[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11971-S11989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 2579. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood products; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
legislation amending the fair labor standards act
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce legislation designed to permit certain youths (those exempt
from attending school) between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in
sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision.
While I realize that this legislation cannot be enacted so late in the
session, I believe it is important to introduce the bill and promote a
serious discussion on this issue.
As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased
funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections
contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however,
that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from
compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is
extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be
provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer
employment where they live.
The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish
community. Earlier this week I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my
Amish constituency. They explained that while the Amish once made their
living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand
into other occupations as farmland disappears in many areas due to
pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to
rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish
culture expects youth upon the completion of their education at the age
of 14 to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become
productive members of society. In many areas work in sawmills is one of
the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system
limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are
currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they
reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and
lifestyle of the Amish.
The House has already passed by a voice vote H.R. 4257, introduced by
my distinguished colleague, Representative Joseph R. Pitts, which is
similar to the bill I am introducing today. I am aware that concerns to
H.R. 4257 exist: safety issues have been raised by the Department of
Labor and Constitutional issues have been raised by the Department of
Justice. I have addressed these concerns in my legislation.
Under my legislation youths would not be allowed to operate power
machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as
sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My legislation requires
that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris
and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult
supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to
insure that they are enforced.
The Department of Justice has stated that H.R. 4257 would ``raise
serious concerns'' under the Establishment Clause. The House measure
confers benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect
or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal
education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of
working in a sawmill only to the adherents of certain religions, the
Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion
to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my legislation, I attempted to overcome
such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all
youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the
eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create
a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are
legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities.
I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in
Wisconsin v. Yoder supports my bill. Yoder held that Wisconsin's
compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school
until the age of 16 violated the Free Exercise clause. The Court found
that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free
exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the
eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of
the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with
respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows
and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases,
trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the
continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills
denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self-
reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish
do not need the final two years of public education.
At this stage in the legislative process, so close to the end of the
105th Congress, passage of my bill requires a unanimous consent
agreement. I have already been notified that there are Senators who
would object to such an agreement, and I do understand that a measure
of this nature cannot be rushed through the Senate. Nevertheless, I
offer my legislation in the hope of beginning a dialogue on this
important issue.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Santorum, Mr.
Hollings, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 2580. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE TRADE FAIRNESS ACT OF 1998
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce legislation responding to the critical steel import crisis
along with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, who
serves with me as co-chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, Senator
Hollings, and Senator Santorum. Our bill is entitled the ``Trade
Fairness Act of 1998'' because it would amend the Trade Act of 1974 to
remove statutory provisions which put our domestic industry at a
significant disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors.
Specifically, this bill makes technical corrections to the so-called
``Section 201'' provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 to harmonize our
laws with international laws administered by the World Trade
Organization.
While I know it is very late in the 105th legislative session, we
intend that the introduction of this legislation will demonstrate our
bipartisan commitment to responding to the current steel import crisis.
Further, this should send a strong signal to the administration that it
is high time that we respond.
Yesterday, Senator John D. Rockefeller, Congressman Ralph Regula and
Congressman Jim Oberstar, and I met with representatives of the Clinton
administration, specifically Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Commerce
Secretary William Daley, United States Trade Representative Ambassador
Charlene Barshefsky and National Economic Council Advisor Gene
Sperling, to discuss the steel import issue. At that meeting,
representatives of the Clinton administration assured us that they are
looking into actions that the administration can take to respond to the
illegal dumping of foreign steel on the U.S. market but have yet to
make a final decision on their response.
While I appreciate their efforts to take a closer look at the
problem, I am disturbed by the Administration's failure to take
immediate action up to this time to prevent more cheap steel from
flooding the American market. I am further disturbed by the fact that
senior administration officials could
[[Page S11972]]
not give me a specific date or timetable as to when we could expect a
response from the administration on this crucial and pressing issue.
The urgency of this crisis and the failure of the administration to
take action was evident from testimony presented on September 10, 1998,
where, as Chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, I joined House Chairman
Regula in convening a joint meeting of the Senate and House Steel
Caucuses to hear from executives from the United Steelworkers of
America and a number of the nation's largest steel manufacturers about
the current influx of imported steel into the United States. At that
meeting, I expressed my profound concern regarding the impact on our
steel companies and Steelworkers of the current financial crises in
Asia and Russia, which have generated surges in U.S. imports of Asian
and Russian steel.
