[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7190-S7200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE MEDICARE+CHOICE PAYMENT EQUITY ACT OF 1998
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last year's balanced budget
agreement contained provisions to make Medicare more efficient by
moving away from wasteful practices that the private sector long ago
consigned to history, while offering seniors in Oregon and other states
more and better choices for their health care service. The bipartisan
bill Senator Smith and I are introducing today will make sure that
those provisions are implemented in a way that will indeed bring about
the full potential of these reforms.
The Medicare+Choice Payment Equity Act of 1998 will finish what we
started with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 by creating payment equity
under Medicare's formula for paying for managed care services . Without
equity in payment, beneficiaries in Oregon could be penalized because
they may never get the same kinds of services in their Medicare managed
care package that are available in other areas of the country with less
efficient health care systems.
For states like Oregon with cost efficient health care systems, the
Medicare formula resulted in lower payment. While we made progress in
correcting this inequity through the Balanced Budget Act, changes made
at the last minute in the legislation will actually prevent efficient
states from ever gaining full equity in payment under Medicare managed
care plans.
This legislation corrects that by requiring full funding of what is
known as the ``blend'' portion of the formula. With managed care taking
a larger role in Medicare it is more important now to assure equity in
the payment formula. This legislation is supported by the Fairness
Coalition and the American Hospital Association.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed for the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2227
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 ``Medicare+Choice Payment
Equity Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF BUDGET NEUTRALITY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR IN
CALCULATING THE BLENDED CAPITATION RATE FOR
MEDICARE+CHOICE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 1853(c) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking the comma at the end
of clause (ii) and all that follows before the period at the
end; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraphs
(6) and (7) as paragraphs (5) and (6) respectively.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Part C of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 1853(c)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(1), by striking ``(6)(C) and (7)'' and inserting ``(5)(C)
and (6)''; and
(B) in paragraphs (1)(B)(ii) and (3)(A)(i), by striking
``(6)(A)'' and inserting ``(5)(A)''; and
(2) in subsections (b)(3)(B)(ii) and (c)(3) of section
1859, by striking ``1853(c)(6)'' and inserting
``1853(c)(5)''.
(c) Submission To Congress.--Not later than 20 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall submit to Congress a legislative
proposal that provides for aggregate decreases in Federal
expenditures under the medicare program under title XVIII of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) as are equal
to the aggregate increases in such expenditures under such
program resulting from the amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b).
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made under contracts entered into on
or after January 1, 1999.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today with my colleague,
Senator Wyden, I introduce legislation to restore equity in the
Medicare payment rate otherwise known as the Average Adjusted Per
Capita Cost (AAPCC) formula under Medicare. This formula, which is
implemented by the Health Care Financing Administration, determines the
payment rates made to health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that
offer coverage to Medicare beneficiaries.
Mr. President, prior to the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, AAPCC rates were determined by calculating the five-year average
of per-capita Medicare fee-for-service spending by county, as well as
the graduate medical education (GME) and disproportionate share (DSH)
payments. Since Medicare utilization rates, GME and DSH rates vary from
county to county throughout the United States, those areas that have
low Medicare utilization rates subsequently receive a lower payment
than other areas where Medicare utilization rates are much higher. In
1997, those rates varied from $286 in Gilliam County, Oregon to $748 in
Dade County, Florida.
The result of such disproportionate levels in payments to HMOs is a
disproportionate amount of benefits provided to Medicare beneficiaries.
For example, HMOs that provide coverage for Medicare beneficiaries
living in Los Angeles, California or Dade County, Florida receive a
significantly higher payment; therefore, they can afford to provide
additional benefits such as prescription drugs, eye glasses, and dental
[[Page S7191]]
coverage. Meanwhile, HMOs that provide coverage to beneficiaries in
Portland, Oregon receive a lower payment rate and cannot afford to
provide such additional benefits. Mr. President, this is blatantly
unfair, and unacceptable. Medicare beneficiaries deserve the same
access to the same benefits, regardless of where they live in this
country.
To address this discrepancy, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included
three main provisions to change the calculation of the AAPCC payment
rates. First, a minimum ``floor'' payment of $367 was implemented to
provide assistance to those rural counties with low Medicare
utilization rates. Second, a blended rate was established to benefit
low and mid-level payment counties to slowly bring them up to a more
equitable level. Third, a minimum two percent ``hold-harmless'' was
established so that all counties, even those at a higher payment level,
are guaranteed at least a two percent increase in their current payment
rates.
As a member of the Senate Committee on the Budget, I was proud to
support these provisions; however, the only component of this proposal
that has been implemented, is the guaranteed two percent increase for
all counties due to budget neutrality restrictions. While the two
percent increase is a good start in restoring some equity to the
payment system, beneficiaries living in rural counties in Oregon and
throughout the country will not have access to Medicare+Choice options
if we cannot find a way to provide funding for the blend component.
This was the original intent of Congress, and I believe we have a
responsibility to implement all three of these provisions in order to
restore equity to the Medicare system.
The legislation that Senator Wyden and I are proposing today would
remove the budget neutrality provision used in calculating the blended
capitation rate for Medicare+Choice organizations. To put this simply,
we propose to fund the blend. Under this legislation, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services would submit to Congress a legislative
proposal outlining ways in which to restructure federal Medicare
expenditures in order to implement the blend. We believe this is a fair
and fiscally responsible way to address this matter and look forward to
the Finance Committee's consideration of this issue in the year ahead.
Mr. President, I would like to commend my colleague, Senator Wyden,
for drafting this legislation and for the work of Stephanie Kennan of
his staff on this bill. He has been a strong proponent of Medicare
reform both as a member of the House of Representatives and as a member
of the Senate Committee on the Budget. I thank him for this opportunity
to join him in this effort.
______
By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Levin,
Mr. Brownback and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 2228. A bill to amend the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.) to modify termination and reauthorization requirements for
advisory committees, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMINATION AND STREAMLINING ACT OF 1998
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, our democracy depends not just on
our citizens exercising the franchise at every election. It also
depends on the active participation of citizens in the operations of
the government. To that end, the federal government has sought input
and advice from citizens on a wide variety of issues by creating
advisory committees. To solicit this input, however, costs the
government around $180 million a year, and results in an accretion of
advisory committees that continue long after their useful purpose is
satisfied.
The operations of advisory committees are governed by the Federal
Advisory Committee Act of 1972, commonly called ``FACA.'' This law was
enacted out of a concern that federal advisory committees were
proliferating without adequate review, oversight, or accountability. In
adopting the FACA, Congress intended that the number of advisory
committees be kept to the minimum necessary and that all advisory
committees operate openly under uniform standards and procedures.
Although the FACA was not enacted until 1972, agencies of the federal
government had been using advisory committees for many years. For
example, the Board of Visitors of the Naval Academy was established by
Congress in 1879. There are four types of advisory committees used by
federal agencies: committees mandated by Congress; committees
authorized, but not mandated, by Congress; committees mandated by
executive order of the President; and, finally, committees established
by agencies under their organic statutes. Over the years, the number of
advisory committees grew. In enacting the FACA, Congress mandated that
all then-existing advisory committees terminate within two years but
did not apply this mandate to advisory committees established directly
by Congress, only to those created by agencies themselves. Despite this
termination mandate, the number of advisory committees continued to
increase after enactment of the FACA. Many of the advisory committees
terminated two years after the FACA's enactment were simply
reestablished, and many new committees have since come into existence.
While allowing public participation in government, advisory
committees cost the federal government money. According to the General
Services Administration, the 968 federal advisory committees used by
federal agencies cost the government $178 million in fiscal year 1997
and consumed 1254 full-time equivalent positions. Advisory committees
are expected to cost the government $183 million this year. Even though
the number of advisory committees has fallen from 1305 in 1993, their
costs have continued to increase, even in constant dollars. In 1988,
the cost to operate advisory committees was $93 million. The cost to
operate fewer advisory committees in 1997 was about $136 million in
1988 dollars.
