S7014 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 19, 1995 

access to services as medicare beneficiaries 

in other hospitals, and for other purposes; to 

the Committee on Finance. 

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. DOLE, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mrs. 

FEINSTEIN, Mr. COHEN, Mr. COCHRAN, 

Mr. KYL, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. CRAIG, 

Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. BURNS, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, and Mrs. BOXER): 

S. 833. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to more accurately codify 

the depreciable life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment; to the Committee on 

Finance. 

By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself, Mr. 

DOLE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. BROWN, Mr. 

BURNS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. HATCH, Mr. 

HELMS, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. MCCONNELL, and Mr. THURMOND): 

S. 834. A bill to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, and reduce welfare 

dependence; to the Committee on Finance. 

By Mrs. HUTCHISON: 

S. 835. A bill to provide for the operation of 

laboratories to carry out certain publichealth functions for the region along the 

international border with Mexico, and for 

other purposes; to the Committee on Labor 

and Human Resources. 

By Mr. EXON: 

S. 836. A bill to authorize appropriations 

for pipeline safety for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 

1998, and 1999, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation. 

By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. 

ROBB): 

S. 837. A bill to require the Secretary of 

the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the birth of 

James Madison; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 

f 

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. SIMPSON): 

S. 831. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the tax 

treatment of certain contributions 

made pursuant to veterans’ reemployment; to the Committee on Finance. 

THE VETERANS’ REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT OF

1995

∑ Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

am today introducing, with the cosponsorship of my good friend from Wyoming, AL SIMPSON, chairman of the 

Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, legislation that involves a matter 

related to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act of 1994 [USERRA], Public Law 103–

353. This landmark rewrite of a 1940’s 

law, which provides employment protections to returning servicemembers, 

was derived from legislation reported 

by the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. There was one issue, 

however, related to USERRA which 

falls under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, a committee on 

which AL SIMPSON and I also serve. It 

was not possible to get this issue resolved last year before final passage of 

the USERRA legislation, and the bill 

we are introducing today would accomplish that goal. 

Mr. President, the matter in question 

relates to provisions in USERRA which 

address a returning servicemember’s 

rights to participate in the employer’s 

pension plan and, more specifically, to 

the relationship between USERRA and 

the Internal Revenue Code. Under 

USERRA, it is possible that a pension 

plan, by seeking to comply with 

USERRA, could have to make payments on behalf of now returned 

servicemembers that could cause the 

plan to go out of compliance with the 

Internal Revenue Code [IRC] because of 

the total amount of payments made by 

the plan in a given year. Obviously, 

this is a result that is not intended and 

which should be avoided. The appropriate remedy—an amendment to the 

Internal Revenue Code—is in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, and 

thus the matter must be resolved in 

legislation developed by that committee. 

Mr. President, so as to allow time for 

an amendment to the IRC to be considered, USERRA provides a 2-year period 

before compliance with the pension 

provisions in the new law would be required. As I noted during Senate debate 

last September on the final compromise of the USERRA legislation, it 

was my intention, which I communicated at the time to Senator MOYNIHAN in his then-role as chairman of 

the Finance Committee, to take the 

lead in the Finance Committee in proposing the appropriate amendment to 

the Internal Revenue Code as part of 

the first appropriate tax bill. I also indicated to Senator MOYNIHAN that, 

should such an amendment not be in 

law as the 2-year window provided in 

USERRA nears its end, I would work to 

amend USERRA so as to provide for a 

further delay in the effective date of 

the pension provisions. 

Mr. President, our introduction of 

this bill today is the initial step in 

seeking to fulfill the pledges made last 

fall. I look forward to working with 

Senator SIMPSON and all the members 

of the Finance Committee on this legislation. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill we are introducing be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the bill was 

ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as 

follows: 

S. 831 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS MADE PURSUANT TO VETERANS’ REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(u) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO VETERANS’ REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS.—

‘‘(1) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN REQUIRED CONTRIBUTIONS.—If any contribution is made by 

an employer under an individual account 

plan with respect to an employee and such 

contribution is required by reason of such 

employee’s rights under chapter 43 of title 

38, United States Code, resulting from qualified military service—

‘‘(A) such contribution shall not be subject 

to any otherwise applicable limitation contained in section 402(g), 403(b), 404(a), 408, 415, 

or 457, and 

‘‘(B) such plan shall not be treated as failing to meet any requirement of this part or 

section 457 by reason of the making of such 

contribution and such contribution shall not 

be taken into account in applying the limitations referred to in subparagraph (A) to 

other contributions. 

For purposes of the preceding sentence, any 

additional elective deferral made under paragraph (2) shall be treated as an employer 

contribution required by reason of the employee’s rights under such chapter 43. 

‘‘(2) REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS WITH RESPECT

TO ELECTIVE DEFERRALS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If an employee is entitled to the benefits of chapter 43 of title 38, 

United States Code, with respect to any plan 

which provides for elective deferrals, such 

employer shall be treated as meeting the requirements of such chapter 43 with respect 

to such elective deferrals if such employer—

‘‘(i) permits such employee to make additional elective deferrals under such plan (in 

the amount determined under subparagraph 

(B)) during the period which begins on the 

date of the reemployment and whose duration is the lesser of—

‘‘(I) 5 years; or 

‘‘(II) 3 times the period of qualified military service which resulted in such rights; 

and 

‘‘(ii) makes a matching contribution in respect of any additional elective deferral 

made pursuant to clause (i) which would 

have been required had such deferral actually been made during the period of such 

qualified military service. 

‘‘(B) AMOUNT OF MAKEUP REQUIRED.—The 

amount determined under this subparagraph 

is the maximum amount of elective deferrals 

that the individual would have been permitted to make under the plan during his period of qualified military service if he had 

continued to be employed by the employer 

during such period and received compensation at the rate computed in accordance with 

section 4318(b)(3) of title 38. Proper adjustment shall be made to the amount determined under the preceding sentence for any 

elective deferrals actually made during the 

period of such qualified military service. 

‘‘(C) ELECTIVE DEFERRAL.—For purposes of 

this paragraph, the term ‘elective deferral’

has the meaning given to such term by section 402(g)(3); except that such term shall include any deferral of compensation under an 

eligible deferred compensation plan (as defined in section 457(b)). 

‘‘(3) LOAN REPAYMENT SUSPENSIONS PERMITTED.—If any plan suspends the repayment 

of any loan made to an individual for the period while such individual is performing 

qualified military service, such suspension 

shall not be taken into account for purposes 

of section 72(p). 

