[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10926-S10929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE CROP INSURANCE REFORM ACT

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which 
takes an important step toward improving the nation's federal crop 
insurance program--the ``Crop Insurance Reform Act.''
  Over the last year, we have witnessed devastating circumstances come 
together to create a crisis atmosphere for many of our nation's 
farmers. I know that in my own state of Minnesota, multiple years of 
wet weather and crop disease--especially scab--coupled with rising 
production costs and plummeting commodity prices is wiping out family 
farms in record numbers.
  With the increased opportunities that accompany Freedom to Farm come 
increased risks. We've seen this first hand.
  Freedom to Farm can work, but a necessary component of it is an 
adequate crop insurance program. This component has been missing so 
far. One of the promises made during debate of the 1996 Farm Bill was 
that Congress would address the need for better crop insurance.
  We must not let another growing season pass without having instituted 
a new, effective crop insurance program. This overhaul is a major 
undertaking, but instituting a program of comprehensive reform must be 
a priority upon our return in January.
  And, we must start the debate now so that we can have the best system 
in place in time. The bill I'm introducing today is a first step. It is 
the result of months of work from my Minnesota Crop Insurance Work 
Group.
  The Work Group consists of various commodity groups, farm 
organizations, rural lenders, and agriculture economists. We have also 
worked closely with USDA's Farm Service and Risk Management Agencies. 
But it was my primary intention to assemble a committee of farmers and 
lenders--people who know the situation and have seen the problems first 
hand.
  The Crop Insurance Reform Act is designed to address the coverage 
decision a farmer must make at the initial stages of purchasing crop 
insurance.
  This bill allows more options for producers to choose from when 
making risk-management decisions. It essentially provides farmers with 
an enhanced coverage product at a more affordable price.
  Currently, producer premium subsidies range from nearly 42% at the 
100% price election for 65% coverage, to only 13% at the 100% price 
election for 85% coverage. Producers continue to stress that, although 
the Risk Management Agency has recently provided better product 
options, the subsidy levels at the higher ends of coverage make them 
cost prohibitive.
  This bill will put in place a flat subsidy level of 29% across the 
100% price election and at all levels of coverage. This will adjust the 
producer premiums to make better coverage more affordable.
  When farmers are armed with the necessary risk management tools, 
everybody saves. The government saves in ad hoc disaster payments, 
arguably the most expensive way to address any kind of financial 
crisis. But more importantly, the family farmer saves.
  This bill is just the beginning of reform. Over the next few months, 
I will continue to work with my Crop Insurance Work Group, and my 
colleagues, Senators Lugar and Roberts, to craft a comprehensive 
program which directly benefits producers and protects the taxpayers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 2518. A bill to enhance family life; to the Committee on Finance.


                 the enhancing family life act of 1998

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Enhancing Family 
Life Act of 1998, a bill inspired by an extraordinary set of proposals 
by one of our nation's most eminent social scientists, Professor James 
Q. Wilson. On December 4, 1997, I had the honor of hearing Professor 
Wilson--who is an old and dear friend--deliver the Francis Boyer 
Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The Boyer Lecture 
is delivered at AEI's annual dinner by a thinker who has ``made notable 
intellectual or practical contributions to improved public policy and 
social welfare.'' Previous Boyer lecturers have included Irving 
Kristol, Alan Greenspan, and Henry Kissinger. In his lecture, Professor 
Wilson argued that ``two nations'' now exist within the United States. 
He said:

       In one nation, a child, raised by two parents, acquires an 
     education, a job, a spouse, and a home kept separate from 
     crime and disorder by distance, fences, or guards. In the 
     other nation, a child is raised by an unwed girl, lives in a 
     neighborhood filled with many sexual men but few committed 
     fathers, and finds gang life to be necessary for self-
     protection and valuable for self-advancement.

  Sadly, this is an all-too-accurate portrait of the American 
underclass, the

[[Page S10927]]

problems of which have been the focus of decades of unsuccessful 
welfare reform and crime control efforts. We have tried a great many 
``solutions,'' as Professor Wilson notes:

       Congress has devised community action, built public 
     housing, created a Job Corps, distributed Food Stamps, given 
     federal funds to low-income schools, supported job training, 
     and provided cash grants to working families.

