[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 69 (Thursday, May 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5002-S5013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Glenn):
S. 779. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
increase the number of physicians that complete a fellowship in
geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN WORKFORCE ACT OF 1997
S. 780. A bill to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to
include each year of fellowship training in geriatric medicine or
geriatric psychiatry as a year of obligated service under the National
Health Corps Loan Repayment Program; to the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources.
THE GERIATRICIANS LOAN FORGIVENESS ACT OF 1997
Mr. REID. Good morning Mr. President. I come to the floor today to
offer two bills which are written to address the national shortage of
geriatricians we are experiencing in this country. A problem I am sorry
to say that is getting worse, not better. I am pleased to have as
original cosponsors of my bills Senator Grassley, the distinguished
Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging and Senator Glenn,
also a member of the Aging Committee, one for whom I have tremendous
respect and regard.
Our Nation is growing older. Today, life expectancy for women is 79,
for men it is 73. While the population of the United States has tripled
since 1900, the number of people age 65 or older has increased 11
times, to more than 33 million Americans. By 2030, this group is
projected to double in size to nearly 70 million.
Mr. President, I first became concerned about this problem when a
read a report issued by the Alliance for Aging Research in May of 1996
entitled, ``Will you Still Treat Me When I'm 65?'' The report concluded
that there are only 6,784 primary-care physicians certified in
geriatrics. This number represents less than one percent of the total
of 684,414 doctors in the United States. The report goes on to state
that the United States should have at least 20,000 physicians with
geriatric training to provide appropriate care for the current
population, and as many as 36,000 geriatricians by the year 2030 when
there will be close to 70 million older Americans.
The bills I am introducing today, the Medicare Physician Worforce
Improvement Act of 1997 and the Geriatricians Loan Forgiveness Act of
1997, aim--in modest ways and at very modest cost--to encourage an
increase in the number of trained doctors seniors of today and tomorrow
will need, those with certified training in geriatrics.
One provision of the Medicare Physician Workforce Improvement Act of
1997 will allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to double
the payment made to teaching hospitals for geriatric fellows capping
the double payment to be provided to a maximum of 400 fellows per year.
This is intended to serve as an incentive to teaching hospitals to
promote and recruit for geriatric fellows.
Another provision directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to increase the number of certified geriatricians appropriately trained
to provide the highest quality care to Medicare beneficiaries in the
best and most sensible settings by establishing up to five geriatric
medicine training consortia demonstration projects nationwide. In
short, allow Medicare to pay for the training of doctors who serve
geriatric patients in the settings where this care is so often
delivered. Not only in hospitals, but also ambulatory care facilities,
skilled nursing facilities, clinics, and day treatment centers.
The second bill I am offering today, The Geriatricians Loan
Forgiveness Act of 1997 has but one simple provision. That is to
forgive $20,000 of education debt incurred by medical students for each
year of advanced training required to obtain a certificate of added
qualifications in geriatric medicine or psychiatry. My bill would count
their fellowship time as obligated service under the National Health
Corps Loan Repayment Program.
Mr. President, the graduating medical school class of physicians in
1996 reported they had incurred debts of $75,000 on average. My bill
will offer an incentive to physicians to pursue advanced training in
geriatrics by forgiving a small portion of their debt.
Last year Medicare paid out more than $6.5 billion to teaching
hospitals and academic medical centers toward the costs of clinical
training and experience needed by physicians after they graduate from
medical school. It is ironic, only a tiny fraction of those Medicare
dollars are directed to the training of physicians who focus mainly on
the needs of the elderly. Of over 100,000 residency and fellowship
positions that Medicare supports nationwide, only about 250 are in
geriatric medicine and psychiatry programs. Existing slots in geriatric
training programs oftentimes go unfilled. With 518 slots available in
geriatric medicine and psychiatry in 1996, only 261, barely one-half of
them were filled.
By allowing doctors who pursue certification in geriatric medicine to
become eligible for loan forgiveness, and by offering an incentive to
teaching institutions to promote the availability of fellowships, and
recruit geriatric fellows, my bills will provide a measure of incentive
for top-notch physicians to pursue fellowship training in this vital
area.
We must do more to ensure quality medicine today for our seniors and
it is certainly in our best interest to prepare for the future when the
number of seniors will double. Geriatric medicine requires special and
focused training. Too often, problems in older persons are
misdiagnosed, overlooked, or dismissed as the normal result of aging
because doctors are not trained to recognize how diseases and
impairments might appear differently in the elderly than in younger
patients. One need only look at undiagnosed clinical depression in
seniors or the consequences of adverse reaction to medicines to see how
vital this specialized training really is. This lack of knowledge comes
with a cost, in lives lost, and in unnecessary hospitalizations and
treatments.
We need trained geriatricians to train new medical students. Of the
108 medical schools reporting for the 1994 to 1995 academic year, only
11 had a separate required course in geriatrics, 53 offered geriatrics
as an elective, 96 included geriatrics as part of another required
course and one reported not offering geriatrics coursework at all. Mr.
President, this is simply not good enough.
In a country where by 2030, 1 in 5 citizens will be over the age of
65, there are only two departments of geriatrics at academic medical
centers across the entire country. Yet, every academic medical center
has a Department of Pediatrics. This just does not seem to make sense
to me. While certainly no
[[Page S5003]]
one would argue the need for emphasis on pediatrics, there is no less
of a need for emphasis on geriatrics as well. In England, it is my
understanding that every academic medical center has a department of
geriatrics. Do our friends in England know something we do not?
Mr. President, we have here a perfect case where an ounce of
prevention will be worth a pound of cure. While not every patient over
65 will need a geriatrician, in fact most will not, we need
academicians and researchers to train the medical community about the
field of geriatrics and we need primary care physicians to have access
to trained geriatricians when a patient's case warrants it. As our
oldest old population increases, the population growing the fastest and
most appropriate for geriatric intervention, we must ensure that access
to geriatricians becomes a reality.
I believe the Medicare Physician Workforce Act of 1997 and the
Geriatricians Loan Forgiveness Act of 1997 are steps in the right
direction. While they will not solve the total problem, they do make a
critical first step.
Mr. President, I am grateful to the American Geriatrics Society for
their assistance in working with my staff on this bill and I especially
want to thank my cosponsors, Senators Grassley and Glenn, for their
support and leadership on this issue.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The American Geriatrics Society,
New York, NY, May 20, 1997.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: On behalf of the American Geriatrics
Society (AGS), I am writing to offer our strongest support to
the ``Medicare Physician Workforce Improvement Act of 1997''
and the ``Geriatricians Loan Forgiveness Act of 1997.''
With more than 6500 physician and other health care
professional members, the AGS is dedicated to improving the
health and well being of all older adults. While we provide
primary care and supportive services to all patients, the
focus of geriatric practice is on the frailest and most
vulnerable elderly. The average age of a geriatrician's
caseload exceeds 80, and our patients often have multiple
chronic illnesses. Given the complexity of medical and social
needs among our country's oldest citizens, we are strongly
committed to a multi-disciplinary approach to providing
compassionate and effective care to our patients.
As you know, America faces a critical shortage of
physicians with special training in geriatrics. Even as the
76 million persons of the baby boom generation reach
retirement age over the next 15 to 20 years, the number of
certified geriatricians is declining. By providing modest
incentives--which will encourage teaching hospitals to
increase the number of training fellowships in geriatric
medicine and psychiatry, provide loan assistance to
physicians who pursue such training, and support development
of innovative and flexible models for training in
geriatrics--your bills represent very positive steps toward
reversing that trend.
The American Geriatrics Society has been pleased to work
closely with your office to develop initiatives to preserve
and improve the availability of highest quality medical care
for our oldest and most vulnerable citizens. We believe that
the ``Medicare Physician Workforce Improvement Act'' and the
``Geriatricians Loan Forgiveness Act'' represent a cost-
effective approach to training the physicians our nation
increasingly will need. We commend you for your leadership on
an issue of such vital importance to the Medicare program and
our elderly citizens.
Sincerely,
Dennis Jahnigen, MD,
President.
____
Alliance for Aging Research,
Washington, DC, May 16, 1997.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: As the Executive Director for the
Alliance for Aging Research, an independent, not-for-profit
organization working to improve the health and independence
of older Americans, I am writing in support of the ``Medicare
Physician Workforce Improvement Act'' and the ``Geriatricians
Loan Forgiveness Act.''
As you know, on May 14, 1996 the Alliance released a
report, ``Will You Still Treat Me When I'm 65?'', addressing
the national shortage of geriatricians. Currently, there are
only 6,784 primary-care physicians certified in geriatrics,
the area of medicine that addresses the complex needs of
older patients. That is less than one percent of the total of
684,414 doctors in the U.S. We currently need 20,000
geriatricians and a total of 36,858 by the year 2030 to care
for the graying baby boomers. These two pieces of legislation
take the important first steps in solving this problem.
