Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - March 18, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S2935-S2961]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 657. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the availability of medical savings accounts, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT EXPANSION ACT OF 1999
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
the Medical Savings Account Expansion Act of 1999. There has been much
said recently regarding the need to reform health care. I agree with
many of my colleagues that health care is indeed in need of serious
reform. However, the nature and the scope of reforms are open to
debate.
During the health care debate of 1996, the Congress focused its
efforts on attempting to provide the uninsured with insurance. Included
in the legislation, Congress created a demonstration project in order
to test the effectiveness of Medical Savings Accounts. However, in
establishing the demonstration project, the Congress created numerous
legislative roadblocks to the success of Medical Savings Accounts.
As we are all aware, Medical Savings Accounts combine a high
deductible insurance policy and tax exempt accounts for the purpose of
providing health care. MSA holders use these accounts to purchase
routine health care services. When account holders spend all of the
funds in their account and reach their annual deductible, their health
insurance policy kicks in. If they don't spend all the money in the
account, they get to keep what's left, plus interest for the following
year.
The creation of Medical Savings Accounts was the result of a
bipartisan coalition that many in the Senate worked long and hard to
achieve. Medical Savings Accounts are really based on a simple
principle that should be at the heart of the health care reform, that
being, empowering people to take control of their own health care
improves the system for everyone. Expanding MSAs is one small, but
important, step in that regard. Providing individuals with an incentive
to save money on their health care costs encourages them to be better
consumers. The result is much needed cost control and consumer
responsibility.
Mr. President, I think as the Congress begins to discuss health care
reform this year, we must move away from the debate on the regulation
and rationing of health care and focus our energies on providing health
care to the uninsured. Instead of concentrating our efforts on reforms
that will likely result in less health care, we should be trying to
expand the opportunity for health care. At the same time, we must do so
in a cost effective and market oriented way. MSAs meet that goal.
According to the General Accounting Office, more than 37% of the
people who have opted to buy an MSA under the 1996 law were previously
uninsured. That bears repeating; people who have previously been
uninsured, are now buying health insurance. We need to make it possible
for more people to obtain health care insurance. Now, compare those 37%
of previously uninsured who now have health insurance with the
projected 400,000 people who would lose their current health insurance
if the Congress does something that would raise current health
insurance premiums by just one percentage point and the argument
becomes even stronger to expand the use of MSAs.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today does just that,
it makes Medical Savings Accounts more readily available to more people
by eliminating many of the legislative and regulatory roadblocks to
their continued success. The GAO report referred to earlier, points out
that one of the key reasons why MSAs have not been as successful as
originally thought is the complexity of the law.
Let me touch on a just few of the problems my legislation addresses.
First is the scope of the demonstration project. Mr. President, I
believe we should drop the 750,000 cap and extend the life of the
project indefinitely. The 750,000 cap is merely an arbitrary number
negotiated by the Congress. By lifting the cap and making MSAs
permanent, we will be allowing the market to decide whether MSAs are a
viable alternative in health insurance. The cap
[[Page
S2936]]
and the limited time constraint create a disincentive for insurance
companies to provide MSAs as an option. The GAO study I cited earlier
supports this conclusion. The majority of companies who offered MSA
plans did so in order to preserve a share of the market. The result,
few, if any, are aggressively marketing MSAs. If Congress is serious
about testing the effectiveness of MSAs in the marketplace, we must
free them from unnecessary and arbitrarily imposed restraints.
Second, under current law, either an employer or an employee can
contribute directly to an MSA, but not both. The legislation I am
introducing would allow both employers and employees to contribute to a
Medical Savings Account. This just makes sense. By limiting who can
contribute to an individual MSA, the government has predetermined the
limits of contributions. I think many employers would prefer to
contribute to an individual's health care account, rather than continue
the costly, third-party payer system. By allowing both employers and
employees to contribute to MSAs, we will be giving more flexibility to
Medical Savings Accounts. That flexibility will allow more people to
obtain MSAs and undoubtedly contribute to their success.
One of the arguments frequently made against MSAs is that they are
for the rich. Certainly that is an understandable conclusion, given the
fact that we limit who can contribute to MSAs. By lifting the
contribution restrictions, individuals of all income levels will find
MSAs a viable health care alternative.
As I travel throughout Oklahoma, a common complaint is the access to
quality health care and the rising cost of health care. In my state,
managed care is not always an option for many people in rural areas.
However, Medical Savings Accounts are an option for many families
because MSAs give them the choice to pursue individualized health care
that fits their needs. These are the sorts of solutions that our
constituents have sent us to Washington to find. They are not
interested in more government. In fact, many want less. Yet, all we
offer them is differing degrees of government intrusion in their lives.
Mr. President, the debate in the 105th Congress clearly demonstrated
we are all concerned about access to health care, doctor choice, cost,
and security. As the debate moves forward in the 106th Congress, I want
to urge my colleagues to consider alternatives to further big-
government and to be bold enough to pursue them.
Mr. President, I ask that the full 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. 657
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 ``Medical Savings Account
Expansion Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON TAXPAYERS HAVING MEDICAL
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
(a) Repeal of Numerical Limitations and Termination.--
(1) In general.--Section 220 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to medical savings accounts) is amended by
striking subsections (i) and (j).
(2) Medicare+choice.--Section 138 of such Code (relating to
Medicare+Choice MSA) is amended by striking subsection (f).
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 220(c)(1) of such Code
is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Repeal of Restrictions on Individuals Who Have Medical
Savings Accounts.--
(1) In general.--Section 220(c)(1)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to eligible individual) is
amended by inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (i), by
striking ``, and'' at the end of clause (ii)(II) and
inserting a period, and by striking clause (iii).
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 220(b) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (4) and by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and
(7) as paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively.
(B) Section 220(c)(1) of such Code, as amended by
subsection (a)(3), is amended by striking subparagraph (C).
(C) Section 220(c) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (4) and by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph
(4).
(c) Repeal of Restriction on Joint Employer-Employee
Contributions.--Section 220(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to limitations) is amended by striking
paragraph (4), as redesignated by subsection (b)(2)(A), and
by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) (as so redesignated)
as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively.
(d) 100 Percent Funding of Account Allowed.--
(1) In general.--Section 220(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to monthly limitation) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Monthly limitation.--The monthly limitation for any
month is the amount equal to \1/12\ of the annual deductible
of the high deductible health plan of the individual as of
the first of such month.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 220(d)(1)(A) of such
Code is amended by striking ``75 percent of''.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to months
beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Compensation limit repeal.--The amendments made by
subsection (b)(2)(A) shall apply to taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1999.
SEC. 3. REDUCTION IN HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLAN MINIMUM ANNUAL
DEDUCTIBLE
(a) In General.--Section 220(c)(2)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to high deductible health
plan) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$1,500'' in clause (i) (relating to self-
only coverage) and inserting ``$1,000'', and
(2) by striking ``$3,000'' in clause (ii) (relating to
family coverage) and inserting ``$2,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2000.
______
By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Kyl, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Boxer, and
Mr. Gorton):
S. 658. A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States
Customs Service for fiscal years 2000 and 2001; to the Committee on
Finance.
protection of u.s. borders
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Hutchison, Bingaman,
Domenici, Kyl, McCain, Boxer, Feinstein, and Gorton, I am introducing
legislation today which will authorize the United States Customs
Service to acquire the necessary personnel and technology to reduce
delays at our border crossings with Mexico and Canada to no more than
20 minutes, while strengthening our commitment to interdict illegal
narcotics and other contraband.
This bill represents the progress that we made in this regard in the
last Congress, and it builds on efforts that we initiated last year.
This legislation passed the Senate unanimously on October 8, 1998, and
a similar companion bill passed the House of Representatives on May 19,
1998 by a vote of 320-86. In addition to the resources dedicated to our
nation's land borders, this bill also incorporates the efforts of
Senators Grassley and Graham in adding resources for interdiction
efforts in the air and along our coastline, provisions that were passed
by the Senate in last year's bill.
I am very concerned about the impact of narcotics trafficking on
Texas and the nation and have worked closely with federal and state law
enforcement officials to identify and secure the necessary resources to
battle the onslaught of illegal drugs. At the same time, however, our
current enforcement strategy is burdened by insufficient staffing, a
gross underuse of vital interdiction technology, and is effectively
closing the door to legitimate trade.
At a time when NAFTA and the expanding world marketplace are making
it possible for us to create more commerce, freedom and opportunity for
people on both sides of the border, it is important that we eliminate
the border crossing delays that are stifling these goals. In order for
all Americans to fully enjoy the benefits of growing trade with Mexico
and Canada, we must ensure that the Customs Service has the resources
necessary to accomplish its mission. Customs inspections should not be
obstacles to legitimate trade and commerce. Customs staffing needs to
be increased significantly to facilitate the flow of substantially
increased traffic on both the Southwestern and Northern borders, and
these additional personnel need the modern technology that will allow
them to inspect more cargo, more efficiently. The practical effect of
these increases will be to open all the existing primary inspection
lanes where congestion is a problem during peak hours and to enhance
investigative capabilities on the Southwest border.
[[Page
S2937]]
Long traffic lines at our international crossings are
counterproductive to improving our trade relationship with Mexico and
Canada. This bill is designed to shorten those lines and promote
legitimate commerce, while providing the Customs Service with the means
necessary to tackle the drug trafficking operations that are now
rampant along the 1,200-mile border that my State shares with Mexico. I
will be speaking further to my colleagues about this initiative and
urge their support for the 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. 658
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 ``Drug Free Borders Act of
1999''.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
SERVICE FOR ENHANCED INSPECTION, TRADE FACILITATION, AND DRUG
INTERDICTION
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial Operations.--
Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)) are amended to read as follows:
``(A) $997,300,584 for fiscal year 2000.
