Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my colleague for her assistance. By passing this legislation, we will promote State-based health care reform by expressly confirming that State health risk pools are exempt from Federal taxation, notwithstanding the IRS' position. By clarifying the intent of Congress, the IRS should recognize this legislation as confirming the interpretation of existing law, and not creating new law, and accordingly grant tax exempt organization status to all health risk pools that have applied for such status. organ donation insert card

Mr. COCHRAN. Would my colleague agree that it is the intent of Congress through this legislation to clarify that health risk pools be exempt from taxation?

Mr. COCHRAN. The Federal Government should serve as an impetus for, not an impediment to, State health care reform. We should do all we can to increase the ability of States to help the uninsured. The Health Insurance Reform Act recognizes the value of health risk pools and includes vital roles for health risk pools in their health care reform legislation. Would my colleague not agree that in order to allow States flexibility in designing effective health care plans, State health risk pools should be exempt from taxation and that it was never the intent of Congress that health risk pools be subject to taxation?

Mr. COCHRAN. Is it not the case that health risk pools have been created by statute in the several States to serve a public function of relieving the hardship of those who, for health reasons, are unable to obtain health insurance coverage? Additionally, that these pools do not carry on an activity ordinarily carried on by insurance companies and not designed to make a profit? Further, that they are established by State statute and none of the net earnings benefit any private shareholder, member, or individual?

Mr. COCHRAN. I am pleased that the conference report for the Health Insurance Reform Act includes a provision which confirms the availability of the Federal tax exemption for State health insurance risk pools which has been pending in Congress for the last several years. The purpose of a health risk pool is to make available health and accident insurance coverage to individuals who, because of health conditions, would otherwise not be able to secure health insurance coverage. Health risk pools are one option contemplated by the Health Insurance Reform Act that States could implement as part of their health care reform efforts to seek to ensure access to health insurance. Since 1976, 28 States have enacted legislation establishing a health insurance pool aimed at protecting uninsurable and high-risk individuals. Most of the pools were established in the last 10 years. For example, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Risk Pool Association Act was enacted by the Mississippi State Legislature during the 1991 legislative session and became effective April 15, 1991. At that time Mississippi became the 25th State to enact such legislation. This act created the Mississippi Comprehensive Health Insurance Risk Pool Association to implement such a health insurance program. Members of the association include insurance companies, nonprofit health care organizations and health maintenance organizations [HMO's] which are authorized to write direct health insurance policies and contracts supplemental to health insurance policies in Mississippi. The association also includes third-party administrators who are paying and processing health insurance claims for Mississippi residents. Over the past 4 years, the association has issued medical insurance policies to approximately 1,200 Mississippians. The association is funded by premiums paid by policyholders and quarterly assessments against members of the association. The assessments are necessary to supplement the premiums and operate the program on a financially sound basis. There is no public funding--State or Federal--involved. Currently, over 100,000 individuals nationwide are members of a State health risk pool. Nationally, there are an additional 1 to 3 million people who are uninsured and uninsurable, and who could be eligible for inclusion in a State health risk pool. As my colleague knows, unfortunately, several State health risk pools, including the Mississippi Comprehensive Health Insurance Risk Pool Association, have applied for and have been denied exemption for Federal taxation under Internal Revenue Code sections 501(c)(4) and/or 501(c)(6). Generally, the Internal Revenue Service's [IRS] rationale for such denial has been that the sole activity of the health risk pools is the provision of health insurance for individual policyholders. The IRS perceives health risk pools as a regular business ordinarily carried on for profit, which primarily provide commercial type insurance. Moreover, the IRS takes the position that health risk pools are primarily serving the private interests of its members and not the common interest of the community as a whole. Would my colleague agree that the IRS's position is incorrect?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. That is the committee's understanding, as well. The committee believes that the FDA's current authority to require written patient information is essential for certain prescription drugs, on a drug-by-drug basis, in cases where they pose a serious risk to the patient if used inappropriately.

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, Senator. This conference report retains the language, as adopted by the Senate, that prevents further finalization or implementation of the medguide regulation.