In addition to increasing the number of physicians trained
in geriatrics, we need to develop a strong cadre of academics
and researchers within our medical schools to help mainstream
geriatrics into both general practice and specialties.
Increasing the number of fellowship positions in geriatric
medicine will improve the situation.
We must have this kind of support and commitment from the
federal government, along with private philanthropy and
business if we are to sufficiently care for our aging
population. The Alliance for Aging Research is encouraged by
your leadership and support in this area and we look forward
to working with you to bring these issues before Congress.
Best regards,
Daniel Perry,
Executive Director.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original
cosponsor of two very important bills being offered by my colleague on
the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Senator Harry Reid. The
legislation we are introducing today will encourage more of our
nation's physicians to specialize in geriatric medicine. As our
population continues to age and with the impending retirement of the
baby boomers, the need for trained geriatricians will be great. In my
home State of Iowa, 15 percent of the population is over 65 with the
third largest percentage of elderly in the Nation.
The incentives for residents to choose geriatrics as a specialty are
limited. The financial rewards are fewer than most other specialties.
In addition, patients require more time and attention because they
typically have a multitude of health problems. With the cost of
education so high, many residents face enormous debt when they complete
medical school. Institutions have trouble attracting students to
specialize in geriatric medicine due to the lack of financial
incentives.
The Geriatricians Loan Forgiveness Act of 1997 will provide help to
residents. This bill gives the Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services [DHHS] the authority to forgive up to $20,000 of
loans under the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program on
behalf of a resident who completes the required 1 year fellowship to
become a geriatrician. The maximum amount of residents eligible is 400.
The other bill I am cosponsoring today is the Medicare Physician
Workforce Improvement Act of 1997. We spent nearly $7 billion last year
on graduate medical education under the Medicare Program. Yet, only 200
of the over 100,000 residency and fellowship positions funded by
Medicare are in geriatric medicine. This does not make sense. Medicare
is a program for seniors. Therefore, we should be supporting physicians
who specialize in geriatrics.
The Medicare Physician Workforce Improvement Act has two provisions
to encourage academic medical centers to train physicians in geriatrics
under the Medicare graduate medical education [GME] program. The first
provision provides for an adjustment in a hospital's count of primary
care residents to allow each resident enrolled in an approved medical
residency or fellowship program in geriatric medicine to be counted as
two full-time equivalent primary care residents for the 1-year period
necessary to be certified in geriatric medicine. A limit is placed on
the number of residents enrolled each year to control the cost. No more
than 400 fellows nationwide can be eligible in any given year. This
provision will encourage institutions to train more geriatricians using
Medicare funds.
The second provision is budget neutral. It directs the Secretary of
DHHS to establish five geriatric medicine training consortium
demonstration projects nationwide. The demonstration will allow current
Medicare GME funds to be distributed to a consortium consisting of a
teaching hospital, one or more skilled nursing facilities, and one or
more ambulatory care or community-based facilities to train residents
in geriatrics. This provision could be beneficial to rural areas and
other areas not served by an academic medical center.
I applaud Senator Reid for his efforts to provide our Nation's
elderly with qualified trained geriatricians. I ask my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to join Senator Reid and me in support of these
legislative initiatives.
[[Page S5004]]
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Helms and Mr. Kempthorne):
S. 781. A bill to establish a uniform and more efficient Federal
process for protecting property owners' rights guaranteed by the fifth
amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE OMNIBUS PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to once again introduce
the Omnibus Property Rights Act. Many Members of the Senate have as a
paramount concern the protection of individual rights protected by our
Constitution.
One particular right--the right to own and use private property free
from arbitrary governmental action--is increasingly under attack from
the regulatory state. Indeed, despite the constitutional requirement
for the protection of property rights, the America of the late 20th
century has witnessed an explosion of Federal regulation that has
jeopardized the private ownership of property with the consequent loss
of individual liberty.
Under current Federal regulations, thousands of Americans have been
denied the right to the quiet use and enjoyment of their private
property. Arbitrary bureaucratic enforcement of Federal and State
regulatory programs has prevented Americans from building homes and
commercial buildings, plowing fields, repairing barns and fences,
clearing brush and fire hazards, felling trees, and even removing
refuse and pollutants, all on private property.
Fairness and simple justice demand that Americans owning property be
entitled to the full use of their property. Ensuring compensation for
regulatory takings is the first step toward restoring the fundamental
right to own and use private property guaranteed by the takings clause
of the fifth amendment to our Constitution. That is why I am once again
introducing legislation--the Omnibus Property Rights Act--to protect
private property owners from overzealous regulators. This bill, similar
in substance and procedure to the bills I introduced last Congress,
represents the most comprehensive legislative mechanism to date to
foster and protect the private ownership of property.
The omnibus bill contains three different approaches contained in
different titles.
The first substantive title of the bill encompasses property rights
litigation reform. This title establishes a distinct Federal fifth
amendment ``takings'' claim against Federal agencies by aggrieved
property owners, thus clarifying the sometimes incoherent and
contradictory constitutional property rights case law. Property
protected under this section includes real property, including fixtures
on land, such as crops and timber, mining interests, and water rights.
This title is triggered when a taking, as defined by the Supreme Court,
occurs. Moreover, it allows for compensation when the property, or
``affected portion'' of property, is reduced in value by 33 percent or
more.
It has been alleged that this bill would impede government's ability
to protect public health, safety, and the environment. This is not
true. This first title contains a ``nuisance exception'' to
compensation. It codifies that part of the 1992 Supreme Court decision
in Lucas versus South Carolina Coastal Council, which held that
restrictions on property use based on ``background principles of the
state's law of property and nuisance'' need not be compensated. Thus,
by adopting the Supreme Court's recent Lucas holding, the Omnibus
Property Rights Act provides that only innocent property holders are to
be compensated for government takings. Those that demonstrably misuse
their property to pollute or to harm public health and safety are not
entitled to compensation under the bill's nuisance provision.
Finally, this title also resolves the jurisdictional dispute between
the Federal district courts and the Court of Federal Claims over fifth
amendment ``takings'' cases--sometimes called the Tucker Act shuffle--
by granting each court concurrent jurisdiction.
A second title in essence codifies President Reagan's Executive Order
12630. Under this title, a Federal agency must conduct a private
property taking impact analysis before issuing or promulgating any
policy, regulation, or related agency action which is likely to result
in a taking of private property.
A third title provides for alternative dispute resolution in
arbitration proceedings.
The three titles of the Omnibus Property Rights Act together function
to provide the property owner with mechanisms to vindicate the
fundamental constitutional right of private ownership of property,
while instituting powerful internal incentives for Federal agencies
both to protect private property and include such protection in agency
planning and regulating.
It is very significant that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office, after a year of research, concluded in a study dated March 8,
1996, that the incentives built into the very similar bills I
introduced last Congress would have encouraged agencies to act more
responsibly, that the administrative cost of the bill would be quite
small, and that compensation costs would be even smaller.
Despite some critics' charges that these very similar bills would be
too costly, CBO found that the costs of both the omnibus bills will
diminish to an insignificant level over time. This is predicated on the
CBO finding that each of the omnibus bills contain powerful incentives,
which over time will reduce costs. These include: First, the bills'
bright line legal standards, which better enable agencies to avoid
takings disputes; second, the takings impact assessment requirement,
which requires agencies to analyze the affect of proposed regulations
on property rights; and third, the requirement that compensation be
paid from the agency's budget, which inevitably will act as a deterrent
to unconstitutional and unlawful takings. Based on extensive research,
CBO estimated that each omnibus bill should cost no more than $30 or
$40 million a year for the first 5 years of implementation, thereafter
diminishing to insignificant amounts. The new bill will cost even less.
Importance of Private Property
The private ownership of property is essential to a free society and
is an integral part of our Judeo-Christian culture and the Western
tradition of liberty and limited government. Private ownership of
property and the sanctity of property rights reflects the distinction
in our culture between a preexisting civil society and the state that
is consequently established to promote order. Private property creates
the social and economic organizations that counterbalance the power of
the state by providing an alternative source of power and prestige to
the state itself. It is therefore a necessary condition of liberty and
prosperity.
While government is properly understood to be instituted to protect
liberty within an orderly society and such liberty is commonly
understood to include the right of free speech, assembly, religious
exercise and other rights such as those enumerated in the Bill of
Rights, it is all too often forgotten that the right of private
ownership of property is also a critical component of liberty. To the
17th century English political philosopher, John Locke, who greatly
influenced the Founders of our Republic, the very role of government is
to protect property: ``The great and chief end therefore, on Men
uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is
the preservation of their property.''