``(B) $1,100,818,328 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(b) Commercial Operations.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of section
301(b)(2)(A) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(2)(A)(i) and
(ii)) are amended to read as follows:
``(i) $990,030,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(ii) $1,009,312,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(c) Air and Marine Interdiction.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B)
of section 301(b)(3) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3)(A) and
(B)) are amended to read as follows:
``(A) $229,001,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(B) $176,967,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(d) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section
301(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(3) By no later than the date on which the President
submits to the Congress the budget of the United States
Government for a fiscal year, the Commissioner of Customs
shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
the projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year
that will be necessary for the operations of the Customs
Service as provided for in subsection (b).''.
SEC. 102. CARGO INSPECTION AND NARCOTICS DETECTION EQUIPMENT
FOR THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER, UNITED
STATES-CANADA BORDER, AND FLORIDA AND GULF
COAST SEAPORTS.
(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2000 under section 301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(A)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act,
$100,036,000 shall be available until expended for
acquisition and other expenses associated with implementation
and deployment of narcotics detection equipment along the
United States-Mexico border, the United States-Canada border,
and Florida and the Gulf Coast seaports, as follows:
(1) United states-mexico border.--For the United States-
Mexico border, the following:
(A) $6,000,000 for 8 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $11,000,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $12,000,000 for the upgrade of 8 fixed-site truck x-
rays from the present energy level of 450,000 electron volts
to 1,000,000 electron volts (1-MeV).
(D) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(E) $1,000,000 for 200 portable contraband detectors
(busters) to be distributed among ports where the current
allocations are inadequate.
(F) $600,000 for 50 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among all southwest border ports based on traffic
volume.
(G) $500,000 for 25 ultrasonic container inspection units
to be distributed among all ports receiving liquid-filled
cargo and to ports with a hazardous material inspection
facility.
(H) $2,450,000 for 7 automated targeting systems.
(I) $360,000 for 30 rapid tire deflator systems to be
distributed to those ports where port runners are a threat.
(J) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among
ports as needed.
(K) $1,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance camera
systems at ports where there are suspicious activities at
loading docks, vehicle queues, secondary inspection lanes, or
areas where visual surveillance or observation is obscured.
(L) $1,254,000 for 57 weigh-in-motion sensors to be
distributed among the ports with the greatest volume of
outbound traffic.
(M) $180,000 for 36 AM traffic information radio stations,
with 1 station to be located at each border crossing.
(N) $1,040,000 for 260 inbound vehicle counters to be
installed at every inbound vehicle lane.
(O) $950,000 for 38 spotter camera systems to counter the
surveillance of customs inspection activities by persons
outside the boundaries of ports where such surveillance
activities are occurring.
(P) $390,000 for 60 inbound commercial truck transponders
to be distributed to all ports of entry.
(Q) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle
detectors to be distributed to each border crossing.
(R) $400,000 for license plate reader automatic targeting
software to be installed at each port to target inbound
vehicles.
(S) $1,000,000 for a demonstration site for a high-energy
relocatable rail car inspection system with an x-ray source
switchable from 2,000,000 electron volts (2-MeV) to 6,000,000
electron volts (6-MeV) at a shared Department of Defense
testing facility for a two-month testing period.
(2) United states-canada border.--For the United States-
Canada border, the following:
(A) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate.
(E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
(F) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among
ports as needed.
(G) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle detectors
to be distributed to each border crossing based on traffic
volume.
(H) $600,000 for 30 fiber optic scopes.
(I) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate;
(J) $3,000,000 for 10 x-ray vans with particle detectors.
(K) $40,000 for 8 AM loop radio systems.
(L) $400,000 for 100 vehicle counters.
(M) $1,200,000 for 12 examination tool trucks.
(N) $2,400,000 for 3 dedicated commuter lanes.
(O) $1,050,000 for 3 automated targeting systems.
(P) $572,000 for 26 weigh-in-motion sensors.
(Q) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communication Systems (TECS).
(3) Florida and gulf coast seaports.--For Florida and the
Gulf Coast seaports, the following:
(A) $4,500,000 for 6 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $11,800,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate.
(E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
(b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2001 under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(B)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act,
$9,923,500 shall be for the maintenance and support of the
equipment and training of personnel to maintain and support
the equipment described in subsection (a).
(c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment;
Transfer of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use
amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 under section
301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs Procedural Reform and
Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A)), as
amended by section 101(a) of this Act, for the acquisition of
equipment other than the equipment described in subsection
(a) if such other equipment--
(A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment
described in subsection (a); and
(ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that
is the same or less than the equipment described in
subsection (a); or
(B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment
described in subsection (a).
(2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate
an amount not to exceed 10 percent of--
(A) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (R) of subsection (a)(1) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (R);
(B) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (Q) of subsection (a)(2) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (Q); and
(C) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (E) of subsection (a)(3) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (E).
[[Page
S2938]]
SEC. 103. PEAK HOURS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT
FOR THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO AND UNITED STATES-
CANADA BORDERS, FLORIDA AND GULF COAST
SEAPORTS, AND THE BAHAMAS.
Of the amounts made available for fiscal years 2000 and
2001 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of
the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978
(19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)), as amended by section
101(a) of this Act, $159,557,000, including $5,673,600, until
expended, for investigative equipment, for fiscal year 2000
and $220,351,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be available for
the following:
(1) A net increase of 535 inspectors, 120 special agents,
and 10 intelligence analysts for the United States-Mexico
border and 375 inspectors for the United States-Canada
border, in order to open all primary lanes on such borders
during peak hours and enhance investigative resources.
(2) A net increase of 285 inspectors and canine enforcement
officers to be distributed at large cargo facilities as
needed to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo) and
reduce commercial waiting times on the United States-Mexico
border and a net increase of 125 inspectors to be distributed
at large cargo facilities as needed to process and screen
cargo (including rail cargo) and reduce commercial waiting
times on the United States-Canada border.
(3) A net increase of 40 inspectors at sea ports in
southeast Florida to process and screen cargo.
(4) A net increase of 70 special agent positions, 23
intelligence analyst positions, 9 support staff, and the
necessary equipment to enhance investigation efforts targeted
at internal conspiracies at the Nation's seaports.
(5) A net increase of 360 special agents, 30 intelligence
analysts, and additional resources to be distributed among
offices that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug
or narcotics distribution and transportation centers for
intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money-
laundering organizations.
(6) A net increase of 2 special agent positions to re-
establish a Customs Attache office in Nassau.
(7) A net increase of 62 special agent positions and 8
intelligence analyst positions for maritime smuggling
investigations and interdiction operations.
(8) A net increase of 50 positions and additional resources
to the Office of Internal Affairs to enhance investigative
resources for anticorruption efforts.
(9) The costs incurred as a result of the increase in
personnel hired pursuant to this section.
SEC. 104. AIR AND MARINE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING.
(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2000 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
301(b)(3) of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification
Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3) (A) and (B)) as amended by
section 101(c) of this Act, $130,513,000 shall be available
until expended for the following:
(1) $96,500,000 for Customs aircraft restoration and
replacement initiative.
(2) $15,000,000 for increased air interdiction and
investigative support activities.
(3) $19,013,000 for marine vessel replacement and related
equipment.
(b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2001 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
301(b)(3) of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification
Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3) (A) and (B)) as amended by
section 101(c) of this Act, $75,524,000 shall be available
until expended for the following:
(1) $36,500,000 for Customs Service aircraft restoration
and replacement.
(2) $15,000,000 for increased air interdiction and
investigative support activities.
(3) $24,024,000 for marine vessel replacement and related
equipment.
SEC. 105. COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
As part of the annual performance plan for each of the
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 covering each program activity set
forth in the budget of the United States Customs Service, as
required under section 1115 of title 31, United States Code,
the Commissioner of Customs shall establish performance goals
and performance indicators, and comply with all other
requirements contained in paragraphs (1) through (6) of
subsection (a) of such section with respect to each of the
activities to be carried out pursuant to sections 102 and 103
of this Act.
SEC. 106. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS SALARY.
(a) In General.--
(1) Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking the following item:
``Commissioner of Customs, Department of Treasury.''.
(2) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by inserting the following item:
``Commissioner of Customs, Department of Treasury.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fiscal year 1999 and thereafter.
SEC. 107. PASSENGER PRECLEARANCE SERVICES.
(a) Continuation of Preclearance Services.--Notwithstanding
section 13031(f) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)) or any other
provision of law, the Customs Service shall, without regard
to whether a passenger processing fee is collected from a
person departing for the United States from Canada and
without regard to whether funds are appropriated pursuant to
subsection (b), provide the same level of enhanced
preclearance customs services for passengers arriving in the
United States aboard commercial aircraft originating in
Canada as the Customs Service provided for such passengers
during fiscal year 1997.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations for Preclearance
Services.--Notwithstanding section 13031(f) of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19
U.S.C. 58c(f)) or any other provision of law, there are
authorized to be appropriated, from the date of enactment of
this Act through September 30, 2001, such sums as may be
necessary for the Customs Service to ensure that it will
continue to provide the same, and where necessary increased,
levels of enhanced preclearance customs services as the
Customs Service provided during fiscal year 1997, in
connection with the arrival in the United States of
passengers aboard commercial aircraft whose flights
originated in Canada.
TITLE II--CUSTOMS PERFORMANCE REPORT
SEC. 201. CUSTOMS PERFORMANCE REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Customs shall
prepare and submit to the appropriate committees the report
described in subsection (b).
(b) Report Described.--The report described in this
subsection shall include the following:
(1) Identification of objectives; establishment of
priorities.--
(A) An outline of the means the Customs Service intends to
use to identify enforcement priorities and trade facilitation
objectives.
(B) The reasons for selecting the objectives contained in
the most recent plan submitted by the Customs Service
pursuant to section 1115 of title 31, United States Code.
(C) The performance standards against which the appropriate
committees can assess the efforts of the Customs Service in
reaching the goals outlined in the plan described in
subparagraph (B).
(2) Implementation of the Customs Modernization Act.--
(A) A review of the Customs Service's implementation of
title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act, commonly known as the ``Customs
Modernization Act'', and the reasons why elements of that
Act, if any, have not been implemented.
(B) A review of the effectiveness of the informed
compliance strategy in obtaining higher levels of compliance,
particularly compliance by those industries that have been
the focus of the most intense efforts by the Customs Service
to ensure compliance with the Customs Modernization Act.
