Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe it appropriate at this time to review where we stand because there has been some discussion that has occurred since the majority leader came to the floor and outlined a proposal. Maybe his proposal has been obfuscated a bit because it was such a clear and fine proposal that people are trying to undermine it. But the fact is that what the majority leader suggested was you can have your vote. You can have your vote on minimum wage. You can have your vote on repealing the gas tax. All we are asking is that in this process of having those two votes, we also have a vote on something called the TEAM Act, which is not, as the Senator from Massachusetts said, all that big a deal because so many companies have already signed off on it. Yet now we hear from the other side that they essentially intend to filibuster an attempt to increase the minimum wage and to reduce the gas tax, to roll it back, simply because of this TEAM Act proposal. That is pretty outrageous. In a moment, I would like to talk a little bit about what that proposal is because I think you need to understand that basically what we are hearing is a party has been captured by a constituency and is allowing that constituency to stand in the way of good policy. But let us talk about the gas tax first. Why should we not repeal this tax? To begin with, it was sold under false pretenses. Three years ago, when this administration proposed this gas tax, they began by proposing a Btu tax, if you remember that, where they were going to tax all energy consumption in this country. States like New Hampshire and other States that depend on oil to heat our homes would have been hit with this tax at the home heating level and at the gasoline pumps and throughout the system that delivers energy to their communities. That was such an outrageous idea that even Members on the other side rejected it. So the administration backpedaled and said, well, no, we will not do the Btu tax; we will do a gas tax. But at the exact same time we were hearing from the other side of the aisle that the taxes in the package which the President proposed 2\1/2\ years ago or 3 years ago were only going to affect the rich. In fact, the present Democratic leader, who was not the Democratic leader at that time, came to this floor and said this tax package is only going to affect people earning more than $180,000 or companies that make more than $560,000 a year. That was the tax package that was sold to the American people, that was passed on to the American people's back and which included $295 billion of new taxes, the largest tax increase in history delivered to us by this President and Members on the other side of the aisle when they were in the majority 2\1/2\ years ago. Nobody on this side of the aisle bought that. We did not buy it for fairly obvious reasons. No. 1, a gas tax is not a tax on people who earn $180,000 a year. When you pull into your gas station, your attendant does not ask you, ``Do you make $180,000 a year?'' before he hits you with the tax. He has to collect that tax whether you make 10 bucks a year or whether you make $1 million, whether you are in a small struggling company driving a pickup or whether you have a fleet of trucks. He still has to hit you with that tax. So this was not a tax on the wealthy. This was a tax that was actually targeted in, as was pointed out by the Senator from Texas, on low- and middle-income people disproportionately because they have to pay the same rate of tax as people in the high incomes, and 23 percent of this tax falls on people with incomes, I believe, as the Senator from Texas said, under $20,000, or something like that. A very low percentage comes out of people with higher incomes. So it was a disproportionately unfair tax when it was put in place and remains so, and it should be repealed. So why is the other side resisting repealing it? Why? Because big labor is upset, the Washington big labor leadership, the big bosses here in Washington are upset. That is why they are opposing repealing the gas tax. Now we come forward, and we on our side of the aisle say, OK, we will accept your proposal on the minimum wage, we will accept the Kennedy language as proposed to increase the minimum wage. We ask that you accept our proposal to repeal the gas tax at the same time. We allow you to divide the votes. Just give us the chance to get both on a majority vote instead of having to have a filibuster around here where you have to get 60 votes. What does the other side say? Nope. Sorry. We will not take the deal. We cannot accept that deal any longer. We are not that interested in increasing the minimum wage that we are going to stand in the face of the big labor bosses here in Washington who do not want this little thing called the TEAM Act. So we have the opposition, the other side of the aisle, saying essentially that two major points they consider to be, I suspect most of them, good policy--one, repealing this incredibly regressive gas tax that was put on 2\1/2\ years ago and, two, raising the minimum wage--are going to be held up because of what was described basically by the Senator from Massachusetts as an inconsequential amendment dealing with a minor point of labor law. Why? Because they have gotten the telephone calls from a couple streets over that said under no circumstances is TEAM Act going to pass this House. But what is this horror called TEAM Act? It is not much, folks. TEAM Act just simply says what used to be the law and what most people think should be the law and what was the law up until 1992, I believe it was, when something called the Electromation was passed by the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board. Essentially, it says that people can get together in their workplace--what a radical idea--people can get together in their workplace and they can talk about issues that involve quality and productivity and efficiency. I think most of us have heard of things like TQM, the philosophy of management that basically grew out of the Deming approach which essentially revolutionized Japan and made them competitive in the world. TQM is where you have a Deming approach, you have a team approach to managing the workplace. That is basically what TEAM Act does. It says you can have a TEAM Act approach operating in the workplace. Now, you cannot do it under this bill, under TEAM Act, in any way that would undermine the independence of the collective bargaining effort. You cannot establish a company union. The specific language says that you cannot establish sham unions. But you can get together to discuss things like smoking policy; you can get together to discuss