The costs associated with advisory committees would be even higher
were it not for initiatives taken to reduce the number of advisory
committees created by executive branch agencies. The number of these
``discretionary'' committees, those created not at the direction of
Congress or the President, is limited to 534. The GSA also conducts an
annual review of advisory committees that no longer serve a useful
purpose. Through this review, GSA has identified 61 advisory committees
mandated by law that should be eliminated. The termination of these
committees would save $8.4 million this year.
The time has come for Congress to step up and do its part to achieve
further cuts in current advisory committees. Unless Congress acts, the
cost of advisory committees will continue to increase, as new
committees are created and old, useless committees continue with no
legitimate purpose.
Today, joined by a bipartisan group of my colleagues on the Committee
on Governmental Affairs, I am introducing the Advisory Committee
Termination and Streamlining Act of 1998. I am pleased to be joined by
the ranking member of the Committee, Senator Glenn, who has a long
history of involvement with the FACA; Senator Cochran; Senator Levin,
who formerly chaired the Subcommittee with oversight responsibility for
the FACA; Senator Brownback, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight
of Government Management and Restructuring; and Senator Lieberman, the
ranking member on the Government Management and Restructuring
Subcommittee. This bill has been developed with the assistance of the
Administration, which proposed many of its provisions.
Let me briefly lay out what this legislation would accomplish. The
focus of the legislation is to force the reappraisal of the need for
all current advisory committees. To achieve this goal, the bill would
terminate all advisory committees within three years of the bill's
enactment. This three-year window applies to all advisory committees,
whether established by congressional or presidential mandate,
congressional authorization, or agency decision. Any advisory committee
established by presidential order or agency decision will be subject to
continuation if an affirmative decision is made that the committee's
continuation is warranted. Similarly, three years will allow Congress
enough time to review
[[Page S7192]]
the advisory committees it has mandated, determine which of these
continue to serve useful functions, and reauthorize such committees.
This provision will clear away many advisory committees that continue
to exist from inertia but no longer serve a useful function.
The bill excludes two categories of advisory committees. Advisory
committees that provide peer review of grant applications, such as
those used by the National Institutes of Health, will continue, whether
or not they are reauthorized, as the termination provision does not
apply to them. The second category exempt from the termination
provision covers those committees that provide advice relating to the
academic certification of federal institutions. This category includes
the Boards of Visitors of the service academies. Finally, the bill
exempts from the termination provision all advisory committees that
``address critical needs relating to health, safety, national security,
or other concerns as the President may certify.'' This exemption allows
sufficient flexibility to preserve those advisory committees that
continue to serve useful purposes in areas deemed important by the
President.
The other provisions of the bill can be quickly summarized. First,
the bill allows the GSA to issue binding regulations and not just
administrative guidelines. This change, proposed by the Administration,
is needed to promote consistent, uniform application of the FACA's
requirements throughout the executive branch. Second, the bill changes
the date on which the Administration's annual report on advisory
committees must be submitted to Congress from December 31 to March 15.
The GSA has consistently failed to meet the December 31 deadline, due
largely to its inability to collect the necessary information from
other agencies in a timely manner. This change will provide a more
realistic date for submission of the report, and the GSA has assured us
that it will be able to meet the new March 15 deadline. Finally, the
bill will allow the GSA to promulgate regulations authorizing notice of
advisory committee meetings through means other than publication in the
Federal Register. Many who have an interest in the work of specific
advisory committees do not read the Federal Register, and the
Administration is interested in experimenting with providing notice of
meetings through the Internet or other electronic formats in order to
determine whether other forms of notice are more effective at reaching
large numbers of interested persons.
Mr. President, this bill would streamline the government and save us
money. It will have the additional benefit of requiring Congress and
the Administration to work jointly to revisit the charters of all
advisory committees and evaluate the need for their continuation. I
thank the Administration for working with us to develop this bill and
my cosponsors for working towards a consensus on this matter.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a copy of a June 22, 1998
article from the Gannett News Service entitled ``Committees Dwindle--
but Costs Don't,'' which details some of these facts, be inserted in
the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2228
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 ``Advisory Committee
Termination and Streamlining Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5. U.S.C.
App.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including section 4(a) of this Act and this section) and
except as provided under paragraph (2), each advisory
committee established, authorized, or reauthorized by statute
shall terminate 3 years after the date of enactment of the
Advisory Committee Termination and Streamlining Act of 1998.
``(2) This subsection shall not apply to any advisory
committee the purpose of which is to--
``(A) provide for peer review of Federal grant or research
applications or similar activities;
``(B) provide advice and recommendations relating to
academic certification of Federal institutions; or
``(C) address critical needs relating to health, safety,
national security, or other concerns as the President may
certify.
``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
reauthorize the continuation of any advisory committee
covered under paragraph (1) beyond the termination date
specified in the original authorization or any
reauthorization for the committee.''.
SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.
Section 7(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.) is amended in the first sentence by striking:
``administrative guidelines'' and inserting ``regulations''.
SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORT.
Section 6(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking the first sentence and
inserting: ``Not later than March 15 of each year, the
President shall submit an annual report to Congress on the
activities, status, and changes in the composition of
advisory committees in existence during the preceding fiscal
year.''.
SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCEDURES.
Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Except when the President determines otherwise for
reasons of national security, timely notice of each such
meeting shall be published in the Federal Register. The
Administrator shall prescribe regulations to provide for
other types of public notice in addition to, or in lieu of,
notices in the Federal Register to ensure that all interested
persons are notified of such meeting prior thereto.''.
____
Committees Dwindle--But Costs Don't
(By Chris Collins)
Washington.--In early 1993, President Clinton vowed to
whack away at the tangled growth of hundreds of advisory
committees that he described as proliferating throughout the
federal government ``like kudzu,'' the notorious vine that
engulfs objects virtually overnight.
Today, the number of such panels is down, as Clinton
promised: 963 in 1997, the most recent year for which numbers
are available, compared to 1,305 in 1993, when he issued an
executive order to pare the committees.
But hold the applause. Both the number of committee members
on the remaining panels and their cost to taxpayers have
soared to all-time highs.
In 1993, according to the General Accounting Office, 28,317
people served on advisory committees. By 1997, the number of
committee members had jumped to 36,586, although the number
of committees was way down.
Costs were up, too: $178 million last year, compared to
$143.9 million in 1993. Even using constant 1988 dollars, the
cost to operate advisory committees has risen in the past
decade from $93 million in 1988 to about $136 million in
1997, GAO said.
James L. Dean, director of the Committee Management
Secretariat at the General Services Administration,
attributes the bulk of the increase in committee members to
the National Institutes of Health's increasingly prevalent
practice of rapidly rotating memberships on some of its peer
review committees.
NIH spokeswoman Laura Vazquez confirmed that
``memberships'' on NIH's 141 committees appear to have
tripled in recent years as NIH pulled more experts onto its
committees for temporary, often one-meeting tenures. In 1997,
for example, NIH had 8,366 such short-term participants and
4,140 longer-term committee members.
But the cost of the committees to taxpayers is not higher
simply because there are more members. The cost of caring for
each committee member has risen, too: From $90,816 per member
in 1988 to $184,868 in 1997, GAO said. Even in constant 1988
dollars, per-member expenses rose from $90,816 to $140,870 in
that period.
Most of that money--$75.5 million last year--pays for
federal staff support for the committees, Dean said. Most
panelists are not paid for their time; only $10.4 million
went last year to compensate non-federal committee members,
said Dean, whose office had eight employees and a $645,000
budget in 1997 (up from $220,000 in 1988).