‘‘(4) QUALIFIED MILITARY SERVICE.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘qualified 

military service’ means any service in the 

uniformed services (as defined in chapter 43 

of title 38, United States Code) by any individual if such individual is entitled to reemployment rights under such chapter 43, with 

respect to such service. 

‘‘(5) INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT PLAN.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘individual 

account plan’ means any defined contribution plan and any eligible deferred compensation plan (as defined in section 

457(b)).’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by subsection (a) shall take effect as of 

September 2, 1974, and shall apply to plans as 

if such amendment were enacted on such 

date as part of section 414 of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1954.∑ 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 19, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7015 

By Mr. GRAHAM: 

S. 832. A bill to require the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission 

to develop separate applicable percentage increases to ensure that Medicare 

beneficiaries who receive services from 

Medicare-dependent hospitals receive 

the same quality of care and access to 

services as Medicare beneficiaries in 

other hospitals, and for other purposes; 

to the Committee on Finance. 

THE MEDICARE DEPENDENT HOSPITAL RELIEF

ACT OF 1995

∑ Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce timely legislation that addresses 

the problems of a special class of institutions—Medicare-dependent hospitals—that have Medicare patient 

loads of 60 percent or more. These hospitals, both rural and urban, have significantly higher Medicare losses and 

lower overall margins than other hospitals. This problem, particularly in 

light of Medicare payment reductions 

in this year’s forthcoming budget reconciliation package, threatens the viability of these hospitals and the access 

to and quality of services to Medicare 

beneficiaries. 

The legislation I am introducing in 

conjunction with my good friend, Florida Congressman CLAY SHAW, is called 

the Medicare Dependent Hospital Relief Act of 1995. The bill would simply 

require that the Prospective Payment 

Advisory Commission [ProPAC], in addition to its recommendations on payment rate updates for all hospitals, 

makes a separate recommendation on 

updates for Medicare-dependent hospitals. This recommendation would be 

required to be budget neutral. 

In addition, the bill would require 

ProPAC’s annual report to Congress to 

include recommendations ensuring 

that beneficiaries served by Medicaredependent hospitals retain the same 

access and quality of care as Medicare 

beneficiaries nationwide. 

The need for this legislation is rather 

simple. In 1992, ProPac estimates that 

Medicare payments were $11 billion 

below the level needed to fully cover 

the cost of treating Medicare beneficiaries. For the Nation’s 1,400 Medicare-dependent hospitals, their high 

Medicare patient loads limits their 

ability to cost shift to other payors. In 

those hospitals with 80 percent Medicare patients, this is particularly difficult—if not impossible. 

As the March 1995 ProPAC report 

notes: 

The ability to use cost shifting to fill the 

revenue gap where Medicare cost increases 

exceed payment increases varies across hospitals. Facilities that treat larger shares of 

Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured patients 

have a lesser ability to cost shift to the private sector. In view of growing price competition in the marketplace, these facilities 

will face a greater risk of declining margins, 

which eventually could threaten their financial viability and their ability to care for 

Medicare beneficiaries. 

According to 1992 cost reports, profit 

margins for hospitals ranged from positive margins as great as 12 percent to 

losses of 17 percent. Medicare-dependent hospitals, on average, have margins 

3 percent below the average Medicare 

margin. In effect, these hospitals would 

seem to pay a penalty for their service 

to the elderly. 

In fact, due to low margins, limited 

ability to cost shift and payments from 

all payors ratcheting down, Medicaredependent hospitals will have to either 

close or reduce services. In either case, 

the ultimate losers will be the Medicare beneficiaries these hospitals serve. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

legislation and ask unanimous consent 

to have the bill printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the bill was 

ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as 

follows: 

S. 832 

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 

Dependent Hospital Relief Act of 1995’’. 

SEC. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF SEPARATE APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE INCREASES FOR 

MEDICARE DEPENDENT HOSPITALS 

AND OTHER HOSPITALS BY THE 

PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT ASSESSMENT COMMISSION. 

(a) DEVELOPMENT OF SEPARATE APPLICABLE

PERCENTAGE INCREASES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Prospective Payment 

Assessment Commission established under 

section 1886(e)(2) of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1395ww(e)(2)) (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Commission’’) shall, in accordance with paragraph (2), develop for fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter 

separate applicable percentage increases described in section 1886(b)(3)(B) of such Act (42 

U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)) for medicare dependent hospitals and subsection (d) hospitals 

which are not medicare dependent hospitals. 

(2) EQUALIZATION OF MEDICARE MARGINS.—

The Commission shall develop separate applicable percentage increases under paragraph (1) such that, if such increases were in 

effect, the estimated average annual medicare margins of all medicare dependent hospitals in furnishing inpatient hospital services to medicare beneficiaries in such fiscal 

year would be equal to the average annual 

medicare margins of all subsection (d) hospitals which are not medicare dependent hospitals in furnishing inpatient hospital services to medicare beneficiaries in such fiscal 

year. 

(3) BUDGET NEUTRALITY.—The Commission 

shall provide that the separate applicable 

percentage increases developed under paragraph (1) would, if in effect, not result in aggregate payments under section 1886 of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) to 

medicare dependent hospitals and subsection 

(d) hospitals which are not medicare dependent hospitals for the furnishing of inpatient 

hospital services in a fiscal year in excess of 

the aggregate payments under such section 

to such hospitals in such fiscal year if such 

increases were not in effect. 

(b) REPORTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning in March 1996, 

the Commission shall, in each of the Commission’s March reports to the Congress required under section 1886(e)(3) of the Social 

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(e)(3)), include—

(A) the separate applicable percentage increases developed by the Commission under 

subsection (a)(1) for the upcoming fiscal 

year; and 

(B) recommendations on methods to ensure 

that medicare beneficiaries who receive services furnished by medicare dependent hospitals have the same access and quality of 

care as medicare beneficiaries who are furnished services by subsection (d) hospitals 

which are not medicare dependent hospitals. 

(2) ANNUAL REVIEW OF MEDICARE MARGINS.—

The Commission shall develop the recommended methods under paragraph (1)(B) 

after annually reviewing the average medicare margins in medicare dependent hospitals and the impact of such medicare margins on the medicare dependent hospitals’

overall profit margins. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act, the following definitions apply: 

(1) MEDICARE BENEFICIARY.—The term 

‘‘medicare beneficiary’’ means an individual 

who is entitled to benefits under part A of 

title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1395c et seq.). 