(C) A summary of the results of the reviews of the initial
industry-wide compliance assessments conducted by the Customs
Service as part of the agency's informed compliance
initiative.
(3) Improvement of commercial operations.--
(A) Identification of standards to be used in assessing the
performance and efficiency of the commercial operations of
the Customs Service, including entry and inspection
procedures, classification, valuation, country-of-origin
determinations, and duty drawback determinations.
(B) Proposals for--
(i) improving the performance of the commercial operations
of the Customs Service, particularly the functions described
in subparagraph (A), and
(ii) eliminating lengthy delays in obtaining rulings and
other forms of guidance on United States customs law,
regulations, procedures, or policies.
(C) Alternative strategies for ensuring that United States
importers, exporters, customs brokers, and other members of
the trade community have the information necessary to comply
with the customs laws of the United States and to conduct
their business operations accordingly.
(4) Review of enforcement responsibilities.--
(A) A review of the enforcement responsibilities of the
Customs Service.
(B) An assessment of the degree to which the current
functions of the Customs Service overlap with the functions
of other agencies and an identification of ways in which the
Customs Service can avoid duplication of effort.
(C) A description of the methods used to ensure against
misuse of personal search authority with respect to persons
entering the United States at authorized ports of entry.
(5) Strategy for comprehensive drug interdiction.--
(A) A comprehensive strategy for the Customs Service's role
in United States drug interdiction efforts.
(B) Identification of the respective roles of cooperating
agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Coast Guard, and the
intelligence community, including--
(i) identification of the functions that can best be
performed by the Customs Service and the functions that can
best be performed by agencies other than the Customs Service;
and
(ii) a description of how the Customs Service plans to
allocate the additional drug interdiction resources
authorized by the Drug Free Borders Act of 1999.
[[Page
S2939]]
(6) Enhancement of cooperation with the trade community.--
(A) Identification of ways to expand cooperation with
United States importers and customs brokers, United States
and foreign carriers, and other members of the international
trade and transportation communities to improve the detection
of contraband before it leaves a foreign port destined for
the United States.
(B) Identification of ways to enhance the flow of
information between the Customs Service and industry in order
to--
(i) achieve greater awareness of potential compliance
threats;
(ii) improve the design and efficiency of the commercial
operations of the Customs Service;
(iii) foster account-based management;
(iv) eliminate unnecessary and burdensome regulations; and
(v) establish standards for industry compliance with
customs laws.
(7) Allocation of resources.--
(A) An outline of the basis for the current allocation of
inspection and investigative personnel by the Customs
Service.
(B) Identification of the steps to be taken to ensure that
the Customs Service can detect any misallocation of the
resources described in subparagraph (A) among various ports
and a description of what means the Customs Service has for
reallocating resources within the agency to meet particular
enforcement demands or commercial operations needs.
(8) Automation and information technology.--
(A) Identification of the automation needs of the Customs
Service and an explanation of the current state of the
Automated Commercial System and the status of implementing a
replacement for that system.
(B) A comprehensive strategy for reaching the technology
goals of the Customs Service, including--
(i) an explanation of the proposed architecture of any
replacement for the Automated Commercial System and how the
architecture of the proposed replacement system best serves
the core functions of the Customs Service;
(ii) identification of public and private sector automation
projects that are comparable and that can be used as a
benchmark against which to judge the progress of the Customs
Service in meeting its technology goals;
(iii) an estimate of the total cost for each automation
project currently underway at the Customs Service and a
timetable for the implementation of each project; and
(iv) a summary of the options for financing each automation
project.
(9) Personnel policies.--
(A) An overview of current personnel practices, including a
description of--
(i) performance standards;
(ii) the criteria for promotion and termination;
(iii) the process for investigating complaints of bias and
sexual harassment;
(iv) the criteria used for conducting internal
investigations;
(v) the protection, if any, that is provided for
whistleblowers; and
(vi) the methods used to discover and eliminate corruption
within the Customs Service.
(B) Identification of workforce needs for the future and
training needed to ensure Customs Service personnel stay
abreast of developments in international business operations
and international trade that affect the operations of the
Customs Service, including identification of any situations
in which current personnel policies or practices may impede
achievement of the goals of the Customs Service with respect
to both enforcement and commercial operations.
(c) Appropriate Committees.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``appropriate committees'' means the Committee on
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives.
______
By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Robb and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 659. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require
pension plans to provide adequate notice to individuals whose future
benefit accruals are being significantly reduced, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the pension right to know act of 1999
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
provide greater disclosure to employees about the impact on their
retirement benefits of pension plan conversions.
Recent media accounts have reported that many large companies in
America are converting their traditional defined benefit pension plans
to something called ``cash balance plans.'' A cash balance plan is a
hybrid arrangement combining certain features of ``defined
contribution'' and ``defined benefit'' plans. Like defined contribution
plans, they provide each employee with an account in which his or her
benefits accrue. But cash balance plans are actually defined benefit
plans, and therefore provide a benefit for life which is insured by the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Cash balance plans, however, differ from other defined benefit plans
in the calculation of benefits. Whereas the value of an employee's
retirement benefit in a traditional defined benefit plan grows slowly
in the early years and more rapidly as one approaches retirement, cash
balance plans decrease this later-year growth and increase the early-
year growth. Consequently, younger employees tend to do better under
cash balance plans than under traditional plans, while older employees
typically do worse. In some cases, upon conversion to a cash balance
account an older worker's account balance may remain static for years--
typically referred to as the ``wear away'' period.
It appears that very few workers who have experienced the conversion
of their company retirement plan to a cash balance arrangement
understand the differences between the old and new plans. Those who do
often complain that the new plans treat older workers unfairly. One 49-
year-old engineer profiled by the Wall Street Journal--a rare employee
who knows how to calculate pension benefits--determined that his
pension value dropped by $56,000 the day his company converted to a
cash balance plan.
Even more disturbing are complaints from some employees that their
employers obscured the adverse effects of plan amendments. When an
employer changes the pension plan, the employees have a right to know
the consequences. There should be no surprises when it is time to
retire. Unfortunately, current law requires little in the way of
disclosure when a company changes its pension plan. Section 204(h) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requires employers
to inform employees of a change to a pension plan resulting in a
reduction in future benefit accruals. But that is all. It does not
require specifics. The 204(h) disclosure can be, and often is,
satisfied with a brief statement buried deep in a company communication
to employees. It is imperative that we increase these disclosure
requirements regarding reductions in pension benefits.
The bill I am introducing today would require employers with 1,000 or
more employees to provide a ``statement of benefit change'' when
adopting plan amendments which significantly reduce benefits. The
statement of benefit change would provide a comparison, under the old
and new versions of the plan, of the following benefit measures; the
employee's accrued benefit and present value of accrued benefit at the
time of conversion; and the projected accrued benefit and projected
present value of accrued benefit three years, five years, and ten years
after conversion and at normal retirement age.
These benefit measures are standard concepts which will be well
understood by pension administrators, actuaries and others who work
with pensions. They will give the employee a clear picture of the
difference between the old and new plans immediately, periodically over
a ten-year period, and at retirement. The purpose of the three, five
and ten-year comparisons is to disclose any ``wear away'' period, in
which an employee would work without gaining any new benefits. Using
these comparisons, employees can get a clear picture of the relative
merits of the two plans.
In preparing this bill, my staff has consulted a number of actuaries
and pension attorneys. I believe it is a good approach to resolving the
problems I have discussed, and I am happy to work with others to
incorporate suggestions to further improve the bill.
Of course, many call this measure as intrusive or unnecessary. Some
employer groups have criticized the idea of requiring individualized
benefits calculations for every employee, saying that this requires
reviewing each employee's salary history. But that seems a strange
complaint given that we are talking about cash balance plans, which
already require highly individualized calculations. If an employer can
provide personalized account balances under a cash balance arrangement,
then the employer can provide such information for the old plan.
Moreover, recently completed regulations appear already to
contemplate individualized comparisons. Regulation 1.411(d)-6, just
finalized by the Internal Revenue Service, requires that in order
[[Page
S2940]]
to determine if a reduction in future benefit accrual is
``significant,'' employers must compare the annual benefit at
retirement age under the amended plan with the same benefit under the
plan prior to amendment. Therefore, the concept of benefit comparisons
is not a new one.
And indeed, some companies are proving by their actions that benefit
comparisons are not unduly burdensome. Kodak, the prominent employer
headquartered in Rochester, New York, recently announced that it will
convert to a cash balance plan, and that it will give its 35,000
participants in the company-sponsored pension plan the choice between
the old plan and the new. To help employees make an informed decision,
Kodak will provide every plan participant with an individualized
comparison of his or her benefits under the old and new versions of the
plan. The company is also providing computer software that will allow
employees to make the comparisons themselves. That is the difference
between corporate behavior that is responsible and corporate behavior
that is unscrupulous. As usual, Kodak sets a fine example.
I believe that such disclosure not only is in the best interest of
employees, but also of the employer. Several class action lawsuits have
been filed in the last three years challenging conversions to cash
balance plans. These suits will likely cost hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of dollars in attorneys' fees. But with proper
disclosure, they might not have occurred.
In closing, let me be clear about one thing. I take no position on
the underlying merit of cash balance plans. Ours is a voluntary pension
system, and companies must do what is right for them and their
employees. But I feel strongly that companies must fully and
comprehensibly inform their employees regarding whatever pension
benefits the company offers. Companies have no right to misrepresent
the projected benefit employees will receive under a cash balance plan
or any other pension arrangement.
It is time to let the sun shine on pension plan conversions. I urge
the Senate to support this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 659
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 ``Pension Right to Know Act''.
SEC. 2. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE PENSION PLANS
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING FUTURE PENSION BENEFIT
ACCRUALS.