The Framers of our Constitution likewise viewed the function of
government as one of fostering individual liberties through the
protection of property interests. James Madison, termed the ``Father of
the Constitution,'' unhesitantly endorsed this Lockean viewpoint when
he wrote in The Federalist No. 54 that ``[government] is instituted no
less for the protection of property, than of the persons of
individuals.'' Indeed, to Madison, the private possession of property
was viewed as a natural and individual right both to be protected
against government encroachment and to be protected by government
against others.
To be sure, the private ownership of property was not considered
absolute. Property owners could not exercise their rights as a nuisance
that harmed their neighbors, and government could use, what was termed
in the 18th century, its despotic power of eminent domain to seize
property for public use. Justice, it became to be believed, required
compensation for the property taken by government.
[[Page S5005]]
The earliest example of a compensation requirement is found in
chapter 28 of the Magna Carta of 1215, which reads, ``No constable or
other bailiff of ours shall take corn or other provisions from anyone
without immediately tendering money therefor, unless he can have
postponement thereof by permission of the seller.'' But the record of
English and colonial compensation for taken property was spotty at
best. It has been argued by some historians and legal scholars that
compensation for takings of property became recognized as customary
practice during the American colonial period.
Nevertheless, by the time of American independence, the compensation
requirement was considered a necessary restraint on arbitrary
governmental seizures of property. The Vermont Constitution of 1777,
the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, and the Northwest Ordinance of
1787, recognized that compensation must be paid whenever property was
taken for general public use or for public exigencies. And although
accounts of the 1791 congressional debate over the Bill of Rights
provide no evidence over why a public use and just compensation
requirement for takings of private property was eventually included in
the fifth amendment, James Madison, the author of the fifth amendment,
reflected the views of other supporters of the new Constitution who
feared the example to the new Congress of uncompensated seizures of
property for building of roads and forgiveness of debts by radical
state legislatures. Consequently, the phrase ``[n]or shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation'' was
included within the fifth amendment to the Constitution.
Current Protection of Property Rights Fall Short
Judicial protection of property rights against the regulatory state
has been both inconsistent and ineffective. Physical invasions and
government seizures of property have been fairly easy for courts to
analyze as a species of eminent domain, but not so for the effect of
regulations which either diminish the value of the property or
appropriate a property interest.
This key problem to the regulatory takings dilemma was recognized by
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260
U.S. 393 (1922). How do courts determine when regulation amounts to a
taking? Holmes' answer, ``if regulation goes too far it will be
recognized as a taking,'' 260 U.S. at 415, is nothing more than an ipse
dixit. In the 73 years since Mahon, the Court has eschewed any set
formula for determining how far is too far, preferring to engage in ad
hoc factual inquiries, such as the three-part test made famous by Penn
Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978),
which balances the economic impact of the regulation on property and
the character of the regulation against specific restrictions on
investment-backed expectations of the property owner.
Despite the valiant attempt by the Rehnquist Court to clarify
regulatory takings analysis in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483
U.S. 825 (1987), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct.
2886 (1992), and in its recent decision of Dolan v. City of Tigard, No.
93-518 (June 24, 1994), takings analysis is basically incoherent and
confusing and applied by lower courts haphazardly. The incremental,
fact-specific approach that courts now must employ in the absence of
adequate statutory language to vindicate property rights under the
fifth amendment thus has been ineffective and costly.
There is, accordingly, a need for Congress to clarify the law by
providing bright line standards and an effective remedy. As Chief Judge
Loren A. Smith of the Court of Federal Claims, the court responsible
for administering takings claims against the United States, opined in
Bowles v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 37 (1994), ``[j]udicial decisions
are far less sensitive to societal problems than the law and policy
made by the political branches of our great constitutional system. At
best courts sketch the outlines of individual rights, they cannot hope
to fill in the portrait of wise and just social and economic policy.''
This incoherence and confusion over the substance of takings claims
is matched by the muddle over jurisdiction of property rights claims.
The Tucker Act, which waives the sovereign immunity of the United
States by granting the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to
entertain monetary claims against the United States, actually
complicates the ability of a property owner to vindicate the right to
just compensation for a Government action that has caused a taking. The
law currently forces a property owner to elect between equitable relief
in the Federal district court and monetary relief in the Court of
Federal Claims. Further difficulty arises when the law is used by the
Government to urge dismissal in the district court on the ground that
the plaintiff should seek just compensation in the Court of Federal
Claims, and is used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal Claims on
the ground that plaintiff should first seek equitable relief in the
district court.
This Tucker Act shuffle is aggravated by section 1500 of the Tucker
Act, which denies the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain
a suit which is pending in another court and brought by the same
plaintiff. Section 1500 is so poorly drafted and has brought so many
hardships, that Justice Stevens, in Keene Corporation v. United States,
113 S.Ct. 2035, 2048 (1993), has called for its repeal or amendment.
Title II of the Omnibus Property Rights Act addresses these problems.
In terms of clarifying the substance of takings claims, it first
clearly defines property interests that are subject to the act's
takings analysis. In this way a floor definition of property is
established by which the Federal Government may not eviscerate. This
title also establishes the elements of a takings claim by codifying and
clarifying the holdings of the Nollan, Lucas, and Dolan cases.
For instance, Dolan's rough proportionality test is interpreted to
apply to all exaction situations whereby an owner's otherwise lawful
right to use property is exacted as a condition for granting a Federal
permit. And a distinction is drawn between a noncompensable mere
diminution of value of property as a result of Federal regulation and a
compensable partial taking, which is defined as any agency action that
diminishes the fair market value of the affected property by 33 percent
or more. The result of drawing these bright lines will not be the end
fact-specific litigation, which is endemic to all law suits, but it
will ameliorate the ever increasing ad hoc and arbitrary nature of
takings claims.
Finally, I once again want to respond to any suggestion that may
arise that this act will impede Government's ability to protect the
environment or promote health and safety through regulation. This
legislation does not, contrary to the assertions of some, emasculate
the Government's ability to prevent individuals or businesses from
polluting. It is well established that the Constitution only protects a
right to reasonable use of property. All property owners are subject to
prior restraints on the use of their property, such as nuisance laws
which prevents owners from using their property in a manner that
interferes with others.
The Government has always been able to prevent harmful or noxious
uses of property without being obligated to compensate the property
owner, as long as the limitations on the use of property inhere in the
title itself. In other words, the restrictions must be based on
background principles of State property and nuisance law already
extant. The Omnibus Property Rights Act codifies this principle in a
nuisance exception to the requirement of the Government to pay
compensation.
Nor does the Omnibus Property Rights Act hinder the Government's
ability to protect public health and safety. The act simply does not
obstruct the Government from acting to prevent imminent harm to the
public safety or health or diminish what would be considered a public
nuisance. Again, this is made clear in the provision of the act that
exempts nuisance from compensation. What the act does is force the
Federal Government to pay compensation to those who are singled out to
pay for regulation that benefits the entire public.
In other words, it does not prevent regulation, but fulfills the
promise of the fifth amendment, which the Supreme Court in Armstrong v.
United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960), opined is
[[Page S5006]]
``to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public
burdens, which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the
public as a whole.''
I hope that all Senators will join me in supporting this long overdue
legislation.
______
By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 782. A bill to amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 to remove the provision that prevents the recovery of an
amount disbursed as a result of an erroneous decision made by a State,
county, or area committee; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
THE USDA'S FINALITY RULE REPEAL ACT OF 1997
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to repeal an
outdated agricultural law that has cost taxpayers millions of dollars
over the last several years.
Historically, as part of its statutory mandate to support farmers'
income, the Department of Agriculture made payments to farmers for the
planting of certain crops and in cases of natural disaster. In the
process of carrying out this mission, USDA sometimes mistakenly
overpaid farmers.
A provision of the 1990 farm bill, known as the finality rule or the
90-day rule, allowed farmers to keep these overpayments if they were
not discovered within 90 days of the payment or application for farm
program benefits. Repayment is required in cases of fraud or
misrepresentation involving the farmer.
Whatever its merits in 1990, changes in farm policy and new evidence
indicate that the finality rule should be repealed. At the time of the
1990 farm bill, to be eligible for farm program payments, it was
necessary for the county or State USDA office to determine that farmers
were actively engaged in farming and that their operations were
structured properly. Farmers often relied on these determinations
before deciding which crops to plant, the size of the plantings, and
how to structure their farming operation for the crop year.