None of this, however, shows up in the annual message the
president is required to send to Congress on the status of
federal advisory committees.
Clinton's last message, sent in September, bragged about
how the number of committees has dropped during his tenure
and that $2.5 million was saved during the 1996 budget year
by cutting out additional panels. There wasn't a mention of
how much overall costs and overall membership had
risen.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Hatch,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Conrad):
S. 2230. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the work opportunity tax credit for 3 additional years; to the
Committee on Finance.
the work opportunity tax credit extension act
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators
Baucus, Hatch, D'Amato, Conrad, Mikulski, Jeffords and Rockefeller. I
am introducing legislation that extends the
[[Page S7193]]
current Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) program for three years. The
program expires at the end of this month. While it is clear that the
program will not be extended before we leave for the Fourth of July
recess, I hope that Congress will act quickly upon its return to make
sure that this very important program is reinstated and that no gap in
the availability of the credit is created.
The WOTC program is a public-private partnership which encourages
businesses to hire individuals on public assistance or who otherwise
have life situations that make them difficult to employ. Employers who
hire these individuals receive an income tax credit of as much as forty
percent of the first $6,000 in wages they pay.
The WOTC program was established in 1996 as a replacement for the
Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (TJTC). Last year, as part of the Taxpayer
Relief Act Congress affirmed its strong support for this program by
extending it for nine months along with the other so-called ``expiring
provisions.'' Unfortunately, the tax credit will expire at the end of
this month before Congress will have an opportunity to extend it.
The legislation we are introducing today extends the program for
three years. This extension is vital to the continued success of the
WOTC program. In speaking with employers who utilize the program, their
biggest concern is the on again, off again nature of the credit.
Participation in the program requires significant resources and time
commitments on the part of the employer. The uncertainty surrounding
the continuation of this program makes it very difficult for employers
to make that commitment. The loss of program certainty reduces the
incentive to hire those currently on public assistance. During previous
breaks employers have scaled back their programs, and some have even
abandoned the program altogether.
Individuals hired under the WOTC program often require substantial
time and effort on the part of an employer. In many instances these
individuals lack even the most basic skills necessary to hold a job.
Without the WOTC program there would be a strong disincentive for
employers to make any effort to hire these individuals. The tax credit
levels the playing field and gives these individuals an opportunity to
move off the welfare rolls and take control of their futures. Thus far,
nearly 300,000 people--mostly single mothers--have been hired under
this program.
Those eligible for the WOTC are: members of families receiving AFDC
benefits; qualified veterans who are members of families receiving food
stamp benefits; 18-24 years olds who are members of families receiving
food stamp benefits; 18-24 year olds who live in an empowerment zone or
enterprise community; summer youth (16-17 year olds) who live in an
empowerment zone or enterprise community who are hired during the
summer months; SSI recipients; economically disadvantaged ex-felons;
and individuals with physical or mental disabilities who have been
referred to employers after or while receiving rehabilitative services
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
As I mentioned earlier, an employer will receive an income tax credit
of forty percent of the first $6,000 in wages paid to an employee who
is a member of one of these groups. Therefore, the maximum credit
available is $2,400. The only exception is summer youth employees where
the maximum amount of wages used to calculate the credit is $3,000. An
employer can only receive this maximum credit, however, if the employee
is employed for at least 400 hours. While that may sound like a short
period of time, for many of these individuals, that represent a
significant period of employment, perhaps longer than any job they've
ever held.
A smaller credit equal to 25% of the first $6,000 of wages is
available to an employer in those instances where the employee works
less than 400 hours. No credit is available for any employee who works
less than 120 hours.
The Work Opportunity Tax Credit is an important component of our
efforts to make welfare reform work over the long term. It provides
transitional assistance to employers who are willing to hire and take
the time to train individuals before they become long-term welfare
recipients and young people at high risk of going on public assistance
programs.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a long-term extension
of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my
colleague Senator John Chafee in introducing legislation to extend the
Work Opportunities Tax Credit (WOTC). This program was created after
extensive consultations between the Congress and the Administration as
a replacement for the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit. It was improved in the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 with changes designed to make the program
more accessible to employers who identify, hire and train welfare
recipients and equip them with basic job skills necessary for long-term
employment.
As the June 30, 1998 expiration date for the WOTC program approaches,
we are introducing this bill as a statement of Congressional commitment
to the future continuation of the credit. WOTC encourages employers to
participate in the national goal of moving millions from welfare to
work through a hiring tax incentive that helps to offset the costs of
recruiting, hiring and training those with few basic job skills.
Congress enacted welfare reform in 1996. Since that time, employers
have utilized WOTC to hire nearly one in four of those coming off
public assistance. The time limits that were implemented through the
welfare reform legislation are now reaching many of the more difficult
welfare cases, those with the fewest job skills that have had the most
difficulty finding jobs. As these welfare recipients search for jobs,
it is extremely important to continue providing an incentive which will
help defray the extra costs experienced by companies hiring these
workers.
The legislation we are introducing today will extend WOTC for three
years. The current practice of extending the credit on a year-to-year,
or partial-year, basis makes it extremely difficult for employers to
use the credit. Small businesses in particular require some time to set
up and use the program. All employers need some level of certainty for
tax planning, which is not available when the credit is extended on a
short-term basis. A multi-year extension will provide that certainty,
and will show that Congress is serious about making the program work.
I thank Senators Conrad, D'Amato, Hatch, Jeffords, Mikulski and
Rockefeller for joining Senator Chafee and myself as original
cosponsors of this bill. I look forward to working with all of my
colleagues to enact a multi-year extension of the Work Opportunities
Tax Credit before the end of this legislative session.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Mack):
S. 2231. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
simplify certain rules relating to the taxation of United States
business operating abroad, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
international tax simplification for american competitiveness act
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today with my friend and colleague
Senator Baucus I introduce the International Tax Simplification for
American Competitiveness Act of 1998. This bill will provide much-
needed tax relief from complex and inconsistent tax laws that burden
our American-owned companies which are attempting to compete in the
world marketplace.
Our foreign tax code is in desperate need of reform and
simplification. The rules in this arena are way too complex and, often,
their results are perverse.
Mr. President, the economy of this country has entered into an
environment like no other in our history. The American economy has
experienced significant growth and prosperity. That success, however,
is becoming more and more intertwined with the success of our
businesses in the global marketplace. As the economic boundaries from
country to country merge closer together, as technology blurs
traditional geographical boundaries, and as competition continues to
increase from previously lesser-developed nations, it is imperative
that American-owned businesses be able to compete effectively.
It seems to me that any rule, regulation, requirement, or tax that we
can alleviate to enhance competitiveness will insure to the benefit of
American companies, their employees, and shareholders.
[[Page S7194]]
There are many barriers that the U.S. economy must overcome in order
to remain competitive that Congress cannot hurdle by itself. All around
the world, we have international trade negotiators working hard to
remove the barriers to foreign markets that discourage and hamper U.S.
trade. This is very important to the future economic growth of the U.S.
economy. However, this effort has largely ignored the largest source of
artificial and unnecessary trade barriers experienced by U.S. companies
operating abroad--the complexities and inconsistencies contained in our
own tax code.
We cannot continue the status quo--we must work to remove the
barriers in our own back yard as diligently as we attack those imposed
by other countries. The failure to do so will even jeopardize our own
domestic economy as American companies are lured to other countries
with simple, more favorable tax treatment.
The business world is changing at an increasingly rapid pace. Tax
laws have failed to keep pace with the rapid changes in the world
technology and economy. We enacted some foreign tax simplification in
last year's Taxpayer Relief Act, but these changes are not enough. Too
many of the international provisions in the Internal Revenue Code have
not been substantially debated and revised in over a decade. Since that
time, existing international markets have changed significantly and we
have seen new markets created. The U.S. tax code needs to adapt to the
changing times as well. The continued use of a confusing and archaic
tax code only results in a mismatch with commercial reality.
