S6750 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

S. 807. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that individuals

who have attained age 59 1/2 may contribute

to individual retirement accounts without

regard to their compensation; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. BREAUX:

S. 808. A bill to extend the deadline for the

conversion of the vessel M/V TWIN DRILL,

and for other purposes; to the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself,

Mr. HELMS, and Mr. BRADLEY):

S. 809. A bill to amend the Trade Act of

1974 to limit the eligibility for treatment

under the generalized system of preferences

in the case of countries that support international acts of terrorism, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr.

THURMOND):

S. 810. A bill to direct the Secretary of the

Interior to remove from the Coastal Barrier

Resources System a tract of land in South

Carolina that was added to the System without notice to the county in which the tract

is located, and for other purposes; to the

Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation.

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED

fBy Mr. HATFIELD:

S. 806. A bill to amend the Public

Health Service Act to provide grants to

entities in rural areas that design and

implement innovative approaches to

improve the availability and quality of

health care in such rural areas, and for

other purposes; to the Committee on

Finance.

THE RURAL HEALTH IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1995

∑ Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, during the last several years, Americans

have heard a lot about the need to reform our health care system. Health

care costs are soaring out of control—

far outpacing the rate of inflation—and

nearly 38 million Americans are without health care insurance. Solutions

for reform are complex and will go

through much debate and consensus

building before implemented on a national level.

While local and regional health care

systems have rushed to consolidate and

integrate their services and resources

over the last decade, rural entities, due

to their shortage of physicians, the

vulnerability of their hospitals, their

geographical and technical isolation,

and the demographics of their patient

populations, have been largely unable

to adjust in a similar way. As public

concern over the national health care

crisis grows and legislative bodies and

policymaking agencies scramble to devise and implement far-reaching health

care reform, the special health care

needs of rural America must not be neglected.

Today I am reintroducing the Rural

Health Improvement Act because I

feel, given the current direction of the

health care reform debate, that it provides an essential transition into comprehensive health care reform. Now,

more than ever, health providers in

rural communities are joining with

their urban counterparts to create networks to assure that health care is accessible in rural areas. There are a

number of obstacles, however, that create a disincentive for providers to participate in these efforts. I believe that

the legislation that I am introducing

today will remove these obstacles and

help rural communities position themselves for comprehensive health care

reform.

Mr. President, the Rural Health Improvement Act will help our rural communities in the following ways. First,

this legislation provides grants to

allow rural and urban providers to develop rural health extension networks

to facilitate the delivery of health care

in rural communities. It allows existing networks such as area health education centers to compete for these

grants in order to prevent needless duplication and to assure that successful

programs will have the ability to expand their capabilities. The goal of the

rural health extension networks grant

is to facilitate resource sharing within

the network by providing education

and training for health care providers

in rural areas, creating linkages between rural and urban providers

through the use of telecommunications

and other consultative projects, and assisting rural providers in developing

cooperative approaches to health care

delivery.

Second, my bill provides grants for

the creation of rural managed care cooperatives which will enhance the economic viability of health care providers in rural areas. The idea of health

cooperatives in rural areas is not new.

In 1929, the first health maintenance

organization in the United States was

developed in rural Elk City, OK, by the

Farmers’ Cooperative. Since 1929, there

have been several attempts to create

rural health cooperatives, however,

they have suffered because they lacked

sufficient startup support. My bill provides this startup support.

These cooperatives will be made up

of health providers of all types including, but not limited to, hospitals, physicians, rural health clinics, nurse

practitioners, physician assistants, and

public health departments. By establishing an effective case management

and reimbursement system designed to

support the financial needs of rural

hospitals and health care systems, cooperatives will provide an effective

framework for negotiating contracts

with payers and assuring a defined

level of quality. The cooperatives will

also help rural practitioners with a

portion of their payments on malpractice premiums.