Mr. COCHRAN. I agree with my colleague from Hawaii and recommend that the Department favorably consider the Center for Applied Aquaculture's plans to establish a complete aquaculture research and precommercialization facility in Hawaii.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I present for the Senate's approval today the conference report on H.R. 3603, the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The conference agreement provides total appropriations of $53.3 billion. This is $10 billion less than the fiscal year 1996 enacted level and $5 billion less than the level requested by the President. It is $1 billion less than the total appropriations recommended by the Senate-passed bill and $228 million more than the level recommended by the House bill. Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior- year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total discretionary spending for fiscal year 1997 of $12.96 billion in budget authority and $13.34 billion in outlays. These amounts are within the subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations. The committee of conference on this bill considered 147 amendments in disagreement between the two Houses. I believe it is a credit to the all members of this subcommittee who served as conferees on the part of the Senate and to the House Members who served on the conference committee that we were able to resolve our differences and reach a conference agreement 6 days after the Senate passed the bill. I would like to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers; the chairman of the House subcommittee who chaired the conference, the Congressman from New Mexico, Mr. Skeen; the ranking member of the House subcommittee, the Congressman from Illinois, Mr. Durbin; as well as all House and Senate members of the conference committee for their support and cooperation in this regard. It is with a great deal of pride that I can say this Appropriations Subcommittee has done its work, completing action on this appropriations bill to assure that funding for those agencies it covers is in place before the start of the new fiscal year. Senate adoption of this conference report today is the final step necessary to allow this measure to be sent to the President for signature into law. We have every indication that the bill will be signed by the President. Approximately $40.4 billion, close to 76 percent of the total new budget authority provided, is provided for domestic food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These include food stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children; and the school lunch and breakfast programs. This is $58 million below the House bill level and $906 million below the Senate level. The difference from the Senate recommended level is principally due to the fact that the Senate receded to the House on the amount for the Food Stamp Program contingency reserve which was $900 million below the Senate bill level. For agriculture programs, the conference report recommends a total of $7.5 billion, $104 million more than the House-recommended level and $19 million more than the Senate bill level. This amount includes $1.1 billion for agricultural research and education, $426 million for extension activities, $438 million for the Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service, $574 million--the full budget request level--for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, $746 million for the Farm Service Agency, and $64 million for the Office of Risk Assessment. For conservation programs, the conference report recommends $770 million, $2 million more than the House bill level and $20 million less than the level recommended by the Senate. For rural economic and community development programs, the bill recommends $2 billion, $136 million more than the House level and $108 million less than the Senate bill level. Included in this amount is $556.9 million for the Rural Utilities Assistance Program, which combines funding for rural water and waste disposal loans and grants and solid waste management grants. This represents an increase of $79 million over the 1996 level. The bill also provides a total loan level of $3.5 billion for rural housing loan programs, the same as the level approved by the House and Senate, and $519 million over the 1996 level. For foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of Agriculture, the bill recommends $131 million for the Foreign Agricultural Service, including $27.5 million for the Cooperator Program; a total program level of $1.1 billion for the Public Law 480 Food for Peace Program, including a program level of $240.8 million for title I, $837 million for title II, and $29.5 million for title III. Mr. President, this bill provides funding for many essential programs, programs which enhance and support the productivity of our agricultural sector, which provide essential services to the small and rural communities of this Nation, which conserve and protect our natural resources, and which provide needed food assistance, not only to those abroad but to assure no American goes hungry. Many of these programs are worthy of additional funding. However, we are also working to reduce the overall costs of Government and to assure efficiencies in the operation of Government programs. This bill is consistent with our overall budgetary and policy goals. Mr. President, the conference report we present to the Senate today reflects a mutually satisfactory resolution of the differences between the two Houses. It does so in a manner which reflects the funding requirements of the many programs and activities covered by the bill within the limited resources available. I recommend its adoption by my colleagues. regarding The Center for Applied Aquaculture in Hawaii

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Congress has for many years provided a specific appropriation to fund the Environmental Research Center in Muscle Shoal, AL, until last year, when Congress directed TVA to begin looking for ways to finance the Center's operations with funds other than appropriations. The Chairman of TVA's Board, Craven Crowell, acknowledged this past March in testimony before our subcommittee that TVA had prepared a plan to continue operating the Environmental Research Center using outside funding sources. It has recently come to my attention that one of the ways TVA plans to continue the Center's operation is to compete for work with the private sector. Under the latest effort, TVA has produced and distributed materials intended to capitalize on their in-house expertise and resources to perform private sector engineering work. These services include: constructed wetland for wastewater treatment; removal of underground storage tanks; site assessment; environmental restoration; groundwater monitoring, and hazardous waste management. In Mississippi alone, there are over 78 private firms, many of them small businesses, who already provide these services. TVA's marketing of these activities to the private sector has not only created a competitive challenge because of TVA's reputation and resources, but their Government status has created a greater financial and marketing disadvantage to hundreds of private, small business engineering firms across the seven State Tennessee Valley region who are capable and have an excellent track record in performing these kinds of activities. I have serious concerns whenever the Federal Government or quasi- governmental agencies attempt to unfairly compete with the private sector. I raise this issue today as we consider the energy and water appropriations bill because our friends in the other body have proposed to eliminate funding for the Environmental Research Center. The effect of their provision will be for TVA to accelerate its efforts to compete for private sector work. I encourage the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to look into this issue to ensure that TVA is not unfairly competing with private sector engineering consulting firms.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator McConnell, and the ranking Democrat, Senator Leahy, for the fine job they've done putting together the fiscal year 1997 foreign operations appropriations bill. This legislation is very important in helping the United States to influence events and protect American interests around the world, and I know that the bill takes a great deal of hard work on the part of Senators McConnell and Leahy, and their staffs, to move it to the floor. One of the important functions funded by this legislation is the International Military Education and Training, or IMET, Program. Title III of this bill provides $40 million for IMET for fiscal year 1997. According to the Defense Department, IMET has three principal objectives: First, to encourage mutually beneficial relations and increased understanding between the United States and foreign countries in furtherance of the goals of international peace and security. Second, to improve the ability of participating foreign countries to utilize their resources, including defense articles and services obtained from the United States, with maximum effectiveness, thereby contributing to greater self-reliance by such countries; and, Third, to increase the awareness of nationals of foreign countries participating in such activities of basic issues involving internationally recognized human rights. In fiscal year 1995, 109 countries participated in IMET. The pending legislation includes a few restrictions on use of IMET funds: None of the funds appropriated are available for either Zaire or Guatemala, and Indonesia is eligible for what is described as an expanded IMET Program. With regard to Indonesia specifically, on page 129 the bill says, *-*-* funds appropriated under this heading for grant financed military education and training for Indonesia may only be available for expanded military education and training. I'm not quite sure why the phrase ``expanded'' is used, though, because the expanded IMET Program is in fact highly restrictive, allowing IMET funds for Indonesia only to be used for human rights- related training. I am opposed to this provision of the bill. I know that those who support restrictions on IMET for Indonesia do so out of concern for the human rights situation in Indonesia. And there is reason for concern, though we should take note of the fact that the Indonesians have undertaken to improve their policies and actions with regard to human rights. Is their room for continued improvement? Of course there is, but excluding Indonesia from the benefits of full IMET participation is not the best way to help Indonesians make progress on human rights. I also wonder, though, why it is that of all the countries participating in IMET, only Indonesia is singled out for restrictions. Think about the other 108 fiscal year 1995 unrestricted IMET participants, Burundi, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Russia, and Algeria. Are we saying they don't have any human rights problems? IMET is of vital importance in helping military officers from other countries to learn from the example of the United States, to help sensitize these officers to the proper role of the military and the rule of law in a civil society. Bringing military officers from Indonesia for human rights training, under the expanded IMET, can be helpful. But it would be more helpful to bring Indonesian officers to the United States for full IMET training, thereby exposing these officers to daily exchanges with their American counterparts. If we want to help correct human rights abuse, it makes more sense to take officers, both junior and field grade officers, and involve them in our military training, side by side, with our own officers. As an example, every year we send hundreds of our own lieutenants through the infantry officers basic course at Fort Benning, GA. Included in these classes, as full members, are officers sent from other countries as part of the IMET Program. These foreign officers get human rights training along with the American officers in the infantry officers basic course, and they're also taught respect for the rule of law and the proper relations between military and civil authorities in a free society. The most important part of this experience for foreign military officers is not what they're taught in a classroom, though that is valuable. More important is the involvement in our military culture, being treated as equals of the American lieutenants in the course and learning by the example their American friends. They learn the role of the military in a free society, and also the responsibilities of each and every officer to that society. Indonesia is important to the United States. We shouldn't ignore the fact that it is the world's fourth most populous country, and we can't ignore the fact that our Navy must transit its sea lanes in seeking to move rapidly between the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. But this is more than simply a question of what is strictly in the national interest of the United States, though that alone should be sufficient. Indonesia is also becoming an important force for peace and stability in Asia, something that is also very important to the United States. The growing friendship between the United States and Indonesia is not something that should be taken lightly or for granted. During my recent visit to Indonesia our Ambassador, Stapleton Roy, was clear in expressing his desire for full access to IMET for Indonesia. I learned from my visit that when human rights problems occur, invariably it is not American-trained officers involved, but the officers not trained in the United States. If we are serious about helping our friends in Indonesia preaching to them about human rights is not the most productive use of our resources or their time. By including Indonesia in the normal IMET program, they learn about human rights by word and deed; we create lasting friendship that aren't based upon lecturing, and build support for and orientation toward United States policies; and, in so doing, we advance United States bilateral and regional interests. Let's be consistent. Either all nations with human rights problems should be excluded from full IMET participation, or none should. Singling out Indonesia for this treatment is not only wrong; it creates suspicion and misunderstanding of our reliability as a leader. I understand that this has been a contentious conference issue for this bill in the past and will not offer an amendment this year to strike the restrictive bill language on Indonesian IMET participation. I hope, though, that during the year the issue of how nations are permitted to participate in IMET will receive close scrutiny, and that consideration be given to supporting a bill that eliminates this unfair and ill-conceived restriction.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have proposed this amendment because I have concluded this is the only way to ensure that the administration responds to the will of Congress regarding the International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD]. Last year, the Congress authorized U.S. participation in the fourth replenishment of IFAD resources. Since that time, Senators and Representatives have written to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development encouraging him to exercise the authority we provided and make a generous contribution to the fourth replenishment. The Administrator of USAID has not complied with these requests. While other countries have agreed to the fourth replenishment, the United States has delayed, and this delay is threatening IFAD's managerial reforms and undermining U.S. leadership in the organization. It is my objective to secure effective U.S. participation in the fourth replenishment. The United States has been the lead sponsor of IFAD, a tightly managed organization that focuses on rural poverty in developing nations by making loans directly to poor farmers. These small retail loans help combat poverty, especially among women and children, create internal stability, and help build markets for U.S. exports. Despite wide support and the earlier stated intention of the administration to participate in the fourth replenishment, it has not yet announced its pledge. As the Nation that led in the creation and funding of IFAD, part of the U.S. responsibility is to announce our level of financial support which, in turn, helps determine the pledge amounts of other developed nations. In this way, our contribution is leveraged and brings additional resources from other developed countries, funds that are spent, not on overhead or administration, but on local projects where this money has substantial impact. The funding in my amendment does not add to the total cost of the bill. It is a mandated transfer of bilateral assistance funds, either provided in this bill or unspent from appropriations made in prior years. The amounts to be transferred are to come from the funds the Congress provides for USAID, an agency well-suited for this task. Indeed, USAID has spoken eloquently in support on IFAD and has helped build it into a model of effective assistance. Unfortunately, however, USAID has not spent one nickel on IFAD for fiscal year 1996. Congress cannot allow indecisiveness to undo the achievements of two decades of U.S. participation in IFAD. Senators and Representatives--on both sides of the aisle--clearly support IFAD and have called on USAID to continue funding this respected agency. Our only recourse now is to mandate participation in the fourth replenishment. I urge Senators to support the amendment. amendment no. 5085

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during a session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., in Senate Dirksen room 226, to hold a hearing on, ``Reauthorization of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.''

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. to hold an open hearing on Intelligence Matters.

Mr. COCHRAN. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a markup on pending legislation at 10:00 a.m., on Wednesday, July 24, 1996. The markup will be held in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 1996, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a Business Meeting.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing Wednesday, July 24, immediately following the Committee's 9:30 Business Meeting, to receive testimony from Nils J. Diaz, nominated by the President to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Edward McGaffigan, Jr., nominated by the President to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to meet Wednesday, July 24, at 9:30 a.m. to consider pending business.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Wednesday, July 24, 1996, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting an oversight hearing on NASA's Space Station and Space Shuttle Programs.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for an oversight hearing on Wednesday, July 24, 1996, which will begin at 3:00 p.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing is entitled ``Implementation of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.''

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 1996, beginning at 9:30 a.m. until business is completed, to hold a hearing on Public Access to Government Information in the 21st Century, Title 44/GPO--Government Input.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 1996, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 1996, at 10:00 a.m. to hold an executive business meeting.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a markup on the following: Committee markup of S. 199, the trading with Indian Act, Repeal; H.R. 3068, to revoke the Charter of the Prairie Island Indian Community; S. 1962, the Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments of 1996, H.R. 2464, Utah Schools and Land Improvement Act, Amendment, and S. 1893, the Torres- Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Claims Settlement Act; S. 1970, the National Museum of the American Indian Act Amendments of 1996; S. 1973, the Navajo/Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996; and S. 1972 the Older American Indian Technical Amendments Act.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank all Senators for their cooperation during our management and handling of this bill on the floor of the Senate. I especially want to thank and compliment the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his strong leadership and for his efforts to get a good bill passed by the Senate. We could not have done it either without the capable staff assistants: Becky Davies, Hunt Shipman, Jimmie Reynolds, Galen Fountain--all of whom worked very diligently, expertly, and professionally. They reflect credit on the Senate. We are very proud of them.