[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 125 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10426-S10428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Grams, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Simon, and Ms. Moseley-Braun):
  S. 2067. A bill to extend certain Medicare community nursing 
organization demonstration projects; to the Committee on Finance.


              Community Nursing Organizations Legislation

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which will permit 
a three-year reauthorization of certain Medicare Community Nursing 
Organization [CNO] demonstration projects within the Health Care 
Financing Administration [HCFA].
  In 1987, in response to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1987, Congress authorized the Community Nursing Organization 
demonstration projects to test capitated payment under the Medicare 
Program for community nursing and ambulatory care services furnished to 
beneficiaries. The demonstration projects are structured to answer two 
questions: First, is it feasible to have a capitated, case-managed, 
nurse service delivery model for home health and ambulatory care; and 
second, What is the impact on enrollees, providers, and the larger 
health care system?
  These CNO programs are intended to reduce the breakup in the delivery 
of health care services, to reduce the use of costly emergency care 
services, and to improve the continuity of home health and ambulatory 
care for Medicare beneficiaries. CNO's are responsible with providing 
home health care, case management, outpatient physical and speech 
therapy, ambulance services, prosthetic devices, durable medical 
equipment, and any optional, HCFA-approved services appropriate to 
prevent the need to institutionalize Medicare enrollees.
  HCFA awarded four CNO sites in September 1992 through the competitive 
procurement process: First, Visiting Nurse Service in New York, NY--a 
not-for-profit Medicare certified home health agency; second, Carle 
Clinic in Mahomet, IL--a multispecialty group practice; third, 
Carondelet Health Care in Tuscon, AZ--a hospital-based organization; 
and fourth, Living at Home/Block Nurse Program in St. Paul, MN--a not-
for-profit nursing organization replicating the Block Nurse Program 
model. These CNO's operate under full financial risk to themselves and 
are financially responsible for the provision of all mandatory 
community nursing and ambulatory care services available to Medicare 
enrollees.
  Mr. President, these CNO projects are consistent with congressional 
efforts to

[[Page S10427]]

introduce a wider range of managed care options to Medicare 
beneficiaries. Their authorization needs to be extended in order to 
ensure a fair testing of the CNO managed care concept. We need the 
extention of this demonstration authority to continue to provide an 
important example of how coordinated care can provide additional 
benefits without increasing Medicare costs. In addition, further time 
is necessary to evaluate the impact of the CNO contribution to Medicare 
patients and to assess their capacity for operating under a fixed 
budget.
  Most importantly, this demonstration extension will not increase 
Medicare expenditures. CNO's actually save Medicare dollars by 
providing better and more accessible health care in homes and in 
community settings, thereby allowing enrollees to avoid unnecessary 
hospitalizations and nursing home admissions. By demonstrating what a 
primary care-oriented nursing practice can accomplish with elderly or 
disabled patients, CNO's help illuminate methods for increasing 
benefits, saving funding dollars, and most importantly, improving the 
quality of life for patients.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider this bill carefully 
and join me in seeking to extend these cost-savings and patient-
oriented CNO demonstrations for another 3 years.
  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. 2067

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN MEDICARE COMMUNITY NURSING 
                   ORGANIZATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, demonstration 
     projects conducted under section 4079 of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1987 my be conducted for an additional 
     period of 3 years, and the deadline for any report required 
     relating to the results of such projects shall be not later 
     than 6 months after the end of such additional period.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2068. A bill to provide for a study of the recommendations of the 
Joint Federal-State Commission on Policies and Programs Affecting 
Alaska Natives, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.


             the alaska native commission study act of 1996

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the 
Alaska Native Commission Study bill. I am pleased that my colleague 
Senator Stevens of Alaska is joining me as a cosponsor. This 
legislation is the product of years of study and candid self-appraisal 
by Alaska Natives about their standard-of-living problems and the need 
to address these problems. It is also the product of a congressional 
act that called for the study of the problems.
  Public Law 101-379 established the Joint Federal-State Commission on 
Policies and Programs Affecting Alaska Natives, better known as the 
Alaska Natives Commission. Among its many recommendations, the 
Commission called for Federal funding to examine how best to implement 
the recommendations of the Commission. The purpose of this bill is to 
establish the funding for such a study.
  The need for this study is well documented. In 1989, I and 
Representative Don Young of Alaska introduced a bill creating the 
Alaska Natives Commission, a publish commission jointly funded by the 
State and Federal Governments. The creation of the commission followed 
the publication in 1989 of the ``Report on the Status of Alaska 
Natives: A Call for Action'' by the Alaska Federation of Natives and 
was also spurred by extensive congressional hearings which focussed on 
the need for the first comprehensive assessment of the social, 
cultural, and economic condition of Alaska's 90,000 Natives since the 
enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 92-
203.
  Here are but some of the findings of the Alaska Natives Commission 
regarding the condition of Alaska Natives:
  Alcohol problems are one of the key reasons why Alaska Natives 
comprise 36-40 percent of the statewide prison population, even though 
they total only 16 percent of the population of Alaska.
  Alaska Native families need help: In 1988, one out of every eleven 
Alaska Native children received child protection services from the 
State of Alaska.
  Alaska Natives need to have opportunities and training for jobs: In 
1990, 20 percent of the Native work force was unemployed, and for 
Alaska Natives living in villages, the rate can be as high as 50-80 
percent, depending on the season and location.
  Alaska Natives need more opportunities for an education: 12-15 
percent of Alaska Native high school students drop out from village/
rural schools; 60 percent of Native students entering urban high 
schools do not graduate.
  This bill calls for the authorization of $350,000 in Federal funds to 
be spent by the Alaska Federation of Natives to study how to implement 
the recommendations of the Alaska Native Commission. This investment is 
needed to create realistic solutions to serious problems. I would note 
that Congressman Young has introduced a companion bill in the 
House.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. Thurmond):
  S. 2069. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on specialized glass 
for use in glass-ceramic stovetops; to the Committee on Finance.