However, the landmark reforms in the 1996 farm bill eliminated these
justifications for the finality rule. Under the 1996 farm bill, farm
payments are no longer linked to the planting decisions of farmers and
the structure of the farming operation is unlikely to change. Today,
payments are made based on a formula which does not vary from one year
to the next.
The finality rule does not only apply to farm program payments. It
applies to most types of payments received by farmers including
disaster relief assistance. But these disaster payments have been
dramatically scaled back in recent years. In 1994, Congress passed the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act which largely eliminated disaster assistance
payments for most major crops. Instead of disaster aid, farmers were
encouraged to buy crop insurance.
A recent report from the General Accounting Office provides further
evidence that the finality rule should be repealed. According to GAO,
from November 1990 through September 1996, USDA applied the finality
rule to 10,694 cases in which the overpayments were not discovered
within the 90-day time-frame. The rule allowed farmers to keep $4.2
million in overpayments. Nearly 90 percent of the overpayments involved
crop disaster initiatives or old-style farm programs which no longer
exist.
GAO also looked closely at finality rule payments in fiscal years
1995 and 1996. Even though the justification for the finality rule was
to prevent farmers from having to repay large amounts of money years
after the money was paid, GAO found that most of the overpayments
involved small sums and were discovered within 9 months or less.
According to GAO, in the years studied, 86 percent of the finality rule
cases involved $500 or less. In addition, 59 percent had overpayments
amounting to 10 percent or less of the correct payment amounts, and
two-thirds were discovered within 9 months of the date of payment or
the filing of a program application. It should be noted that while most
of the overpayments were small, a few large overpayments accounted for
the bulk of the dollar value of the overpayments. An examination of the
GAO data indicate that the finality rule, in its application, has not
served its original stated purpose.
Mr. President, the U.S. Department of Agriculture agrees that the
finality rule should be repealed. In those limited number of cases in
which repayment would work a hardship on the farmer, the very cases
that finality rule was supposed to assist, USDA has indicated that it
would use existing procedures already in place for debt collection in
hardship cases.
In summary, Mr. President, the finality rule was largely designed for
programs which have been dramatically altered, it generally does not
serve the hardship cases for which it was designed, and it can be
replaced by other existing procedures designed for hardship cases. The
Department of Agriculture and the General Accounting Office support its
repeal. It is time to remove this outdated law from the books. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 782
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RECOVERY OF AMOUNTS BASED ON ERRONEOUS DECISIONS
OF STATE, COUNTY, AND AREA COMMITTEES.
Section 281 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7001) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(a) and (b), respectively.
______
By Mr. D'AMATO (by request):
S. 784. A bill to reform the United States Housing Act of 1937,
deregulate the public housing program and the program for rental
housing assistance for low-income families, and increase community
control over such programs, and for other purposes.
THE PUBLIC HOUSING MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT OF 1997
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, I introduce the Public Housing
Management Reform Act of 1997 at the request of the Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Honorable Andrew M.
Cuomo.
______
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
S. 785. A bill to convey certain land to the city of Grants Pass, OR;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
THE GRANTS PASS LAND TRANSFER ACT OF 1997
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am today introducing
legislation to transfer 320 acres of Oregon and California grant lands
currently under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management [BLM]
to the city of Grants Pass, OR. I am pleased to introduce this
legislation because it exemplifies how I believe our government should
work. I believe government works best when the local community has an
opportunity to participate in making decisions important to them.
Since 1968, the city of Grants Pass has leased 200 acres of BLM land
to operate the Merlin Municipal Solid Waste Facility under permit by
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ]. The current lease
ends April 14 in the year 2000 and, pursuant to BLM's national policy,
the lease will not be renewed. The city of Grants Pass has made an
incredible commitment of time, manpower, and financial resources over
several years to address and minimize the environmental concerns of the
Merlin landfill. The long-term management and resolution of these
environmental issues can best be handled by the city of Grants Pass
through ownership of the property.
The 120 acres not part of the Merlin landfill are described by BLM as
``scab lands'' and are not subject to timber harvest. In addition, if
the additional 120 acres are retained they would be landlocked or
without access. For these reasons, the BLM recommends that these 120
acres be included in the land transfer. The 120 acres and any of the
200 acres not used for solid waste management will be retained
exclusively for public use.
The reason for this legislation is simple: Existing Federal law
providing for the transfer of Federal land either does not cover Oregon
and California grant lands, presents administrative procedural
requirements, or does not provide
[[Page S5007]]
the United States with the necessary environmental liability
safeguards.
The Grants Pass land transfer legislation is supported at all levels
of government--local, State, and Federal. This legislation is a
companion bill to that of my good friend and colleague from the House,
Congressman Bob Smith, and is being heard today before the House
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. I encourage my
colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the provisions of the
bill be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 785
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF BLM LAND TO GRANTS PASS, OREGON.
(A) Conveyance Required.--Effective on the date the City of
Grants Pass, Oregon tenders to the Secretary of the Interior
an indemnification agreement and without monetary
compensation, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the real property described in subsection
(b) is conveyed, by operation of law, to the City of Grants
Pass, Oregon (in this section referred to as the ``City'').
(b) Property Described.--
The real property referred to in subsection (a) is that
parcel of land depicted on the map entitled `` '' and
dated , 1997, consisting of--
(1) approximately 200 acres of Bureau of Land Management
land on which the City has operated a landfill under lease;
and
(1) approximately 200 acres of Bureau of Land Management
land that area adjacent to the land described in subparagraph
(1).
(c) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall require the City to
agree to indemnify the Government of the United States for
all liability of the Government that arises from the
property.
______
By Mrs. MURRAY:
S. 788. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain materials
used in the manufacture of skis and snowboards; to the Committee on
Finance.
duty suspension legislation
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation of
importance to the economy and quality of life in my home State of
Washington. The measure I am introducing will help maintain the
competitiveness of an industry that makes vital contributions to our
State and this Nation.
One of my top priorities here in the U.S. Senate is to support
policies that promote economic growth for people in Washington State
and across the country. To me, this means preserving current jobs and
creating new jobs in all sectors of our economy.
The K2 Corp., located on Vashon Island in Washington State, makes an
important contribution toward achieving this goal. As the last
remaining major U.S. manufacturer of skis and just one of three major
snowboard makers in this country, K2 employs more than 700 people at
its Vashon Island facility. The products made by K2 represent a
substantial percentage of the American skis and snowboards sold around
the world. Maintaining the competitiveness of K2 helps ensure the
United States remains a player in the global ski market.
To the extent possible, K2 purchases materials used in the
manufacture of skis and snowboards from companies based in Washington
State and other regions of our country. However, K2 is unable to find a
domestic source that meets its requirements for two key raw materials--
steel edges and polyethylene base material. As a result, K2 must
purchase these two commodities abroad and pay customs duties on the
imported products. This forces K2 to spend more for these materials,
thus diverting resources that could be used to expand business and
develop new technologies.
My legislation seeks to make these resources available to K2
suspending U.S. customs duty on imports of these two raw materials--
steel edges and polyethylene base material. It helps ensure K2 and
America continue to have a role in the international ski industry.
Together, these materials comprise a very small portion of all the
materials used to produce skis. However, without the ability to acquire
them at a reasonable cost, K2's ability to compete on an international
scale would be adversely affected.
K2 strives to continue as a key player in the increasingly
competitive international ski and snowboard market. This duty
suspension legislation will help enable K2 to compete and to continue
supporting our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation, which strengthens the U.S. ski and snowboard industry and
supports American jobs.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Wyden,
Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kohl and Mr. Chafee):
S. 789. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide Medicare beneficiaries with additional information regarding
Medicare managed care plans and Medicare select policies; to the
Committee on Finance.
MEDICARE BENEFICIARY INFORMATION ACT OF 1997
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator
Breaux, to introduce the Medicare Beneficiary Information Act of 1997.
Medicare is a Federal program paid for with taxpayer dollars.
Therefore, Congress has the duty and obligation to ensure beneficiaries
have access to necessary information to select an appropriate health
plan for their individual health care needs.
This legislation is based upon many of the recommendations made to
members of the Senate Special Committee on Aging at a hearing we held
on April 10, 1997. This bill will improve competition among Medicare
health plans and provide Medicare beneficiaries with the useful
information they need to make an informed choice when selecting a
health plan. Good, reliable information that allows consumers to select
among competing options is essential for any market to work. The health
care market is no exception. Under Medicare, accurate, widely-available
comparative information does not exist. The Medicare Beneficiary
Information Act of 1997 addresses this problem by including the
following provisions:
While beneficiaries now have to call all the health plans in their
area, wait for the marketing materials to come, and then try and
compare all the different brochures with no standard terminology
required, this bill instructs the Secretary to develop comparison
charts for each Medicare HMO market and for Medicare Select plans. The
Secretary has discretion to utilize existing mechanisms in place, such
as regional Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] offices and
Insurance Counseling Assistance [ICA's] programs, to develop and
distribute these charts.