If we close American companies out of the international arena due to
complex and burdensome tax rules on exports and foreign production,
then we are denying them the ability to compete and dooming the, and
ourselves, to anemic economic growth and all its adverse subsidiary
effects.
The bill we are introducing today is not a comprehensive solution,
neither is it a set of bold new initiatives. Instead, this bill
contains a set of important intermediate steps which will take us a
long way toward simplifying the rules and making some sense of the
international tax regime. The bill contains provisions to simplify and
update the tax treatment of controlled foreign corporations, fix some
of the rules relating to the foreign tax credit, and make other changes
to international tax law.
Some of these changes are in areas that are in dire need of repair,
and others are changes that take into consideration the changes we have
seen in international business practices and environments during the
last decade. The provisions in this bill are necessary to facilitate
the American economy's ability to remain the driving economic force in
the world of the future.
One example of the need for updating our laws to more adequately
represent rapid changes that have occurred in the last few years is the
financial service industry. This industry has seen technological and
global changes that have changed the very nature of the way these
corporations do business both here and abroad. This bill contains
several provisions to help adapt the foreign tax regime to keep up with
these changes.
In particular, I want to highlight the provision regarding a Subpart
F Exception for active financial services income. This provision is
based in large part on the one-year rule embodied in H.R. 2513, the
House-passed bill that resulted from lengthy negotiations between the
Treasury Department and the financial services industry. The bill's
provisions are not intended to replace H.R. 2513. Rather, this bill
goes further and provides additional options to facilitate discussion
regarding the parameters of a permanent rule that would effectively
level the playing field with respect to our foreign competition. This
discussion is even more important in view of the Supreme Court's ruling
on the line-item veto this morning.
The bill also allows deferral for cross-border income received by
controlled foreign corporations engaged in the active conduct of a
banking, financing, or similar business under narrowly defined
circumstances. This provision is designed to preclude opportunities for
excessive ``mobility'' of income. The first safeguard is the
requirement that income eligible for deferral must be derived from a
transaction with a ``customer.'' The definition of a customer would not
permit a related-party transaction to qualify if one of the principal
purposes for such transaction was to satisfy the underlying provision.
Second, the requirement that employees meet a ``material
participation'' test will reinforce the active nature of the covered
activities. Thus, corporations holding passive investments would be
precluded from relying on the rule.
There are many areas of the international tax regime not covered by
this bill. This legislation represents a pragmatic collection of
proposals, not an exhaustive one. One area I think needs to be explored
is the foreign tax rules as they apply to foreign corporations with
U.S. operations and subsidiaries. These companies are helping the U.S.
economy grow. They buy and sell U.S. products, and they employ U.S.
workers. We need to examine the international tax law and any barriers
it creates for these companies. We must ensure that the U.S. tax law is
written and enforced fairly for all companies operating in the U.S. I
hope that we can include provisions in this area in future versions of
this legislation.
This bill is not the end of the international tax debate. if we were
to pass every provision it contains, we would still not have a simple
tax code. We would need to make more reforms yet. We cannot limit this
debate to only the intermediate changes such as those in this bill. We
must not lose sight of the long term. I intend to continue this debate
with an eye to the future and propel the discussion to broader, more
sweeping areas in need of reform such as interest allocation, the
international tax treatment of partnerships, issues raised by the
European Union, and a broader debate of Subpart F itself. I believe
that we must address these concerns in the next few years if we are to
put U.S. corporations and the U.S. economy in a position to maintain
economic position in the global economy of tomorrow.
This bill is important to the future of every American citizen.
Without these changes, American businesses will see their ability to
compete diminished, and the U.S. will have an uphill battle to remain
the preeminent economic force in a changing world. This credible
package of international tax reforms will help to keep our businesses
and our economy competitive and a driving force in the world economic
picture. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join
with my colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce another in our series of
international simplification bills. The International Simplification
for American Competitiveness Act of 1998 will provide much-needed
relief to American-owned companies that are struggling to compete in
the world marketplace by simplifying our overly complicated
international tax rules.
America's economy, and economies of our individual States, are
increasingly interlinked with the success of our businesses in the
international economy. As the economies of previously less-developed
countries around the world begin to expand, and the economic boundaries
between our countries become more blurred, it is increasingly important
for our businesses to be able to operate abroad from their most
competitive position. Restraining American companies through redundant
and unnecessary complexity in our own tax code dampens their ability to
compete for foreign business. This only hurts our own economy.
I have worked through the Trade Subcommittee to lower barriers to
foreign markets and encourage agreements to keep trade free and fair. I
have sought to open foreign markets for many Montana products, from
beef to wheat, because of the positive impact on Montana's economy, and
on the economy of our country. While we have made much progress on the
trade front in opening barriers, our tax code remains mired in
antiquated provisions that have not kept pace with the rapidly
expanding global economic frontier. We must simplify our code, remove
duplicative or outmoded provisions, and provide incentives for trade
whenever possible, if we are to ensure continued U.S. success in the
world
[[Page S7195]]
economy. If we miss this opportunity, we risk the erosion of U.S.
international competitiveness as countries with simple, favorable tax
treatment of businesses lure away our foreign customers.
There is a strong correlation between American corporate
competitiveness overseas and the ability of those companies to continue
providing jobs at home. According to a report prepared by the
accounting firm of Price Waterhouse, United States exports in 1996
totaled over $600 billion and supported almost 7 million direct and
indirect jobs. Exports alone account for over 11% of our Gross Domestic
Product, and when combined with imports, total about 17% of GDP. Even
in Montana, a state which is struggling to expand its foreign markets,
exports totaled almost one-half billion dollars and supported 58,000
jobs in 1996.
This bill does not by any means cure all of the problems in the
international tax arena. But it is a good starting point which
simplifies existing law, reduces the cost of compliance, and begins to
rationalize the rules that need to be drafted with the competitiveness
of U.S. businesses in mind. There are a lot of important international
issues that this bill does not deal with. The problems associated with
the interest allocation rules, for example. But Senator Hatch and I
feel that these are larger issues that need more time to resolve, so
they have not been included in this bill. I look forward to working
with him, the Treasury Department and industry groups in an effort to
find solutions to these bigger-picture issues over the next months.
We live in a global economy. And we must help make American companies
competitive in this economy, while fairly taxing their profits, if we
are to keep this unprecedented period of economic expansion going. The
``International Tax Simplification for American Competitiveness Act of
1998'' is a major step in that direction, and I look forward to working
with Senator Hatch and my other colleagues on the Finance Committee to
have its provisions enacted into law.
______
By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself and Mr. HUTCHINSON):
S. 2232. A bill to establish the Little Rock Central High School
National Historic Site in the State of Arkansas, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to designate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, as a
National Historic Site. Central High School is perhaps the most well-
known school in the nation, as a result of the high profile and pivotal
role it played in the desegregation of public schools in America. I am
pleased to be joined by Senator Hutchinson in sponsoring this
legislation.
In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision, Brown
versus Board of Education, which held that the segregation of public
schools was unconstitutional. The following year, in its Brown II
decision, the Court ruled that integration of the public schools was
the responsibility of local school districts, to be carried out ``with
all deliberate speed.'' This set the stage for the eventual
confrontation in Little Rock.
Prior to the Brown decision, Central High was attended only by white
students. Following the Court's decision, the Little Rock School Board
initially made plans to comply with the decision in phases to be
carried out over six years. However, by the time the district began to
implement the decision in the fall of 1957, the political controversy
had increased to the extent that only 9 black students decided to
enroll at Central High, with approximately 1,900 white students. Those
nine students later became known as the ``Little Rock Nine,'' and are
an inspiration to America.