  Yet still we are faced with two nations. Professor Wilson explains 
why: ``[t]he family problem lies at the heart of the emergency of two 
nations.'' He notes that as our families become weaker--as more and 
more American children are born outside of marriage and raised by one, 
not two, parents--the foundation of our society becomes weaker. This 
deterioration helps to explain why, as reported by the Census Bureau 
today, the poverty rate for American children is almost twice that for 
adults aged 18 to 64 (19.9 percent for children versus 10.9 percent for 
adults). And it grows increasingly difficult for government to address 
the problems of that ``second nation.'' Professor Wilson even quotes 
the Senator from New York to this effect: ``If you expect a government 
program to change families, you know more about government than I do.''
  Even so, Jim Wilson, quite characteristically, has fresh ideas about 
what might help. On the basis of recent scholarly research, and common 
sense, he urged in the Boyer lecture that we refocus our attention on 
the vital period of early childhood. I was so impressed with his 
lecture that afterward I set about writing a bill to put his 
recommendations into effect.
  The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998 contains four key elements, all 
of which are related to families. First, it supports ``second chance'' 
maternity homes for unwed teenage mothers. These are group homes where 
young women would live with their children under strict adult 
supervision and have the support necessary to become productive members 
of society. The bill provides $45 million a year to create such homes 
or expand existing ones.
  Second, it promotes adoption. The bill expands the number of children 
in foster care eligible for federal adoption incentives. Too many 
children drift in foster care; we should do more to find them permanent 
homes. The bill also encourages states to experiment with ``per 
capita'' approaches to finding these permanent homes for foster 
children, a strategy Kansas has used with success.
  Third, it funds collaborative early childhood development programs. 
Recent research has reminded us of the critical importance of the first 
few years of a child's life. States would have great flexibility in the 
use of these funds; for example, the money could be used for pre-school 
programs for poor children or home visits of parents of young children. 
It provides $3.75 billion over five years for this purpose.
  Finally, the legislation creates a new education assistance program 
to enable more parents to remain home with young children. A parent who 
temporarily leaves the work force to raise a child would be eligible 
for an educational grant, similar to the Pell Grant, to help the parent 
enter, or re-enter, the labor market with skills and credentials 
necessary for success in today's economy once the child is older.
  Mr. President, this bill is a starting point. It is what Professor 
James Q. Wilson and I believe just might make a difference. We would 
certainly welcome the comments of others. And I would commend to the 
attention of Senators and other interested persons the full text of 
Professor Wilson's lecture ``Two Nations,'' which is available from my 
office or from the American Enterprise Institute. I ask unanimous 
consent that a summary of the legislation be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998--Summary


                         section 1. short title

       This Act may be cited as the ``Enhancing Family Life Act of 
     1998.''


                          section 2. findings

       The Congressional findings support the importance of 
     families in society and social policy.

                    Title I--Assistance for Children


                  section 101. ``second chance homes''

       The bill would provide $45 million annually to establish or 
     expand ``second chance'' maternity homes for unwed teenage 
     mothers. These are group homes where mothers live with their 
     children under adult supervision and strict rules while 
     learning good parenting skills.


                    section 102. adoption promotion

       The bill would expand the number of ``special needs'' 
     children in foster care for which federal adoption subsidies 
     are available. It de-links'' eligibility for these subsidies 
     from the income level of the foster child's biological 
     parents. (Under current law, a foster child determined to 
     have special needs only qualifies for a federal adoption 
     subsidy if the child's birth parents are welfare-eligible.) 
     The subsidies would help adoptive parents meet the particular 
     emotional and physical challenges of troubled children and so 
     they can provide the children permanent homes.
       In addition, last year's ``Adoption and Safe Families Act'' 
     authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to 
     grant child welfare demonstration waivers to ten states each 
     year. The bill would reserve three of each ten waivers to 
     states willing to test ``per capita'' approaches to finding 
     permanent homes for children in foster care, as Kansas has 
     done. Under a per capita approach, states or localities 
     contract on a fixed sum basis with agencies to reunite foster 
     children with their biological families or place them with 
     adoptive parents. Because the agency, typically a non-profit 
     social service agency, receives a fixed sum per child (rather 
     then unlimited reimbursement of costs) the agency may settle 
     the child in a permanent home more quickly.


                section 103. early childhood development

       The bill provides $3.75 billion over five years for 
     collaborative early childhood development programs. Recent 
     research has demonstrated the importance of the earliest 
     years in a child's life in the child's intellectual and 
     emotional development. States could use the funds for home 
     visiting programs, parenting education, high-quality child 
     care, and preventive health services. States would have great 
     flexibility in deciding which services to provide.


                     section II--``parent grants''