things like productivity: How do you make the place work better? Workers happen to be the best source of good ideas in many instances, and probably in most instances actually, certainly in large companies. The chance to bring them together in working teams works for Japan. It produces products in a much more efficient and effective way there. And it works here. It works very well here. It was working here quite well, extraordinarily well, until 1992 when, as a result of this NLRB decision, that policy was brought into jeopardy. So this bill simply clarifies the policy. It says you cannot set up a sham union, cannot set up a company union, you cannot use this to undermine collective bargaining, but you can allow people to get together to talk about how they can make the workplace work better. This concept of team effort in the workplace is what is holding up repeal of the gas tax and increasing the minimum wage. When people are cynical about Washington I guess sometimes they have a right to be, because what you have here is a money talks situation. The big labor bosses here in Washington have committed publicly, it has been reported across this country, $35 million to defeat members of the Republican Party running for reelection to Congress--$35 million. That is a lot of money. And money appears to talk, because the phone calls come in and the decision has been made to take down two items which, at least on that side of the aisle, although there are some on our side of the aisle who have reservations about some of these proposals--take down two items which have pretty much universal support and which were viewed as good policy: repealing the gas tax, which is regressive, and raising the minimum wage, simply because it affronts the big labor bosses here in Washington that we would try to make the workplace have a more cooperative atmosphere. It is pretty outrageous but that is where we stand today. That is where we stand after the majority leader's proposal was rejected. Not only did the majority leader propose that, he went even an extra step. He said not only am I willing to give you a vote on repealing the gas tax, increasing the minimum wage, and also the TEAM Act issue, but I will let you even divide the question. He went so far as to say you can have your up-or-down vote on the minimum wage and you can have your up- or-down vote on gas tax. And that was rejected. That was exactly what has been asked for here for months by the Senator from Massachusetts. Yet, suddenly we see the priorities. We see the priorities of the liberal side of the aisle. It is not this low-income worker about whom we have heard so much, it is not the person who has to pay that extra amount at the gas pump who is maybe having trouble making a living but maybe has to buy gas to get to work--it is not that person the other side of the aisle has as their No. 1 priority. No, it is some guy sitting in some building here in Washington who happens to have a big labor job. So that is what this is down to. This is a simple question of money talks. It is regrettable. Hopefully the other side of the aisle will see this more clearly and come to their senses, because this proposal the majority leader has offered is an extraordinary generous act on his part to try to resolve some fairly complex questions that have been confronting this legislative body. I yield the remainder of my time and make the point of order a quorum is not present. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are here to talk a little bit about taxes and how we got into this mess on gasoline prices. I suspect this mess came to my attention about the same way it came to everybody else's attention. I went down to my gas station to fill up my Ford Taurus, which usually takes about 11 gallons of gas, unless my daughter, who is 16, has been driving it--then it takes about 12\1/2\ gallons of gas. But I noticed that when it got to the usual dollar amount where it is full and I pay the bill, the thing was still taking gas and the dollars were still going up. It appeared to me that, by the time it stopped taking its 11 or so gallons of gas, the bill I was getting was about 20, 25 percent more than what I was used to paying. I asked myself, ``Why, suddenly, is gas costing so much? Why has it become so expensive'' Well, clearly, one of the elements of this is the tax we have to pay on the gas. Today in some States the percentage of the actual cost of a gallon of gas in taxes is as high as 40 percent. One of the core taxes that we have to pay is the Federal tax. I think that to understand why the Federal tax has gotten so expensive, we have to review a little bit of history. It was back in 1993, 3 years ago, which is a time that I am afraid what happened may have faded from people's attention. But it certainly has not faded from people's attention as to how it is affecting their pocketbooks, because when they fill up their car, they are paying the cost for what happened in that period of time. It was at that time that President Clinton came forward with his budget bill and proposed the largest tax increase in the history of the United States, which was passed at the time, and in which there was included the gas tax increase. There are three things in particular that I think we should focus on, because these three issues were the key focus of the debate back then. The first is the size of that tax increase, which was extraordinary. The second was the retroactivity, which was discussed earlier by the Senator from Alaska. And the third is the energy tax component and what ultimately became the gas tax. But it started out as another energy tax. Now, that tax that occurred 3 years ago was $275 billion over 5 years. That is, as I mentioned, the largest tax increase in history. I opposed it, and I know Senator Coverdell opposed, Senator Stevens opposed it, Senator Mack opposed it. All of us presently on the floor here opposed it. It was pushed through the Congress by President Clinton and his supporters on the liberal side of the aisle. They pooh- poohed our resistance to it. They said America can afford to pay more taxes. So let me translate what that tax increase means in terms of today. For the past year or so, we as Republicans have been talking about cutting taxes. In fact, we sent a balanced budget down to the President. As part of that balanced budget, we suggested we cut taxes. Initially, we suggested a tax cut of $270 million. That was a 7-year figure. We ended up with a tax cut proposal of $170 billion. Once again, the President said, ``That is outrageous, you cannot cut taxes that much.'' Well, I guess I can understand that, because the tax increase that he hit the American people