(2) MEDICARE DEPENDENT HOSPITAL.—The 

term ‘‘medicare dependent hospital’’ means 

any subsection (d) hospital—

(A) that is not classified as a sole community hospital under section 1886(d)(5)(D) of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1395ww(d)(5)(D)); and 

(B) for which not less than 60 percent of its 

inpatient days were attributable to medicare 

beneficiaries during 2 of the last 3 preceding 

fiscal years for which data is available. 

(3) MEDICARE MARGIN.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘medicare margin’’ means for a fiscal year the ratio expressed as a percentage equal to—

(i) the difference between all medicare revenues paid to a hospital for the operating 

costs of inpatient hospital services in a fiscal 

year and all medicare program eligible expenses for such operating costs for such fiscal year (as shown by each hospital’s HCFA 

2552 report submitted annually to the Health 

Care Financing Administration); divided by 

(ii) all medicare revenues paid to the hospital for the operating costs of inpatient hospital services for such fiscal year. 

(B) OPERATING COSTS OF INPATIENT HOSPITAL SERVICES.—The term ‘‘operating costs 

of inpatient hospital services’’ has the meaning given such term in section 1886(a)(4) of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1395ww(a)(4)). 

(4) SUBSECTION (D) HOSPITAL.—The term 

‘‘subsection (d) hospital’’ has the meaning 

given such term in section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1395ww(d)(1)(B)).∑ 

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. 

BAUCUS, Mr. DOLE, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. 

COHEN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. KYL, 

Mr. BENNETT, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. 

D’AMATO, Mr. BURNS, Mr. 

ROCKEFELLER, and Mrs. BOXER): 

S. 833. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to more accurately codify the depreciable life of 

semiconductor manufacturing equipment; to the Committee on Finance. 

THE SEMICONDUCTOR INVESTMENT ACT OF 1995

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce the Semiconductor 

Investment Act of 1995. I am joined by 

Senators BAUCUS, DOLE, CAMPBELL, 

FEINSTEIN, COHEN, COCHRAN, KYL, BENNETT, CRAIG, D’AMATO, BURNS, ROCKEFELLER, and BOXER. This bill is designed to help the American semiconductor industry compete globally by 

shortening the depreciable life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment 

from 5 years to 3. Congresswoman 

NANCY JOHNSON of Connecticut has introduced identical legislation in the 

House of Representatives. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7016 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 19, 1995 

The U.S. semiconductor industry employs more than 200,000 Americans, 

sells over $40 billion of products annually, and currently controls 40 percent 

of the world market. Its products form 

the foundation of practically every 

electronic device used today. The 

American semiconductor industry is a 

success story because it has invested 

heavily in the most productive, cutting-edge technology available, and 

currently spends a full 25 percent of its 

revenues on capital investment. Unfortunately, Mr. President, our semiconductor industry is threatened. 

While the equipment used to manufacture semiconductors has a useful 

life of only about 3 years, current tax 

depreciation rules require that cost of 

the equipment be written off over a full 

5 years. The Semiconductor Investment Act would correct this flaw, Mr. 

President, by allowing equipment used 

in the manufacture of semiconductors 

to be depreciated over a more appropriate 3-year period. Given the massive 

level of investment in the semiconductor industry, accurate depreciation 

is critical to industry success. 

The key reason for this 3-year depreciation period is that the equipment 

used to make semiconductors grows 

technologically obsolete more quickly 

than does other manufacturing equipment. Mr. President, recent research 

indicates that semiconductor manufacturing equipment almost completely 

loses its ability to produce sellable 

products after only 3 years. Today’s 5- 

year period simply doesn’t reflect reality. A quicker write-off period would 

help semiconductor manufacturers finance the large investment in equipment they need for the next generation 

of products. 

The National Advisory Committee on 

Semiconductors reinforced this conclusion. Congress founded the committee 

in 1988, and it consisted of Presidential 

appointees from both the public and 

private sectors. In 1992, the committee 

recommended a 3-year depreciation period and stated that the shift from a 5- 

year to a 3-year schedule would increase the industry’s annual capital investment rate by a full 11 percent. 

By comparison, Japan, Taiwan, and 

Korea employ much more generous depreciation schedules for similar equipment, and all three nations provide 

stiff competition for America’s semiconductor manufacturers. For example, 

under Japanese law, a company can depreciate up to 88 percent of its semiconductor equipment cost in the first 

year, while United States law permits 

a mere 20-percent depreciation over the 

same period. When multinational semiconductor firms are deciding where to 

invest, a depreciation gap this large 

can be decisive. 

This legislation will help ensure that 

America’s semiconductor industry retains its hard-earned preeminence, a 

preeminence that yields abundant opportunities for high-wage, high-skill 

employment. Mr. President, my home 

State of Utah, provides an outstanding 

example of the industry’s job-creating 

capacity. Thousands of Utahns earn 

their living in the State’s flourishing 

semiconductor industry. Firms such as 

Micron Technology, National Semiconductor, and Varian have reinforced 

Utah’s strong position in high-technology industries. With the fair tax 

treatment this bill brings, all Utahns 

can look forward to a more secure and 

prosperous future. 

Mr. President, the Semiconductor Investment Act of 1995 will help level the 

playing field between U.S. and foreign 

semiconductor manufacturers, and provides fair tax treatment to an industry 

that is one of the Nation’s greatest 

success stories of recent years. I hope 

that my fellow Senators will join me in 

supporting this legislation. Mr. President, 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. 833 

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 ‘‘Semiconductor Investment Act of 1995’’. 

SEC. 2. 3-YEAR DEPRECIABLE LIFE FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

EQUIPMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 (relating to classification of property) is 

amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of 

clause (i), by striking the period at the end 

of clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by 

adding at the end the following new clause: 

‘‘(iii) any semiconductor manufacturing 

equipment.’’

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(e)(3) of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

by striking clause (ii) and by redesignating 

clauses (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) as clauses (ii), 

(iii), (iv), and (v), respectively. 

(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(g)(3) of 

such Code is amended by striking the following: 

‘‘(B)(ii) ............................................... 5’’

and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A)(iii) .............................................. 3’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to equipment placed in service after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself, 

Mr. DOLE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. 

BROWN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CRAIG, 

Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELMS, Mr. 

KEMPTHORNE, Mr. MCCONNELL, 

and Mr. THURMOND): 

S. 834. A bill to restore the American 

family, reduce illegitimacy, and reduce 

welfare dependence; to the Committee 

on Finance. 