The past three months have been the highest monthly import volumes in
U.S. history and, with Asia and Russia in economic crisis and with
other major industrial nations not accepting their fair share of the
adjustment burden, U.S. steel companies and employees are being damaged
by this injurious unfair trade.
The United States has become the dumping ground for foreign steel.
Russia has become the world's number one steel exporting nation and
China is now the world's number one steel-producing nation, while
enormous subsidies to foreign steel producers have continued. In fact,
the Commerce Department recently revealed that Russia, one of the
world's least efficient producers, was selling steel plate in the
United States at more than 50 percent, or $110 per ton, below the
constructed cost to make steel plate. The dumping of this cheap steel
on the American market ultimately costs our steel companies in lost
sales and results in fewer jobs for American workers.
Specifically, in the first half of 1998, total U.S. steel imports
were 18.2 million net tons, which is a 12.4 percent increase over
1997's record level of 16.2 million net tons for the same period. For
the month of June 1998, total U.S. imports of steel mill products
totaled over 3.7 million net tons, which is up 39.2 percent from the
June, 1997 level of 2.6 million net tons. In June 1998, U.S. imports of
finished steel imports were a record 3 million net tons, a 41.6 percent
increase over the June 1997 2.1 million net tons.
Also in the first half of 1998, compared to the same period in 1997,
steel imports from Japan are up 114 percent, steel imports from Korea
are up 90 percent, and imports from Indonesia are up 309 percent. Most
significantly, the U.S. steel industry currently employs 163,000 people
down from 500,000 people in the 1980's. This situation is untenable for
the American steelworkers, steel manufacturers, their customers, and
the American people in general.
I believe that the growing coalition of steel manufacturers,
steelworkers, and Congress must work together to remedy this import
crisis before it is too late and the U.S. steel industry is forced to
endure an excruciatingly painful economic downturn. The United States
has many of the tools at its disposal to protect our steel industry
from unfair and illegally dumped steel; therefore, I submitted Senate
Concurrent Resolution 121 on September 29, 1998, to call on the
President to take all necessary measures to respond to the surge of
steel imports resulting from the Asian and Russian financial crises.
Specifically, the resolution called on the President to: pursue
enhanced enforcement of the U.S. trade laws; pursue all tools available
to ensure that other nations accept a more equitable sharing of these
steel imports; establish a task force to closely monitor U.S. imports
of steel; and, report to Congress by January 5, 1999, on a
comprehensive plan to respond to this surge of steel imports. I am
pleased to state that as of today's date, twenty-nine of my Senate
colleagues have joined me in sponsoring this resolution.
While this resolution is an appropriate way for Congress to express
our concerns and request immediate actions by the administration to
respond to the steel import crisis, I think it is also important to
give the administration all the necessary tools to fight the surges of
foreign steel. After reviewing the U.S. trade laws with Senator
Rockefeller, we discovered that our laws regarding safeguard actions
actually put the United States at a disadvantage in the international
trade arena. Safeguard actions, or section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act,
provide a procedure whereby the President has the discretion to grant
temporary import relief to a domestic industry seriously injured by
increased imports. Our laws in this area are actually more strict than
those agreements made during the Uruguay Round negotiations on the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). That agreement, which
the Senate considered and passed on December 1, 1994, established the
World Trade Organization (WTO) to administer these trade agreements.
One such trade agreement established rules for the application of
safeguard measures. The agreement provides that a member of the WTO may
apply a safeguard measure to a product if the member has determined
that such product is being imported into its territory in such
increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production, and
under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury
to the domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive
products. The comparable U.S. statute, referred to as section 201, goes
further than this agreement by requiring that foreign imports are the
substantial cause of the injury. It just does not make sense to hinder
the administration by placing this additional burden on it in
evaluating a claim of injury due to surges of imports. We need to level
the playing field so that all countries are playing by the same rules.
This oversight is one example of the technical corrections that must be
made to U.S. trade laws to bring them in line with WTO's rules.
Specifically, the bill that Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing
today, the Trade Fairness Act of 1998, makes three technical changes.
First, it removes the requirement that imports must be a
``substantial'' cause of the serious injury by deleting the word
``substantial.'' The WTO's Safeguards Agreement does not require that
increased imports be a ``substantial'' cause of serious injury. This
change will lower the threshold to prove that the influx of imports
were the cause of injury to the affected industry and will make U.S.
law consistent with the WTO rules.