with back in 1993, over a 5- year period, was scored as a $275 billion increase. But if you look at it in the 7-year context of the budget that we proposed, that was a $400 billion increase in taxes on the American people. So when you hear the President say that our $170 billion tax cut, which is aimed at benefiting families with children--a $500 credit for families with children--is excessive and too much, you might think, ``I guess that is his view of the world,'' because, in his view, he thought a $400 billion tax increase was just right back in 1993. And then we have this retroactivity content. This massive tax increase that the American people were hit with in 1993 included an incredibly insidious event. The tax increase was so aggressive, there was so much frothing at the mouth to hit the American taxpayers with new taxes on the other side of the aisle, and from this new President, Mr. Clinton, they were not happy with taxing you in the future $400 billion, they decided to tax you even before you arrived there, putting in retroactive language that said the tax would actually start before President Clinton became President. That is pretty outrageous. Luckily we have people like Senator Coverdell in this body who has taken that bull by the horns and proposed repealing the concept of retroactivity, or not to allow retroactivity again. Senator Stevens, chairman of his committee, has agreed to take up that matter. That is an important point because I think, on the issue of taxes, we ought to be at least as good as the former Soviet Union, as Russia. In the Russian Constitution you cannot have retroactive taxes. But here Bill Clinton has come forward and hit us with retroactivity. So thanks to people like Senator Coverdell and Senator Stevens, hopefully, we will be able to change that so that will not occur again on the American people. The third issue, of course, is this question of the specifics of this gas tax, because this really is frustrating, because originally what the President suggested was that he wanted, in 1993, something called the Btu tax. They were going to tax every element of energy that people in this country used--every element. In New England that would have been a horrendous event because we have to heat our homes. It is cold in New England, and we use oil, and the Btu tax would have been attached to oil. But the claim was that this was not really a tax--that this really was not a tax in the sense that we were taking money from the American people. No. The claim of the administration was that this was an attempt to conserve energy, that this was an environmental action. This was sold as an environmental necessity--to hit the American people with a Btu tax. Well, even this Congress could not swallow that piece of malarkey. Oh, they backed up and they said, ``All right, we cannot get the Btu tax. We will hit the American people with a 4.3-cent increase in the gasoline tax instead.'' Again, they claimed it was on the issue of the environment that they were going to do that, raise that tax. Pretty outrageous. Pretty outrageous because at the same time the leadership on the other side of the aisle and the President were excoriating Republicans for being the party of the rich, for being the party that was only concerned about the rich, and they were going to pass a tax on the rich. That is what their tax was going to be--their tax package of $275 billion back in 1993, which is actually $400 billion if you put it on the budget cycle we are on today. Retroactivity. It was not going to affect the average, everyday Americans. It was going to hit rich. That is the way it was sold. It was an energy that would benefit people. It would be a benefit to the people of this country because it was needed for environmental protection; and, two, that this whole tax package was going to just be an attack on the rich in this country. Let me quote from the present Democratic leader--at that time a Member of good standing in the Senate on the Democratic side but not the leader at that time--as to what Senator Daschle said about this tax increase that they put on the American people. So let no one be misled when it comes to taxes. The taxes affect mostly those making $180,000. The taxes affect those businesses in only 4 percent of the highest income brackets available today, an average income, by the way, of about $565,000. You tell me when you go to fill up your car at the gas pumps. Does the attendant ask you, ``Are you making $180,000 a year?'' I do not think so. When you pull your pickup truck up, if you are a farmer in New Hampshire or a logger in New Hampshire and you are trying to make a very small margin because you are in a tough business, does the gas attendant say, ``Are you a corporation making $560,000 a year?'' I do not think so. The fact is that this is an incredibly regressive tax, and it was not put in place for environmental protection. It was put in place because there was an avarice amongst the liberal Members of this Congress and amongst this administration by demanding that they take more money from the American people so that they could spend it because they do not happen to believe you can spend your own money. There is a basic philosophical difference between our two parties. The party of the other side of the aisle does not believe that you know how to spend your money. They happen to think the Government knows how to spend your money. We happen to believe that you know how to spend your money, and you should be allowed to. For that reason, we do not happen to support this type of a tax increase. We did not support it then, and we do not support it now. So our basic view is, let us let the American people keep their own hard-earned money. When you go into a gas station, let us not have the gas station attendant have to question you as to your income level in order to remain consistent with the loftiness of this administration, but rather let us allow you, the American people, to keep your money and spend it yourself. That is why we put in place a balanced budget amendment. We put forward a balanced budget bill which would reduce spending and allow us to also reduce taxes. We did not put forward, as the President did, a bill which increased spending and increased your taxes. There is a fundamental difference in philosophy. So I congratulate the Senator from Georgia on having this special order. I also especially congratulate him on his proposal to pass a constitutional amendment to end retroactive taxes so that we can at least do as well as the new democracy of Russia. I congratulate the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Alaska, for being willing to hold hearings. I yield.