(a) Plan Requirement.--Section 401(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified pension, profit-
sharing, and stock bonus plans) is amended by inserting after
paragraph (34) the following new paragraph:
``(35) Notice requirements for large defined benefit plans
significantly reducing future benefit accruals.--
``(A) In general.--If a large defined benefit plan adopts
an amendment which has the effect of significantly reducing
the rate of future benefit accrual of 1 or more participants,
a trust which is part of such plan shall not constitute a
qualified trust under this section unless, after adoption of
such amendment and not less than 15 days before its effective
date, the plan administrator provides--
``(i) a written statement of benefit change described in
subparagraph (B) to each applicable individual, and
``(ii) a written notice setting forth the plan amendment
and its effective date to each employee organization
representing participants in the plan.
Any such notice may be provided to a person designated, in
writing, by the person to which it would otherwise be
provided. The plan administrator shall not be treated as
failing to meet the requirements of this subparagraph merely
because the statement or notice is provided before the
adoption of the plan amendment if no material modification of
the amendment occurs before the amendment is adopted.
``(B) Statement of benefit change.--A statement of benefit
change described in this subparagraph shall--
``(i) be written in a manner calculated to be understood by
the average plan participant, and
``(ii) include the information described in subparagraph
(C).
``(C) Information contained in statement of benefit
change.--The information described in this subparagraph
includes the following:
``(i) Notice setting forth the plan amendment and its
effective date.
``(ii) A comparison of the following amounts under the plan
with respect to an applicable individual, determined both
with and without regard to the plan amendment:
``(I) The accrued benefit and the present value of the
accrued benefit as of the effective date.
``(II) The projected accrued benefit and the projected
present value of the accrued benefit as of the date which is
3 years, 5 years, and 10 years from the effective date and as
of the normal retirement age.
``(iii) A table of all annuity factors used to calculate
benefits under the plan, presented in the form provided in
section 72 and the regulations thereunder.
Benefits described in clause (ii) shall be stated separately
and shall be calculated by using the applicable mortality
table and the applicable interest rate under section
417(e)(3)(A).
``(D) Large defined benefit plan; applicable individual.--
For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) Large defined benefit plan.--The term `large defined
benefit plan' means any defined benefit plan which had 1,000
or more participants who had accrued a benefit under the plan
(whether or not vested) as of the last day of the plan year
preceding the plan year in which the plan amendment becomes
effective.
``(ii) Applicable individual.--The term `applicable
individual' means--
``(I) each participant in the plan, and
``(II) each beneficiary who is an alternate payee (within
the meaning of section 414(p)(8)) under an applicable
qualified domestic relations order (within the meaning of
section 414(p)(1)(A)).
``(E) Accrued benefit; projected retirement benefit.--For
purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) Present value of accrued benefit.--The present value
of an accrued benefit of any applicable individual shall be
calculated as if the accrued benefit were in the form of a
single life annuity commencing at the participant's normal
retirement age (and by taking into account any early
retirement subsidy).
``(ii) Projected accrued benefit.--
``(I) In general.--The projected accrued benefit of any
applicable individual shall be calculated as if the benefit
were payable in the form of a single life annuity commencing
at the participant's normal retirement age (and by taking
into account any early retirement subsidy).
``(II) Compensation and other assumptions.--Such benefit
shall be calculated by assuming that compensation and all
other benefit factors would increase for each plan year
beginning after the effective date of the plan amendment at a
rate equal to the median average of the CPI increase
percentage (as defined in section 215(i) of the Social
Security Act) for the 5 calendar years immediately preceding
the calendar year before the calendar year in which such
effective date occurs.
``(III) Benefit factors.--For purposes of subclause (II),
the term `benefit factors' means social security benefits and
all other relevant factors under section 411(b)(1)(A) used to
compute benefits under the plan which had increased from the
2d plan year preceding the plan year in which the effective
date of the plan amendment occurs to the 1st such preceding
plan year.
``(iii) Normal retirement age.--The term `normal retirement
age' means the later of--
``(I) the date determined under section 411(a)(8), or
``(II) the date a plan participant attains age 62.''
(b) Amendments to ERISA.--
(1) Benefit statement requirement.--Section 204(h) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1054(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraphs:
``(3)(A) If paragraph (1) applies to the adoption of a plan
amendment by a large defined benefit plan, the plan
administrator shall, after adoption of such amendment and not
less than 15 days before its effective date, provide with the
notice under paragraph (1) a written statement of benefit
change described in subparagraph (B) to each applicable
individual.
``(B) A statement of benefit change described in this
subparagraph shall--
``(i) be written in a manner calculated to be understood by
the average plan participant, and
``(ii) include the information described in subparagraph
(C).
``(C) The information described in this subparagraph
includes the following:
``(i) A comparison of the following amounts under the plan
with respect to an applicable individual, determined both
with and without regard to the plan amendment:
``(I) The accrued benefit and the present value of the
accrued benefit as of the effective date.
``(II) The projected accrued benefit and the projected
present value of the accrued benefit as of the date which is
3 years, 5 years, and 10 years from the effective date and as
of the normal retirement age.
``(ii) A table of all annuity factors used to calculate
benefits under the plan, presented in the form provided in
section 72 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the
regulations thereunder.
[[Page
S2941]]
Benefits described in clause (i) shall be stated separately
and shall be calculated by using the applicable mortality
table and the applicable interest rate under section
417(e)(3)(A) of such Code.
``(D) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) The term `large defined benefit plan' means any
defined benefit plan which had 1,000 or more participants who
had accrued a benefit under the plan (whether or not vested)
as of the last day of the plan year preceding the plan year
in which the plan amendment becomes effective.
``(ii) The term `applicable individual' means an individual
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).
``(E) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) The present value of an accrued benefit of any
applicable individual shall be calculated as if the accrued
benefit were in the form of a single life annuity commencing
at the participant's normal retirement age (and by taking
into account any early retirement subsidy).
``(ii)(I) The projected accrued benefit of any applicable
individual shall be calculated as if the benefit were payable
in the form of a single life annuity commencing at the
participant's normal retirement age (and by taking into
account any early retirement subsidy).
``(II) Such benefit shall be calculated by assuming that
compensation and all other benefit factors would increase for
each plan year beginning after the effective date of the plan
amendment at a rate equal to the median average of the CPI
increase percentage (as defined in section 215(i) of the
Social Security Act) for the 5 calendar years immediately
preceding the calendar year before the calendar year in which
such effective date occurs.
``(III) For purposes of subclause (II), the term `benefit
factors' means social security benefits and all other
relevant factors under section 204(b)(1)(A) used to compute
benefits under the plan which had increased from the 2d plan
year preceding the plan year in which the effective date of
the plan amendment occurs to the 1st such preceding plan
year.
``(iii) The term `normal retirement age' means the later
of--
``(I) the date determined under section 3(24), or
``(II) the date a plan participant attains age 62.
``(4) A plan administrator shall not be treated as failing
to meet the requirements of this subsection merely because
the notice or statement is provided before the adoption of
the plan amendment if no material modification of the
amendment occurs before the amendment is adopted.''
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 204(h)(1) of such Act
(29 U.S.C. 1054(h)(1)) is amended by inserting ``(including
any written statement of benefit change if required by
paragraph (3))'' after ``written notice''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to plan amendments taking effect in plan years
beginning on or after the earlier of--
(A) the later of--
(i) January 1, 1999, or
(ii) the date on which the last of the collective
bargaining agreements pursuant to which the plan is
maintained terminates (determined without regard to any
extension thereof after the date of the enactment of this
Act), or
(B) January 1, 2001.
(2) Exception where notice given.--The amendments made by
this section shall not apply to any plan amendment for which
written notice was given to participants or their
representatives before March 17, 1999, without regard to
whether the amendment was adopted before such date.
(3) Special rule.--The period for providing any notice
required by, or any notice the contents of which are changed
by, the amendments made by this Act shall not end before the
date which is 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Thurmond, Mr. Daschle, Ms. Collins, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Mack, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reed, Mr. Conrad, and Mr.
Crapo):
S. 660. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for coverage under part B of the medicare program of medical
nutrition therapy services furnished by registered dietitians and
nutrition professionals; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical
Nutrition Therapy Act of 1999 on behalf of myself, my friend and
colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, and a bipartisan group of
additional Senators.
This bipartisan measure provides for coverage under Part B of the
Medicare program for medical nutrition therapy services by a registered
dietician. Medical nutrition therapy is generally defined as the
assessment of patient nutritional status followed by therapy, ranging
from diet modification to administration of specialized nutrition
therapies such as intravenous or tube feedings. It has proven to be a
medically necessary and cost-effective way of treating and controlling
many disease entities such as diabetes, renal disease, cardiovascular
disease and severe burns.
Currently there is no consistent Part B coverage policy for medical
nutrition and this legislation will bring needed uniformity to the
delivery of this important care, as well as save taxpayer money.
Coverage for medical nutrition therapy can save money by reducing
hospital admissions, shortening hospital stays, decreasing the number
of complications, and reducing the need for physician follow-up visits.
The treatment of patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease
accounts for a full 60% of Medicare expenditures. I want to use
diabetes as an example for the need for this legislation. There are
very few families who are not touched by diabetes. The burden of
diabetes is disproportionately high among ethnic minorities in the
United States. According to the American Journal of Epidemiology,
mortality due to diabetes is higher nationwide among blacks than
whites. It is higher among American Indians than among any other ethnic
group.
In my state of New Mexico, Native Americans are experiencing an
epidemic of Type II diabetes. Medical nutrition therapy is integral to
their diabetes care. In fact, information from the Indian Health
Service shows that medical nutrition therapy provided by professional
dieticians results in significant improvements in medical outcomes in
people with Type II diabetes. For example, complications of diabetes
such as end stage renal failure that leads to dialysis can be prevented
with adequate intervention. Currently, the number of dialysis patients
in the Navajo population is doubling every five years. Mr, President,
we must place our dollars in the effective, preventive treatment of
medical nutrition therapy rather than face the grim reality of having
to continue to build new dialysis units.