THE REAL WELFARE REFORM ACT OF 1995

Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, before coming to the Senate I spent 45 

years in the private sector meeting a 

payroll as a businessman and a farmer. 

Every year I watched as the Congress 

went into session and adjourned, leaving it more difficult for working taxpayers to make ends meet because of 

the out-of-control government spending programs that have put our country on the path to a fiscal disaster. 

Of all the spending programs implemented by the Federal Government, I 

do not know of a group that has been a 

bigger failure than those collectively 

known as welfare. President Johnson’s 

War on Poverty, although launched 

with good intentions, has failed. And in 

many ways it has made the plight of 

the poor worse instead of better. 

The problem is not a lack of spending. Welfare spending has cost taxpayers $5.3 trillion in constant 1993 dollars since 1965, when the War on Poverty began. Currently, the Federal 

Government runs approximately 76 

means-tested welfare programs, at a 

cost in 1994 of $350 billion. And this 

amount is projected to reach $538 billion by 1999 if current trends continue. 

A simple commonsense principle has 

gotten our Nation and the poor into 

the present fix: You get more of what 

you pay for. And for the past 30 years 

we have subsidized and thus promoted 

self-destructive behavior like illegitimacy and family disintegration. 

This explosion in entitlement spending has fueled an entitlement mentality. Millions of Americans live day 

after day, month after month and year 

after year on paychecks from the government and give nothing in return—

except their assurance that they will 

stay poor, and continue to fuel the government poverty machine. 

What is needed is a dramatic change, 

a reversal of the trends of the last 30 

years. 

Today, I intend to re-introduce a welfare reform bill similar to one which I 

introduced last year with Senator 

GRASSLEY and Senator BROWN. The bill 

has three central purposes: to reduce 

illegitimacy, promote work, and control the growth of welfare costs. 

The bill will convert 67 means-tested 

welfare programs into a single block 

grant to the States. Spending on this 

block grant, and several other Federal 

programs, will be subject to an aggregate cap of 3 percent per year. 

This single block grant will give 

States the flexibility to design programs which meet the specific needs of 

their poor citizens. If one State has had 

particular success with the Head Start 

Program, for example, and the State 

wanted to double the Head Start budget or triple it, they could do so, as long 

as the aggregate cap held growth to 3 

percent. 

Welfare should no longer be a oneway handout which destroys the desire 

of able-bodied people to work. Real reform would tansform welfare into a 

system of mutual responsibility in 

which welfare recipients who can work 

would be required to contribute something back to society in return for assistance given. 

My proposal will require able-bodied 

welfare recipients to work in return for 

their benefits. By 1997, the second year 

after enactment, half of all welfare 

beneficiaries will be required to do 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 19, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7017 

community service or to work in public 

or private sector jobs in return for 

their benefits. 

This bill would target work requirements first on the most employable 

welfare recipients: single, able-bodied 

males, married couples receiving benefits, and single mothers of older children. The last group effected would be 

the least employable recipients: single 

mothers of preschool children. This 

avoids the extremely high cost of child 

care associated with putting these 

young mothers to work. 

One of the most insidious aspects of 

the welfare system is its destructive effect on the family. Our welfare system 

tells a young unwed mother, in effect, 

that she can collect up to $15,000 per 

year in benefits as long as she does not 

work or marry an employed male. 

Under such conditions, it makes more 

sense to remain unmarried. Welfare has 

transformed the low-income working 

husband from a necessary breadwinner 

into a net financial handicap. 

When the Great Society antipoverty 

programs were instituted in 1965, the 

out-of-wedlock birth rate in the United 

States was 7 percent. Thirty years 

later the rate has jumped to 30 percent. 

At this rate of growth it is projected to 

reach 50 percent by the year 2015, an 

alarming prospect by anyone’s standards. Fifty percent, Mr. President. 

That means that, within just 20 years, 

half of all American children could be 

born to single women. 

Real welfare reform must discourage 

destructive behavior and encourage 

constructive behavior. Starting prospectively 1 year after enactment, the 

bill would eliminate direct welfare subsidies—except medical aid—to unmarried women under age 21 who have children out of wedlock. State governments may use Federal block grant 

funds to develop alternative strategies 

for assisting children born out of wedlock. The bill also encourages marriage 

by providing a tax credit to low-income 

married couples with children where at 

least one parent is employed. 

We all recognize the need, and share 

the desire, to reverse the corrupting incentives in our current welfare system. 

Welfare recipients must work for their 

benefits, and must not have children 

that they cannot support. This is the 

foundation on which real welfare reform rests, and welfare legislation that 

does not address both of these issues 

does not represent true reform. 

Finally, the Senate will soon take up 

welfare reform, and we must be willing 

to make the kinds of tough decisions 

necessary to reduce illegitimacy and 

promote work, or we will condemn yet 

another generation to the crippling effects of welfare dependency. The current state of our welfare system demands that we take immediate action, 

but we must do so with a clear purpose, 

in mind. 

By Mrs. HUTCHISON: 

S. 835. A bill to provide for the operation of laboratories to carry out certain public-health functions for the region along the international border 

with Mexico, and for other purposes; to 

the Committee on Labor and Human 

Resources. 

SOUTHWEST PUBLIC LABORATORY ACT

∑ Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I 

introduce legislation that is critically 

needed along our southern border. The 

Southwest Public Health Laboratory 

Act was approved by the Senate last 

year as part of S. 1569, the Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement 

Act. Unfortunately, Congress never 

completed action on S. 1569 and consequently the grave health and environmental risks along the United 

States-Mexico border continue to 

spread. 

This legislation will allow for the establishment and operation of State 

health and environmental labs along 

the United States-Mexico border. The 

grants made available by this act will 

support and leverage the important 

laboratory work our border States are 

already providing. Currently, all the 

border States suffer from a critical 

shortage of environmental and occupational health monitoring. The laboratory services provided by this legislation will support both local and State 

health and environmental agencies. As 

population and commerce increases 

along the border as a result of our commitment to hemispheric free trade, the 

need for state-of-the-art laboratory capacity will only increase. 

We have all seen the media accounts 

from California to New Mexico to 

Texas spotlighting the deplorable environmental conditions along the border. 

Beyond those television reports are 

millions of border residents, primarily 

minority, who are subject to health 

risks incumbent to these conditions. 

We are already aware of some of 

these risks, such as polluted water 

sources, untreated sewage, and pesticides, but there are others we may 

not be aware of simply because there 

are not enough facilities to analyze 

them. 

Let me give you an example of this 

problem from my home State of Texas. 