Comparison charts would be distributed by Medicare health plans in
their marketing materials and at the time of enrollment and annually
thereafter. In addition, the charts would be available upon request
through HCFA. The charts would help beneficiaries understand the
difference between the HMO's in their market. The charts would also
contain a description of standard fee-for-service Medicare, so
beneficiaries have a reference point.
The charts will tell beneficiaries about, for example, the health
plans' additional benefits; additional premiums; out-of-pocket
expenses; disenrollment rates, as recommended by the General Accounting
Office at the Aging Committee hearing; appeal rates, reversed and
denied; coverage for out-of-area services.
The bill also requires plans to inform beneficiaries about their
rights and responsibilities using understandable, standard terminology
regarding benefits; appeals and grievance procedures; restrictions on
payments for services not provided by the plan; out-of-area coverage;
coverage of emergency services and urgently needed care; coverage of
out-of-network services; and any other rights the Secretary determines
to be helpful to beneficiaries.
These provisions are also included in the bill I introduced on May 6,
entitled the ``Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act of 1997,'' or S.
701. Senator Breaux and I believe that providing Medicare beneficiaries
with proper information to select the health plan that best meets their
individual health care needs is so important, we decided to introduce
this free-standing bill. Increasing choices within the Medicare program
has strong bipartisan support, but this approach is meaningless if
beneficiaries cannot make an informed choice. Our bill can be enacted
and implemented quickly. HCFA is already collecting this data and plans
to start
[[Page S5008]]
distributing comparative information this summer through the Internet.
However, Internet access is not enough. We need to provide this
information in written form and through Medicare counseling programs as
well. Medicare beneficiaries, as research has shown, prefer reviewing
written materials and having someone with which to talk. Our bill would
enable beneficiaries to obtain a user-friendly chart utilizing existing
Medicare counseling programs, local Medicare offices and through health
plans participating in the Medicare program.
We ask our colleagues on both side of the aisle to join us in
cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a
copy of the bill be submitted for the Record. I also ask unanimous
consent that a news column by Senator Breaux be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the the Record, as follows:
S. 789
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Beneficiary
Information Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. MEDICARE BENEFICIARY INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--Section 1876(c)(3)(E) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm(c)(3)(E)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(E)(i) Each eligible organization shall provide in any
marketing materials distributed to individuals eligible to
enroll under this section and to each enrollee at the time of
enrollment and not less frequently than annually thereafter,
an explanation of the individual's rights and
responsibilities under this section and a copy of the most
recent comparative report (as established by the Secretary
under clause (ii)) for that organization.
``(ii)(I) The Secretary shall develop an understandable
standardized comparative report on the plans offered by
eligible organizations, that will assist beneficiaries under
this title in their decisionmaking regarding medical care and
treatment by allowing the beneficiaries to compare the
organizations that the beneficiaries are eligible to enroll
with. In developing such report the Secretary shall consult
with outside organizations, including groups representing the
elderly, eligible organizations under this section, providers
of services, and physicians and other health care
professionals, in order to assist the Secretary in developing
the report.
``(II) The report described in subclause (I) shall include
a comparison for each plan of--
``(aa) the premium for the plan;
``(bb) the benefits offered by the plan, including any
benefits that are additional to the benefits offered under
parts A and B;
``(cc) the amount of any deductibles, coinsurance, or any
monetary limits on benefits;
``(dd) the number of individuals who disenrolled from the
plan within 3 months of enrollment and during the previous
fiscal year, stated as percentages of the total number of
individuals in the plan;
``(ee) the procedures used by the plan to control
utilization of services and expenditures, including any
financial incentives;
``(ff) the number of applications during the previous
fiscal year requesting that the plan cover certain medical
services that were denied by the plan (and the number of such
denials that were subsequently reversed by the plan), stated
as a percentage of the total number of applications during
such period requesting that the plan cover such services;
``(gg) the number of times during the previous fiscal year
(after an appeal was filed with the Secretary) that the
Secretary upheld or reversed a denial of a request that the
plan cover certain medical services;
``(hh) the restrictions (if any) on payment for services
provided outside the plan's health care provider network;
``(ii) the process by which services may be obtained
through the plan's health care provider network;
``(jj) coverage for out-of-area services;
``(kk) any exclusions in the types of health care providers
participating in the plan's health care provider network; and
``(ll) any additional information that the Secretary
determines would be helpful for beneficiaries to compare the
organizations that the beneficiaries are eligible to enroll
with.
``(III) The comparative report shall also include--
``(aa) a comparison of each plan to the fee-for-service
program under parts A and B; and
``(bb) an explanation of medicare supplemental policies
under section 1882 and how to obtain specific information
regarding such policies.
``(IV) The Secretary shall, not less than annually, update
each comparative report.
``(iii) Each eligible organization shall disclose to the
Secretary, as requested by the Secretary, the information
necessary to complete the comparative report.
``(iv) In this subparagraph--
``(I) the term `health care provider' means anyone licensed
under State law to provide health care services under part A
or B;
``(II) the term `network' means, with respect to an
eligible organization, the health care providers who have
entered into a contract or agreement with the organization
under which such providers are obligated to provide items,
treatment, and services under this section to individuals
enrolled with the organization under this section; and
``(III) the term `out-of-network' means services provided
by health care providers who have not entered into a contract
agreement with the organization under which such providers
are obligated to provide items, treatment, and services under
this section to individuals enrolled with the organization
under this section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to contracts entered into or renewed under
section 1876 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm)
after the expiration of the 1-year period that begins on the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO MEDICARE
SELECT POLICIES.
(a) In General.--Section 1882(t) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395ss(t)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) notwithstanding any other provision of this section
to the contrary, the issuer of the policy meets the
requirements of section 1876(c)(3)(E)(i) with respect to
individuals enrolled under the policy, in the same manner
such requirements apply with respect to an eligible
organization under such section with respect to individuals
enrolled with the organization under such section; and
``(H) the issuer of the policy discloses to the Secretary,
as requested by the Secretary, the information necessary to
complete the report described in paragraph (4).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The Secretary shall develop an understandable
standardized comparative report on the policies offered by
entities pursuant to this subsection. Such report shall
contain information similar to the information contained in
the report developed by the Secretary pursuant to section
1876(a)(3)(E)(ii).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to policies issued or renewed on or after the
expiration of the 1-year period that begins on the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish and
operate, out of funds otherwise appropriated to the
Secretary, a clearinghouse and (if the Secretary determines
it to be appropriate) a 24-hour toll-free telephone hotline,
to provide for the dissemination of the comparative reports
created pursuant to section 1876(c)(3)(E)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm(c)(3)(E)(ii)) (as amended by
section 2 of this Act) and section 1882(t)(4) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(t)(4)) (as added by section 3
of this Act). In order to assist in the dissemination of the
comparative reports, the Secretary may also utilize medicare
offices open to the general public, the beneficiary
assistance program established under section 4359 of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-
3), and the health insurance information counseling and
assistance grants under section 4359 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
1395b-4).
____
Giving Older Consumers Better Info on Health Care Benefits
(John Breaux, U.S. Senator for Louisiana)
The federal government needs to provide older Americans
with better information about all their health care options.
That was the conclusion of a senate hearing I recently
cochaired as the new ranking Democrat on the Senate Special
Aging Committee. We called in a number of health care experts
to talk about the quality of information provided to millions
of Medicare beneficiaries, including nearly 600,000 in
Louisiana.
Many who testified said that right now Medicare
beneficiaries are not being given all the information they
need to adequately compare the costs and benefits of their
health care coverage.
We learned that many beneficiaries simply do not know how
managed care is different from standard fee-for-service
Medicare. And they are not getting simple explanations of the
differences among the Medicare Health Maintenance
Organizations (HMO's) in their local areas. Because it is
generally agreed that HMO's best serve their enrollees when
they compete on factors other than just price, providing
Medicare beneficiaries with more and better information is
essential.
Consumers ideally need simple, readable comparison charts
so they are able to readily understand the differences
between plans. Currently, the Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA), which administers Medicare, does not
provide beneficiaries with any comparative data. This means
older people who want to learn about managed care options
must call a toll-free number to see what HMO's are in their
area and then call each company one-by-one and request their
health care information. The problem is that each local plan
with a Medicare contract presents information using different
formats and language, so it's difficult or even impossible to
make cost and benefit comparisons.