Ensuring the solvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund is one of our
most difficult challenges and one that calls for creative, effective
solutions. Coverage for medical nutrition therapy is one important way
to help address that challenge. It is exactly the type of cost
effective care we should encourage. It will satisfy two of our most
important priorities in Medicare: providing program savings while
maintaining a high level of quality care.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 660
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - March 18, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S2935-S2961]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 657. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the availability of medical savings accounts, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT EXPANSION ACT OF 1999
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
the Medical Savings Account Expansion Act of 1999. There has been much
said recently regarding the need to reform health care. I agree with
many of my colleagues that health care is indeed in need of serious
reform. However, the nature and the scope of reforms are open to
debate.
During the health care debate of 1996, the Congress focused its
efforts on attempting to provide the uninsured with insurance. Included
in the legislation, Congress created a demonstration project in order
to test the effectiveness of Medical Savings Accounts. However, in
establishing the demonstration project, the Congress created numerous
legislative roadblocks to the success of Medical Savings Accounts.
As we are all aware, Medical Savings Accounts combine a high
deductible insurance policy and tax exempt accounts for the purpose of
providing health care. MSA holders use these accounts to purchase
routine health care services. When account holders spend all of the
funds in their account and reach their annual deductible, their health
insurance policy kicks in. If they don't spend all the money in the
account, they get to keep what's left, plus interest for the following
year.
The creation of Medical Savings Accounts was the result of a
bipartisan coalition that many in the Senate worked long and hard to
achieve. Medical Savings Accounts are really based on a simple
principle that should be at the heart of the health care reform, that
being, empowering people to take control of their own health care
improves the system for everyone. Expanding MSAs is one small, but
important, step in that regard. Providing individuals with an incentive
to save money on their health care costs encourages them to be better
consumers. The result is much needed cost control and consumer
responsibility.
Mr. President, I think as the Congress begins to discuss health care
reform this year, we must move away from the debate on the regulation
and rationing of health care and focus our energies on providing health
care to the uninsured. Instead of concentrating our efforts on reforms
that will likely result in less health care, we should be trying to
expand the opportunity for health care. At the same time, we must do so
in a cost effective and market oriented way. MSAs meet that goal.
According to the General Accounting Office, more than 37% of the
people who have opted to buy an MSA under the 1996 law were previously
uninsured. That bears repeating; people who have previously been
uninsured, are now buying health insurance. We need to make it possible
for more people to obtain health care insurance. Now, compare those 37%
of previously uninsured who now have health insurance with the
projected 400,000 people who would lose their current health insurance
if the Congress does something that would raise current health
insurance premiums by just one percentage point and the argument
becomes even stronger to expand the use of MSAs.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today does just that,
it makes Medical Savings Accounts more readily available to more people
by eliminating many of the legislative and regulatory roadblocks to
their continued success. The GAO report referred to earlier, points out
that one of the key reasons why MSAs have not been as successful as
originally thought is the complexity of the law.
Let me touch on a just few of the problems my legislation addresses.
First is the scope of the demonstration project. Mr. President, I
believe we should drop the 750,000 cap and extend the life of the
project indefinitely. The 750,000 cap is merely an arbitrary number
negotiated by the Congress. By lifting the cap and making MSAs
permanent, we will be allowing the market to decide whether MSAs are a
viable alternative in health insurance. The cap
[[Page
S2936]]
and the limited time constraint create a disincentive for insurance
companies to provide MSAs as an option. The GAO study I cited earlier
supports this conclusion. The majority of companies who offered MSA
plans did so in order to preserve a share of the market. The result,
few, if any, are aggressively marketing MSAs. If Congress is serious
about testing the effectiveness of MSAs in the marketplace, we must
free them from unnecessary and arbitrarily imposed restraints.
Second, under current law, either an employer or an employee can
contribute directly to an MSA, but not both. The legislation I am
introducing would allow both employers and employees to contribute to a
Medical Savings Account. This just makes sense. By limiting who can
contribute to an individual MSA, the government has predetermined the
limits of contributions. I think many employers would prefer to
contribute to an individual's health care account, rather than continue
the costly, third-party payer system. By allowing both employers and
employees to contribute to MSAs, we will be giving more flexibility to
Medical Savings Accounts. That flexibility will allow more people to
obtain MSAs and undoubtedly contribute to their success.
One of the arguments frequently made against MSAs is that they are
for the rich. Certainly that is an understandable conclusion, given the
fact that we limit who can contribute to MSAs. By lifting the
contribution restrictions, individuals of all income levels will find
MSAs a viable health care alternative.
As I travel throughout Oklahoma, a common complaint is the access to
quality health care and the rising cost of health care. In my state,
managed care is not always an option for many people in rural areas.
However, Medical Savings Accounts are an option for many families
because MSAs give them the choice to pursue individualized health care
that fits their needs. These are the sorts of solutions that our
constituents have sent us to Washington to find. They are not
interested in more government. In fact, many want less. Yet, all we
offer them is differing degrees of government intrusion in their lives.
Mr. President, the debate in the 105th Congress clearly demonstrated
we are all concerned about access to health care, doctor choice, cost,
and security. As the debate moves forward in the 106th Congress, I want
to urge my colleagues to consider alternatives to further big-
government and to be bold enough to pursue them.
Mr. President, I ask that the full 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. 657
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 ``Medical Savings Account
Expansion Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON TAXPAYERS HAVING MEDICAL
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
(a) Repeal of Numerical Limitations and Termination.--
(1) In general.--Section 220 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to medical savings accounts) is amended by
striking subsections (i) and (j).
(2) Medicare+choice.--Section 138 of such Code (relating to
Medicare+Choice MSA) is amended by striking subsection (f).
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 220(c)(1) of such Code
is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Repeal of Restrictions on Individuals Who Have Medical
Savings Accounts.--
(1) In general.--Section 220(c)(1)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to eligible individual) is
amended by inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (i), by
striking ``, and'' at the end of clause (ii)(II) and
inserting a period, and by striking clause (iii).
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 220(b) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (4) and by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and
(7) as paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively.
(B) Section 220(c)(1) of such Code, as amended by
subsection (a)(3), is amended by striking subparagraph (C).
(C) Section 220(c) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (4) and by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph
(4).
(c) Repeal of Restriction on Joint Employer-Employee
Contributions.--Section 220(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to limitations) is amended by striking
paragraph (4), as redesignated by subsection (b)(2)(A), and
by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) (as so redesignated)
as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively.
(d) 100 Percent Funding of Account Allowed.--
(1) In general.--Section 220(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to monthly limitation) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Monthly limitation.--The monthly limitation for any
month is the amount equal to \1/12\ of the annual deductible
of the high deductible health plan of the individual as of
the first of such month.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 220(d)(1)(A) of such
Code is amended by striking ``75 percent of''.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to months
beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Compensation limit repeal.--The amendments made by
subsection (b)(2)(A) shall apply to taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1999.
SEC. 3. REDUCTION IN HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLAN MINIMUM ANNUAL
DEDUCTIBLE
(a) In General.--Section 220(c)(2)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to high deductible health
plan) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$1,500'' in clause (i) (relating to self-
only coverage) and inserting ``$1,000'', and
(2) by striking ``$3,000'' in clause (ii) (relating to
family coverage) and inserting ``$2,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2000.
______
By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Kyl, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Boxer, and
Mr. Gorton):
S. 658. A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States
Customs Service for fiscal years 2000 and 2001; to the Committee on
Finance.
protection of u.s. borders
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Hutchison, Bingaman,
Domenici, Kyl, McCain, Boxer, Feinstein, and Gorton, I am introducing
legislation today which will authorize the United States Customs
Service to acquire the necessary personnel and technology to reduce
delays at our border crossings with Mexico and Canada to no more than
20 minutes, while strengthening our commitment to interdict illegal
narcotics and other contraband.
This bill represents the progress that we made in this regard in the
last Congress, and it builds on efforts that we initiated last year.
This legislation passed the Senate unanimously on October 8, 1998, and
a similar companion bill passed the House of Representatives on May 19,
1998 by a vote of 320-86. In addition to the resources dedicated to our
nation's land borders, this bill also incorporates the efforts of
Senators Grassley and Graham in adding resources for interdiction
efforts in the air and along our coastline, provisions that were passed
by the Senate in last year's bill.
I am very concerned about the impact of narcotics trafficking on
Texas and the nation and have worked closely with federal and state law
enforcement officials to identify and secure the necessary resources to
battle the onslaught of illegal drugs. At the same time, however, our
current enforcement strategy is burdened by insufficient staffing, a
gross underuse of vital interdiction technology, and is effectively
closing the door to legitimate trade.
At a time when NAFTA and the expanding world marketplace are making
it possible for us to create more commerce, freedom and opportunity for
people on both sides of the border, it is important that we eliminate
the border crossing delays that are stifling these goals. In order for
all Americans to fully enjoy the benefits of growing trade with Mexico
and Canada, we must ensure that the Customs Service has the resources
necessary to accomplish its mission. Customs inspections should not be
obstacles to legitimate trade and commerce. Customs staffing needs to
be increased significantly to facilitate the flow of substantially
increased traffic on both the Southwestern and Northern borders, and
these additional personnel need the modern technology that will allow
them to inspect more cargo, more efficiently. The practical effect of
these increases will be to open all the existing primary inspection
lanes where congestion is a problem during peak hours and to enhance
investigative capabilities on the Southwest border.
[[Page
S2937]]
Long traffic lines at our international crossings are
counterproductive to improving our trade relationship with Mexico and
Canada. This bill is designed to shorten those lines and promote
legitimate commerce, while providing the Customs Service with the means
necessary to tackle the drug trafficking operations that are now
rampant along the 1,200-mile border that my State shares with Mexico. I
will be speaking further to my colleagues about this initiative and
urge their support for the 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. 658
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 ``Drug Free Borders Act of
1999''.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
SERVICE FOR ENHANCED INSPECTION, TRADE FACILITATION, AND DRUG
INTERDICTION
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial Operations.--
Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)) are amended to read as follows:
``(A) $997,300,584 for fiscal year 2000.