In the Lower Rio Grande Valley of 

Texas, researchers obtained samples of 

fish from nearby waterways, a regular 

staple of many local diets, and it was 

determined that the edible tissue of the 

fish contained an unacceptable amount 

of the highly toxic chemical PCB. After 

further analysis, the Texas Department 

of Health promptly issued an advisory 

strongly recommending that fish taken 

from the waterways and reservoirs in 

the area may not be eaten. 

Of course, this discovery and analysis 

was given prompt attention. However, 

there are many potential risks along 

the border that are going unchecked. 

There simply is more work of that nature in the United States-Mexico border area than there are facilities to do 

it. There is an intolerable potential 

cost—the health of the citizens in the 

border area. So Federal support will 

mean badly needed improvement in the 

border States’ abilities to respond to 

the health and environmental risks 

facing all citizens. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

important legislation that is critical to 

the health of citizens not only along 

the southern border but also across the 

United States. The health and environmental problems along the border do 

not check with customs or immigration before crossing the border. The 

Southwest Border Health Laboratory is 

an essential component in battling 

these risks before they have a chance 

to spread beyond the border.∑ 

By Mr. EXON: 

S. 836. A bill to authorize appropriations for pipeline safety for fiscal years 

1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, and for other 

purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

THE PIPELINE SAFETY ACT OF 1995

∑ Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to introduce by request the administration’s proposed pipeline safety 

bill. 

This legislation builds on a continuing record of success that administrations of both parties and the Congress have made in ensuring the safe 

operation of America’s vast network of 

natural gas, petroleum, water, and 

other types of pipelines. 

Pipeline safety is one of the lesser 

known, but more important responsibilities of the Senate Commerce Committee. As a former chairman of the 

Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee I am proud of the progress 

we have made in advancing safety. 

With this legislation, the Congress can 

open a new chapter of safety. 

This legislation gives the Secretary 

of Transportation authority to make 

grants to States to encourage the adoption of effective comprehensive onecall legislation. It also authorizes the 

Secretary to enter into cooperative 

agreements with the private sector to 

bring new efficiencies to pipeline safety research, risk assessment, and mapping. 

In a time of tight budgets, the bill 

also introduces the concept of risk 

management to pipeline safety activities. With fewer dollars available the 

Congress must be certain that we get 

the most bang for the buck or more appropriately, in the area of energy pipeline safety, we need to get no bang for 

the buck. 

Mr. President, as a member of the 

subcommittee with jurisdiction over 

this important legislation, I want to 

mention some areas of concern which I 

would like our committee to address. 

In the area of mapping of pipeline locations, the Congress must assure that 

public and private funds are not wasted 

on duplicative efforts. The Government’s mapping needs must be better 

coordinated with the private sector and 

existing mapping operations within the 

U.S. Government. There is no need to 

reinvent the wheel when it comes to 

pipeline mapping. 

I am also concerned about the way 

pipeline safety user fees are calculated 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7018 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 19, 1995 

for natural gas suppliers in rural areas. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] maintains a fee schedule for their activities which more fairly takes into account the risk, volume, 

and economics of serving rural areas. I 

have urged the Department of Transportation to consider the FERC schedule and its appropriateness for their 

operations. 

Finally, Mr. President, I am committed to enacting a meaningful comprehensive one-call bill. Last year I 

was pleased to propose a compromise 

and work with Senators BRADLEY and 

LAUTENBERG to enact comprehensive 

one-call legislation. Meaningful callbefore-you-dig programs will save 

lives, dollars, and productivity. I would 

certainly support the addition of the 

Bradley-Exon bill to this legislation. 

That bill represents the one-call compromise worked out last year. 

Mr. President, I look forward to the 

swift enactment of pipeline safety legislation this year and ask unanimous 

consent that the text of the bill and a 

section-by-section analysis prepared by 

the Department of Transportation be 

included in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

S. 836 

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 ‘‘Pipeline 

Safety Act of 1995.’’

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED 

STATES CODE. 

Except as otherwise expressly provided, 

whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment 

to, or a repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be 

made to a section or other provision of title 

49, United States Code. 

TITLE I—PIPELINE SAFETY 

AMENDMENTS 

SEC. 101. RISK MANAGEMENT. 

Chapter 601 is amended by adding at the 

end the following new section: 

‘‘§ 60126. Risk Management 

‘‘(a) The Secretary shall, based on information collected and maintained by the Secretary, conduct an assessment of the risk to 

public safety and the environment posed by 

pipeline transportation. The assessment 

shall—

‘‘(1) rank the risks identified by the Secretary in terms of their probability of occurrence and their likely consequences, and any 

other factors the Secretary considers relevant; 

‘‘(2) identify, in priority order, technically 

feasible and economically justified actions 

that should be taken to lessen the risks identified; and 

‘‘(3) address, at a minimum, the following 

subjects: 

‘‘(A) Inspection by internal instrumented 

devices. 

‘‘(B) Hydrostatic testing. 

‘‘(C) Installation of emergency flow restricting devices, including leak detection 

systems, for natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. 

‘‘(D) Inspection and burial of underwater 

pipelines. 

‘‘(b) Notwithstanding any other provision 

of this chapter, if the Secretary determines 

that rulemaking regarding a subject listed in 

subsection (a)(3) is not practicable, appropriate, or reasonable, the Secretary shall 

transmit to Congress, not later than 60 days 

after the date of such determination, an explanation of the reasons for that determination. 

‘‘(c) Not later than 18 months after the 

date of enactment of the Pipeline Safety Act 

of 1995, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report including the assessment required under subsection (a) and a plan setting forth the actions proposed by the Secretary to address each risk identified in the 

assessment. Within 30 days after any substantive change to the action plan, including 

the addition or deletion of any subject or action in the plan, the Secretary shall inform 

Congress in writing of the reasons for the 

change.’’. 

SEC. 102. ONE CALL NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS. 

Section 60114 (relating to one-call notification systems) is amended by striking subsections (b) and (d), and redesignating subsections (c) and (e) as (b) and (d), respectively. 

SEC. 103. INTERNATIONAL UNIFORMITY. 

Section 60117 (relating to administration) 

is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(k) INTERNATIONAL UNIFORMITY OF STANDARDS.—

‘‘(1) PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL FORUMS.—Subject to guidance and direction 

from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 

Transportation may participate in international forums that establish or recommend pipeline safety standards for transporting natural gas and hazardous liquids. 