       The bill would create a new education assistance program to 
     provide grants to parents who choose to remain at home with 
     young children. The grants would allow parents to obtain the 
     training, or re-training, needed to prosper and advance 
     careers after a period of time outside the labor force. A 
     custodial parent with children under the age of six and no 
     earned income, welfare, or SSI receipt would be eligible to 
     receive a benefit equivalent to the largest Pell Grant 
     available for that year (about $2,700 in FY 1998). The 
     benefit--to be called a ``Parent Grant''--could only be used 
     for expenses associated with post-secondary education or 
     completion of high school. Parents could accumulate grants 
     (one for each year outside of the labor market) but would be 
     required to use the grant within 15 years of the year for 
     which the grant was earned. Eligibility would be subjected to 
     income limits ($75,000/year maximum, subject to revision on 
     the basis of cost estimates). The program would be 
     administered by the Education Department, in parallel with 
     Pell Grants and other financial aid programs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
  S. 2519. A bill to promote and enhance public safety through use of 
9-1-1 at the universal emergency assistance number, further deployment 
of wireless 9-1-1 service, support of States in upgrading 9-1-1 
capabilities and related functions, encouragement of construction and 
operation of seamless, ubiquitous and reliable networks for personal 
wireless services, and ensuring access to Federal Government property 
for such networks, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


         WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC SAFETY ACT OF 1998

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wireless 
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1998 to help build a national 
wireless communications system and save lives. I would like to thank 
Senator Burns for co-sponsoring this important legislation with me, and 
I look forward to working with him to move this legislation forward 
during the remainder of the Congress and the next Congress.
  Mr. President, when a person is seriously injured, in a car crash or 
a violent crime or in some other way, every minute counts. Medical 
trauma and public safety professionals speak of the ``golden hour''--
the first hour after serious injury when the greatest percentage of 
patient lives can be saved. The quicker that person gets medical help, 
the greater the chances of survival.
  We would like people to be able to get medical help as fast as 
possible after serious injury. As a practical matter, it takes time--
often a half-hour in an urban area or an hour in a rural area--before 
an ambulance completes the job of getting to the scene of

[[Page S10928]]

an accident and transporting the injured to a medical facility, where 
doctors can go to work saving the injured person. This bill is designed 
to help cut down that medical response time for millions of Americans, 
by helping to make sure that people can use their wireless telephones 
to call 9-1-1 immediately to get the ambulances rolling.
  More than 60 million Americans carry wireless telephones. Many people 
carry them for safety reasons. People count on those phones to be their 
lifelines in emergencies. A parent driving down an interstate highway 
with children in the back seat draws comfort from knowing that if the 
car is involved in a crash, he or she can call 9-1-1 for help and an 
ambulance will be rolling in seconds. An older American driving alone 
on a long trip feels more comfortable knowing that if an accident 
occurs or sudden illness strikes, he or she can use the wireless phone 
to dial 9-1-1 for help and the state police will be on the way.
  But there's a big problem. In many parts of our country, when the 
frantic parent or the suddenly disabled older person punches 9-1-1 on 
the wireless phone, nothing happens. In many areas of the country, 9-1-
1 is not the emergency number, or there simply is no wireless telephone 
service at all. If a wireless telephone isn't within range of a 
wireless tower, a wireless call can't go through. The ambulance and the 
police won't be coming. You may be facing a terrible emergency, but 
you're on your own.

