. I also want to thank an 
Iowa company, IPSCO, in Camanche, Iowa, and its many employees for 
bringing this issue to the forefront. I ask unanimous consent to 
include a letter from IPSCO in the Record, and note that their letter 
was accompanied by a petition signed by nearly 200 employees. Finally, 
I want to extend my appreciation to Senators Breaux, Jeffords, Graham, 
and Baucus for co-sponsoring this important bill. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to give careful consideration to lending your support to 
this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                   March 25, 1998.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       We, the undersigned organizations, commend you for 
     introducing the Enhanced Savings Opportunity Act that repeals 
     the Section 415(c) 25% limitation currently imposed on 
     employees participating in defined contribution plans and 
     pledge our support of your efforts to obtain passage.
       This legislation promotes a conducive environment for 
     expanding the savings opportunities in employer-provided 
     retirement programs by removing one of the impediments that 
     prevents employees, especially lower-paid employees, from 
     taking full advantage of profit sharing, 401(k), 403(b), and 
     other defined contribution programs. It will also decrease 
     the burdensome testing currently imposed on plan 
     administrators and better enable companies to take advantage 
     of the new SIMPLE 401(k) program for small employers.
       For example, the Enhanced Savings Opportunity Act will 
     permit employees who leave and reenter the workforce, many of 
     whom are women, to make larger contributions when they are 
     working, in effect allowing them to ``catch up'' their 
     contributions. It will also promote equal treatment by 
     allowing all employees to defer up to $10,000 of their income 
     into a 401(k) plan. Finally, the existing section 415(c) 25% 
     limitation frequently requires that a company limit its 
     contributions to lower-paid employees who take full advantage 
     of the savings feature of a 401(k) plan. By modifying Section 
     415(c) you will permit more generous company matching and 
     profit-sharing contributions to its employees. Similarly, 
     your legislation will allow participants in 403(b) plans to 
     increase savings in those plans. We appreciate your efforts 
     to preserve equity by extending relief to 401(k), 403(b), and 
     other types of defined contribution plans.
       Again, thank you for introducing the Enhanced Savings 
     Opportunities Act. Please feel free to call on us as you move 
     forward to seek its enactment.
         American Bankers Association, American Council of Life 
           Insurance, American Society of Pension Actuaries, 
           APPWP--The Benefits Association, Association for 
           Advanced Life Underwriting, Employers Council on 
           Flexible Compensation, The ERISA Industry Committee, 
           Financial Executives Institute, Investment Company 
           Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, 
           National Employee Benefits Institute, National Rural 
           Electric Cooperative Association, National Telephone 
           Cooperative Association, Profit Sharing/401(k) Council 
           of America, Securities Industry Association, Small 
           Business Council of America, Society for Human Resource 
           Management, Stable Value Investment Association, and 
           United States Chamber of Commerce.
                                                                    ____

                                                   March 20, 1998.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: Currently Code 415(c) of the IRS 
     rules does not permit an employee to receive contributions 
     that total more than 25% of his or her income or more than 
     $30,000. The intent was meant to limit the contributions of 
     highly paid executives. Defined contribution plans have 
     become a very popular method to save for retirement, but the 
     rules have not kept pace with the times. Now, non-executives 
     are slighted by the rules that were designed to help them by 
     limiting the amount that can be put away for retirement.
       Since 1994 the 415(c) code has prevented IPSCO from 
     contributing the fully allocated, pretax funds, to each 
     employee's retirement fund. Each year several thousand 
     dollars of pretax money, earmarked for retirement, has been 
     disbursed as taxable income to many employees. The employee's 
     retirement plan is short changed, because the plan cannot 
     receive all of the funds that it should and the employee ends 
     up with taxable earnings that were intended for retirement. 
     Non-executive employees should not have artificial limits set 
     on their retirement savings.
       If your efforts are successful and a bill is passed to lift 
     the percentage limits on contributions to retirement 
     contributions this problem will be redressed.
           Yours truly,
                                                  IPSCO Employees.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Harkin);
  S. 1858. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to provide 
individuals with disabilities with incentives to become economically 
self-sufficient; to the Committee on Finance.