Due to the concerns about possible

antitrust problems that might arise in

the formation of the rural health extension networks and the rural managed care cooperatives, the bill includes language which would protect

providers who participate in these entities from antitrust law. This exemption from antitrust law should facilitate the development of network and

cooperatives in rural areas.

Third, the bill allows the Secretary

of Health and Human Services to award

competitive grants to develop and implement mental health outreach programs in rural areas. The bill emphasizes the needs of the elderly and children in rural areas. Grant recipients

are encouraged to form relationships

with rural managed care cooperatives

to enhance the delivery of these services.

Fourth, my bill provides stipend

grants under the Area Health Education Centers [AHEC] Program to

health care providers and trainees in

rural communities as an incentive to

provide health care services in those

areas. While the stipends envisioned in

this legislation will not completely relieve the financial burden young providers face, especially physicians, it is

my hope that they will provide enough

of an incentive to attract and retain

health care providers in rural areas.

It has been 20 years since the AHEC

Program was enacted and we now have

a network of 48 AHEC Programs in 38

States. In my own State of Oregon, we

have an excellent statewide AHEC program with five centers now operating

to meet the challenges of both rural

and urban areas. State studies have

shown that AHEC’s have an excellent

record in addressing the primary

health care profession needs of underserved areas. In fact, since AHEC’s inception more than 1.5 million students,

residents, and preceptors have been

trained in medicine, allied health, dentistry, nursing, and pharmacy.

Finally, this year I have included a

nonrefundable tax credit for qualified

providers in rural and underserved

areas. This tax credit is similar to the

tax credit proposed in health care reform legislation last session. Under

this provision qualified providers will

be eligible for a tax credit if they serve

in rural or underserved areas for 5

years. A similar tax credit program in

Oregon has enjoyed great success. In a

recent survey by the Oregon Office of

Rural Health, rural providers indicated

that the Oregon Tax Credit Program is

the most important program offered

that keeps them practicing in rural

areas.

Mr. President, our rural communities

are facing a crisis in health care delivery. Nationwide, 141 rural community

hospitals closed between 1989 and 1993.

In Oregon, five rural hospitals have

closed since 1986 and several other

rural facilities are threatened with imminent closure. These hospitals simply

cannot compete with their urban counterparts. I believe my legislation will

give rural health care providers the

tools to build rural health care delivery systems which meet the health

needs of their communities. This is the

first step in developing an infrastructure of providers who will support and

sustain comprehensive health care reform and provide health care access for

all Americans.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6751

I’d like to take a moment to thank

the National Rural Health Care Association, the Oregon Office of Rural

Health, the Oregon Association of Hospitals, the Oregon Medical Association,

the Oregon Nurses Association, and the

Oregon AHEC Program Office for their

support in developing this innovative

legislation.

I urge my colleagues to take a careful look at this bill and consider it as

a transition into comprehensive health

care reform that can help our rural

communities now.∑

By Mr. BREAUX:

S. 808. A bill to extend the deadline

for the conversion of the vessel M/V

Twin Drill, and for other purposes; to

the Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation.

M/V TWIN DRILL LEGISLATION

∑ Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to extend the

deadline for the completion of the conversion of the vessel M/V Twin Drill.

This vessel is what is known as a

SWATH or small waterplane area twin

hull vessel of advanced design that provides for an unusually smooth operating platform. This vessel currently undergoing initial conversion in Louisiana to ready her for a complete conversion to a U.S.-flag day cruise service.

Under terms of section 601(d) of Public Law 103–206 the M/V Twin Drill was

granted full coastwise privileges provided that the cost of major conversion

work on the vessel in a U.S. shipyard

was more than three times the purchase value of the vessel. Furthermore,

the owners were required to commit to

build a new vessel entirely within a

U.S. shipyard. These requirements

were to have been completed by certain

dates. A number of delays resulted

from the discovery of additional work

that was necessary because of unknown

conditions on the vessel slowed the

project to the point where it will now

be impossible to complete the conversion by the statutory deadline.