‘‘(2) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary of 

Transportation may consult with interested 

authorities to ensure that, to the extent 

practicable, regulations the Secretary prescribes under this chapter are consistent 

with standards related to pipeline safety 

transportation adopted by international authorities. 

‘‘(3) DIFFERENCES WITH INTERNATIONAL

STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.—The section 

does not require the Secretary to prescribe a 

standard identical to, less stringent than, or 

more stringent than a standard adopted by 

an international authority or otherwise 

limit the Secretary’s discretion in issuing 

standards.’’. 

SEC. 104. GENERAL AUTHORITY. 

Section 60117 (relating to administration), 

as amended by section 103, is further amended by adding at the end the following new 

subsection: 

‘‘(l) FUNDING AUTHORITY.—To carry out 

this chapter, the Secretary may enter into 

grants, cooperative agreements, and other 

transactions with any person, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, any unit 

of State or local government, any educational institution, and any other entity to 

further the objectives of this chapter, including the development, improvement, and promotion of one-call damage prevention programs, research, risk assessment, and mapping.’’. 

SEC. 105. ANNUAL REPORTS. 

Section 60124 (relating to annual reports) is 

repealed. 

SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Section 60125 (relating to authorization of 

appropriations) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘gas:’’ and all that follows 

in subsection (a) and inserting ‘‘gas, 

$16,450,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and such sums as may be 

necessary for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 

1999.’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘liquid:’’ and all that follows in subsection (b) and inserting ‘‘liquid, 

$10,968,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and such sums as may be 

necessary for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 

1999.’’; 

(3)(A) by striking the heading of subsection 

(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘STATE PIPELINE SAFETY GRANTS.—’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘title:’’ and all that follows 

in subsection (c)(1) and inserting ‘‘title, 

$15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and such sums as may be 

necessary for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999.’’; 

(4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting 

the following: 

(d) OTHER TRANSACTIONS.—Not more than 

the following amounts may be appropriated 

to the Secretary to carry out section 60117(1) 

of this title: $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and such sums as may 

be necessary for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 

1999.’’; and 

(5) by adding at the end the following new 

subsection: 

‘‘(g) SPECIAL PROJECTS.—For each of fiscal 

years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, not more than 

$500,000 or 0.5 percent of the amount appropriated annually to carry out chapter 601, 

whichever is less, may be appropriated to the 

Secretary to fund special projects undertaken jointly with other offices within the 

Department to improve the administration 

of transportation safety programs.’’. 

SEC. 107. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. 

(a) Section 60105 is amended by inserting 

‘‘PIPELINE SAFETY PROGRAM’’ after ‘‘STATE’’

in the heading. 

(b) Section 60106 is amended by inserting 

‘‘PIPELINE SAFETY’’ after ‘‘STATE’’ in the 

heading. 

(c) Section 60107 is amended by inserting 

‘‘PIPELINE SAFETY’’ after ‘‘STATE’’ in the 

heading. 

(d) Section 60114(a)(9) is amended by striking ‘‘, 60122, and 60123’’ and inserting ‘‘and 

60122’’. 

TITLE II—AVIATION TARIFF 

AMENDMENT 

SEC. 201. AVIATION TARIFF AMENDMENT. 

Section 40114(b) (relating to reports and 

records), is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ in the second sentence and inserting ‘‘With the exception of tariffs, the Secretary; and’’

(2) by inserting ‘‘The Secretary shall ensure that tariff records are available to the 

public on a permanent basis.’’ after the second sentence. 

TITLE III—HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

AMENDMENTS 

SEC. 301. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AMENDMENTS. 

(a) Section 5107(j)(4)(A) (relating to employee training requirements) is amended by 

striking ‘‘section 5127(c)(3)’’ and inserting 

‘‘section 5127(b)(1)’’. 

(b) Section 5116(j)(4)(A) (relating to supplemental training grants) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (g)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 

5115’’. 

(c) Section 5110(e) (relating to retention of 

shipping papers) is amended—

(1) by striking the heading and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(e) Retention of Shipping Papers.—’’; and 

(2) by striking the first sentence and inserting ‘‘A person required to provide a shipping paper to a carrier and a carrier to which 

a shipping paper is provided shall retain, at 

or accessible through its principal place of 

business, a paper or electronic image copy of 

each shipping paper for one year from the 

date the shipping paper has been provided to 

the carrier.’’. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

TITLE I. PIPELINE SAFETY AMENDMENTS

Sections 101 and 102. These sections contain the short title for title I of the Act, and 

clarify that references in title I to amendments of sections or other provisions are 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 19, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7019 

considered to be amendments to title 49, 

United States Code. 

Section 103. This section would incorporate 

in the pipeline safety statute a framework 

for risk management that would facilitate 

the introduction of risk-based decisionmaking into the pipeline safety program. 

Basing pipeline safety and environmental decisionmaking on risk management principles 

assures that the safety investments of pipeline operators can be directed to those risks 

that pose the greatest threat to the public 

and the environment. 

Both the Department and pipeline operators have been working diligently to develop 

national standards for pipeline system risk 

assessment (the tool) and risk management 

(the safety program). In order to accommodate this new approach to safety and environmental decisionmaking, the traditional 

regulatory program framework, which focuses almost exclusively on regulations to 

address every risk, would be changed. This 

proposal has the benefit of facilitating a determination before a rulemaking or other action is begun as to what is the best risk-reduction action. In addition, the proposal supplies the means for determining among identified risks which ones should be addressed 

in what order and with what resources. 

Section 104. This section removes the provision authorizing grants to States for development of one-call systems. The grant authority would be consolidated in 49 U.S.C. 

60117(1) (discussed in section 106 of this bill). 

Section 105. This section would allow the 

Secretary to participate in international forums that establish pipeline safety standards 

for transporting natural gas and hazardous 

liquids. The Secretary would be authorized 

to consult with international authorities to 

ensure that, to the extent practicable, 

United States regulations are consistent 

with international standards. The Secretary 

would not be required to adopt identical 

standards and would not be prohibited from 

adopting more, or less, stringent standards. 

Section 106. This section provides the Secretary with general authority to enter into 

grants, cooperative agreements and other 

transactions with States, industry, non-profit institutions, and other entities to support 

activities that will achieve the objectives of 

the statute. These activities include, but are 

not limited to, one-call notification, research, risk assessment, and mapping. 