Second, the legislation clarifies that the International Trade
Commission (ITC) shall not attribute to imports injury caused by other
factors in making a determination that imports are a cause of serious
injury. This provision will require the ITC to evaluate causation to
determine which factors are causing injury. If serious injury is being
caused by increased imports, whether or not other factors are also
causing injury, safeguard relief is justified. This provision is a more
faithful implementation of the GATT Agreement and will prevent
circumstances such as a recession from blocking invocation of Section
201 by the administration.
Finally, this legislation brings the definition of ``serious injury''
in line with the definition codified in the GATT Agreement. The bill
strikes the definition of serious injury and replaces it with the WTO's
language regarding evaluation of whether increased imports have caused
serious injury to a domestic industry. Specifically, it states ``with
respect to serious injury'', the ITC should consider ``the rate and
amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute
and relative terms; the share of the domestic market taken by increased
imports; changes in the levels of sales; production; productivity;
capacity utilization; profits and losses; and, employment.'' These
factors are important guidance to the ITC in evaluating a petition of
serious injury. Again, I think it is appropriate to be consistent with
the WTO language as America increasingly interacts on a global scale.
The U.S. steel industry has become a world class industry with a very
high-quality product. This has been achieved at a great cost: $50
billion in new investment to restructure and modernize; 40 million tons
of capacity taken out of the industry; and a work force dramatically
downsized from 500,000 to 170,000. With these technical changes, the
Administration will be armed with ammunition to bring a self-initiated
Section 201 action on behalf
[[Page S11973]]
of the steel industry that has been harmed not only by the onslaught of
cheap imports on a daily basis but by U.S. law that has prevented swift
and immediate action by the U.S. government. This legislation is
essential to allow the President to respond promptly to the current
steel import crisis. It will allow steel companies to compete in a more
fair trade environment, preventing bankruptcies that would cause the
loss of thousands of high-paying jobs in the steel industry. Too many
steelworkers have lost their jobs due to unfair cheap imports.
Mr. President, to summarize, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation on behalf of Senator Rockefeller, Senator Santorum, Senator
Hollings and myself, to try to deal with a very serious surge of steel
imports into the United States, which is threatening to decimate the
steel industry and take thousands of jobs from American steelworkers in
a way which is patently unfair and in violation of free trade
practices.
It is obvious that the matter is a sensitive one where imports are
coming from Russia illustratively. The Russians are having enormous
economic problems, and they are dumping steel in the United States far
below cost to try to remedy their economic situation. Sympathetic as we
may be to the problems of the Russians, when they dump, unload steel in
the United States far under their cost, it violates international trade
laws and it violates the trade laws of the United States.
To reiterate our meeting yesterday was one where those of us in
Congress on the steel caucus asked the administration to take
administrative action. We have requested a meeting with the President
for tomorrow before the session ends to try to persuade him to take
this action. Our requests are not protectionism. They are not
protectionism because they come within the definition of ``free trade''
where our laws are defined consistent with GATT and the World Trade
Organization to prohibit subsidized goods and dumped goods from coming
into this country.
Again, the legislation we are proposing today would remove the
requirement that imports must be a substantial cause of the serious
injury and only require that the damages be caused by the imports, by
striking the word ``substantial,'' which is consistent with GATT, and
with the World Trade Organization. We have a higher standard than we
have to. Our laws ought to be changed to eliminate ``substantial
cause'' to ``cause in fact.''
Secondly, this bill would change the existing law by not seeking an
excuse where there are other factors which may result in the imports.
A third part of the bill changes the definition of ``serious injury''
to include a consideration by the International Trade Commission of
factors such as the rate and amount of increase of imports of the
product, the market share taken by the increased imports, changes in
level of sales, profits, losses, production, productivity, capacity,
utilization, and employment.
Stated succinctly, what we are seeking to do is to amend existing
trade laws to conform to international rules of the World Trade
Organization and GATT so that we may see to it that our own steel
industry is not victimized by foreign imports and is not victimized by
standards under our own trade laws, which are tougher and more
stringent than international trade laws.
We realize that in introducing this legislation today that it cannot
be enacted before the end of the session. But we do want to make a
point with the administration as to where we are heading in the
future--a resolution which was introduced which has some 29 cosponsors
in the U.S. Senate.
The House of Representatives has a similar resolution. There are more
than 100 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is our hope
that the administration will provide some relief which will be fair,
equitable, and just.
In the absence of relief by the administration, then it will be
necessary for the Congress to move ahead in a more forceful manner.
I have introduced legislation over the past decade which calls for a
private right of action, which I believe is the realistic answer, where
an injured party could go into the Federal court and get injunctive
relief which would be immediate.