Given the significant investment to

date, and the progress already made, it

is only reasonable that we provide

some additional time for this shipyard

work to be completed. This will cost

the Government nothing, but it will

mean immediate jobs at the shipyard

and long-term employment opportunities onboard the Twin Drill. Failure to

act would also mean foregone job opportunities in the construction and operation of the new vessel as well. A

similar provision was passed by the

House of Representatives last fall as

part of the Coast Guard authorization

legislation which we were not able to

act on before the end of the last session. It is time we finish the job and I

urge my colleagues to support this legislation.∑

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. HELMS, and Mr. BRADLEY):

S. 809. A bill to amend the Trade Act

of 1974 to limit the eligibility for treatment under the generalized system of

preferences in the case of countries

that support international acts of terrorism, and for other purposes; to the

Committee on Finance.

THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 AMENDMENT ACT OF 1995

∑ Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I

introduce a bill that would make our

Nation’s Generalized System of Preferences Development Program conform

with out foreign aid program when it

comes to eliminating benefits for countries that sponsor terrorism. I am

pleased that Senators HELMS and

BRADLEY are original cosponsors of this

legislation.

Under this bill, a country would

automatically lose its GSP benefits

once the Secretary of State makes a

determination under the Export Administration Act of 1979 that ‘‘the government of that country has repeatedly

provided support for acts of international terrorism.’’ Under the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961, once the Secretary makes this determination and a

country is added to the State Department’s so-called ‘‘terrorism list,’’ it is

no longer eligible to receive foreign assistance from the United States. Likewise, state sponsors of terrorism

should be precluded from importing

products into this country duty free

under the GSP Program.

But they are not.

Syria is a case in point. Syria was

designated by the State Department as

a state-sponsor of terrorism on December 29, 1979, which made it ineligible to

receive foreign assistance. Nonetheless,

Syria continued to import products

into the U.S. duty free under the GSP

Program until August 16, 1992. At that

time, Syria’s eligibility was suspended

due to concerns about workers’

rights—not a concern about terrorism.

Technically, the GSP law prohibits

the President from designating a country GSP eligible ‘‘if such country aids

or abets, by granting sanctuary from

prosecution to any individual or group

which has committed an act of international terrorism.’’ But the law did

nothing to prohibit Syria, a country

our Government already recognized as

a state-sponsor of terrorism, from benefiting from the United States Government’s GSP Development Program.

That is why I am proposing a change in

the law.

Mr. President, once the Secretary of

State determines that a country sponsors terrorism it ought to automatically lose its GSP benefits, just as it

loses its foreign assistance. There is no

sensible rationale for barring foreign

assistance for state sponsors of terrorism while providing GSP benefits to

those same state sponsors of terrorism.

Like foreign aid, GSP is a benefit, not

a right. It is development program

with goals that are similar to those of

the foreign aid program. Both programs ought to be governed by the

same terrorism standard.

When it comes to fighting terrorism,

our Government needs to speak with

one voice. We need to make it crystal

clear that the benefits of American

friendship are not provided to countries that, by their presence on the terrorist list, have been found to have a

consistent pattern of state support for

terrorism.

Mr. President, by making the GSP

Program conform with the foreign aid

program when it comes to providing

benefits to countries that support terrorism, this bill would add an important element of consistency to our

antiterrorism foreign policy.

I urge my colleagues to support this

bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed

in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was

ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as

follows:

S. 809

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

Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON DESIGNATION AS

BENEFICIARY DEVELOPING COUNTRY.