Mr. President, earlier this Congress, Senator Mosely-Braun and I
introduced legislation, S. 1283, to award the Congressional Gold Medal
to those nine extraordinary individuals--Jean Brown Trickey, Carlotta
Walls LaNier, Melba Patillo Beals, Terrance Roberts, Gloria Ray
Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed Wair, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, and
Jefferson Thomas. It is my strong desire that both S. 1283 and this
legislation will be enacted into law in the remaining months of this
Congress. These nine sons and daughters of Little Rock are proud
symbols of the progress we have made and a solemn reminder of the
progress we have yet to make.
By the time the Little Rock Nine attempted to enter Central High in
September of 1957, the issue of desegregation had polarized not only
Little Rock, but the entire nation. The Governor of Arkansas, Orville
Faubus, ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the
desegregation of Central High. Following several days of unrest, a
Federal District Court in Little Rock issued an order preventing the
National Guard from further obstructing desegregation efforts in Little
Rock. Amid this period of intense feelings and acrimony, President
Eisenhower issued an Executive Order which federalized the National
Guard and deployed Federal troops to enforce the district court's
order. Although several events of the following days were tense and
often ugly, the eventual peaceful resolution that followed helped to
ensure the successful implementation of the Brown decision, not only in
Little Rock, but throughout the South.
Last fall, on the 40th anniversary of the 1957 events, the attention
of the nation was once again focused on Central High, and the Little
Rock Nine once again entered through the school's main doors. However,
this time those doors were held open by the President of the United
States and the Governor of Arkansas.
Establishment of the Little Rock Central High School National
Historic Site will, for the first time, provide the National Park
Service with the ability to interpret for all Americans the complete
history of the desegregation of our public schools, certainly one of
the most important social events in the history of our country. Let me
hasten to add, Mr. President, that Central High will continue to be a
functioning high school, managed by the Little Rock School District.
Designation of the school as a National Historic Site will also
complement the very successful interpretive activities already
undertaken by the Central High Museum and Visitor Center.
There is no question as to the national significance of Central High
School. The school is included on the National Register of Historic
Places, and was designated in 1982 as a National Historic Landmark by
the Secretary of the Interior.
There is strong support for this bill, both in Little Rock and with
the entire Arkansas Congressional delegation. The City of Little Rock,
the Little Rock School District, Central High Museum, Inc., area
residents, and many other organizations and individuals in Little Rock
have expressed support for this proposal. It is my hope to have a
hearing scheduled for this bill in the very near future, with passage
by the Senate shortly thereafter.
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. 2232
Be it enacted in the Senate and the House of
Representatives in the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board
of Education, which mandated an end to the segregation of
public schools, was one of the most significant Court
decisions in the history of the United States;
(2) the admission of nine African-American students, known
as the ``Little Rock Nine'', to Little Rock's Central High
School as a result of the Brown decision, was the most
prominent national example of the implementation of the Brown
decision, and served as a catalyst for the integration of
other, previously segregated public schools in the United
States;
(3) 1997 marked the 70th anniversary of the construction of
Central High School, which has been named by the American
Institute of Architects as ``the most beautiful high school
building in America'';
(4) Central High School was included on the National
Register of Historic Places in 1977 and designated by the
Secretary of the Interior as a National Historic Landmark in
1982 in recognition of its national significance in the
development of the Civil Rights movement in the United
States; and
(5) the designation of Little Rock Central High School as a
unit of the National Park System will recognize the
significant role the school played in the desegregation of
public schools in the South and will interpret for future
generations the events associated with early desegregation of
southern schools.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to preserve,
protect, and interpret for the benefit, education, and
inspiration of present and
[[Page S7196]]
future generations, Central High School in Little Rock,
Arkansas, and its role in the integration of public schools
and the development of the Civil Rights movement in the
United States.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL NATIONAL
HISTORIC SITE.
(a) Establishment.--The Little Rock Central High School
National Historic Site in the State of Arkansas (hereinafter
referred to as the ``historic site'') is hereby established
as a unit of the National Park System. The historic site
shall consist of lands and interests therein comprising the
Central High School campus in Little Rock, Arkansas, as
generally depicted on a map entitled ________________ and
dated June, 1998. Such map shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National
Park Service.
(b) Administration of Historic Site.--The Secretary of the
Interior (hereinafter referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
administer the historic site in accordance with this Act and
the laws generally applicable to units of the National Park
System, including the Act of August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1, 2-
4) and the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461-467):
Provided, That nothing in this Act shall affect the authority
of the Little Rock School District to administer Little Rock
Central High School.
(c) Cooperative Agreements.--(1) The Secretary may enter
into cooperative agreements with appropriate public and
private agencies, organizations, and institutions (including,
but not limited to, the State of Arkansas, the City of Little
Rock, the Little Rock School District, Central High Museum,
Inc., Central High Neighborhood, Inc., or the University of
Arkansas) in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Secretary shall coordinate visitor interpretation
of the historic site with the Little Rock School District and
the Central High School Museum, Inc.
(d) General Management Plan.--Within two years after the
date funds are made available, the Secretary shall prepare a
general management plan for the historic site.
(e) Continuing Educational Use.--The Secretary shall
consult and coordinate with the Little Rock School District
in the development of the general management plan and in
the administration of the historic site so as to not
interfere with the continuing use of Central High School
as an educational institution.
(f) Acquisition of Property.--The Secretary is authorized
to acquire by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, by
exchange, or donation the lands and interested therein
located within the boundaries of the historic site: Provided,
That the Secretary may only acquire lands or interests
therein within the consent of the owner thereof: Provided
further, That lands or interests therein owned by the State
of Arkansas or a political subdivision thereof, may only be
acquired by donation or exchange.
SEC. 3. DESEGREGATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATION THEME STUDY.
(a) Theme Study.--Within two years after the date fund are
made available, the Secretary shall prepare an transmit to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate
and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives a National Historic Landmark Theme Study
(hereinafter referred to as the ``theme study'') on the
history of desegregation in public education. The purpose of
the theme study shall be to identify sites, districts,
buildings, structures, and landscapes that best illustrate or
commemorate key events or decisions in the historical
movement to provide for racial desegregation in public
education. On the basis of the theme study, the Secretary
shall identify possible new national historic landmarks
appropriate to this theme and prepare a list in order of
importance or merit of the most appropriate sites for
national historic landmark designation.
(b) Opportunities for Education and Research.--The theme
study shall identify appropriate means to establish linkages
between sites identified in subsection (a) and between those
sites and the Central High School National Historic Site
established in section 2, and with other existing units of
the National Park System to maximize opportunities for public
education and scholarly research on desegregation in public
education. The theme study also shall recommend opportunities
for cooperative arrangements with State and local
governments, educational institutions, local historical
organizations, and other appropriate entities to preserve and
interpret key sites in the history of desegregation in public
education.
(c) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with one or more major educational
institutions, public history organizations, or civil rights
organizations knowledgeable about desegregation in public
education to prepare the theme study and to ensure that the
theme study meets scholarly standards.
(d) Theme Study Coordination with General Management
Plan.--The theme study shall be prepared as part of the
preparation and development of the general management plan
for the Little Rock Central High School National Historic
Site established in section 2.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 2233. A bill to amend section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the placed in service date for biomass and coal
facilities; to the Committee on Finance.
Biomass and Coal Facilities Extension Act
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my friend
from Utah, Senator Hatch, in the introduction of the Biomass and Coal
Facilities Extension Act. This legislation would extend by eight months
the placed-in-service date under section 29 of the Internal Revenue
Code.