Under the trade actions which have been filed by the United
Steelworkers and by quite a number of companies, filed on September 30,
it is possible under a complicated timetable to grant relief effective
as of November 20 where duties would be imposed to try to stop this
flooding and this dumping in U.S. markets.
In the interim, the President could act, and in the interim, the
Congress ought to consider ways to amend our trade laws so that we are
not at a disadvantage in dealing with this very serious problem to our
steel industry, which is so important for national defense and domestic
purposes, and so important for the steelworkers themselves where the
number of steelworkers has declined from some 500,000 to 163,000 at the
present time.
It is an urgent matter. The Congress ought to consider it. The
administration ought to act on it. For these reasons, I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting the adoption of legislation to
bring fairness to our trade laws.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
which will help the President deal with the flood of dirt-cheap steel
imports from our trading partners. The Section 201 reform bill I am
proposing with my colleague and Senate steel caucus co-chair, Senator
Specter, will strengthen the President's ability to help domestic
industries receive the relief they need and deserve when imports are a
cause of serious injury.
Import relief is what the U.S. steel industry desperately needs right
now. West Virginia steel makers deserve help now, before this crisis
worsens, as I fear it will. All U.S. steel manufacturers deserve that
assistance. That's why I am introducing this legislation before
Congress recesses. I intend to push to improve our ability to remedy
harm against domestic industries and at the same time remain consistent
with rules we expect our world trading partners to live by. We can be
tough and fair on trade at the same time and the bill I am introducing
today proves it.
In my state of West Virginia, our two largest steel manufacturers,
Weirton Steel and Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel have both already begun to
suffer the effects of the steel import crisis. Weirton has laid off 200
workers and reports that their fourth quarter earnings and lack of
pending orders could force the companies to consider additional lay
offs in the near future. Wheeling Pittsburgh is also worried about the
affect of the crisis on their bottomline. Laying off workers is never
easy, but this crisis is forcing such hard decisions. West Virginia
steel makers are producing world-class products as efficiently as any
foreign competitors, but when foreign competitors are blatantly dumping
their product at prices which are sometimes actually below the cost of
production, it cuts the legs out from under American companies--but
such unfair practices are absolutely unacceptable. U.S. industry, the
U.S. steel industry and other industries, deserve just remedies when
competitors unfairly dump their product on the U.S. market. We want to
give the President the policy tools he needs to deal with unfair import
competition.
Import data tells the story of a worsening steel crisis--the first
two quarters of 1998 have shown a 27% increase in imports of hot-rolled
steel. Japanese imports increased by an astounding 114% in that same
time frame. Steel imports from South Korea increased 90%. There is no
end in sight. Russia and Brazil are nations who are other prime
offenders.
The tragedy of this crisis is that the U.S. steel industry has spent
over a decade reinventing itself, adjusting and modernizing, in order
to become a top-notch competitor as we approach the 21st century. This
industry is a true success story--productivity has shot up and we can
beat any producer in the world on price and quality when provided with
a level playing field. For decades, I have worked with leaders in the
steel industry at Weirton Steel, Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Wheeling-Nisshin,
and others. I have watched and encouraged these steelmakers and unions
working together to make the tough, necessary decision to modernize.
Unfortunately, just as United States steel manufacturers are
realizing the gains of such investments, they are
[[Page S11974]]
facing a flood of imported steel being sold at rock bottom prices--
again, below the cost of production in some instances. We cannot
compete against that kind of unfair competition. The legislation
Senator Specter and I are introducing today will give the President an
improved tool to ensure that when there is serious injury as a result
of imports, the U.S. can respond.
Specifically, our legislation will reform Section 201 which permits
the President to grant domestic industries import relief in
circumstances where imports are the substantial cause of serious
injury.
Under current law, domestic industries must show that increased
imports are the ``substantial cause'' of serious injury--which means a
cause that is important and not less than any other cause. This imposes
an unfair, higher burden of proof on domestic industries than is
required to prove injury under World Trade Organization standards. The
Safeguards Code of the World Trade Organization was established to make
sure that fair trade did not mean countries had to put up with unfair
practices. The WTO standard requires only that there be a causal link
between increased imports and serious injury. I believe that U.S. law
should not impose a tougher standard for American companies of harm
than the WTO uses for the international community. Applying the WTO
standard is responsible and reasonable. In this bill, we propose to
establish the same standard for the U.S. as is used by the WTO. Free
trade must mean fair trade.