Section 502(b)(6) of the Trade Act of 1974

(19) U.S.C. 2462(b)(6)) is amended to read as

follows:

‘‘(6) if—

‘‘(A) such country aids or abets, by granting sanctuary from prosecution to any individual or group which committed an act of

international terrorism, or

‘‘(B) the Secretary of State makes a determination with respect to such country under

section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration Act of 1979; and’’.∑

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself

and Mr. THURMOND):

S. 810. A bill to direct the Secretary

of the Interior to remove from the

Coastal Barrier Resources System a

tract of land in South Carolina that

was added to the System without notice to the county in which the tract is

located, and for other purposes; to the

Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation.

THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

FAIRNESS ACT OF 1995

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise

today to introduce the Coastal Barrier

Resources System Fairness Act of 1995.

The bill is aimed at correcting a mistake in the Coastal Barrier Resource

System. Without this correction, a portion of Colleton County, SC, will remain in the Coastal Barrier Resources

System even though the county never

had an opportunity to voice their objection to their inclusion.

In 1980 Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to study and propose a Coastal Barrier Resources System. The aim was to create a system

made up of relatively undeveloped lowlying coastal lands which, because of

their susceptibility to flooding, would

not be eligible for Federal flood insurance. Practically speaking, to be included in the CBRS means you can’t

sell or develop your property.

Soon after the passage of the 1980

act, the Department of the Interior

created a study group charged with

promulgating an inventory of coastal
S6752 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

properties—properties to be included in

the CBRS. By the end of 1988, the study

group had completed its work and the

Department of the Interior submitted

the CBRS proposal to Congress.

This proposed inventory was the culmination of 8 years work and included

suggestions made during two public

comment periods. The first public comments were made following the release

of an initial draft inventory in 1985.

Additional comments were made following the release of a second draft in

the spring of 1987. The Department of

the Interior received numerous comments on these draft inventories and

incorporated many in their final report

to Congress. This final report was the

basis for the Coastal Barrier Resources

System adopted in 1990.

I recite this history because without

an understanding of it, Mr. President,

one can’t understand the intent of my

legislation.

While the Department of the Interior

was drafting this proposed system, a

strip of coastal South Carolina was

being annexed by Colleton County from

Charleston County. Unfortunately, this

annexation occurred in 1987 in the

midst of the 1987 CBRA comment period. Unfortunately, the notice of this

second draft inventory was not received by Colleton County. The county

never received any notice. It appears,

the draft inventory was provided to

Charleston County, not Colleton County. In fact, the maps currently on file

at the Department of the Interior, still,

incorrectly show this tract in Charleston County—not Colleton County.

Thus, the citizens of Colleton County,

never having had an opportunity to

comment on these proposed changes,

now find this tract included in the

CBRS. And for all practical purposes

off limits for development.

This bill corrects that mistake. It

rights that wrong. It does not drastically redraft the Coastal Barrier Resources System nor withdraw any

lands included in the 1985 draft. The

bill simply returns a small portion of

Edisto Island, SC, to its 1985 status.

I urge my colleagues to support this

bill.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

fS. 426

At the request of Mr. SARBANES, the

names of the Senator from Vermont

[Mr. JEFFORDS], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. PACKWOOD], and the Senator

from Arizona [Mr. MCCAIN] were added

as cosponsors of S. 426, a bill to authorize the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to

establish a memorial to Martin Luther

King, Jr., in the District of Columbia,

and for other purposes.

S. 457

At the request of Mr. SIMON, the

name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr.

DEWINE] was added as a cosponsor of S.

457, a bill to amend the Immigration

and Nationality Act to update references in the classification of children

for purposes of United States immigration laws.

S. 495

At the request of Mrs. KASSEBAUM,

the name of the Senator from Maine

[Ms. SNOWE] was added as a cosponsor

of S. 495, a bill to amend the Higher

Education Act of 1965 to stabilize the

student loan programs, improve congressional oversight, and for other purposes.

S. 507

At the request of Mr. PRESSLER, the

name of the Senator from Iowa [Mr.

GRASSLEY] was added as a cosponsor of

S. 507, a bill to amend title 18 of the

United States Code regarding false

identification documents, and for other

purposes.