This section would expand the Secretary’s 

current authority to make grants to state 

pipeline safety agencies, by allowing the 

Secretary to make grants to other State 

agencies, operators of one-call notification 

systems, and non-profit organizations to actively promote the use of one-call notification systems. Prevention of damage to underground facilities such as pipelines, water 

and sewer lines, fiber optic cables, and electric lines represents one of the Nation’s most 

important and relevant safety initiatives. 

Damage to pipelines from excavation and 

other powered equipment is the leading 

cause of pipeline failures. The best opportunity to avoid damage to underground facilities is through use of one-call systems 

whereby excavators can receive information, 

before they dig, from a single source about 

all underground facilities at risk from the 

excavation. However, the effectiveness of 

state laws and programs and one-call centers 

themselves varies widely throughout the 

country, and the need for uniformity is great 

as many underground facilities, and the excavators that threaten them, operate in 

many states and localities. 

Grants provided for in this provision could 

be used to establish, modify, improve, and 

promote the use of one-call systems, including publicizing the risks involved in pipeline 

transportation and the benefits of one-call 

systems in addressing those risks. 

This authority is central to execution of 

the Department’s pipeline safety risk management program for it will enable the agency to obtain the data it will need continually 

to determine risks, quantify and rank those 

risks, adopt strategies and solutions to meet 

those risks, and identify available and new 

technologies necessary to keep pace with 

safety needs. This authority resides in other 

Federal agencies, and offers excellent opportunities to leverage Federal resources with 

other entities who have a role to play in risk 

management and accident prevention. 

Section 107. This section would repeal the 

requirement that the Secretary report annually on pipeline safety activities conducted 

under 49 U.S.C. chapter 601. The information 

required in this report, and more, is provided 

at least annually to Congress during the appropriations process, as well as to the authorizing committees on a periodic basis. In 

addition, widespread dissemination of pipeline safety data is made to our state partners, and is the subject of an increasing 

number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The time spent to compile 

the report has resulted in the report being at 

least two years out of date by the time it is 

issued. The Department’s new data capabilities enable it to provide up-to-date information on an ‘‘as requested’’ basis in response 

to routine requests for information. This capability meets the needs of our stakeholders, 

while not requiring the resources to assemble what, under the best of circumstances, is 

outdated information for the annual report. 

Section 108. This section would authorize 

appropriations for the Department of Transportation to carry out the pipeline safety 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. For fiscal 

year 1996, this section would authorize 

$16,450,000 for gas, $10,968,000 for hazardous 

liquid, and $15,000,000 for State grants. This 

provision also authorizes $5,000,000 in fiscal 

year 1996 to fund activities conducted under 

section 60117(1) (see discussion under Section 

106 of the bill), and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999. Finally, for fiscal years 1996 through 1999, this 

section authorizes not more than $500,000 or 

0.5% of the amount appropriated annually to 

carry out chapter 601, whichever is less, to 

fund special projects. This provision is intended to provide a small amount of funding 

for projects undertaken jointly with other 

agencies within the Department to improve 

the administration of transportation safety 

programs. 

Section 109. The first three subsections 

amend the titles of three sections to clarify 

their applicability. Subsection (d) corrects 

one of the requirements for qualified state 

one-call programs by deleting the reference 

to state adoption of Federal criminal sanctions. The reference was inadvertently added 

to the list of requirements when the pipeline 

safety laws were enacted into positive law in 

Pub. L. No. 103–272. 

TITLE II. AVIATION TARIFF AMENDMENT

Section 201. This section would amend section 40114 of title 49, United States Code, 

which sets out the requirements for maintaining as public records those materials 

filed with the Department on aviation matters, including voluminous international 

passenger fare tariff filings. Currently, section 40114 requires the Department to maintain physical custody of tariff filings. 

In the spirit of reinventing government, 

the Department has reexamined the manner 

in which it performs its tariff custodianship 

function and found that the costs of the system greatly outweigh the benefits. The Department has concluded that the custodianship requirement, which was first enacted in 

1938, has outlived its usefulness to the public, the airline industry, and the Government. 

In 1989, the Department instituted a system by which air carriers may file international passenger tariffs electronically as 

an alternative to filing paper tariffs. To be 

eligible for the benefits of automated filing, 

a carrier is required to accept responsibility 

for maintaining a secure and accessible online tariff database. The major air carriers 

responded to this opportunity by contracting 

with tariff publishing agents to manage 

these electronic filing functions. Currently, 

the agents’ on-line databases store over 95 

percent of all tariffs. The Department strictly regulates these databases. Filers are required to keep the databases available for 

public and departmental access at no cost, 

secure against destruction, alteration, or 

tampering, and open to inspection by the Department to ensure security and integrity. 

The amended section would ensure continued 

public access to historical tariff data contained in the database currently used by the 

Department. 

Although the Department has met its custodianship requirement by mandating a 

daily tape from the on-line tariff databases, 

it stores this data in a fashion that allows 

very limited flexibility in retrieving it. In 

contrast, the agents’ databases are modern, 

flexible, and freely accessible to Department 

officials. As a result, the departmental archive serves no purpose except to comply 

with the statutorily-mandated custodianship 

requirement. Removing the statutory requirement that copies of the tariffs be preserved in the physical custody of the Department would enable the Department to cease 

its duplicative archival efforts and realize a 

savings. 

TITLE III. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AMENDMENTS

Section 301. This section amends 49 U.S.C. 

5107(e) and 5116(j) to correct cross-references. 

This section also amends 49 U.S.C. 5110(e) to 

specify that the one-year retention period 

for a shipping paper begins when the shipping paper is provided to a carrier instead of 

when transportation is completed, because it 

would be very difficult for the originator of 

a shipment to determine when transportation of that shipment has been completed.∑ 

By Mr. WARNER (for himself and 

Mr. ROBB): 

S. 837. A bill to require the Secretary 

of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 250th anniversary of 

the birth of James Madison; to the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs. 

THE JAMES MADISON COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise 

today with my good friend, Senator 

ROBB, to introduce legislation to establish an endowment to be a permanent 

source of support for Montpelier, the 

life-long home of James Madison, the 

fourth President of the United States 

and the Father of the U.S. Constitution. President Madison was the third 

generation of his family to live on this 

extensive estate located in the lush 

Piedmont of Virginia. Montpelier was 

settled by James Madison’s grandparents in 1723 and prospered under the 

ownership of his parents, James (Sr.) 

and Nelly Conway Madison. In 1794, 

James Madison, a 43-year-old bachelor, 

met and fell in love with Dolley Payne 

Todd, a 26-year-old widow and mother. 