Mr. GREGG. Pursuant to that, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1996. This important law recently saw its 30th anniversary, and I believe it is the type of legislation that we should have more of in this country; it is a bill that is designed to help our senior citizens help themselves. This is a bill that focuses on meeting the needs of senior citizens in ways that will promote their well-being and independence. Through a variety of supportive programs-- from providing meals that are both home-delivered and served in congregate settings, to subsidizing seniors' income through an employment and training program, to facilitating information, case management, and referral services so that all available services to seniors can be coordinated and maximized--this bill works to ensure the system works for our older Americans. This bill essentially takes what has become an overly complicated, prescriptive law and streamlines it, turns significant amounts of authority over to the States, encourages a bottoms-up planning process, and allows programs and services to be tailored to meet actual--rather than perceived--social and economic needs. This legislation will provide maximum authority and flexibility to States and localities in the design and operation of their services for seniors, while protecting the integrity of a number of priority programs--including outreach and counseling programs, the long-term care ombudsman, preventive health efforts, elder abuse prevention, and legal assistance services. The bill drives more money into the delivery of those services most needed in States and local communities through sound economic principles. Throughout this bill, a ``bottoms-up'' planning process is facilitated; this means actual needs will be met on the local level, rather than what we perceive the needs to be from our distant vantage point here in Washington. It is clear from a myriad of other programs that we fund and that have failed that Washington does not always know best. We must ensure that we don't drag this program down under a father-knows-best mentality. This is not a welfare bill. It is not legislation that is designed to only meet the needs of specific populations or address specific problems. Instead, the Older Americans Act is a continuum of programs which have been structured to respond to everything from economic needs, to physical and transportation problems, to answering individuals' social requirements. All of our seniors should have the opportunity for a nutritious meal, or to get other assistance when they need it; this bill facilitates their access to these kinds of services. This has never been considered a partisan piece of legislation, and Senator Kassebaum and I have worked hard, along with Senator Mikulski who is the ranking member on the Aging Subcommittee, to ensure that it remains bipartisan. That is not to say that concerns on both sides of the aisle were not fully explored. The goal has been to achieve the strongest policy possible, and in doing so, meet the concerns of all of our colleagues. A concerted effort has been made to maintain an atmosphere of collegiality and consensus. For the Republican members of the Labor Committee, this has meant a willingness to recognize the value of a particular policy in cases where we would have made other decisions based on our general philosophy. In addition, we have taken a great deal of time and effort to listen to and consult with interested groups who are part of the aging network. We have extended an open-door policy to anyone who expressed an interest in sharing their views and exchanging ideas in a constructive environment. We responded to what we heard; for example, we have retained the Eldercare Locator Service, a program which allows family members to find services for their loved ones, even if they are in a different part of the country. We retained a separate line-item of funding for the long-term-care ombudsman program, after hearing repeatedly of its significance in States across the Nation. The bill I am introducing here today, along with my colleague from Kansas and the Chairman of our Committee, Senator Kassebaum, is a result of that process over the last year. It contains policy that was structured in response to excellent witnesses who testified both before our subcommittee and the House. These individuals brought their unique, grassroots perspective from the trenches to us here in Washington. Their comments had a tremendous value in this process, as their issues are real, not perceived. One provision we adopted on their advice was, for example, to permit States to institute cost-sharing provisions; however, we have ensured that these provisions will not prevent any senior from receiving services due to an inability to pay. This bill responds to concerns and questions that were posed after we circulated a legislative proposal last December. It also incorporates a number of items raised by the administration and the Democratic members of the Labor Committee, both technical and substantive. These include: Retaining authority for the Assistant Secretary to make grants for preventive health activities, with priority given to medically underserved areas and locations with the greatest economic need; definition of low income at 150 percent of the Federal poverty line; and mandated State planning requirements for legal assistance and insurance-public benefit counseling. The overall structure of this bill has also been changed. Like a house that had numerous additions over the years, the Older Americans Act had become disjointed. We have corrected that, restructuring the act so that it is logically based on service and oversight responsibilities, as opposed to program by program, fractionalized by seven titles. The four titles of this bill include one for Federal functions, one for State responsibilities, one for Area Agency on Aging authorities, and one title for native American programs. This bill maximizes flexibility for service delivery at the State and local level, while still retaining protections over priority services, such as outreach and counseling, long-term care ombudsmen, and case management. The bill also rationalizes the funding formulas for both nutrition and supportive services as well as SCSEP, the Senior Community Service Employment Program. This is important because we must direct our limited Federal resources to where a real need exists. We must also be planning now for the future, and ensure that legislation that we pass today will be structured to respond to the needs of tomorrow and the 21st century. In addition, we have directed funds to the administration, States, and localities as required for the purpose of administering these programs. While important functions are carried out with administrative dollars, when faced with a choice between administration and service, we have opted