S. 578

At the request of Mr. D’AMATO, the

name of the Senator from Delaware

[Mr. ROTH] was added as a cosponsor of

S. 578, a bill to limit assistance for

Turkey under the Foreign Assistance

Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act until that country complies

with certain human rights standards.

S. 633

At the request of Mr. PRYOR, the

name of the Senator from Illinois [Mr.

SIMON] was added as a cosponsor of S.

633, a bill to amend the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act to provide certain

consumer protections if a depository

institution engages in the sale of

nondeposit investment products, and

for other purposes.

S. 641

At the request of Mrs. KASSEBAUM,

the names of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CAMPBELL], and the Senator

from Alaska [Mr. STEVENS] were added

as cosponsors of S. 641, a bill to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act of

1990, and for other purposes.

S. 667

At the request of Mr. BRYAN, the

name of the Senator from Delaware

[Mr. BIDEN] was added as a cosponsor of

S. 667, a bill to amend the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 in order to reform

the conduct of private securities litigation, to provide for financial fraud detection and disclosure, and for other

purposes.

S. 681

At the request of Mr. HELMS, the

name of the Senator from Utah [Mr.

HATCH] was added as a cosponsor of S.

681, a bill to provide for the imposition

of sanctions against Colombia with respect to illegal drugs and drug trafficking.

S. 770

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the

names of the Senator from Iowa [Mr.

GRASSLEY] and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. INHOFE] were added as cosponsors of S. 770, a bill to provide for

the relocation of the United States

Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and

for other purposes.

S. 794

At the request of Mr. LUGAR, the

names of the Senator from Ohio [Mr.

DEWINE] and the Senator from Arizona

[Mr. KYL] were added as cosponsors of

S. 794, a bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act to facilitate the minor use of a pesticide, and for other purposes.

S. 805

At the request of Mr. SIMPSON, the

name of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SANTORUM] was added as a cosponsor of S. 805, a bill to improve the

rural electrification programs under

the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, to

improve Federal rural development

programs administered by the Department of Agriculture, to provide for exclusive State jurisdiction over retail

electric service areas, to prohibit certain practices in the restraint of trade,

and for other purposes.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 26

At the request of Mr. SIMPSON, the

name of the Senator from Maine [Ms.

SNOWE] was added as a cosponsor of

Senate Joint Resolution 26, a joint resolution designating April 9, 1995, and

April 9, 1996, as ‘‘National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day.’’

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

f

THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT

OF 1995

MURRAY (AND GORTON)

AMENDMENT NO. 1079

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr.

GORTON) proposed an amendment to

the bill (S. 534) to amend the Solid

Waste Disposal Act to provide authority for States to limit the interstate

transportation of municipal solid

waste, and for other purposes; as follows:

Title II, following section (f) State Solid

Waste District Authority, add the following

section (g) and reletter all the following subsections accordingly:

‘‘(g) STATE MANDATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING.—A political subdivision

of a state may exercise flow control authority for municipal solid waste, and for voluntarily relinquished recyclable material that

is generated within its jurisdiction, if State

legislation enacted prior to January 1, 1990

mandated the political subdivision to plan

for the management of solid waste generated

within its jurisdiction, and if prior to January 1, 1990 the State delegated to its political

subdivisions the authority to establish a system of solid waste handling, and if prior to

May 15, 1994:

‘‘(1) the political subdivision had, in accordance with the plan adopted pursuant to

such State mandate, obligated itself through

contract (including a contract to repay a

debt) to utilize existing solid waste facilities

or an existing system of solid waste facilities; and

‘‘(2) the political subdivision is currently

undertaking a recycling program in accordance with its adopted waste management

plan to meet the State’s solid waste reduction goal of fifty percent; and

‘‘(3) significant financial commitments

have been made, or bonds have been issued,

a major portion of which, were used for the

construction of solid waste management facilities.’’