This change is necessary in order to alleviate the hardship suffered
by taxpayers who relied on action Congress took almost two years ago,
and made substantial commitments of resources to develop alternative
fuel technology projects. These commitments were made in good faith
pursuant to the 1996 Small Business Protection Act, in which Congress
amended section 29 for synthetic coal and biomass by extending the
``binding contract'' provision for 12 months to December 31, 1996 and
extending the ``placed-in-service'' provision for 18 months to June 30,
1998.
That should have settled the matter. However, when the
Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget was submitted in February
1997, it contained a proposal to shorten by a full year the placed-in-
service date for facilities producing gas from biomass and synthetic
fuel from coal. The Administration was concerned about what it
characterized as rapid growth in the section 29 credit. Congress
considered that argument and concluded that any concern about the
growth in the credit had been dealt with adequately in the 1996 Act.
In the tax legislative arena, even a mere proposal can have
consequences, as the Administration's proposal to shorten the placed-
in-service date illustrates. The Joint Committee on Taxation's analysis
of the proposal, made in March 1997, warned Congress about just such a
consequence as it noted that ``[b]ecause the binding contract date has
already passed * * * the proposal might place an unfair financial
burden on those taxpayers who are bound to contracts entered into prior
to the Administration's announcement.''
Mr. President, that is exactly what happened--taxpayers in that
situation lost their sources of financing because financial
institutions had to treat the Administration proposal as a real
possibility. Because the tax credit plays a significant role in the
overall financial situation that lenders have to consider, its
potential loss made securing necessary financing impossible for
taxpayers who were proceeding under binding contracts made in good
faith reliance on the Small Business Protection Act of 1996.
The bill we offer today would simply restore some of the lost time
that taxpayers endured as a result of the unintended consequences
stemming from Congressional consideration of the Administration's 1997
budget proposal. It would extend the placed-in-service date from June
30, 1998 to a date eight months from the date of the bill's enactment.
Taxpayers took Congress at its word in 1996 when it said that the
development of environmentally friendly fuels from domestic biomass and
coal resources was worth supporting. Their subsequent investment of
large amounts of time, effort, and money should be allowed to fulfill
its objectives rather than simply be forfeited as a result of
circumstances over which these taxpayers had no control.
This is a modest proposal; it would not disturb the ``binding
contract'' date of the 1996 Act. Thus, no new projects would qualify
because of its enactment. It seeks only to allow taxpayers who began
projects under the 1996 Act to proceed in an orderly manner--an option
that was effectively denied them as a result of the uncertainty created
during consideration of the fiscal year 1998 budget.
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. 2233
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 ``Biomass and Coal Facilities
Extension Act''.
[[Page S7197]]
SEC. 2 EXTENSION OF PLACED IN SERVICE DATE FOR BIOMASS AND
COAL FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 29(g)(1)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to extension for certain
facilities) is amended by striking ``July 1, 1998'' and
inserting ``the date which is 8 months after the date of the
enactment of the Biomass and Coal Facilities Extension Act''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today with my colleague, Senator
Conrad, I introduce the Biomass and Coal Facilities Extension Act. This
legislation would extend the ``placed in service'' date under section
29 for facilities that produce alternative fuels by 8 months.
Section 29 was originally created to encourage the development of
alternative fuels to reduce our dependence on imports and to reduce the
environmental impacts of certain fuels. With the enormous reserves of
low rank coals and lignite in the United States and around the world,
and with the potential for use of biomass and other alternatives, it is
particularly important to the American economy and the world's
environment that new, more environmentally friendly fuels are brought
to market here and in developing nations.
Bringing new technologies to market is financially risky. In
particular, finding investors to take a new technology from a
laboratory table to the market is difficult because working the bugs
out of a first-of-a-kind, full-sized plant is a costly undertaking.
Incentives to bring new, clean energy technologies to the market in the
U.S. are a worthwhile use of the code.
The 1996 Small Business Protection Act provided sufficient incentives
to make the development of alternative fuels a viable pursuit. In
particular, it extended the section 29 ``placed in service'' date for
facilities designed to produce energy from biomass or processed coals
to July 1, 1998, provided that those facilities were constructed
pursuant to a binding contract entered into before January 1, 1997.
However, the Administration's budget proposal, released in February
1997, effectively nullified the extension granted by Congress in the
1996 Small Business Protection Act. The Administration proposed that
the placed in service date be moved up one year, to July 1, 1997,
which, for many of these projects, was an impossible deadline to meet.
Without the assurance of the section 29 tax credit, financing for
these projects dried up, stranding taxpayers in contracts, some of
which contained significant liquidated damages clauses, already entered
into in reliance on the Small Business Protection Act of 1996. As a
result of the Administration's proposal, taxpayers essentially lost 8
months of the extension given them in 1996.
Mr. President, the bill before us would give these lost months back
to companies with contracts signed by January 1, 1997. This bill does
not extend the contract deadline, allow more projects to be initiated,
or change the 2008 deadline for receiving the section 29 tax credit.
This bill simply restores the time taxpayers lost in their efforts to
develop environmentally friendly fuels under section 29.
Bringing new alternative fuel technologies to the market is an
important part of our commitment to a cleaner environment and a secure
economy. We reflected that commitment in our efforts to mitigate some
of the financial risk involved in developing this much needed
technology in the Small Business Protection Act of 1996. This bill
maintains that commitment. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 2235. A bill to amend part Q of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to encourage the use of school resource officers;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT OF 1998
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the School Resource
Officers Partnership Grant Act of 1998, a bill which will be an
important step in our efforts to end crime in our nation's schools.
This bill will help build thousands of deep, meaningful and lasting
partnerships between America's local school systems, school children,
and local law enforcement agencies. I am joined in introducing this
legislation by my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Jim
Jeffords, as an original cosponsor.
The need for this bill is clear. Violence in schools is both serious
and deadly. Violence is disrupting our children's opportunity and
ability to learn. No child anywhere in America should have to go to
school with fear on their mind, rather than learning. The recent
school-related shootings stand as stark and horrific examples of just
how urgent the situation has become. These recent school shootings have
occurred in suburbs, small towns, and major metropolitan areas all
across our nation. They have shattered the myth that school violence is
a problem solely confined to the inner cities. Events now clearly show
that the potential for serious and deadly school violence is
everywhere. Something must be done to ensure that our schools provide a
safe place for our children to learn and grow.
Under this bill, schools in partnerships with local law enforcement
agencies would be eligible to receive federal funding to hire ``School
Resource Officers'' (SROs). A SRO would be a career law enforcement
officer, with sworn authority, deployed in community oriented policing,
and assigned by the employing police department or agency to work in
collaboration with schools and community-based organizations. The SROs
would be able to assist in several primary activities. First, SROs
would address crime and disorder problems with a special focus on
gangs, drug-related activities, and other crimes occurring in or around
our schools. Second, SROs would develop or expand crime prevention
efforts in cooperation with students. Third, SROs would help educate
potential school-age victims in crime prevention and personal safety
awareness. Fourth, SROs would develop or expand community justice
initiatives. Fifth, and clearly increasingly more important in light of
the recent school shootings, is that the SROs would train students in
conflict resolution and teach students how to resolve their differences
without feeling the need to resort to violence. Where childhood
schoolyard hard feelings used to occasionally result in a scuffle, we
now live in a time where they are resolved with firearms and lead to
serious wounds and even death. This simply must end. Sixth, SROs would
help identify changes in the school environment, like new graffiti or
other indications of gang activity, that provide vital indicators. And
finally, SROs would assist with the development of anti-crime, school
policy and procedural changes.
According to the National School Safety Center, 25 students have been
killed in U.S. schools since January 1, 1998. This is the same number
of students that were killed for the full 1996 school year, but in half
the time. At this rate, we are on track to a doubling of the schoolyard
murder rate in just two short years.