to meet the needs of our seniors wherever we can. To further promote quality service delivery, we have eliminated the artificial funding wall between home-delivered and congregate meals programs. We have also increased the transfer authority between nutrition programs and supportive services, which funds items such as transportation, in-home assistance, health screening and education, health insurance benefit options, crime prevention, and work on multipurpose senior center facilities. This bill retains the authority and authorizes funding of research and demonstration grants in order to encourage innovative approaches to the delivery of the critical services provided for under this act. While, again, there is a limit on the number of dollars that can be provided for such activities, we also have seen some excellent programs emerge from these projects, and have attempted to find a way to continue them. We maintained a number of provisions to protect the quality of the long-term-care ombudsman offices in each State by clarifying the minimal criteria for eligibility and providing conflict-of-interest safeguards. This bill ensures that particular attention continues to be paid to the needs of the minority elderly population. In addition, the legislation permits States to institute cost-sharing requirements as they see necessary under a self-declaration-of-income standard. Confidentiality standards are provided, and there is language which ensures that no one will be denied services due to an inability to pay. It is time to reexamine the status quo for all Federal programs and make improvements where necessary. And I think we have made an excellent start with this bill, the Older Americans Act. Again, I would like to thank Senators Kassebaum and Mikulski for their efforts on this bill. I believe the bill will allow seniors across the country to remain healthy, living in their own homes in their community, and supported in their endeavors to stay independent. And this bill does all of this by striving to maximize public-private partnership to supplement the limited Federal funds available--encouraging the Federal dollars to be used to leverage private funding, and by allowing priorities to be set at the grassroots level whenever possible.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1996. This important law recently saw its 30th anniversary, and I believe it is the type of legislation that we should have more of in this country; it is a bill that is designed to help our senior citizens help themselves. This is a bill that focuses on meeting the needs of senior citizens in ways that will promote their well-being and independence. Through a variety of supportive programs-- from providing meals that are both home-delivered and served in congregate settings, to subsidizing seniors' income through an employment and training program, to facilitating information, case management, and referral services so that all available services to seniors can be coordinated and maximized--this bill works to ensure the system works for our older Americans. This bill essentially takes what has become an overly complicated, prescriptive law and streamlines it, turns significant amounts of authority over to the States, encourages a bottoms-up planning process, and allows programs and services to be tailored to meet actual--rather than perceived--social and economic needs. This legislation will provide maximum authority and flexibility to States and localities in the design and operation of their services for seniors, while protecting the integrity of a number of priority programs--including outreach and counseling programs, the long-term care ombudsman, preventive health efforts, elder abuse prevention, and legal assistance services. The bill drives more money into the delivery of those services most needed in States and local communities through sound economic principles. Throughout this bill, a ``bottoms-up'' planning process is facilitated; this means actual needs will be met on the local level, rather than what we perceive the needs to be from our distant vantage point here in Washington. It is clear from a myriad of other programs that we fund and that have failed that Washington does not always know best. We must ensure that we don't drag this program down under a father-knows-best mentality. This is not a welfare bill. It is not legislation that is designed to only meet the needs of specific populations or address specific problems. Instead, the Older Americans Act is a continuum of programs which have been structured to respond to everything from economic needs, to physical and transportation problems, to answering individuals' social requirements. All of our seniors should have the opportunity for a nutritious meal, or to get other assistance when they need it; this bill facilitates their access to these kinds of services. This has never been considered a partisan piece of legislation, and Senator Kassebaum and I have worked hard, along with Senator Mikulski who is the ranking member on the Aging Subcommittee, to ensure that it remains bipartisan. That is not to say that concerns on both sides of the aisle were not fully explored. The goal has been to achieve the strongest policy possible, and in doing so, meet the concerns of all of our colleagues. A concerted effort has been made to maintain an atmosphere of collegiality and consensus. For the Republican members of the Labor Committee, this has meant a willingness to recognize the value of a particular policy in cases where we would have made other decisions based on our general philosophy. In addition, we have taken a great deal of time and effort to listen to and consult with interested groups who are part of the aging network. We have extended an open-door policy to anyone who expressed an interest in sharing their views and exchanging ideas in a constructive environment. We responded to what we heard; for example, we have retained the Eldercare Locator Service, a program which allows family members to find services for their loved ones, even if they are in a different part of the country. We retained a separate line-item of funding for the long-term-care ombudsman program, after hearing repeatedly of its significance in States across the Nation. The bill I am introducing here today, along with my colleague from Kansas and the Chairman of our Committee, Senator Kassebaum, is a result of that process over the last year. It contains policy that was structured in response to excellent witnesses who testified both before our subcommittee and the House. These individuals brought their unique, grassroots perspective from the trenches to us here in Washington. Their comments had a tremendous value in this process, as their issues are real, not perceived. One provision we adopted on their advice was, for example, to permit States to institute cost-sharing