              THE WORK incentives ImpRoveMent AcT of 1998

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise 
today, with my friend and colleague, Senator Edward Kennedy, to 
introduce the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1998.

  This bill has developed over many months with the help of the 
disability community, the Social Security Administration, the Health 
Care Financing Administration and other Congressional offices to help 
the insurmountable health barriers to individuals who wish to work, but 
must remain dependent on the Social Security Disability system to 
continue to access needed health benefits provided by the Federal and 
State governments.
  Mr. President, the current system has had very limited success. The 
benefits offered are too expensive, time limited, and offer too few 
health care services for the many persons with disabilities who wish to 
work. Currently, less than 5 percent of beneficiaries have taken 
advantage of this so called work incentive.
  Mr. President, I have worked for more than a year with Senator 
Kennedy to assess why so few SSI and SSDI beneficiaries return to work. 
We have found that the primary barrier is a lack of available health 
care coverage--this needed coverage is either unavailable or 
unaffordable in the private sector for those with disabilities.
  Specific barriers facing individuals with disabilities who want to 
work include an inability to obtain affordable health insurance through 
Medicare. After a period of time on the current SSDI work incentives 
program, the individual must pay full fare--more than $370 a month. We 
researched how many individuals take advantage of this and would you 
believe, Mr. President, that out of more than 3.5 million 
beneficiaries, only 114 have chosen to buy in to Medicare. People with 
disabilities simply cannot afford the coverage over more than a short 
period of time.
  Another barrier is that the critical services people with 
disabilities need are unavailable. Personal assistance services and 
drugs are available only through a state's Medicaid plan. SSDI 
beneficiaries do not have access to Medicaid unless they impoverish 
themselves to get it. When we looked into this we found that SSDI 
people who need Medicaid covered services, those so-called ``dual 
eligibles,'' are the fastest growing entitlement population in the 
government. For those SSI beneficiaries who have access to Medicaid, 
personal assistance services are covered in only half the states.
  Mr. President, our Work Incentive Improvement Act will provide 
incentives for persons with disabilities to return to work and still be 
able to access health insurance. It will ensure that an attempt to 
work, or an inability to remain working, does not penalize participants 
for future SSDI and SSI eligibility.

[[Page S2572]]

  Under our legislation, those SSDI applicants who want to return to 
work could access Medicare Part A for free. If their incomes rise above 
250 percent of poverty they would buy-in based on 10 percent of earned 
income above 250 percent. Part B premium contributions would remain the 
same. They would also be able to access a new State Work Options 
Program that provides personal assistance services and prescription 
drugs to those states that chose to set one up.
  Long term disabled SSDI beneficiaries who have been receiving cash 
benefits for more than 24 months would be eligible for Medicare A&B for 
the same rates as described above, the State Work Options Program, and 
an expanded Impairment Related Work Expense to include the cost of 
automobiles in areas where accessible transportation is unavailable. 
Such an incentive would do much to keep an individuals income below 
SGA, and be more likely to keep their cash benefits.
  Persons with disabilities who are working under SSI's work incentive 
program would have access to the State Work Options Programs if they 
needed personal assistance services to begin working. The legislation 
also strengthens current State Medicaid Waiver projects that provide 
health services and supports to persons with disabilities who want to 
work.
  This legislation also supports the development of demonstration 
projects that gradually phase out the loss of cash benefits as a 
worker's income rises, instead of the current cash cut-off that so many 
disabled persons who return to work face today.
  Finally, this legislation will enable Congress to obtain the kind of 
information it needs to undertake more comprehensive reform of 
disability work incentive programs.
  Mr. President, no one in this body can disagree with the idea that 
work is a central part of the American dream. I am committed to 
ensuring this Congress that we pass legislation to provide cost-
effective assistance to help disabled Americans pursue a career, and 
the American dream.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join Senator Jeffords 
and Senator Harkin in introducing the Work Incentives Improvement Act 
to provide more affordable and accessible health care for persons with 
disabilities so they can work and live independently.
  Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is 
enjoying today, persons with disabilities continue to struggle to live 
independently and become fully contributing members of their 
communities. We know that of the 54 million disabled people in this 
country, may have the capacity to work and become productive citizens, 
but they are unable to do so because of the unnecessary barriers they 
face.
  We have made progress through a special education system committed to 
excellence in learning, and through a rehabilitation system designed to 
promote independent living skills. Too often, however, the goals of 
independence are still out of reach. Too often, disabled people are 
afraid that if they take jobs they will lose the medical coverage that 
makes such a large difference in their lives. Too often, disabled 
people are afraid of losing their current cash benefits if the salary 
they earn at work is too large. We need to do more so that the benefits 
of our prosperous economy are truly available to all Americans, 
including our fellow citizens with disabilities. We need to ensure that 
all disabled children and adults have access to the benefits and 
supports they need to achieve their full potential as American 
citizens.
  Our long term goal is to restructure and improve existing disability 
programs so that they do more to encourage and support a disabled 
person's dream to work and live independently. That goal should be the 
birthright of all Americans--and when we say all, we mean all.
  This bipartisan work incentive legislation will help us to remove the 
unfair barriers facing persons with disabilities who want to work. It 
will make health insurance coverage more widely available, through 
opportunities to buy-in to Medicare and Medicaid at an affordable rate. 
Social Security will be able to fund demonstration projects that 
gradually phase out the loss of cash benefits, instead of the arbitrary 
sudden cutoff that so many disabled workers face today.
  Our goal is to create fair and realistic new assistance that offers 
greater support for disabled persons who want to work, live 
independently, and be productive and contributing members of their 
community. This bill is the right thing to do, and it is the cost 
effective thing to do. For too long, our fellow disabled citizens have 
been left out and left behind.
  I commend Senator Jeffords and Senator Harkin for their impressive 
leadership on this issue. We look forward to working with all members 
of Congress to help give disabled persons across the country a better 
opportunity to fulfill their dreams and fully participate in the social 
and economic mainstream of our nation.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor 
of the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1998. I would like to thank 
Senator Kennedy and Jeffords for all their work on this important piece 
of legislation. I'd also like to commend the work of their staff, 
Connie Garner and Chris Crowley.
  Many individuals receiving SSI and SSDI want to work and are able to 
work. But less than \1/2\ of 1% of these individuals leave the Social 
Security rolls and become self-sufficient. Clearly, there is something 
wrong with the system.
  When we enacted the ADA, we put our nation on a new path. A path 
toward independence, not dependence. Toward inclusion, not exclusion. 
Toward empowerment, not paternalism. The ADA opened the door to 
employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
  Today, we take another major step along that path. The Work 
Incentives Improvement Act removes artificial impediments faced by 
people with disabilities when they are ready to work. The bill offers 
persons with disabilities affordable and accessible health care, so 
that they no longer have to face the choice between working and paying 
taxes, on the one hand, or having access to health care benefits on the 
other.
  In the wake of the ADA, we must now bring our other federal policies 
into the 1990s. This Act begins to do that. Access to health care is 
critical if people with disabilities are to live independently and 
remain self-sufficient. If we can provide a reasonable support 
structure for people with disabilities who can work and who want to 
work, then we should. It's the right thing to do.
  Things usually don't get done because they are right. They get done 
because people stand up and take action. Now is the time to take action 
on this issue. If our efforts here are successful, Americans with 
disabilities will no longer face disincentives for working, for wanting 
a piece of the American dream, for remaining vital members of our 
society, and for reminding all of us that disabled does not mean 
unable.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate quickly take action on this bill, 
and that this bill soon becomes law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 1859: A bill to correct the tariff classification of 13'' 
televisions; to the Committee on Finance.


                  the technical correction act of 1998

  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
make a technical correction to the diagonal measurement of video 
displays in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS).
  During the Uruguay Round negotiations, the United States agreed to 
phase down U.S. tariffs on ``13-inch'' television receivers, monitors, 
and picture tubes, and on combination TV/VCRs, over the period from 
1995 to 1999. The tariff on receivers and monitors was to be reduced 
from 5 percent to zero, on picture tubes from 15 percent to 7.5 
percent, and on combination TV/VCRs from 3.9 percent to zero. The ``13-
inch'' designation historically has included television products whose 
picture tubes are approximately, but not exactly, 13 inches by diagonal 
measurement. The 1997 HTSUS, however, converted the diagonal picture 
tube measurement into 33.02 centimeters or exactly 13 inches. With the 
implementation of the 1997 HTSUS, the former ``13-inch'' televisions 
have been classified as larger than 13-inches and assessed a higher 
rate of duty.

[[Page S2573]]

  I am proposing this technical correction to amend the HTSUS to allow 
television receivers, monitors, and picture tubes, and combination TV/
VCRs with a diagonal measurement of up to ``34.29 centimeters'' (or 
13.5 inches) to be classified as ``13-inches''. This action is 
consistent with our Uruguay Round commitments.
  I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1859

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

     SECTION 1. TARIFF CLASSIFICATION OF 13 INCH TELEVISIONS.

       (a) In general.--Each of the following subheadings of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     striking ``33.02 cm'' in the article description and 
     inserting ``34.29 cm'':
       (1) Subheading 8528.12.12.
       (2) Subheading 8528.12.20.
       (3) Subheading 8528.12.62.
       (4) Subheading 8528.12.68.
       (5) Subheading 8528.12.76.
       (6) Subheading 8528.12.84.
       (7) Subheading 8528.21.16.
       (8) Subheading 8528.21.24.
       (9) Subheading 8528.21.55.
       (10) Subheading 8528.21.65.
       (11) Subheading 8528.21.75.
       (12) Subheading 8528.21.85.
       (13) Subheading 8528.30.62.
       (14) Subheading 8528.30.66.
       (15) Subheading 8540.11.24.
       (16) Subheading 8540.11.44.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this Act apply to 
     articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
     consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Retroactive application.--Notwithstanding section 514 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon 
     proper request filed with the Customs Service not later than 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, any entry, 
     or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of an article 
     described in a subheading listed in paragraphs (1) through 
     (16) of subsection (a)--
       (A) that was made on or after January 1, 1995, and before 
     the date that is 15 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act,
       (B) with respect to which there would have been no duty or 
     a lesser duty if the amendments made by subsection (a) 
     applied to such entry, and
       (C) that is--
       (i) unliquidated,
       (ii) under protest, or
       (iii) otherwise not final,
     shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amendment 
     applied to such entry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1861. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to permit duty-free 
sales enterprises to be located in certain areas; to the Committee on 
Finance.


       the duty free sales enterprises act amendment act of 1998

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in 1988, Congress passed the Duty Free 
Sales Enterprises Act which, among other things, gave Customs the 
authority to audit duty free stores to ensure compliance with laws and 
regulations governing import activities. The Act also permitted off-
airport sites, as long as they were in within 25 miles of the airport. 
What happens is: tourists visit the off-airport site, buy duty-free 
goods and those goods are shipped to meet them when they arrive home.
  When the bill was passed, audits were conducted in person by Customs 
inspectors. The 25-mile limit was imposed so as not to unduly burden 
inspectors who would otherwise have to travel great distances between 
stores. However, audits are no longer conducted in person; rather they 
are done by computer. Inspectors no longer have to travel between 
stores.
  This legislation adds new section to the law establishing the 25-mile 
limit to allow exceptions if Customs is reasonably assured the goods 
being sold are duty free items for people leaving through international 
airports. All of the other regulations controlling audits and 
inspections are still in effect; this simply allows stores outside of 
the 25-mile limit.
  I urge my colleagues to support 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. 1861

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

     SECTION 1. DUTY-FREE SALES ENTERPRISES.

       Section 555(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1555(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``; or'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) the customs territory, if reasonable assurance can be 
     provided that the purchaser of the duty-free merchandise will 
     depart from an international airport located within the 
     customs territory.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 1862. A bill to provide assistance for poison prevention and to 
stabilize the funding of regional poison control centers; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


        the poison control center enhancement and awareness act

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Poison 
Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act of 1998.

  Mr. President, America's poison control centers do important work--
and they need our help. The number of centers has been declining over 
the last several years. Their funding has been unstable--and this has 
resulted in the closing of many of them.
  Poison control centers manage poisonings over the telephone, direct 
those that cannot be managed at home to a local hospital for treatment, 
provide professional and public education and training, and collect 
data on poisoning exposures.
  Each year, more than 2 million poisonings are reported to poison 
control centers throughout the United States. More than 90% of these 
poisonings happen in the home--and over fifty percent of poisoning 
victims are children younger than 6 years of age.
  By providing expert telephone advice to distraught parents, poisoning 
victims, and health care professionals, poison control centers decrease 
the severity of illness and prevent deaths. Let me illustrate the value 
of poison control centers by telling you about two similar poisoning 
cases that had very different outcomes.
  In the first case, a 3 year old child swallowed several tablets of 
aspirin. His mother called the poison control center and was told to 
give the child syrup of Ipecac (pronounced ip-ah-kak) to make the child 
vomit before taking him to the emergency room. The boy was examined in 
the emergency room and sent home.
  In the second case, another toddler swallowed several aspirin while 
visiting her grandmother's house. Her family was unaware that aspirin 
can be very dangerous for children, and did not think to call the 
poison control center. Nine hours later, the child started to have a 
seizure. When she arrived at the hospital, she was severely ill and 
nearly died. She spent almost two weeks in the pediatric intensive care 
unit.
  Mr. President, I can tell you that even after eight children, it's 
often hard to know exactly what to do in these emergencies. In this 
kind of situation, poison control centers can save lives.
  They are life-saving--and they are truly cost-effective public health 
services. For every dollar spent on poison control center services, $7 
in medical costs are saved. The average cost from a poisoning exposure 
call is $31.28, while the average cost if other parts of the health 
care system are used is $932.
  In spite of their obvious value, poison control centers are seriously 
under-funded, and the funding situation threatens to get worse. These 
centers have so far been financed through unstable arrangements 
involving a variety of public and private sources.
  In Ohio, poison control centers are funded primarily by hospitals, 
with some funds coming from the State. Ohio's poison control centers 
are working together to coordinate services and consolidate resources, 
while they continue to look for stable funding sources.
  Currently, the Federal Government provides 5% of poison control 
center funding, but reaps most of the cost-savings benefits from poison 
control center services. It is only fair that the Federal Government 
pay for its share of the cost burden for poison control center 
services. This legislation provides Federal dollars to stabilize poison 
control center funding and improve poison control center services. I 
have

[[Page S2574]]

tried to write this legislation so that existing private and state 
dollars can be leveraged, rather than displaced, by Federal funds.
  Over the last two decades, the instability and lack of funding has 
resulted in a steady decline in the number of poison control centers in 
the United States. In 1978, there were over 600 poison control centers; 
now, there are 75. This trend has jeopardized the capacity of poison 
control centers to provide equitable services to all Americans. As a 
result, more people may die, more people may be injured and the costs 
for treating poisonings may increase.
  For example, in 1991, Louisiana closed its poison center and referred 
all calls to Alabama. After its closing, Louisiana found that ``the 
cost attributable to unnecessary emergency department visits was more 
than three times the amount allocated to operate the poison control 
center each year.'' Louisiana also found that medically treated 
poisonings, those treated in emergency rooms or by physicians, 
increased 42%. It reopened its poison control center.
  My office has consulted with a number of experts on how we can best 
improve poison control operations on a national scale, and my 
legislation contains a number of their suggestions.
  Here's what the bill does.
  It establishes a national toll-free number to ensure that all 
Americans have access to poison control center services. This number is 
then automatically routed to the center designated to cover the 
caller's region. This system will improve access to poison control 
center services for everyone. It will also simplify efforts to educate 
parents and the public about what to do in the event of a poisoning 
exposure and how to do it quickly.
  It begins a nationwide media campaign to educate the public and 
health care providers about poison prevention, and advertise the new, 
nationwide toll-free number. I've seen the great work done by some non-
profit groups, and how effective their public health campaigns have 
been. That's what I'd like to see here.
  It establishes a grant program to stabilize the funding mechanism and 
prevent certified regional poison control centers from closing. This 
program will support activities to prevent and treat poisonings; 
develop standard education programs; develop standard patient 
management protocols for commonly encountered toxic exposures; improve 
and expand the poison control data collection system; and improve 
national toxin exposure surveillance.
  Mr. President, I have always been a supporter of the prevention and 
treatment services provided by poison control centers. As a member of 
the Congressional Prevention Coalition, I hope to increase awareness of 
this very important issue. Federal support for poison control centers 
will help ensure that all Americans continue to have access to quality 
poison control center services.
  It will reduce the inappropriate use of emergency medical services 
and other costly health care services.
  And, most importantly, it will save lives.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement and 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. 1862

       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 ``Poison Control Center 
     Enhancement and Awareness Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Each year more than 2,000,000 poisonings are reported 
     to poison control centers throughout the United States. More 
     than 90 percent of these poisonings happen in the home. 53 
     percent of poisoning victims are children younger than 6 
     years of age.
       (2) Poison centers are life-saving and cost-effective 
     public health services. For every dollar spent on poison 
     control centers, $7 in medical costs are saved. The average 
     cost of a poisoning exposure call is $31.28, while the 
     average cost if other parts of the medical system are 
     involved is $932. Over the last 2 decades, the instability 
     and lack of funding has resulted in a steady decline in the 
     number of poison control centers in the United States. 
     Currently, there are 75 such centers.
       (3) Stabilizing the funding structure and increasing 
     accessibility to poison control centers will increase the 
     number of United States residents who have access to a 
     certified poison control center, and reduce the inappropriate 
     use of emergency medical services and other more costly 
     health care services.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL TOLL-FREE NUMBER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide coordination 
     and assistance to regional poison control centers for the 
     establishment of a nationwide toll-free phone number to be 
     used to access such centers.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $2,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2001.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONWIDE MEDIA CAMPAIGN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a national 
     media campaign to educate the public and health care 
     providers about poison prevention and the availability of 
     poison control resources in local communities and to conduct 
     advertising campaigns concerning the nationwide toll-free 
     number established under section 4.
       (b) Contract with Entity.--The Secretary may carry out 
     subsection (a) by entering into contracts with 1 or more 
     nationally recognized media firms for the development and 
     distribution of monthly television, radio, and newspaper 
     public service announcements.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $600,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

     SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF A GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Regional Poison Control Centers.--The Secretary shall 
     award grants to certified regional poison control centers for 
     the purposes of achieving the financial stability of such 
     centers, and for preventing and providing treatment 
     recommendations for poisonings.
       (b) Other Improvements.--The Secretary shall also use 
     amounts received under this section to--
       (1) develop standard education programs;
       (2) develop standard patient management protocols for 
     commonly encountered toxic exposures;
       (3) improve and expand the poison control data collection 
     systems; and
       (4) improve national toxic exposure surveillance.
       (c) Certification.--Except as provided in subsection (d), 
     the Secretary may make a grant to a center under subsection 
     (a) only if the center has been certified by a professional 
     organization in the field of poison control, and the 
     Secretary has approved the organization as having in effect 
     standards for certification that reasonably provide for the 
     protection of the public health with respect to poisoning.
       (d) Waiver of Certification Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may grant a waiver of the 
     certification requirement of subsection (a) with respect to a 
     noncertified poison control center that applies for a grant 
     under this section if such center can reasonably demonstrate 
     that the center will obtain such a certification within a 
     reasonable period of time as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Renewal.--The Secretary may only renew a waiver under 
     paragraph (1) for a period of 3 years.
       (e) Supplement not Supplant.--Amounts made available to a 
     poison control center under this section shall be used to 
     supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, local or 
     private funds provided for such center.
       (f) Maintenance of Effort.--A poison control center, in 
     utilizing the proceeds of a grant under this section, shall 
     maintain the expenditures of the center for activities of the 
     center at a level that is equal to not less than the level of 
     such expenditures maintained by the center for the fiscal 
     year preceding the fiscal year for which the grant is 
     received.
       (g) Matching Requirement.--The Secretary may impose a 
     matching requirement with respect to amounts provided under a 
     grant under this section if the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $25,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2001.

                          ____________________