The current school-based partnership grant program, which is
administered by the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS), is not defined by statute, nor is the
description of the qualifications and responsibilities of SROs. This
legislation would ensure that SROs are career law enforcement officers,
deployed in community-oriented policing assignments and directed by
their agencies to work in collaboration with schools and other
community-based organizations to address crime problems and assist
school authorities in educating students about crime and violence
prevention.
This legislation complements the existing school-based partnership
research grant program administered by the COPS office. The existing
demonstration program provides funds to specific, and relatively small
scale, youth crime prevention programs. My legislation would build on
this solid foundation, and allow the COPS program resources to be freed
up for widespread and comprehensive partnerships between our nation's
schools and law enforcement agencies, with the SROs providing the vital
link between the two.
In addition, my bill is a companion to H.R. 4009, which our colleague
in the House of Representatives, Congressman
[[Page S7198]]
Jim Maloney of Connecticut, introduced on June 5, 1998. This bill has
received the endorsement of a number of education and law enforcement
groups including the National Education Association, the International
Brotherhood of Police, the Fraternal Order of Police. I believe that
this powerful combination of endorsements clearly reflects the strength
of, and compelling need for, this legislation.
On June 23rd , Senator Judd Gregg, Chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the
Judiciary, unveiled a $210 million Safe Schools Initiative. Largely
thanks to Senator Gregg, the funding needed to combat school violence
is on track to be made available in a few short months, on October 1st,
1998, the start of Fiscal Year 1999.
Together, these initiatives will target important funding and
resources to where it is most urgently needed, in our nation's schools.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2235
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS.
Part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 1701(d)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (10) as
paragraphs (9) through (11), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems by using school
resource officers who operate in and around elementary and
secondary schools to combat school-related crime and disorder
problems, gangs, and drug activities;''; and
(2) in section 1709--
(A) by redesignating the first 3 undesignated paragraphs as
paragraphs (1) through (3), respectively; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) `school resource officer' means a career law
enforcement officer, with sworn authority, deployed in
community-oriented policing, and assigned by the employing
police department or agency to work in collaboration with
schools and community-based organizations--
``(A) to address crime and disorder problems, gangs, and
drug activities affecting or occurring in or around an
elementary or secondary school;
``(B) to develop or expand crime prevention efforts for
students;
``(C) to educate likely school-age victims in crime
prevention and safety;
``(D) to develop or expand community justice initiatives
for students;
``(E) to train students in conflict resolution, restorative
justice, and crime awareness;
``(F) to assist in the identification of physical changes
in the environment that may reduce crime in or around the
school; and
``(G) to assist in developing school policy that addresses
crime and to recommend procedural changes.''.
______
By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Helms, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. McCain):
S.J. Res. 54. A joint resolution finding the Government of Iraq in
unacceptable and material breach of its international obligations; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
iraqi violations of international obligations
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today S.J. Res. 54
concerning Iraq's violations of the cease-fire agreement that ended
Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
Yesterday, the Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission
(UNSCOM) presented clear and compelling evidence to the U.N. Security
Council that Iraq has lied about a critical aspect of its weapons of
mass destruction programs.
UNSCOM has uncovered proof that Iraq has turned the deadly nerve
agent known as VX into missile warheads. Iraq still denies the truth
today, but no one should be fooled. The proof is certain.
And no one should be surprised. Iraq has consistently lied to UNSCOM
for 8 years. It denied having any biological weapons. Iraq concealed
the number of missiles it possessed. Iraq has refused to account for
its chemical weapons programs. Iraq has refused to provide access to
sites or documents necessary for UNSCOM to complete its work.
In the past, under both this administration and the previous
administration, Iraq's violations led to action on the part of the U.S.
Iraq has been found to be in material breach on many occasions which
are spelled out in this resolution. Military action has been threatened
and even employed to force compliance.
But now there is a different tune from the Clinton Administration.
Now the Clinton Administration is on the defensive. Just keeping U.N.
sanctions on seems to be enough--even though a U.S. veto would keep
sanctions in place regardless of Russian or French pressure. I cannot
understand why the Administration has been so passive in the face of
the smoking fun demonstrating Iraq's deception to the world.
Earlier this year, President Clinton came close to using military
force in response to Iraq's violations. Instead, U.N. Secretary General
Annan went to Baghdad and made a deal with Saddam Hussein. Hussein
promised to do what he has been obligated to do since 1991. In return,
a new ``Special Envoy'' for Iraq was created. Special procedures of
certain UNSCOM inspections were laid out.
If the goal was to avoid the difficult decision to use force, the
Clinton Administration was successful. If the goal was to achieve Iraqi
compliance with its international obligations, the Clinton
Administration has failed.
In recent months there are a number of signs that the Clinton
Administration is abandoning a serious policy toward Iraq. First, U.S.
military deployments in the Persian Gulf have been reduced. There has
been no change in Iraqi behavior. Congress fully funded the deployments
through the fiscal year. Yet the force without which diplomacy is empty
has been significantly and unilaterally reduced.
Second, the Administration refuses to support effective opposition to
Saddam Hussein. The Congress provided $5 million in support for the
Iraqi democratic opposition and required the Administration to submit
its plan to Congress for using the money in 30 days. Today, almost 60
days later, we have received no report.
The Administration has refused to provide direct support to the Iraqi
National Congress--the opposition group most effective in challenging
Saddam Hussein in the past. Instead, they provided a list of dozens of
so-called opposition groups that included fronts for Syrian
intelligence, groups compromised by Iraq, groups linked to Iran, and a
number of cultural and religious groups with no history in political
opposition. This list--and the absence of a report--make it seem the
Administration has no interest in an effective policy of supporting the
Iraqi opposition.
Third, the Administration is acting in a very bizarre way in the case
of Iraqis detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in
California. Six Iraqis involved in efforts to overthrow Saddam
Hussein--part of more than 6,000 evacuated after Saddam invaded
northern Iraq--are now subject to secret deportation proceedings.
former CIA Director Woosley is representing them free of charge, but
even he has been denied an opportunity to see the alleged ``evidence''
gathered by INS. Something very suspicious is going on here. The
Congress will look at why the executive branch is trying to send Iraqis
who supported our goals in Iraq back to certain death at the hands of
Saddam Hussein.
Fourth, the U.S. acquiesced in a dramatic expansion of Iraq's oil
exports for the ostensible purpose of feeding Iraqis. The new program,
approved just before Secretary General Annan left for Baghdad, allows
Iraq to export more than $10 billion a year. This is not about feeding
Iraqis--it is about repairing Iraq's oil infrastructure, building roads
and otherwise helping Saddam Hussein provide the services he has been
denied because of U.N. sanctions. It goes a long way to allowing Saddam
Hussein to enjoy the benefits of ending sanctions while the U.S. has
received no additional support for keeping sanctions on Iraq. It is a
bad deal that seems to be getting worse--for our position.
Finally, there is the mute response to evidence of the weaponization
of VX by Saddam Hussein's regime. This is one of the most deadly
substances know to man. A single drop can kill a person. Saddam Hussien
had it in missile warheads. He denied it. UNSCOM caught him in his
lies--again.
[[Page S7199]]
The Administration needs to do more than simply hear the evidence and
say the sanctions should remain. They need to develop and implement a
coherent policy that addresses the threat posed by Saddam Hussien's
regime. The need to respond--as the U.S. and even the U.N.--has
responded before to material breaches by Iraq. Instead they are, in
effect, looking the other way and hoping the French and Russians are
not too offended by UNSCOM.
This resolution is intended to put pressure on the Administration to
act on the information uncovered by UNSCOM. This is a material and
unacceptable breach of Iraq's obligations. If the Administration
refuses to act, Congress will be forced to step into the vacuum.