provisions; however, we have ensured that these provisions will not prevent any senior from receiving services due to an inability to pay. This bill responds to concerns and questions that were posed after we circulated a legislative proposal last December. It also incorporates a number of items raised by the administration and the Democratic members of the Labor Committee, both technical and substantive. These include: Retaining authority for the Assistant Secretary to make grants for preventive health activities, with priority given to medically underserved areas and locations with the greatest economic need; definition of low income at 150 percent of the Federal poverty line; and mandated State planning requirements for legal assistance and insurance-public benefit counseling. The overall structure of this bill has also been changed. Like a house that had numerous additions over the years, the Older Americans Act had become disjointed. We have corrected that, restructuring the act so that it is logically based on service and oversight responsibilities, as opposed to program by program, fractionalized by seven titles. The four titles of this bill include one for Federal functions, one for State responsibilities, one for Area Agency on Aging authorities, and one title for native American programs. This bill maximizes flexibility for service delivery at the State and local level, while still retaining protections over priority services, such as outreach and counseling, long-term care ombudsmen, and case management. The bill also rationalizes the funding formulas for both nutrition and supportive services as well as SCSEP, the Senior Community Service Employment Program. This is important because we must direct our limited Federal resources to where a real need exists. We must also be planning now for the future, and ensure that legislation that we pass today will be structured to respond to the needs of tomorrow and the 21st century. In addition, we have directed funds to the administration, States, and localities as required for the purpose of administering these programs. While important functions are carried out with administrative dollars, when faced with a choice between administration and service, we have opted to meet the needs of our seniors wherever we can. To further promote quality service delivery, we have eliminated the artificial funding wall between home-delivered and congregate meals programs. We have also increased the transfer authority between nutrition programs and supportive services, which funds items such as transportation, in-home assistance, health screening and education, health insurance benefit options, crime prevention, and work on multipurpose senior center facilities. This bill retains the authority and authorizes funding of research and demonstration grants in order to encourage innovative approaches to the delivery of the critical services provided for under this act. While, again, there is a limit on the number of dollars that can be provided for such activities, we also have seen some excellent programs emerge from these projects, and have attempted to find a way to continue them. We maintained a number of provisions to protect the quality of the long-term-care ombudsman offices in each State by clarifying the minimal criteria for eligibility and providing conflict-of-interest safeguards. This bill ensures that particular attention continues to be paid to the needs of the minority elderly population. In addition, the legislation permits States to institute cost-sharing requirements as they see necessary under a self-declaration-of-income standard. Confidentiality standards are provided, and there is language which ensures that no one will be denied services due to an inability to pay. It is time to reexamine the status quo for all Federal programs and make improvements where necessary. And I think we have made an excellent start with this bill, the Older Americans Act. Again, I would like to thank Senators Kassebaum and Mikulski for their efforts on this bill. I believe the bill will allow seniors across the country to remain healthy, living in their own homes in their community, and supported in their endeavors to stay independent. And this bill does all of this by striving to maximize public-private partnership to supplement the limited Federal funds available--encouraging the Federal dollars to be used to leverage private funding, and by allowing priorities to be set at the grassroots level whenever possible.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Hatch, Kassebaum, and Kennedy for their great assistance in the development of this amendment which will reform the laws governing the export of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. It is imperative that this Congress take action immediately to change the inappropriately restrictive laws that grossly limit the export of medical products that can be legally marketed in other countries but are not yet approved by the U.S. Federal Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. On August 2, 1995 the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee unanimously reported S. 593, the FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1995. This bill made improvements in the area of free trade while retaining some important public health protections. Prior to 1986, medical products, including drugs, biologicals, animal drugs, and medical devices generally could not be exported unless they were approved by the FDA. With the passage of the export legislation authored by Senator Hatch in 1986, this inappropriate and paternalistic policy was somewhat corrected. The 1986 amendments allowed drug manufacturers to ship their products to a codified list of 21 specific countries. It is my understanding that there was no prohibition included in the law that would prevent the expansion of that list, yet in the 10 years this law has been in effect, no attempt has ever been made to modernize this limited list. On July 13, 1995, I held a hearing before the Aging Subcommittee of the Labor and Human Resources Committee on the issue of whether additional changes in the export laws are needed. There we determined that it is critical that we eliminate unnecessary restrictions which serve to encourage American pharmaceutical and medical devices companies to maintain research, production and investment to conduct clinical research in foreign countries; build factories overseas; and send high paying high-tech jobs to foreign competitive markets. Our current FDA export regimen is causing us to relinquish our intellectual leadership in the health care field. Improvement to the export policy in this country will also free up limited resources at the FDA, better enabling the agency to focus on the mission of timely, efficient approval of new products that meet the needs of American patients in conjunction with comprehensive