``(B) $1,100,818,328 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(b) Commercial Operations.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of section
301(b)(2)(A) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(2)(A)(i) and
(ii)) are amended to read as follows:
``(i) $990,030,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(ii) $1,009,312,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(c) Air and Marine Interdiction.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B)
of section 301(b)(3) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3)(A) and
(B)) are amended to read as follows:
``(A) $229,001,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(B) $176,967,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(d) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section
301(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(3) By no later than the date on which the President
submits to the Congress the budget of the United States
Government for a fiscal year, the Commissioner of Customs
shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
the projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year
that will be necessary for the operations of the Customs
Service as provided for in subsection (b).''.
SEC. 102. CARGO INSPECTION AND NARCOTICS DETECTION EQUIPMENT
FOR THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER, UNITED
STATES-CANADA BORDER, AND FLORIDA AND GULF
COAST SEAPORTS.
(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2000 under section 301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(A)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act,
$100,036,000 shall be available until expended for
acquisition and other expenses associated with implementation
and deployment of narcotics detection equipment along the
United States-Mexico border, the United States-Canada border,
and Florida and the Gulf Coast seaports, as follows:
(1) United states-mexico border.--For the United States-
Mexico border, the following:
(A) $6,000,000 for 8 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $11,000,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $12,000,000 for the upgrade of 8 fixed-site truck x-
rays from the present energy level of 450,000 electron volts
to 1,000,000 electron volts (1-MeV).
(D) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(E) $1,000,000 for 200 portable contraband detectors
(busters) to be distributed among ports where the current
allocations are inadequate.
(F) $600,000 for 50 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among all southwest border ports based on traffic
volume.
(G) $500,000 for 25 ultrasonic container inspection units
to be distributed among all ports receiving liquid-filled
cargo and to ports with a hazardous material inspection
facility.
(H) $2,450,000 for 7 automated targeting systems.
(I) $360,000 for 30 rapid tire deflator systems to be
distributed to those ports where port runners are a threat.
(J) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among
ports as needed.
(K) $1,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance camera
systems at ports where there are suspicious activities at
loading docks, vehicle queues, secondary inspection lanes, or
areas where visual surveillance or observation is obscured.
(L) $1,254,000 for 57 weigh-in-motion sensors to be
distributed among the ports with the greatest volume of
outbound traffic.
(M) $180,000 for 36 AM traffic information radio stations,
with 1 station to be located at each border crossing.
(N) $1,040,000 for 260 inbound vehicle counters to be
installed at every inbound vehicle lane.
(O) $950,000 for 38 spotter camera systems to counter the
surveillance of customs inspection activities by persons
outside the boundaries of ports where such surveillance
activities are occurring.
(P) $390,000 for 60 inbound commercial truck transponders
to be distributed to all ports of entry.
(Q) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle
detectors to be distributed to each border crossing.
(R) $400,000 for license plate reader automatic targeting
software to be installed at each port to target inbound
vehicles.
(S) $1,000,000 for a demonstration site for a high-energy
relocatable rail car inspection system with an x-ray source
switchable from 2,000,000 electron volts (2-MeV) to 6,000,000
electron volts (6-MeV) at a shared Department of Defense
testing facility for a two-month testing period.
(2) United states-canada border.--For the United States-
Canada border, the following:
(A) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate.
(E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
(F) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among
ports as needed.
(G) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle detectors
to be distributed to each border crossing based on traffic
volume.
(H) $600,000 for 30 fiber optic scopes.
(I) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate;
(J) $3,000,000 for 10 x-ray vans with particle detectors.
(K) $40,000 for 8 AM loop radio systems.
(L) $400,000 for 100 vehicle counters.
(M) $1,200,000 for 12 examination tool trucks.
(N) $2,400,000 for 3 dedicated commuter lanes.
(O) $1,050,000 for 3 automated targeting systems.
(P) $572,000 for 26 weigh-in-motion sensors.
(Q) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communication Systems (TECS).
(3) Florida and gulf coast seaports.--For Florida and the
Gulf Coast seaports, the following:
(A) $4,500,000 for 6 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $11,800,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate.
(E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
(b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2001 under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(B)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act,
$9,923,500 shall be for the maintenance and support of the
equipment and training of personnel to maintain and support
the equipment described in subsection (a).
(c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment;
Transfer of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use
amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 under section
301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs Procedural Reform and
Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A)), as
amended by section 101(a) of this Act, for the acquisition of
equipment other than the equipment described in subsection
(a) if such other equipment--
(A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment
described in subsection (a); and
(ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that
is the same or less than the equipment described in
subsection (a); or
(B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment
described in subsection (a).
(2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate
an amount not to exceed 10 percent of--
(A) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (R) of subsection (a)(1) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (R);
(B) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (Q) of subsection (a)(2) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (Q); and
(C) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (E) of subsection (a)(3) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (E).
[[Page
S2938]]
SEC. 103. PEAK HOURS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT
FOR THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO AND UNITED STATES-
CANADA BORDERS, FLORIDA AND GULF COAST
SEAPORTS, AND THE BAHAMAS.
Of the amounts made available for fiscal years 2000 and
2001 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of
the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978
(19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)), as amended by section
101(a) of this Act, $159,557,000, including $5,673,600, until
expended, for investigative equipment, for fiscal year 2000
and $220,351,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be available for
the following:
(1) A net increase of 535 inspectors, 120 special agents,
and 10 intelligence analysts for the United States-Mexico
border and 375 inspectors for the United States-Canada
border, in order to open all primary lanes on such borders
during peak hours and enhance investigative resources.
(2) A net increase of 285 inspectors and canine enforcement
officers to be distributed at large cargo facilities as
needed to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo) and
reduce commercial waiting times on the United States-Mexico
border and a net increase of 125 inspectors to be distributed
at large cargo facilities as needed to process and screen
cargo (including rail cargo) and reduce commercial waiting
times on the United States-Canada border.
(3) A net increase of 40 inspectors at sea ports in
southeast Florida to process and screen cargo.
(4) A net increase of 70 special agent positions, 23
intelligence analyst positions, 9 support staff, and the
necessary equipment to enhance investigation efforts targeted
at internal conspiracies at the Nation's seaports.
(5) A net increase of 360 special agents, 30 intelligence
analysts, and additional resources to be distributed among
offices that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug
or narcotics distribution and transportation centers for
intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money-
laundering organizations.
(6) A net increase of 2 special agent positions to re-
establish a Customs Attache office in Nassau.
(7) A net increase of 62 special agent positions and 8
intelligence analyst positions for maritime smuggling
investigations and interdiction operations.
(8) A net increase of 50 positions and additional resources
to the Office of Internal Affairs to enhance investigative
resources for anticorruption efforts.
(9) The costs incurred as a result of the increase in
personnel hired pursuant to this section.
SEC. 104. AIR AND MARINE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING.
(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2000 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
301(b)(3) of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification
Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3) (A) and (B)) as amended by
section 101(c) of this Act, $130,513,000 shall be available
until expended for the following:
(1) $96,500,000 for Customs aircraft restoration and
replacement initiative.
(2) $15,000,000 for increased air interdiction and
investigative support activities.
(3) $19,013,000 for marine vessel replacement and related
equipment.
(b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2001 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
301(b)(3) of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification
Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3) (A) and (B)) as amended by
section 101(c) of this Act, $75,524,000 shall be available
until expended for the following:
(1) $36,500,000 for Customs Service aircraft restoration
and replacement.
(2) $15,000,000 for increased air interdiction and
investigative support activities.
(3) $24,024,000 for marine vessel replacement and related
equipment.
SEC. 105. COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
As part of the annual performance plan for each of the
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 covering each program activity set
forth in the budget of the United States Customs Service, as
required under section 1115 of title 31, United States Code,
the Commissioner of Customs shall establish performance goals
and performance indicators, and comply with all other
requirements contained in paragraphs (1) through (6) of
subsection (a) of such section with respect to each of the
activities to be carried out pursuant to sections 102 and 103
of this Act.
SEC. 106. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS SALARY.
(a) In General.--
(1) Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking the following item:
``Commissioner of Customs, Department of Treasury.''.
(2) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by inserting the following item:
``Commissioner of Customs, Department of Treasury.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fiscal year 1999 and thereafter.
SEC. 107. PASSENGER PRECLEARANCE SERVICES.
(a) Continuation of Preclearance Services.--Notwithstanding
section 13031(f) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)) or any other
provision of law, the Customs Service shall, without regard
to whether a passenger processing fee is collected from a
person departing for the United States from Canada and
without regard to whether funds are appropriated pursuant to
subsection (b), provide the same level of enhanced
preclearance customs services for passengers arriving in the
United States aboard commercial aircraft originating in
Canada as the Customs Service provided for such passengers
during fiscal year 1997.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations for Preclearance
Services.--Notwithstanding section 13031(f) of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19
U.S.C. 58c(f)) or any other provision of law, there are
authorized to be appropriated, from the date of enactment of
this Act through September 30, 2001, such sums as may be
necessary for the Customs Service to ensure that it will
continue to provide the same, and where necessary increased,
levels of enhanced preclearance customs services as the
Customs Service provided during fiscal year 1997, in
connection with the arrival in the United States of
passengers aboard commercial aircraft whose flights
originated in Canada.
TITLE II--CUSTOMS PERFORMANCE REPORT
SEC. 201. CUSTOMS PERFORMANCE REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Customs shall
prepare and submit to the appropriate committees the report
described in subsection (b).
(b) Report Described.--The report described in this
subsection shall include the following:
(1) Identification of objectives; establishment of
priorities.--
(A) An outline of the means the Customs Service intends to
use to identify enforcement priorities and trade facilitation
objectives.
(B) The reasons for selecting the objectives contained in
the most recent plan submitted by the Customs Service
pursuant to section 1115 of title 31, United States Code.
(C) The performance standards against which the appropriate
committees can assess the efforts of the Customs Service in
reaching the goals outlined in the plan described in
subparagraph (B).
(2) Implementation of the Customs Modernization Act.--
(A) A review of the Customs Service's implementation of
title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act, commonly known as the ``Customs
Modernization Act'', and the reasons why elements of that
Act, if any, have not been implemented.
(B) A review of the effectiveness of the informed
compliance strategy in obtaining higher levels of compliance,
particularly compliance by those industries that have been
the focus of the most intense efforts by the Customs Service
to ensure compliance with the Customs Modernization Act.