[[Page S5009]]
And while the vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries--87
percent nationally--remain enrolled in traditional fee-for-
service Medicare, this is changing rapidly. The number of
beneficiaries nationwide who enroll in HMO's is growing by
about 30 percent a year. In Louisiana, the growth rate is
more than 50 percent. The number of health plans with
Medicare contracts is also increasing rapidly. In 1993, there
were 110 such plans. Last year, the number more than doubled
to 241.
In a recent report to the Congress, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) was critical of the type of information older
Americans get on their health care options. The Prospective
Payment Assessment Commission also said in a recent report
that ``cost and benefit definitions should be standardized so
that beneficiaries can better compare plans.''
And the Institute of Medicine last year reported that
``current information available to Medicare beneficiaries
lags far behind the kinds of assistance provided by
progressive private employers to their employees.''
One way to begin addressing these disturbing structural
problems is to provide more and better information so that
beneficiaries can make informed choices. It is really a
fairly simple concept, but one that government often loses
sight of--people make wiser and less costly decisions for
themselves and their families if they have the right kind of
information.
In fact, in its October 1996 report, GAO recommended that
the federal government require plans to use standard formats
and terminology; produce benefit and cost comparison charts
with all Medicare options available for all areas; and
analyze, compare and widely distribute certain statistics
about HMO's, including their disenrollment rates and rate of
complaints.
Clearly, we must find a better way to inform Medicare
consumers about their choices because good information is the
key to making the right health care choices for ourselves and
our loved ones.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 790. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
Indian tribes to receive charitable contributions of inventory; to the
Committee on Finance.
Charitable Contributions of Inventory to Indian Tribes legislation
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to
expand the current inventory charitable donation rule to include Indian
tribes. This proposal is short and simple.
Under current law, companies may obtain a special charitable donation
tax deduction under Internal Revenue Code section 170(e)(3) for
contributing their excess inventory to the ill, the needy, or infants.
While not limited to any particular type of company or inventory, this
deduction commonly is used by food processing companies whose excess
food inventories otherwise would spoil. Indian tribes have had
difficulty obtaining these donations, however, because of an ambiguity
in the law as to whether or not donating companies may deduct donations
to organizations on Indian reservations.
The current language in section 170(e)(3) requires charitable
donations of excess inventory to be made to organizations that are
described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code and exempt from taxation
under section 501(a). While Indian tribes are exempt from taxation,
they are not among the organizations described in section 501(c)(3).
Accordingly, it is not clear that a direct donation of excess inventory
to an Indian tribe would qualify for the charitable donation deduction
under section 170(e)(3).
Ironically, the Indian Tribal Government Tax Status Act found in
section 7871 provides that an Indian tribal government shall be treated
as a State for purposes of determining tax deductibility of charitable
contributions made pursuant to section 170. Unfortunately, the act does
not expressly extend to donations made under section 170(e)(3) because
that provision technically does not include States as eligible donees.
Mr. President, it is well documented that Native Americans, like
other citizens, may meet the qualifications for this special charitable
donation. No one would argue that it is not within the intent of
section 170(e)(3) to allow contributions to Native American
organizations to qualify for the special charitable donation deduction
in that section of the code. The bill I am introducing today simply
would allow those contributions to qualify for the deduction. By
allowing companies to make qualified contributions to Indian tribes
under section 170(e)(3), the bill would clearly further the intended
purpose of both Internal Revenue Code section 170(e)(3) and the Indian
Tribal Government Tax Status Act.
The appropriateness of the measure is exhibited by the fact that it
was included in the Revenue Act of 1992 (H.R. 11), which was vetoed for
unrelated reasons. At that time, the measure was supported on policy
grounds by the staffs of the joint committee on Taxation and Finance
Committee. In 1995, the joint committee estimated that the proposal
would have a negligible effect on Federal receipts over the 6-year
period it estimated.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill and ask
unanimous consent that its text be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF INVENTORY TO INDIAN
TRIBES.
(a) In General.--Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to a special rule for certain
contributions of inventory or other property) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Special rule for Indian tribes.--
``(i) In general.--An Indian tribe (as defined in section
7871(c)(3)(E)(ii)) shall be treated as an organization
eligible to be a donee under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Use of property.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(i), if the use of the property donated is related to the
exercise of an essential governmental function of the Indian
tribal government, such use shall be treated as related to
the purpose or function constituting the basis for the
organization's exemption.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1996.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Johnson and Mr. Conrad):
S. 791. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with
respect to the treatment of certain amounts received by a cooperative
telephone company; to the Committee on Finance.
Tax Treatment of Telephone Cooperatives Act of 1997
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
reaffirms the intent of the U.S. Congress, originally expressed in
1916, to grant tax exempt status to telephone cooperatives. This
exemption is now set forth in section 501(c)(12) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
I am joined by my distinguished colleagues, Senators Dorgan,
Grassley, Johnson, and Conrad.
This legislation is identical to a bill I introduced in the 103d and
104th Congresses and to a measure that was included in the Revenue Act
of 1992, which ultimately was vetoed.
Congress has always understood that a tax exemption is necessary to
ensure that reliable, universal telephone service is available in rural
America at a cost that is affordable to the rural consumer. Telephone
cooperatives are nonprofit entities that provide this service where it
might otherwise not exist due to the high cost of reaching remote,
sparsely populated areas.
The facilities of a telephone cooperative are used to provide both
local and long distance communications services. Perhaps the most
important of these for rural users is long distance. Without these
services, both local and long distance, people in rural areas could not
communicate with their own neighbors, much less with the world. While
telephone cooperatives comprise only a small fraction of the U.S.
telephone industry--about 1 percent--their services are vitally
important to those who must rely upon them.
Under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(12), a telephone
cooperative qualifies for tax exemption only if at least 85 percent of
its gross income consists of amounts collected from members for the
sole purpose of meeting losses and expenses. Thus, the bulk of the
revenues must be related to providing services needed by members of the
cooperative, that is, rural consumers. No more than 15 percent of the
cooperative's gross income may come from nonmember sources, such as
property rentals or interest earned on funds on deposit in a bank. For
purposes of the 85 percent test, certain categories of income are
deemed neither member nor nonmember income and are excluded from the
calculation. The reason for the 85 percent test is to ensure that
cooperatives do not abuse their tax exempt status.
[[Page S5010]]
A technical advice memorandum [TAM] released by the Internal Revenue
Service a few years ago threatens to change the way telephone
cooperatives characterize certain expenses for purposes of the 85
percent test. If the rationale set forth in the TAM is applied to all
telephone cooperatives, the majority could lose their tax exempt
status.
Specifically, the IRS now appears to take the position that all fees
received by telephone cooperatives from long distance companies for use
of the local lines must be excluded from the 85 percent test and that
fees received for billing and collection services performed by
cooperatives on behalf of long distance companies constitute nonmember
income to the cooperative.
The legislation I am introducing today would clarify that access
revenues paid by long distance companies to telephone cooperatives are
to be counted as member revenues, so long as they are related to long
distance calls paid for by members of the cooperative. In addition, the
legislation would indicate that billing and collection fees are to be
excluded entirely from the 85 percent test calculation.
Mr. President, it is no secret that mere distance is the single most
important obstacle to rural development. In the telecommunications
industry today, we have the ability to bridge distances more
effectively than ever before. Technology in this area has advanced at
an incredible pace; however, maintaining and upgrading the rural
telecommunications infrastructure is an exceedingly expensive
proposition. We must do all we can to encourage this development, and
ensuring that telephone cooperatives retain their legitimate tax exempt
status is a vital step toward this goal. I believe that providing
access to customers for long distance calls as well as billing and
collecting for those calls on behalf of the cooperative's members and
long distance companies are indisputably part of the exempt function of
providing telephone service, especially to rural communities. The
nature and function of telephone cooperatives have not materially
changed since 1916, and neither should the formula upon which they rely
to obtain tax exempt status.
In the 104th Congress, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the
cost of this legislation to be $61 million over a 6-year period. At the
appropriate time, I will recommend appropriate offsets to cover the
cost of this measure over the 10-year period required under the Budget
Act.
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. 791
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY A
COOPERATIVE TELEPHONE COMPANY.
(a) Nonmember Income.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (12) of section 501(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt
organizations) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(E) In the case of a mutual or cooperative telephone
company (hereafter in this subparagraph referred to as the
`cooperative'), 50 percent of the income received or accrued
directly or indirectly from a nonmember telephone company for
the performance of communication services by the cooperative
shall be treated for purposes of subparagraph (A) as
collected from members of the cooperative for the sole
purpose of meeting the losses and expenses of the
cooperative.''
(2) Certain billing and collection service fees not taken
into account.--Subparagraph (B) of section 501(c)(12) of such
Code is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause
(iii), by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and
inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``(v) from billing and collection services performed for a
nonmember telephone company.''
(3) Conforming amendment.--Clause (i) of section
501(c)(12)(B) of such Code is amended by inserting before the
comma at the end thereof ``, other than income described in
subparagraph (E)''.
(4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to amounts received or accrued after December 31,
1996.
(5) No inference as to unrelated business income treatment
of billing and collection service fees.--Nothing in the
amendments made by this subsection shall be construed to
indicate the proper treatment of billing and collection
service fees under part III of subchapter F of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to taxation of
business income of certain exempt organizations).
(b) Treatment of Certain Investment Income of Mutual or
Cooperative Telephone Companies.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (12) of section 501(c) of such
Code (relating to list of exempt organizations) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) In the case of a mutual or cooperative telephone
company, subparagraph (A) shall be applied without taking
into account reserve income (as defined in section 512(d)(2))
if such income, when added to other income not collected from
members for the sole purpose of meeting losses and expenses,
does not exceed 35 percent of the company's total income. For
the purposes of the preceding sentence, income referred to in
subparagraph (B) shall not be taken into account.''
(2) Portion of investment income subject to unrelated
business income tax.--Section 512 of such Code is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Investment Income of Certain Mutual or Cooperative
Telephone Companies.--
``(1) In general.--In determining the unrelated business
taxable income of a mutual or cooperative telephone company
described in section 501(c)(12)--
``(A) there shall be included, as an item of gross income
derived from an unrelated trade or business, reserve income
to the extent such reserve income, when added to other income
not collected from members for the sole purpose of meeting
losses and expenses, exceeds 15 percent of the company's
total income, and
``(B) there shall be allowed all deductions directly
connected with the portion of the reserve income which is so
included.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, income referred to
in section 501(c)(12)(B) shall not be taken into account.
``(2) Reserve income.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `reserve income' means income--
``(A) which would (but for this subsection) be excluded
under subsection (b), and
``(B) which is derived from assets set aside for the repair
or replacement of telephone system facilities of such
company.''
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to amounts received or accrued after December 31,
1996.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Conrad and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 792. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
that certain cash rentals of farmland will not cause recapture of
special estate tax valuation; to the Committee on Finance.
the Special Use Valuation for Family Farms Act of 1997
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since 1988, I have studied the effects on
family farmers of a provision in estate tax law known as section 2032A.
While section 2032A may seem a minor provision to some, it is
critically important to family run farms. A problem with respect to the
Internal Revenue Service's interpretation of this provision has been
festering for a number of years and threatens to force the sale of many
family farms.
Section 2032A, which bases the estate tax applicable to a family farm
on its use as a farm, rather than on its market value, reflects the
intent of Congress to help families keep their farms. A family that has
worked hard to maintain a farm should not have to sell it to a third
party solely to pay stiff estate taxes resulting from increases in the
value of the land. Under section 2032A, inheriting family members are
required to continue farming the property for at least 15 years in
order to avoid having the IRS recapture the tax savings.
At the time section 2032A was enacted, it was common practice for one
or more family members to cash lease the farm from the other members of
the family. This practice made sense in a situation in which some
family members were more involved than others in the day-to-day farming
of the land. Typically, the other family members would continue to be
at risk with respect to the value of the farm and participate in
decisions affecting the farm's operation. Cash leasing among family
members remained a common practice after the enactment of section
2032A. An inheriting child would continue to cash lease from his or her
siblings, with no reason to suspect from the statute or otherwise that
the cash leasing arrangement might jeopardize the farm's qualification
for special use valuation.
Based at least in part on some language that I am told was included
in a Joint Committee on Taxation publication in early 1982, the
Internal Revenue
[[Page S5011]]
Service has taken the position that cash leasing among family members
will disqualify the farm for special use valuation. The matter has
since been the subject of numerous audits and some litigation, though
potentially hundreds of family farmers may yet be unaware of the change
of events. Cases continue to arise under this provision.
In 1988, Congress provided partial clarification of this issue for
surviving spouses who cash lease to their children. Due to revenue
concerns, however, no clarification was made of the situation where
surviving children cash lease among themselves.
My concern is that many families in which inheriting children or
other family members have cash leased to each other may not even be
aware of the IRS's position on this issue. At some time in the future,
they are going to be audited and find themselves liable for enormous
amounts in taxes, interest and penalties. For those who cash leased in
the late 1970's, this could be devastating because the taxes they owe
are based on the inflated land values that existed at that time.
A case that arose in my State of South Dakota illustrates the
unfairness and devastating impact of the IRS interpretation of section
2032A. Janet Kretschmar, who lives with her husband, Craig, in
Cresbard, SD, inherited her mother's farm along with her two sisters in
1980. Because the property would continue to be farmed by the family
members, estate taxes were paid on it pursuant to section 2032A, saving
over $50,000 in estate tax.
Janet and Craig continued to farm the land and have primary
responsibility for its day-to-day operation. They set up a simple and
straightforward arrangement with the other two sisters whereby Janet
and Craig would lease the sisters' interests from them.
Seven years later, the IRS told the Kretschmars that the cash lease
arrangement had disqualified the property for special use valuation and
that they owed $54,000 to the IRS. According to the IRS, this amount
represented estate tax that was being recaptured as a result of the
disqualification. This came as an enormous surprise to the Kretschmars,
as they had never been notified of the change in interpretation of the
law and had no reason to believe that their arrangement would no longer
be held valid by the IRS for purposes of qualifying for special use
valuation. The fact is that, if they had known this, they would have
organized their affairs in one of several other acceptable, though more
complicated, ways.
For many years, I have sought inclusion in tax legislation of a
provision that would clarify that cash leasing among family members
will not disqualify the property for special use valuation. In 1992,
such a provision was successfully included in H.R. 11, the Revenue Act
of 1992 and passed by Congress. Unfortunately, H.R. 11 was subsequently
vetoed. In 1995, I introduced this provision as freestanding
legislation; however, it did not reach the full Senate for a vote.
Today, I am reintroducing a bill that is identical to the section
2032A measure which was passed in the Revenue Act of 1992. I am joined
in this effort by Senators Dorgan, Conrad and Mr. Johnson whose
expertise on tax and rural issues are well known.
I must emphasize that there may be many other cases in other
agricultural States where families are cash leasing the family farm
among each other, unaware that the IRS could come knocking at their
door at any minute. I urge my colleagues in the Senate who may have
such cases in their State to work with us and support this important
clarification of the law.
I intend to request that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate the
revenue impact of this proposal. At an appropriate time thereafter, I
will recommend any necessary offsets over a 10-year period as required
by the Budget Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 792
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CERTAIN CASH RENTALS OF FARMLAND NOT TO CAUSE
RECAPTURE OF SPECIAL ESTATE TAX VALUATION.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 2032A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax treatment of
dispositions and failures to use for qualified use) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Certain cash rental not to cause recapture.--For
purposes of this subsection, a qualified heir shall not be
treated as failing to use property in a qualified use solely
because such heir rents such property on a net cash basis to
a member of the decedent's family, but only if, during the
period of the lease, such member of the decedent's family
uses such property in a qualified use.''
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2032A (b)(5)(A) is
amended by striking the last sentence.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to rentals occurring after December
31, 1976.
______
By Mr. DODD:
S. 793. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to require that
the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment carry out treatment programs
for adolescents; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
THE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN OF SUBSTANCE ABUSERS ACT
S. 794. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and
extend the grant program for services for children of substance
abusers; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR ADOLESCENTS ACT
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills which
seek to address one of the most critical problems tearing at the fabric
of American society: substance abuse. When we consider health care
costs, lost time on the job, increased crime, and other related
factors, it is estimated that drug and alcohol abuse cost this Nation
more than $300 billion in 1993. While some efforts to address this
problem have been successful, there is still a great deal of work to be
done. The two bills that I am introducing, the Services for Children of
Substance Abusers Act and the Substance Abuse Treatment for Adolescents
Act, seek to provide additional tools for families to fight the battle
of addiction and its debilitating social consequences.
Addiction threatens the American family in several ways. The long
term emotional health of an individual is shaped during childhood, and
the children of substance abusers face numerous obstacles during their
development. The children of substance abusers are typically deprived
of the parent's attention and concern, and often the financial support
to provide food, clothing, and shelter. In the most dramatic cases,
children are exposed to substances prenatally and are deprived of a
healthy future before they are even born.
An estimated 7 million children are growing up with at least one
substance abusing parent, and more than 200,000 women who gave birth in
the United States in 1992 used illegal drugs at some time during their
pregnancy. In addition, alcohol consumption by pregnant women has
recently surged, despite public campaigns about the effects of alcohol
on the developing fetus. Clearly these parents will need help if they
hope to overcome their addictions and raise healthy children.
Unfortunately, these parents often face several obstacles on the road
to recovery.
The basic problem with our current drug and alcohol treatment
programs is that they fail to address the wide range of problems that
addicted parents face. Many were physically or sexually abused as
children. Many are victims of domestic violence. Many lack any formal
job skills. Many will need child care assistance if they hope to enroll
in a treatment program. Many fear that they will lose their children if
they come forward for treatment. In short, these parents face several
problems which extend far beyond their addictions.
The Children of Substance Abusers Act is currently authorized in the
Public Health Services Act, but it has never been funded. Today, I
introduce a revised version of this legislation that seeks to give
families affected by substance abuse somewhere to turn. The heart of
the bill is the grant program which will provide $50 million for a
comprehensive range of health, developmental, and social services to
children, parents, and other family members. These services will
enhance the
[[Page S5012]]
ability of parents to access drug and alcohol treatment and promote
family preservation, where appropriate.
The bill ensures that all children whose parents are substance
abusers can enter the program and receive a range of services. The
legislation addresses another critical need by providing grants to
train professionals, child welfare workers, and other providers serving
children to identify and address the effects of familial substance
abuse.
For years we have talked about the impact of substance abuse on
families. We have all visited the neonatal intensive care units, and we
have all seen reports on children who were abused and neglected because
their parents were on drugs. The time has come for Congress to respond
to what is going on in this country and take an aggressive step toward
alleviating these problems.
The Children of Substance Abusers Act is critical to our efforts to
reach out to those families that are struggling with substance abuse,
and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I introduce today
and fund this critical program.
On another front, the increased prevalence of substance abuse among
young Americans poses an additional public health crisis. Last year,
the percentage of teens using drugs within the past month rose from 8.2
to 10.9 percent, and the rate of drug use among 12 to 17 year-olds has
doubled since 1992. I am particularly disappointed to learn that
Connecticut's students report higher rates of drug use than their peers
nationwide.
Annually, more than 400,000 Americans under the age of 18 are in need
of treatment, and in Connecticut approximately 6,700 students need
substance abuse treatment. However, young people have few places to
turn. Most treatment programs are designed for adults, and there are
limited resources available for the treatment of adolescents with drug
and alcohol problems.
Federal and state initiatives have focused on preventing children
from becoming substance abusers. While prevention efforts are effective
and necessary, they do not provide for those adolescents with substance
abuse problems. In addition, most substance abusing adolescents have
co-occurring disorders, such as depression, learning disabilities,
post-traumatic stress disorders, and other health problems which make
treatment even more challenging.
The Substance Abuse Treatment for Adolescents Act seeks to create a
funding stream for adolescent treatment. This would be the first time
that any money has ever been earmarked specifically for adolescent
treatment, setting aside an estimated $70 million annually to address
this problem. This bill would also eliminate the need within the public
system for adolescent providers to compete with other groups for scarce
treatment dollars, thereby allowing them to focus upon the real
problem: successfully treating adolescent substance abusers.
Mr. President, this legislation marks a significant step on the road
toward improved treatment for adolescent substance abuse. It tells
families that we care about their children's health and well-being, and
it sends a signal to those individuals who struggle to help our kids
overcome addiction that their hard work is not for naught, but will
soon be rewarded.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 793
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Substance Abuse Treatment
for Adolescents Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
Section 507 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290bb) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Provision of Services.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary, acting through the Center
for Substance Abuse Treatment, shall ensure that not less
than 20 percent of the amounts appropriated under this
subpart for the programs and activities of the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment for each fiscal year, but in no
case less than $20,000,000, is used to carry out adolescent
specific substance abuse treatment programs. Such programs
shall include the provision of services to such adolescents
as well as the conduct of evaluations and research concerning
the effects of such services.''.
____
S. 794
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Services for Children of
Substance Abusers Reauthorization Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
(a) Administration and Activities.--
(1) Administration.--Section 399D(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Administrator'' and all
that follows through ``Administration'' and insert ``Director
of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Administrator of the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration''
and inserting ``Administrator of the Health Resources and
Services Administration''.
(2) Activities.--Section 399D(a)(1) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and
inserting the following: ``through family social services;
child protective services; child care providers (including
Head Start, schools, and early childhood development
programs); community-based family resource and support
centers; the criminal justice system; health and mental
health providers through screenings conducted during regular
childhood examinations and other examinations; self and
family member referrals; treatment services; and other
service providers and agencies serving children and families;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) to provide education and training to health care
professionals, child welfare providers, and the personnel or
such providers who provide services to children and
families.''.
(3) Identification of certain children.--Section
399D(a)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
280d(a)(3)(A)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``(i) the entity'' and
inserting ``(i)(I) the entity'';
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) by striking ``(ii) the entity'' and inserting ``(II)
the entity''; and
(ii) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) the entity will identify children who may be
eligible for medical assistance under a State program under
title XIX of the Social Security Act.''.
(b) Services for Children.--Section 399D(b) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``alcohol and drug,''
after ``psychological,''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) Drug and alcohol treatment and prevention
services.''.
(c) Services for Affected Families.--Section 399D(c) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
before the semicolon the following: ``, or through an entity
the meets applicable State licensure or certification
requirements regarding the services involved''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Aggressive outreach to family members with substance
abuse problems.
``(E) Inclusion of consumer in the development,
implementation, and monitoring of Family Services Plan.'';
and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) Alcohol and drug treatment services, including
screening and assessment, diagnosis, detoxification,
individual, group and family counseling, relapse prevention,
and case management.'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) Pre- and post-pregnancy family planning services and
counseling on the human immunodeficiency virus and acquired
immune deficiency syndrome.'';
(C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``conflict and''; and
(D) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``Remedial'' and
inserting ``Career planning and''.
(d) Eligible Entities.--Section 399D(d) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking the matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting:
``(d) Eligible entities.--The Secretary shall distribute
the grants through the following types of entities:'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or prevention'' after
``drug treatment''; and
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting ``; or''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or pediatric health
or mental health providers and family mental health
providers'' before the period.
[[Page S5013]]
(e) Submission of Information.--Section 399D(h) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(h)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``including maternal and child health''
before ``mental'';
(B) by striking ``treatment programs''; and
(C) by striking ``and the State agency responsible for
administering public maternal and child health services'' and
inserting ``, the State agency responsible for administering
alcohol and drug programs, the State lead agency, and the
State Interagency Coordinating Council under part H of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``when the child can be cared for at home
without endangering the child's safety''.
(f) Reports.--Section 399D(i)(6) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(k)(6)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E), by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) the number of children described in subparagraph (C)
for whom the permanent plan is other than family
reunification;''.
(g) Evaluations.--Section 399D(l) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(l)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by inserting before the semicolon the
following: ``, including increased participation in work or
employment-related activities and decreased participation in
welfare programs'';
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``children whose'' and
inserting ``children who can be cared for at home without
endangering their safety and whose''; and
(3) in paragraph (6), by inserting before the semicolon the
following: ``if the reunification would not endanger the
child''.
(h) Report to Congress.--Section 399D(m) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(m)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the semicolon at the end
and inserting a period; and
(3) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5).
(i) Data Collection.--Section 399D(n) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(n)) is amended by adding at the
end the following: ``The periodic report shall include a
quantitative estimate of the prevalence of alcohol and drug
problems in families involved in the child welfare system,
the barriers to treatment and prevention services facing
these families, and policy recommendations for removing the
identified barriers, including training for child welfare
workers.''.
(j) Definition.--Section 399D(o)(2)(B) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(o)(2)(B)) is amended by striking
``dangerous''.
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 399D(p) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d(p)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(p) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums
as may be necessary for fiscal year 1999.''.
(l) Grants for Training and Conforming Amendments.--Section
399D of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280d) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (f);
(2) by striking subsection (k);
(3) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), (g), (h), (i),
(j), (l), (m), (n), (o), and (p) as subsections (e) through
(o), respectively;
(4) by inserting after subsection (c), the following:
``(d) Training for Health Care Professionals, Child Welfare
Providers, and Other Personnel.--The Secretary may make a
grant under subsection (a) for the training of health care
professionals, child welfare providers, and other personnel
who provide services to vulnerable children and families.
Such training shall be to assist professionals in recognizing
the drug and alcohol problems of their clients and to enhance
their skills in identifying and obtaining substance abuse
prevention and treatment resources.'';
(5) in subsection (k)(2) (as so redesignated), by striking
``(h)'' and inserting ``(i)''; and
(6) in paragraphs (3)(E) and (5) of subsection (m) (as so
redesignated), by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(e)''.
______
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 796. A bill to reduce gun trafficking, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________