FDA reform. In this hearing, we listened to both drug and medical device manufacturers testify as to how the U.S. laws--unparalleled anywhere in the world--are negatively impacting their business, investments, and the patient population they serve in the United States. For example, Steve Ferguson, chief operating officer of the Cook Group, Inc., testified that our consideration of the FDA as the ``gold standard'' is ``generally a joke that you hear throughout the world, the standard is that, FDA approved just means that it is outdated. You are already on to the second or third generations over there, unless you are in the business, it is hard to understand that.'' We also heard from Mr. Michael Collins, chief operating officer of Medtronic, who stated-- Every week that the current policy continues to be implemented, more American jobs are lost through the relocation of manufacturing overseas and the loss of market share to foreign competitors. Mr. Mark Knudson, a managing partner of Medical Innovation Partners, a venture capital firm, testified that: ``5 or 10 years ago the pace of innovation and the intensity of regulation were not as mismatched as they are today * * *. We can no longer consider a medical investment opportunity which does not have a European strategy * * * the capital required to reach market is so much greater in the United States today.'' I am concerned that if we don't change these laws soon that we will have sent so many of these high-technology businesses overseas, the trend will be irreversible. The domestic drug and device industries are two of the too few sectors of the economy in which the United States is the acknowledged world leader and the U.S. producers have a favorable balance of trade, but the negative turn in these statistics is frightening. The Labor Committee reported out a bill 16 to 0 that began to address this problem. That substitute version of S. 593, worked out between Senators Kassebaum, Hatch, Kennedy, and myself, was clearly a positive expansion of current law. The bill we are including as a manager's amendment today represents a further iteration of that legislation in an attempt to address issues that remained in the committee-passed bill. This bill allows export of human drugs, animal drugs, biologics or medical devices not approved by the FDA. U.S. products, under this bill, could be exported to any country in the world if a product was approved by at least one country from a list of countries we were able to agree have appropriately sophisticated regulatory systems. These countries consist of the 21 that have this status under current law: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, with the additions of Israel, South Africa, the body of the European Union, and member countries in the European Economic Area--countries in the European Union and the European Free Trade Association. As under current law, the exported products must be permitted in the importing country and must comply with all of the relevant laws imposed by that country. Moreover, the following safeguards must be satisfied and a FDA-unapproved product may be exported only if the product is made in conformity of good manufacturing practices; the product is not adulterated; the product is labeled and advertised in accordance with the requirements of the approving country; the product is in accordance with the specifications of the foreign purchaser; and, the product is labeled for export and not sold or reimported into the United States. Along with free export to the above countries with sophisticated regulatory systems, we have included a provision which ensures this list will not be static, a major problem now. The Secretary, manufacturers, countries, and individuals will have the opportunity to expand the list of countries with sign-off authority on products produced in the United States that have market potential outside of this country. It is our strong intent that this provision will be used to keep the list dynamic. In addition, we have expanded the provisions in current law for tropical diseases to include other diseases that are not prevalent in the United States. We have done this as a compromise. I personally believe all countries should have complete autonomy over their trade and what products they allow to be marketed to their citizens. However, some of my colleagues disagree, feeling we should play watch-dog over the rest of the world's markets. So, as a middle ground, we have agreed that American companies should have the freedom to explore the development of therapies and cures which address diseases that may be common among the populations of other countries, even though the disease is not often seen in the U.S. There is no good reason why paternalistic United States regulatory policies should relegate citizens of other countries to poor health, particularly when our regulatory regime is so behind-the-times that the need to pass this bill is universally acknowledged. Any countries not designated by either provision can receive exports of products not approved by FDA if the product is approved by at least one country with regulatory sophistication. During the course of our hearing, a concern was raised by Senator Simon that altering the export laws under the original terms of S. 593 might result in the dumping of unsafe products into Third World countries. Dr. John Petricciani, vice president for regulatory affairs with Genetics Institute, a Boston biotechnology firm, and former Director of the FDA's Center for Biologics, and head of the World Health Organization's Biologicals Unit, with 20 years in the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service as Deputy Director of the National AIDS Program Office, responded to Senator Simon in a letter that is included in the hearing record. I would like to include a portion of his letter for the Record here as well: The real issue here is one of benefit and risk. Do the benefits to foreign countries in the current law outweigh the risks imposed on the U.S. in terms of draining jobs and capital investment in research and development and manufacturing? As has been pointed out by others, one of the results of that drain is the earlier availability of products in Europe and elsewhere than in the U.S. If we were discussing electronics or automobiles, I would not be as concerned because the American people are not being placed at a meaningful disadvantage by such delays. However, the issue here is medical products that can make a very big difference in the health of the American people. The current law is resulting in new products being introduced first in foreign countries, where U.S. firms are forced to manufacture them. I believe that we are paying far too high a price in terms of delayed availability of new products in the U.S. for the theoretical benefit being provided to developing countries. I would also