(C) A summary of the results of the reviews of the initial
industry-wide compliance assessments conducted by the Customs
Service as part of the agency's informed compliance
initiative.
(3) Improvement of commercial operations.--
(A) Identification of standards to be used in assessing the
performance and efficiency of the commercial operations of
the Customs Service, including entry and inspection
procedures, classification, valuation, country-of-origin
determinations, and duty drawback determinations.
(B) Proposals for--
(i) improving the performance of the commercial operations
of the Customs Service, particularly the functions described
in subparagraph (A), and
(ii) eliminating lengthy delays in obtaining rulings and
other forms of guidance on United States customs law,
regulations, procedures, or policies.
(C) Alternative strategies for ensuring that United States
importers, exporters, customs brokers, and other members of
the trade community have the information necessary to comply
with the customs laws of the United States and to conduct
their business operations accordingly.
(4) Review of enforcement responsibilities.--
(A) A review of the enforcement responsibilities of the
Customs Service.
(B) An assessment of the degree to which the current
functions of the Customs Service overlap with the functions
of other agencies and an identification of ways in which the
Customs Service can avoid duplication of effort.
(C) A description of the methods used to ensure against
misuse of personal search authority with respect to persons
entering the United States at authorized ports of entry.
(5) Strategy for comprehensive drug interdiction.--
(A) A comprehensive strategy for the Customs Service's role
in United States drug interdiction efforts.
(B) Identification of the respective roles of cooperating
agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Coast Guard, and the
intelligence community, including--
(i) identification of the functions that can best be
performed by the Customs Service and the functions that can
best be performed by agencies other than the Customs Service;
and
(ii) a description of how the Customs Service plans to
allocate the additional drug interdiction resources
authorized by the Drug Free Borders Act of 1999.
[[Page
S2939]]
(6) Enhancement of cooperation with the trade community.--
(A) Identification of ways to expand cooperation with
United States importers and customs brokers, United States
and foreign carriers, and other members of the international
trade and transportation communities to improve the detection
of contraband before it leaves a foreign port destined for
the United States.
(B) Identification of ways to enhance the flow of
information between the Customs Service and industry in order
to--
(i) achieve greater awareness of potential compliance
threats;
(ii) improve the design and efficiency of the commercial
operations of the Customs Service;
(iii) foster account-based management;
(iv) eliminate unnecessary and burdensome regulations; and
(v) establish standards for industry compliance with
customs laws.
(7) Allocation of resources.--
(A) An outline of the basis for the current allocation of
inspection and investigative personnel by the Customs
Service.
(B) Identification of the steps to be taken to ensure that
the Customs Service can detect any misallocation of the
resources described in subparagraph (A) among various ports
and a description of what means the Customs Service has for
reallocating resources within the agency to meet particular
enforcement demands or commercial operations needs.
(8) Automation and information technology.--
(A) Identification of the automation needs of the Customs
Service and an explanation of the current state of the
Automated Commercial System and the status of implementing a
replacement for that system.
(B) A comprehensive strategy for reaching the technology
goals of the Customs Service, including--
(i) an explanation of the proposed architecture of any
replacement for the Automated Commercial System and how the
architecture of the proposed replacement system best serves
the core functions of the Customs Service;
(ii) identification of public and private sector automation
projects that are comparable and that can be used as a
benchmark against which to judge the progress of the Customs
Service in meeting its technology goals;
(iii) an estimate of the total cost for each automation
project currently underway at the Customs Service and a
timetable for the implementation of each project; and
(iv) a summary of the options for financing each automation
project.
(9) Personnel policies.--
(A) An overview of current personnel practices, including a
description of--
(i) performance standards;
(ii) the criteria for promotion and termination;
(iii) the process for investigating complaints of bias and
sexual harassment;
(iv) the criteria used for conducting internal
investigations;
(v) the protection, if any, that is provided for
whistleblowers; and
(vi) the methods used to discover and eliminate corruption
within the Customs Service.
(B) Identification of workforce needs for the future and
training needed to ensure Customs Service personnel stay
abreast of developments in international business operations
and international trade that affect the operations of the
Customs Service, including identification of any situations
in which current personnel policies or practices may impede
achievement of the goals of the Customs Service with respect
to both enforcement and commercial operations.
(c) Appropriate Committees.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``appropriate committees'' means the Committee on
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives.
______
By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Robb and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 659. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require
pension plans to provide adequate notice to individuals whose future
benefit accruals are being significantly reduced, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the pension right to know act of 1999
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
provide greater disclosure to employees about the impact on their
retirement benefits of pension plan conversions.
Recent media accounts have reported that many large companies in
America are converting their traditional defined benefit pension plans
to something called ``cash balance plans.'' A cash balance plan is a
hybrid arrangement combining certain features of ``defined
contribution'' and ``defined benefit'' plans. Like defined contribution
plans, they provide each employee with an account in which his or her
benefits accrue. But cash balance plans are actually defined benefit
plans, and therefore provide a benefit for life which is insured by the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Cash balance plans, however, differ from other defined benefit plans
in the calculation of benefits. Whereas the value of an employee's
retirement benefit in a traditional defined benefit plan grows slowly
in the early years and more rapidly as one approaches retirement, cash
balance plans decrease this later-year growth and increase the early-
year growth. Consequently, younger employees tend to do better under
cash balance plans than under traditional plans, while older employees
typically do worse. In some cases, upon conversion to a cash balance
account an older worker's account balance may remain static for years--
typically referred to as the ``wear away'' period.
It appears that very few workers who have experienced the conversion
of their company retirement plan to a cash balance arrangement
understand the differences between the old and new plans. Those who do
often complain that the new plans treat older workers unfairly. One 49-
year-old engineer profiled by the Wall Street Journal--a rare employee
who knows how to calculate pension benefits--determined that his
pension value dropped by $56,000 the day his company converted to a
cash balance plan.
Even more disturbing are complaints from some employees that their
employers obscured the adverse effects of plan amendments. When an
employer changes the pension plan, the employees have a right to know
the consequences. There should be no surprises when it is time to
retire. Unfortunately, current law requires little in the way of
disclosure when a company changes its pension plan. Section 204(h) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requires employers
to inform employees of a change to a pension plan resulting in a
reduction in future benefit accruals. But that is all. It does not
require specifics. The 204(h) disclosure can be, and often is,
satisfied with a brief statement buried deep in a company communication
to employees. It is imperative that we increase these disclosure
requirements regarding reductions in pension benefits.
The bill I am introducing today would require employers with 1,000 or
more employees to provide a ``statement of benefit change'' when
adopting plan amendments which significantly reduce benefits. The
statement of benefit change would provide a comparison, under the old
and new versions of the plan, of the following benefit measures; the
employee's accrued benefit and present value of accrued benefit at the
time of conversion; and the projected accrued benefit and projected
present value of accrued benefit three years, five years, and ten years
after conversion and at normal retirement age.
These benefit measures are standard concepts which will be well
understood by pension administrators, actuaries and others who work
with pensions. They will give the employee a clear picture of the
difference between the old and new plans immediately, periodically over
a ten-year period, and at retirement. The purpose of the three, five
and ten-year comparisons is to disclose any ``wear away'' period, in
which an employee would work without gaining any new benefits. Using
these comparisons, employees can get a clear picture of the relative
merits of the two plans.
In preparing this bill, my staff has consulted a number of actuaries
and pension attorneys. I believe it is a good approach to resolving the
problems I have discussed, and I am happy to work with others to
incorporate suggestions to further improve the bill.
Of course, many call this measure as intrusive or unnecessary. Some
employer groups have criticized the idea of requiring individualized
benefits calculations for every employee, saying that this requires
reviewing each employee's salary history. But that seems a strange
complaint given that we are talking about cash balance plans, which
already require highly individualized calculations. If an employer can
provide personalized account balances under a cash balance arrangement,
then the employer can provide such information for the old plan.
Moreover, recently completed regulations appear already to
contemplate individualized comparisons. Regulation 1.411(d)-6, just
finalized by the Internal Revenue Service, requires that in order
[[Page
S2940]]
to determine if a reduction in future benefit accrual is
``significant,'' employers must compare the annual benefit at
retirement age under the amended plan with the same benefit under the
plan prior to amendment. Therefore, the concept of benefit comparisons
is not a new one.
And indeed, some companies are proving by their actions that benefit
comparisons are not unduly burdensome. Kodak, the prominent employer
headquartered in Rochester, New York, recently announced that it will
convert to a cash balance plan, and that it will give its 35,000
participants in the company-sponsored pension plan the choice between
the old plan and the new. To help employees make an informed decision,
Kodak will provide every plan participant with an individualized
comparison of his or her benefits under the old and new versions of the
plan. The company is also providing computer software that will allow
employees to make the comparisons themselves. That is the difference
between corporate behavior that is responsible and corporate behavior
that is unscrupulous. As usual, Kodak sets a fine example.
I believe that such disclosure not only is in the best interest of
employees, but also of the employer. Several class action lawsuits have
been filed in the last three years challenging conversions to cash
balance plans. These suits will likely cost hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of dollars in attorneys' fees. But with proper
disclosure, they might not have occurred.
In closing, let me be clear about one thing. I take no position on
the underlying merit of cash balance plans. Ours is a voluntary pension
system, and companies must do what is right for them and their
employees. But I feel strongly that companies must fully and
comprehensibly inform their employees regarding whatever pension
benefits the company offers. Companies have no right to misrepresent
the projected benefit employees will receive under a cash balance plan
or any other pension arrangement.
It is time to let the sun shine on pension plan conversions. I urge
the Senate to support this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 659
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 ``Pension Right to Know Act''.
SEC. 2. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE PENSION PLANS
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING FUTURE PENSION BENEFIT
ACCRUALS.