I would like to thank the cosponsors of the resolution: Senators
Lieberman, Helms, Kyl, Shelby, Brownback, and McCain. I look forward to
continuing to work with them in supporting an effective policy toward
Iraq.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 54
Whereas hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on
February 28, 1991, and the conditions governing the cease-
fire were specified in United Nations Security Council
Resolutions 686 (March 2, 1991) and 687 (April 3, 1991);
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 687
requires that international economic sanctions remain in
place until Iraq discloses and destroys its weapons of mass
destruction programs and capabilities and undertakes
unconditionally never to resume such activities;
Whereas Resolution 687 established the United Nations
Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) to uncover all aspects of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and tasked the
Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to
locate and remove or destroy all nuclear weapons systems,
subsystems or material from Iraq;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 715,
adopted on October 11, 1991, empowered UNSCOM to maintain a
long-term monitoring program to ensure Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction programs are dismantled and not restarted;
Whereas Iraq has consistently fought to hide the full
extent of its weapons programs, and has systematically made
false declarations to the Security Council and to UNSCOM
regarding those programs, and has systematically obstructed
weapons inspections for seven years;
Whereas In June 1991, Iraq forces fired on International
Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and otherwise obstructed and
misled UNSCOM inspectors, resulting in UN Security Council
Resolution 707 which found Iraq to be in ``material breach''
of its obligations under United Nations Security Council
Resolution 687 for failing to allow UNSCOM inspectors access
to a site storing nuclear equipment;
Whereas in January and February of 1992, Iraq rejected
plans to instal long-term monitoring equipment and cameras
called for in UN resolutions, resulting in a Security Council
Presidential Statement of February 19, 1992 which declared
that Iraq was in ``continuing material breach'' of its
obligations;
Whereas in February of 1992, Iraq continued to obstruct the
installation of monitoring equipment, and failed to comply
with UNSCOM orders to allow destruction of missiles and other
proscribed weapons, resulting the Security Council
Presidential Statement of February 28, 1992 which reiterated
that Iraq was in ``continuing material breach'' and noted a
``further material breach'' on account of Iraq's failure to
allow destruction of ballistic missile equipment;
Whereas on July 5, 1992, Iraq denied UNSCOM inspectors
access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, resulting in a
Security Council Presidential Statement of July 6, 1992 which
declared that Iraq was in ``material and unacceptable
breach'' of its obligations under UN resolutions;
Whereas in December of 1992 and January of 1993, Iraq
violated the southern no-fly zone, moved surface to air
missiles into the no-fly zone, raided a weapons depot in
internationally recognized Kuwaiti territory and denied
landing rights to a plane carrying UN weapons inspectors,
resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of
January 8, 1993 which declared that Iraq was in an
``unacceptable and material breach'' of its obligations under
UN resolutions;
Whereas in response to continued Iraqi defiance, a Security
Council Presidential Statement of January 11, 1993 reaffirmed
the previous finding of material breach, followed on January
13 and 18 by allied air raids, and on January 17 with an
allied missile attack on Iraqi targets;
Whereas on June 10, 1993, Iraq prevented UNSCOM's
installation of cameras and monitoring equipment, resulting
in a Security Council Presidential Statement of June 18, 1993
declaring Iraq's refusal to comply to be a ``material and
unacceptable breach'';
Whereas on October 6, 1994, Iraq threatened to end
cooperation with weapons inspectors if sanctions were not
ended, and one day later, massed 10,000 troops within 30
miles of the Kuwaiti border, resulting in United Nations
Security Council Resolution 949 demanding Iraq's withdrawal
from the Kuwaiti border area and renewal of compliance with
UNSCOM;
Whereas on April 10, 1995, UNSCOM reported to the Security
Council that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons
program, and had failed to account for 17 tons of biological
weapons material resulting in the Security Council's renewal
of sanctions against Iraq;
Whereas on July 1, 1995, Iraq admitted to a full scale
biological weapons program, but denied weaponization of
biological agents, and subsequently threatened to end
cooperation with UNSCOM resulting in the Security Council's
renewal of sanctions against Iraq;
Whereas on March 8, 11, 14 and 15, 1996, Iraq again barred
UNSCOM inspectors from sites containing documents and
weapons, in response to which the Security Council issued a
Presidential Statement condemning ``clear violations by Iraq
of previous Resolutions 687, 707 and 715.'';
Whereas from June 11-15, 1996, Iraq repeatedly barred
weapons inspectors from military sites, in response to which
the Security Council adopted United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1060, noting the ``clear violation on United
Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 707 and 715'' and
in response to Iraq's continued violations, issued a
Presidential statement detailing Iraq's ``gross violation of
obligations'';
Whereas in August 1996, Iraqi troops overran Irbil, in
Iraqi Kurdistan, employing more than 30,000 troops and
Republican Guards, in response to which the Security Council
briefly suspended implementation on United Nations Security
Council Resolution 986, the UN oil for food plan;
Whereas in December 1996, Iraq prevented UNSCOM from
removing 130 Scud missile engines from Iraq for analysis,
resulting in a Security Council presidential statement which
``deplore[d]'' Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM;
Whereas on April 9, 1997, Iraq violated the no-fly zone in
southern Iraq and United Nations Security Council Resolution
670, banning international flights, resulting in a Security
Council statement regretting Iraq's lack of ``specific
consultation'' with the Council;
Whereas on June 4 and 5, 1997 Iraqi officials on board
UNSCOM aircraft interfered with the controls and inspections,
endangering inspectors and obstructing the UNSCOM mission,
resulting in a UN Security Council presidential statement
demanding Iraq end its interference and on June 21, 1997,
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1115 threatened
sanctions on Iraqi officials responsible for these
interferences;
Whereas on September 13, 1997 during an inspection mission,
an Iraqi official attacked UNSCOM officials engaged in
photographing illegal Iraqi activities, resulting in the
October 23, 1997 adoption of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1134 which threatened a travel ban on Iraqi
officials responsible for non-compliance with UN resolutions;
Whereas on October 29, 1997, Iraq announced that it would
no longer allow American inspectors working with UNSCOM to
conduct inspections in Iraq, blocking UNSCOM teams containing
Americans to conduct inspections and threatening to shoot
down U.S. U-2 surveillance flights in support of UNSCOM,
resulting in a United Nations Security Council Resolution
1137 on November 12, 1997 which imposed the travel ban on
Iraqi officials and threatened unspecified ``further
measures.''
Whereas on November 13, 1997, Iraq expelled U.S. inspectors
from Iraq, leading to UNSCOM's decision to pull out its
remaining inspectors and resulting in a United Nations
Security Council presidential statement demanding Iraq revoke
the expulsion;
Whereas on January 16, 1998, an UNSCOM team led by American
Scott Ritter was withdrawn from Iraq after being barred for
three days by Iraq from conducting inspections, resulting in
the adoption on a United Nations Security Council
presidential statement deploring Iraq's decision to bar the
team as a clear violation of all applicable resolutions;
Whereas, despite clear agreement on the part of Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein with United Nations Secretary
General Kofi Annan to grant access to all sites, and fully
cooperate with UNSCOM, and the adoption on March 2, 1998 of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154, warning that
any violation of the agreement with Annan would have the
``severest consequences'' for Iraq, Iraq has continued to
actively conceal weapons and weapons programs, provide
misinformation and otherwise deny UNSCOM inspectors access;
Whereas on June 24, 1998, UNSCOM Director Richard Butler
presented information to the UN Security Council indicating
clearly that Iraq, in direct contradiction to information
provided to UNSCOM, weaponized the nerve agent VX;
Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction
programs threaten vital United States interests and
international peace and security; and
Whereas the United States has existing authority to defend
United States interests in the Persian Gulf region; Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach
[[Page S7200]]
of its international obligations, and therefore, the
President of the United States is urged to act accordingly.
____________________