They were married later the same year. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7020 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 19, 1995 

After the completion of his second 

Presidential term in 1817, the Madisons 

retired to Montpelier, where their legendary hospitality kept them in touch 

with world affairs. At his death in 1836, 

Madison was buried on the estate. Dolley Madison later returned to Washington where she died in 1849. 

Following Madison’s death, the contents of the house were auctioned off. 

Montpelier then changed hands six 

times, until it was purchased in 1900 by 

William and Anna Rogers duPont. The 

National Trust for Historic Preservation received the property in 1983, and 

opened it for public tours in 1987 as 

part of the celebration of the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. Today, 

under the stewardship of the National 

Trust, Montpelier is beginning a longterm research and preservation process. Unfurnished and as yet unrestored, 

Montpelier is the focus of a major archaeological and architectural research effort. 

The legislation which I am introducing today would authorize the U.S. 

Mint to produce a commemorative coin 

to honor the 250th birthday of James 

Madison. After recovery of minting and 

production costs, the proceeds from the 

sale of the James Madison Commemorative Coin, conservatively estimated 

at $5 to $10 million, will be used as the 

core of a capital campaign to establish 

an endowment and preserve Montpelier. This campaign will assure the full 

preservation and restoration of Montpelier and the development of all of the 

related programmatic activities. 

Mr. President, an intensive effort 

must be mounted to achieve the goal of 

securing the future of Montpelier. I am 

committed to making my colleagues in 

the House and Senate aware of the benefits to be derived from the minting of 

a coin to honor James Madison, and I 

am confident that this support can be 

secured. Our national legislature, indeed, our Nation, owes a great debt to 

the vision of James Madison. Throughout his life, Montpelier helped shape 

Madison’s character and values. This 

legislation is an important step toward 

bringing all Americans closer to this 

great man. 

f 

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 

S. 240

At the request of Mr. DOMENICI, the 

name of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY] was added as a cosponsor of S. 240, a bill to amend the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to establish a filing deadline and to provide 

certain safeguards to ensure that the 

interests of investors are well protected under the implied private action 

provisions of the act. 

S. 245

At the request of Mr. COHEN, the 

name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 

GLENN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 

245, a bill to provide for enhanced penalties for health care fraud, and for 

other purposes. 

S. 338

At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the 

name of the Senator from Delaware 

[Mr. BIDEN] was added as a cosponsor of 

S. 338, a bill to amend title 38, United 

States Code, to extend the period of eligibility for inpatient care for veterans 

exposed to toxic substances, radiation, 

or environmental hazards, to extend 

the period of eligibility for outpatient 

care for veterans exposed to such substances or hazards during service in the 

Persian Gulf, and to expand the eligibility of veterans exposed to toxic substances or radiation for outpatient 

care. 

S. 388

At the request of Ms. SNOWE, the 

name of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND] was added as a cosponsor of S. 388, a bill to amend title 

23, United States Code, to eliminate 

the penalties for noncompliance by 

States with a program requiring the 

use of motorcycle helmets, and for 

other purposes. 

S. 456

At the request of Mr. BRADLEY, the 

name of the Senator from Maryland 

[Ms. MIKULSKI] was added as a cosponsor of S. 456, a bill to improve and 

strengthen the child support collection 

system, and for other purposes. 

S. 560

At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the 

name of the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. DORGAN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 560, a bill to amend section 6901 of title 31, United States 

Code, to entitle units of general local 

government to payments in lieu of 

taxes for nontaxable Indian land. 

S. 628

At the request of Mr. KYL, the name 

of the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 

INHOFE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

628, a bill to repeal the Federal estate 

and gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers. 

S. 647

At the request of Mr. LOTT, the name 

of the Senator from Idaho [Mr. KEMPTHORNE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

647, a bill to amend section 6 of the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 to require 

phasing in of certain amendments of or 

revisions to land and resource management plans, and for other purposes. 

S. 694

At the request of Mr. KYL, the name 

of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. 

SIMPSON] was added as a cosponsor of 

S. 694, a bill to prevent and punish 

crimes of sexual and domestic violence, 

to strengthen the rights of crime victims, and for other purposes. 

S. 738

At the request of Mr. THOMAS, the 

name of the Senator from Oklahoma 

[Mr. NICKLES] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 738, a bill to amend the Helium 

Act to prohibit the Bureau of Mines 

from refining helium and selling refined helium, to dispose of the U.S. helium reserve, and for other purposes. 

S. 758

At the request of Mr. HATCH, the 

name of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. SMITH] was added as a cosponsor of S. 758, a bill to amend the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for S corporation reform, and for 

other purposes. 

S. 771

At the request of Mr. PRYOR, the 

name of the Senator from Louisiana 

[Mr. JOHNSTON] was added as a cosponsor of S. 771, a bill to provide that certain Federal property shall be made 

available to States for State use before 

being made available to other entities, 

and for other purposes. 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 31

At the request of Mr. HATCH, the 

name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 

DEWINE] was added as a cosponsor of 

Senate Joint Resolution 31, A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States to 

grant Congress and the States the 

power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. 

f 

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED 

THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

ROCKEFELLER (AND OTHERS) 

AMENDMENT NO. 1112 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. 

LAUTENBERG, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. 

DASCHLE, Mr. WELLSTONE, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mrs. BOXER) proposed an 

amendment to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the 

congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 

1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002; as follows: 

On page 74, strike lines 12 through 24 and 

insert the following: ‘‘budget, the spending 

aggregates shall be revised and other appropriate budgetary allocations, aggregates, and 

levels shall be revised to reflect up to 59 percent of the additional deficit reduction 

achieved as calculated under subsection (c) 

in budget authority and outlays for legislation that reduces the adverse effects on 

medicare and medicaid of—

‘‘(1) increased premiums; 

‘‘(2) increased deductibles; 

‘‘(3) increased copayments; 

‘‘(4) limits on the freedom to select the 

doctor of one’s choice; 

‘‘(5) reduced quality of health care services 

caused by funding reductions for health care 

providers; 

‘‘(6) reduced or eliminated benefits caused 

by restrictions on eligibility or services; or 

‘‘(7) closure of hospitals or nursing homes, 

or other harms to health care providers. 

‘‘(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—Upon the reporting of legislation 

pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon 

the submission of a conference report on 

such legislation (if a conference report is 

submitted), the Chair of the Committee on 

the Budget of the Senate shall submit to the 

Senate appropriately revised allocations 

under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, budgetary aggregates, and levels under this resolution, revised by an amount that does not exceed 59 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS