[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.
____________________