  The same problem arises even if an emergency occurs within range of a 
wireless tower, if a person is too injured to make a 9-1-1 call, or can 
make the call but cannot give his or her location.
  Mr. President, this bill can be called the 9-1-1 bill--its main 
purposes are to expand the areas covered by wireless telephone service 
so that more people in more places can call 9-1-1 systems so that they 
can deliver more information, like location and automatic crash 
notification data. The bill is designed to tie our citizens through 
their wireless telephones to the medical centers, police, and 
firefighters who can help them in emergencies.
  The bill has four main elements.
  First, it makes 9-1-1 the universal emergency telephone number. I 
suspect that most Americans think that 9-1-1 already is the emergency 
number everywhere, but it isn't. There are many places in America 
where, even if you can get a telephone connection, 9-1-1 isn't the 
right number to call for help. This legislation will reduce the danger 
of not knowing what number to call. The rule in America ought to be 
uniform and simple--if you have an emergency, wherever you are, dial 9-
1-1. The bill sets a national policy for us all to pursue together, 
but, instead of imposing a federal mandate for executing that policy, 
allows the states and localities to decide how best to further that 
policy in their areas.
  The second key element of the bill is a system of grants to assist 
the states and local governments in developing, coordinating, and 
carrying out their plans to make wireless service available to more 
citizens and to upgrade their 9-1-1 systems so they can provide the 
location of wireless callers. The bill gives the states maximum 
flexibility in designing their plans to qualify for the grants. It is 
written carefully so that it is not a federal mandate, and we will not 
have federal bureaucrats micro-managing wireless telephone companies, 
state and local public safety programs, or hospital emergency rooms.
  The people who run our nation's 9-1-1 systems, and increasingly the 
elected officials who employ them, know they have a growing challenge 
in this area. More and more Americans are using wireless telephones to 
communicate, and there are over 83,000 wireless emergency calls a day 
now. But the technology receiving those calls is often outdated, and 
new local technology needs to be implemented. By offering substantial 
federal grants funded from the fees the government receives from 
wireless carriers who place their towers on federal land, the bill 
encourages the states to bring the stakeholders together to make the 
decisions necessary to deploy these life-saving technologies. The 
implementation problems here are not technological; they are financial 
and legislative. This bill will provide federal support, but the key 
leadership and decisions will come from state and local officials.
  The the third key element of the bill is research and development of 
new lifesaving technology for motor vehicles. Proper medical care could 
be dispatched almost immediately if a car that was involved in a crash 
automatically signaled to public safety officials that the car had 
crashed, where it had crashed, and how bad the crash was. The trauma 
experts tell us they can predict the kinds of injuries a victim has 
this crash data--so they will know whether to send a helicopter, an 
advanced care ambulance, or just a wrecker and a ride home. We can use 
wireless technology to make these automatic reports. This bill will 
authorize the necessary investments to develop the know-how to tie 
together our cars, our public safety officials, and our hospitals for 
rapid response in vehicles emergencies
  The fourth key element of this legislation is using federal property 
to help expand the wireless network. Current law and Administration 
policy say that federal agencies should encourage wireless facilities 
on federal property so as to expand the availability of wireless 
service, but agencies have been slow to open up their land and 
buildings. This bill will establish a clear and enforceable policy of 
allowing wireless facilities on federal property when it doesn't 
interfere with the agency's mission or use of the property. The agency 
will be allowed to charge fees for the use of the property, and those 
fees will go into a fund that will pay for grants to states and crash-
notification investments under the bill.
  It is also important to note what this bill does not do. It does not 
affect in any way the ability of state or local governments to impose 
taxes or fees on any business. It does not preempt in any way the 
current power of state and local government regarding antenna siting 
over property under their authority. And, indeed, it provides an 
explicit statutory requirement of notice and comment for state and 
local officials on siting applications for use of federal property. 
These three changes I made from earlier drafts resolve some of the 
concerns that were raised by some leaders of local and county 
governments.
  Some organizations sought additional changes to the legislation.
  The Department of the Interior, for example, wanted to change the 
provision on judicial review of federal agency denials of requests for 
access to federal property so that the burden of proof in court would 
be on the person challenging the agency's decision not to grant the 
requested access. This bill instead adopts the standard used in the 
Freedom of Information Act, which puts on the agency the burden of 
sustaining its action. Since the agency has superior access to all the 
relevant information, it is appropriate for the agency to bear the 
burden of going forward with evidence and persuading the court of the 
correctness of the agency's decision.
  Also, some have suggested that the bill should be changed so that the 
sate and local law would apply to the citing of wireless antennas on 
federal property. That would be inconsistent with current law and run 
counter to the basis purpose of this legislation. To allow state and 
local officials to extend state and local zoning laws to the placement 
of antennas on federal property would give states and localities an 
unprecedented ability to control decisions by federal officials with 
respect to federal property, and reduce the revenue generated by the 
federal leases or antenna siting. We simply cannot have a situation in 
which a locality could be allowed to hold the interests of the region 
or the country hostage to parochial interests. The requirement in my 
legislation that state and local officials have notice and an 
opportunity to comment with respect to requests for antenna siting on 
federal property gives state and local officials their appropriate 
role. They will have the opportunity to present their views, but will 
not have a veto over placement of antennas on federal property. It is 
important to remember what is at issue here--the ability of people to 
call for help in emergencies and get a prompt public safety response--
in short, save lives.
  This legislation has been developed in consultation with a wide range 
of groups that have great expertise in the

[[Page S10929]]

subjects covered by the legislation, including state and local 
officials who run our nation's 9-1-1 systems, trauma experts, the 
American Automobile Association, the wireless industry and others. The 
bill has the strong support of a diverse coalition that includes these 
and many other groups. To the extent that some groups have concerns 
about a few of he bill's provisions, I intend to continue to work with 
them to try to address these concerns.
  Mr. President, this bill is an important step forward to helping 
state and local emergency agencies do their jobs, offering them 
significant grants to improve their capabilities. This bill also will 
go a long way toward helping the nation expand its wireless network. It 
will help make sure that Americans everywhere can dial 9-1-1 to summon 
prompt assistance in an emergency.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce 
Committee on this important life-saving legislation, an I urge all my 
colleague to support it.

                          ____________________