                 temporary duty suspension legislation

 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will 
preserve jobs in South Carolina. The bill temporarily suspends the duty 
on specialized glass for use in glass-ceramic stove tops. Corning 
Company has made an investment in Fountain Inn, SC to revive a factory 
that has been struggling. The temporary suspension of the duty on 
glass-ceramic stove tops will enable Corning to keep jobs in the United 
States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 2070. A bill to ensure that homeowners receive adequate notice of 
and opportunity to comment on activities likely to adversely affect the 
value of their homes; and to create procedures for homeowners to 
receive financial compensation for development which produces pollution 
and other impacts adversely affecting the value of their homes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


             THE HOMEOWNERS PROTECTION AND EMPOWERMENT ACT

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in this Congress, there has been 
considerable debate on the issue of property rights. But the debate so 
far has essentially ignored the interests of the largest group of 
property owners in America--the 60 million homeowners.
  Until today, property rights legislation has tended to protect only a 
limited group of property owners, those whose use or development of 
their property is regulated by the Federal Government. The typical 
homeowners who we all represent live in already constructed homes; they 
are not developing their property. When they use their property in a 
typical fashion, they are not regulated under the wetlands law, the 
endangered species law, or any other Federal status.
  The typical homeowner is helped, not hurt, by many government 
policies that keep our air clean and our water health and pure. When 
these homeowners' property rights and property values are threatened, 
the threat is more likely to come from pollution from neighboring 
factories than from government actions to protect the environment.
  Today, along with Senator Warner, I am introducing the Homeowners 
Protection and Empowerment Act to make sure the interests of America's 
homeowners are protected. Our legislation provides homeowners with the 
right to sue for compensation whenever their property values are 
diminished by an action regulated by the Federal Government. It 
provides homeowners with a Federal right of action against anyone 
responsible for decreasing a private party homeowner's property value 
by $10,000 or more, whether it's a Federal agency or a private party 
acting under authority of Federal law.
  For example, if a developer fills in federally regulated wetlands, 
the result may be increased flooding on downstream homeowners' 
properties, because undeveloped wetlands help to control flooding. This 
increased risk of

[[Page S10428]]

flooding diminishes the value of downstream homeowners' properties. 
Under the Homeowners Protection and Empowerment Act, any affected 
homeowner whose property value declined by at least $10,000 because of 
the developer's wetland filling would have the right to sue the 
developer for compensation.
  The legislation also requires anyone conducting an activity that both 
requires a permit or other authorization under Federal law and 
generates pollution or has other property damaging impacts to give 
written notice about the activity and its potential impact to each 
homeowner living within a quarter mile of the activity.
  I want to thank Senator Warner for working with me on this 
legislation and for helping to clarify that the intent of the 
legislation is to protect typical homeowners. I look forward to working 
with him to move the legislation forward.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2071. A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to 
establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in 
employment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                  the workplace religious freedom act

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the 
Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1996. This bill would protect 
workers from on-the-job discrimination. It represents a milestone in 
the protection of religious liberty, assuring that all workers have 
equal employment opportunities.
  In 1972, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require 
employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice or 
observance unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the 
employer. This 1972 amendment, although completely appropriate, has 
been interpreted by the courts so narrowly as to place little restraint 
on an employer's refusal to provide religious accommodation. The 
Workplace Religious Freedom Act will restore to the religious 
accommodation provision the weight that Congress originally intended 
and help assure that employers have a meaningful obligation to 
reasonably accommodate their employees' religious practices.
  The restoration of this protection is no small matter. For many 
religiously observant Americans the greatest peril to their ability to 
carry out their religious faiths on a day-to-day basis may come from 
employers. I have heard examples from around the country about a small 
minority of employers who will not make reasonable accommodation for 
observance of the Sabbath and other holy days; for employees who must 
wear religiously required garb, such as a yarmulke; or for clothing 
that meets modesty requirements.
  The refusal of an employer, absent undue hardship, to provide 
reasonable accommodation of a religious practice should be seen as a 
form of religious discrimination, as originally intended by Congress in 
1972. And religious discrimination should be treated fully as seriously 
as any other form of discrimination that stands between Americans and 
equal employment opportunities. Enactment of the Workplace Religious 
Freedom Act will constitute an important step toward ensuring that all 
members of society, whatever their religious beliefs and practices, 
will be protected from an invidious form of discrimination.
  It is important to recognize that, in addition to protecting the 
religious freedom of employees, this legislation protects employers 
from an undue burden. Employees would be allowed to take time off only 
if their doing so does not pose a significant difficulty or expense for 
the employer. This commonsense definition of undue hardship is used in 
the Americans with Disabilities Act and has worked well in that 
context.
  I believe this bill should receive bipartisan support. It has been 
endorsed by a wide range of organizations including the American Jewish 
Committee, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Christian Legal Society, 
and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston.
  As the Jewish high holidays and eventually Christmas approach, I feel 
strongly that workers should not have to worry that they will be 
prohibited from choosing to take time off from work to observe a 
religious holiday. I urge this body to pass this legislation so that 
all workers can have equal employment opportunities and practice their 
religion.

                          ____________________