like to point out that if a U.S. company really wanted to export a product that would be unacceptable in the U.S., all they would have to do is manufacture it outside the U.S. and export it to a developing country. American jobs are being sent abroad because of current laws which restrict the export of drug and medical technology not approved in the United States. These laws not only waste scarce Food and Drug Administration resources--they ignore the sovereignty of our trading partners around the world. Today's world marketplace demands that these barriers to U.S. global competitiveness be reformed. A 1995 survey of U.S. medical device inventors and manufacturers by the Wilkerson Group showed that more than 90 percent of the firms surveyed planned to market new products overseas first. Ninety-eight percent of medical device companies in the U.S. are small businesses-- employing fewer than 500 employees. These companies need to generate sales quickly in order to make appropriate returns to their startup investors, finance their manufacturing operations, and be able to afford the approval process in the United States which costs them a great deal in both time and money. Although the 1986 Drug Export Act represented a good step forward, it has led to the development of a patchwork quilt of bureaucracy that has forced U.S. manufacturers to establish and maintain facilities outside the United States. At the same time, the law imposes time-consuming requirements on FDA, whose resources should be reprioritized to the review of new, life-saving medicines and technologies for American patients. Offshore movement often begins with the relocation of clinical trials, closely followed by R&D, which is most efficient when done in conjunction with the medical professionals involved in the trials. Within the device industry, 50 percent of established companies and 87 percent of startup ventures are moving their clinical trials to foreign countries. This means American patients not only are not receiving access to the most cutting-edge innovative medical products, but also are several generations behind in what products have been approved and are in common use. Clinical trials are also critical to the success of products developed by pharmaceutical companies, who generally expend millions of dollars on this phase of drug development. In a time of unprecedented harmony in worldwide trade, as reflected by recent passage of GATT, our laws relating to the export of foods, drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics should reflect that comity as well. The rate of growth in the favorable balance of trade that the medical device industry in this country has historically seen is slowing dramatically. The average annual rate of growth in this industry was 26 percent in 1988-1992; it dropped to 11 percent in 1992- 1994. In addition, the increased competition from foreign competitors--as well as American firms who have moved part or all of their operations overseas, and are now foreign competitors as well--is being evidenced in patent activity. The United States has consistently held close to three-quarters of the medical device patents granted in the United States, but foreign growth in this industry means that foreign-owned companies now hold thousands of U.S. patents, not just hundreds. The paternalistic approach evidenced in our current law is no longer compatible with today's world marketplace. In my view the original version of S. 593, which was introduced by Senator Hatch and co- sponsored by Senators Kassebaum, Abraham, Frist and Coats as well as myself, was a good approach. This would have allowed free export to any World Trade Organization [WTO] member nation, and export to non-WTO members with 30 days notice to the Secretary of HHS, who had the authority to stop exports destined to be imminent hazards to the public health of citizens overseas. Similar efforts were led by Representative Fred Upton in the House; he introduced the companion bill H.R. 1300 with 24 cosponsors last summer. However, in the spirit of bipartisanship, Senators Hatch, Kassebaum, and I, undertook an effort to try to work with Senator Kennedy to create a revised bill. The version of this bill being considered here today embodies the resultant compromise. While I believe this legislation is still more restrictive than it should be, there is a real value to moving a good bill rather than gaining nothing. This export bill is good trade policy and is consistent with advancing the public health. amendment no. 3544 (Purpose: To provide for welfare reform in the State of Texas) On page 577 line 14 of the committee substitute, insert: ``Sec. 213 If the Secretary fails to approve the application for waivers related to the Achieving Change for Texans, a comprehensive reform of the Texas Aid To Families With Dependent Children program designed to encourage work instead of welfare, a request under section 1115(a) of the social Security Act submitted by the Texas department of Human Services on September 30, 1995, by the date of enactment of this Act, notwithstanding the Secretary's authority to approve the applications under such section, the application shall be deemed approved.''

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Yes, I want to assure my good friend from Louisiana, that on behalf of the committee that we intend to correct this matter in conference.

Mr. GREGG. The subcommittee shares the Senator from Georgia's belief that an important component in winning the war against drugs is putting an end to drug use among our youth. Further, the subcommittee would encourage the Office of Justice Programs to support grassroots efforts like the one described by the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator is correct, the committee was in fact unaware of these circumstances.

Mr. GREGG. I thank my good friend and share his concern about drug use among our youth.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. At 6:30.

Mr. GREGG. A vote at 6:30.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I withdraw my request.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I was wondering if the Senator from Maine would be willing to enter into a time agreement and have a specific vote at 6:30 on this?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment, which is a Biden amendment, would earmark funds for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. It has no budgetary impact. It has been cleared on both sides. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his courtesy. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 5:45 today, Senator Dole be recognized to make a motion to table the Biden amendment No. 3483, and, further, that the time between now and 5:45 today be equally divided between Senator Biden and Senator Hatch or his designee.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.