(a) Plan Requirement.--Section 401(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified pension, profit-
sharing, and stock bonus plans) is amended by inserting after
paragraph (34) the following new paragraph:
``(35) Notice requirements for large defined benefit plans
significantly reducing future benefit accruals.--
``(A) In general.--If a large defined benefit plan adopts
an amendment which has the effect of significantly reducing
the rate of future benefit accrual of 1 or more participants,
a trust which is part of such plan shall not constitute a
qualified trust under this section unless, after adoption of
such amendment and not less than 15 days before its effective
date, the plan administrator provides--
``(i) a written statement of benefit change described in
subparagraph (B) to each applicable individual, and
``(ii) a written notice setting forth the plan amendment
and its effective date to each employee organization
representing participants in the plan.
Any such notice may be provided to a person designated, in
writing, by the person to which it would otherwise be
provided. The plan administrator shall not be treated as
failing to meet the requirements of this subparagraph merely
because the statement or notice is provided before the
adoption of the plan amendment if no material modification of
the amendment occurs before the amendment is adopted.
``(B) Statement of benefit change.--A statement of benefit
change described in this subparagraph shall--
``(i) be written in a manner calculated to be understood by
the average plan participant, and
``(ii) include the information described in subparagraph
(C).
``(C) Information contained in statement of benefit
change.--The information described in this subparagraph
includes the following:
``(i) Notice setting forth the plan amendment and its
effective date.
``(ii) A comparison of the following amounts under the plan
with respect to an applicable individual, determined both
with and without regard to the plan amendment:
``(I) The accrued benefit and the present value of the
accrued benefit as of the effective date.
``(II) The projected accrued benefit and the projected
present value of the accrued benefit as of the date which is
3 years, 5 years, and 10 years from the effective date and as
of the normal retirement age.
``(iii) A table of all annuity factors used to calculate
benefits under the plan, presented in the form provided in
section 72 and the regulations thereunder.
Benefits described in clause (ii) shall be stated separately
and shall be calculated by using the applicable mortality
table and the applicable interest rate under section
417(e)(3)(A).
``(D) Large defined benefit plan; applicable individual.--
For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) Large defined benefit plan.--The term `large defined
benefit plan' means any defined benefit plan which had 1,000
or more participants who had accrued a benefit under the plan
(whether or not vested) as of the last day of the plan year
preceding the plan year in which the plan amendment becomes
effective.
``(ii) Applicable individual.--The term `applicable
individual' means--
``(I) each participant in the plan, and
``(II) each beneficiary who is an alternate payee (within
the meaning of section 414(p)(8)) under an applicable
qualified domestic relations order (within the meaning of
section 414(p)(1)(A)).
``(E) Accrued benefit; projected retirement benefit.--For
purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) Present value of accrued benefit.--The present value
of an accrued benefit of any applicable individual shall be
calculated as if the accrued benefit were in the form of a
single life annuity commencing at the participant's normal
retirement age (and by taking into account any early
retirement subsidy).
``(ii) Projected accrued benefit.--
``(I) In general.--The projected accrued benefit of any
applicable individual shall be calculated as if the benefit
were payable in the form of a single life annuity commencing
at the participant's normal retirement age (and by taking
into account any early retirement subsidy).
``(II) Compensation and other assumptions.--Such benefit
shall be calculated by assuming that compensation and all
other benefit factors would increase for each plan year
beginning after the effective date of the plan amendment at a
rate equal to the median average of the CPI increase
percentage (as defined in section 215(i) of the Social
Security Act) for the 5 calendar years immediately preceding
the calendar year before the calendar year in which such
effective date occurs.
``(III) Benefit factors.--For purposes of subclause (II),
the term `benefit factors' means social security benefits and
all other relevant factors under section 411(b)(1)(A) used to
compute benefits under the plan which had increased from the
2d plan year preceding the plan year in which the effective
date of the plan amendment occurs to the 1st such preceding
plan year.
``(iii) Normal retirement age.--The term `normal retirement
age' means the later of--
``(I) the date determined under section 411(a)(8), or
``(II) the date a plan participant attains age 62.''
(b) Amendments to ERISA.--
(1) Benefit statement requirement.--Section 204(h) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1054(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraphs:
``(3)(A) If paragraph (1) applies to the adoption of a plan
amendment by a large defined benefit plan, the plan
administrator shall, after adoption of such amendment and not
less than 15 days before its effective date, provide with the
notice under paragraph (1) a written statement of benefit
change described in subparagraph (B) to each applicable
individual.
``(B) A statement of benefit change described in this
subparagraph shall--
``(i) be written in a manner calculated to be understood by
the average plan participant, and
``(ii) include the information described in subparagraph
(C).
``(C) The information described in this subparagraph
includes the following:
``(i) A comparison of the following amounts under the plan
with respect to an applicable individual, determined both
with and without regard to the plan amendment:
``(I) The accrued benefit and the present value of the
accrued benefit as of the effective date.
``(II) The projected accrued benefit and the projected
present value of the accrued benefit as of the date which is
3 years, 5 years, and 10 years from the effective date and as
of the normal retirement age.
``(ii) A table of all annuity factors used to calculate
benefits under the plan, presented in the form provided in
section 72 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the
regulations thereunder.
[[Page
S2941]]
Benefits described in clause (i) shall be stated separately
and shall be calculated by using the applicable mortality
table and the applicable interest rate under section
417(e)(3)(A) of such Code.
``(D) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) The term `large defined benefit plan' means any
defined benefit plan which had 1,000 or more participants who
had accrued a benefit under the plan (whether or not vested)
as of the last day of the plan year preceding the plan year
in which the plan amendment becomes effective.
``(ii) The term `applicable individual' means an individual
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).
``(E) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) The present value of an accrued benefit of any
applicable individual shall be calculated as if the accrued
benefit were in the form of a single life annuity commencing
at the participant's normal retirement age (and by taking
into account any early retirement subsidy).
``(ii)(I) The projected accrued benefit of any applicable
individual shall be calculated as if the benefit were payable
in the form of a single life annuity commencing at the
participant's normal retirement age (and by taking into
account any early retirement subsidy).
``(II) Such benefit shall be calculated by assuming that
compensation and all other benefit factors would increase for
each plan year beginning after the effective date of the plan
amendment at a rate equal to the median average of the CPI
increase percentage (as defined in section 215(i) of the
Social Security Act) for the 5 calendar years immediately
preceding the calendar year before the calendar year in which
such effective date occurs.
``(III) For purposes of subclause (II), the term `benefit
factors' means social security benefits and all other
relevant factors under section 204(b)(1)(A) used to compute
benefits under the plan which had increased from the 2d plan
year preceding the plan year in which the effective date of
the plan amendment occurs to the 1st such preceding plan
year.
``(iii) The term `normal retirement age' means the later
of--
``(I) the date determined under section 3(24), or
``(II) the date a plan participant attains age 62.
``(4) A plan administrator shall not be treated as failing
to meet the requirements of this subsection merely because
the notice or statement is provided before the adoption of
the plan amendment if no material modification of the
amendment occurs before the amendment is adopted.''
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 204(h)(1) of such Act
(29 U.S.C. 1054(h)(1)) is amended by inserting ``(including
any written statement of benefit change if required by
paragraph (3))'' after ``written notice''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to plan amendments taking effect in plan years
beginning on or after the earlier of--
(A) the later of--
(i) January 1, 1999, or
(ii) the date on which the last of the collective
bargaining agreements pursuant to which the plan is
maintained terminates (determined without regard to any
extension thereof after the date of the enactment of this
Act), or
(B) January 1, 2001.
(2) Exception where notice given.--The amendments made by
this section shall not apply to any plan amendment for which
written notice was given to participants or their
representatives before March 17, 1999, without regard to
whether the amendment was adopted before such date.
(3) Special rule.--The period for providing any notice
required by, or any notice the contents of which are changed
by, the amendments made by this Act shall not end before the
date which is 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Thurmond, Mr. Daschle, Ms. Collins, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Mack, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reed, Mr. Conrad, and Mr.
Crapo):
S. 660. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for coverage under part B of the medicare program of medical
nutrition therapy services furnished by registered dietitians and
nutrition professionals; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical
Nutrition Therapy Act of 1999 on behalf of myself, my friend and
colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, and a bipartisan group of
additional Senators.
This bipartisan measure provides for coverage under Part B of the
Medicare program for medical nutrition therapy services by a registered
dietician. Medical nutrition therapy is generally defined as the
assessment of patient nutritional status followed by therapy, ranging
from diet modification to administration of specialized nutrition
therapies such as intravenous or tube feedings. It has proven to be a
medically necessary and cost-effective way of treating and controlling
many disease entities such as diabetes, renal disease, cardiovascular
disease and severe burns.
Currently there is no consistent Part B coverage policy for medical
nutrition and this legislation will bring needed uniformity to the
delivery of this important care, as well as save taxpayer money.
Coverage for medical nutrition therapy can save money by reducing
hospital admissions, shortening hospital stays, decreasing the number
of complications, and reducing the need for physician follow-up visits.
The treatment of patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease
accounts for a full 60% of Medicare expenditures. I want to use
diabetes as an example for the need for this legislation. There are
very few families who are not touched by diabetes. The burden of
diabetes is disproportionately high among ethnic minorities in the
United States. According to the American Journal of Epidemiology,
mortality due to diabetes is higher nationwide among blacks than
whites. It is higher among American Indians than among any other ethnic
group.
In my state of New Mexico, Native Americans are experiencing an
epidemic of Type II diabetes. Medical nutrition therapy is integral to
their diabetes care. In fact, information from the Indian Health
Service shows that medical nutrition therapy provided by professional
dieticians results in significant improvements in medical outcomes in
people with Type II diabetes. For example, complications of diabetes
such as end stage renal failure that leads to dialysis can be prevented
with adequate intervention. Currently, the number of dialysis patients
in the Navajo population is doubling every five years. Mr, President,
we must place our dollars in the effective, preventive treatment of
medical nutrition therapy rather than face the grim reality of having
to continue to build new dialysis units.
Ensuring the solvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund is one of our
most difficult challenges and one that calls for creative, effective
solutions. Coverage for medical nutrition therapy is one important way
to help address that challenge. It is exactly the type of cost
effective care we should encourage. It will satisfy two of our most
important priorities in Medicare: providing program savings while
maintaining a high level of quality care.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 660
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of Am