In addition, in this bill we also intend to conform U.S. law to the
standard in the WTO Safeguards Code when considering the overall test
for judging when there has been serious harm to a domestic industry. We
clarify that the International Trade Commission (ITC) should review the
overall condition of the domestic industry in determining the degree of
that injury by making it clear that it is the effect of the imports on
the overall state of the industry that counts, not solely the effect on
any one of the particular criteria used in the evaluation.
It is our sincere hope that Congress will act on this legislation and
send the message that the United States will fight for the right of its
industries to complete on a level playing field in world trade. If
imports flood our markets, we will act to protect American industries
against the consequences.
I am someone who adamantly believes the promotion of free trade is
essential to our country's continued economic growth. If we are to
continue to expand the trade base of our economy we need U.S. industry
to know that we will keep it fair. American industry and American
workers can deal with fair trade, but they shouldn't be asked to sit
still for unfair trade practices that hurt workers and their families,
while robbing the profit-margins of U.S. companies.
I intend to work in Congress, with my colleagues on the Finance
Committee and those in the Administration responsible for trade policy
to give the President better, more effective tools to ensure that our
country can insist trade be free and fair. Our steel industry, indeed
all U.S. industries, deserve no less. I will carefully monitor the
steel import crisis and consider other appropriate actions as we see
how this situation develops.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 2581. A bill to authorize appropriations for the motor vehicle
safety and information programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration for fiscal years 1999-2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Authorization Act
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my purpose today is to introduce
legislation that would increase the authorization level of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The recently passed TEA-21
legislation authorized NHTSA at its requested level, approximately
$87.4 million. The Office of Management and Budget recently asked that
NHTSA receive $99.9 million in the budget request.
Although the Department of Transportation had requested $87.4
million, we are now informed by Secretary Slater that this
authorization level will not permit the funding of ``key safety
initiatives.''
I know that no one in this body wants a situation where highway
safety is degraded in any way. I also know that there is no opportunity
that this legislation can be passed yet this Congress. This is an issue
that we will address in the next Congress. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to address this important issue of highway safety in
a manner that provides an appropriate funding level to meet safety
needs while also meeting our budget obligations and the consensus of
the Appropriations Committee.
______
By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Mack):
S. 2582. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for a prospective payment system for services furnished by
psychiatric hospitals under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on
Finance.
Medicare Psychiatric Hospital Prospective Payment System Act of 1998
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today my colleague Connie Mack and
I are introducing legislation that would improve Medicare inpatient
psychiatric care by reforming how Medicare pays for services provided
in free-standing psychiatric hospitals and distinct-part psychiatric
units of general hospitals. The Medicare Psychiatric Hospital
Prospective Payment System Act of 1998 would establish over time a
prospective payment system (PPS) for these providers. Currently
psychiatric hospitals and units are exempt from PPS. Their costs are
reimbursed under provisions in the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act, or TEFRA.
The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 made significant changes to the
TEFRA payment system by reducing incentive payments and imposing a
limit on what Medicare will pay for services provided in psychiatric
facilities, regardless of a facility's costs. The result is that many
of these providers will be hit hard by deep and sudden cuts, with no
transition period to adjust to the changes. I believe that moving
psychiatric hospitals to a prospective payment system will ensure that
these changes do not reduce patient access to psychiatric care.
Our legislation proposes to transition psychiatric inpatient
hospitals to a prospective payment system--a system that will be more
efficient, allow for better planning, and lead to improved patient
care. This legislation also addresses the short-term viability of many
of these facilities to enable patients to continue receiving the
specialized care these providers offer. For that reason, our
legislation includes immediate financial relief to those psychiatric
facilities hardest hit by the BBA: twenty-five percent of facilities in
the first year, about thirteen percent in year two, and approximately
ten percent in year three. The relief will then be paid back when a
prospective payment is implemented in year four to ensure that this
bill is budget neutral by the end of year five. Specifically, the
Breaux-Mack bill would limit an individual facility's payment
reductions to no more than five percent in the first year, seven and
one-half percent in the second year, and ten percent in year three.
After the third year, a PPS based on per diems would be phased in. In
the first two years of the new PPS, the per-diem rates would be
adjusted downward to pay back the savings lost to the Medicare program
as a result of the ``hold harmless'' provisions of the bill.
Consequently, our bill is budget-neutral over five years, yet it
provides some measure of relief to those Medicare providers most
severely affected by the BBA and guarantees that beneficiaries will not
lose vital services. But perhaps the most important feature of our bill
is that it moves the last of the TEFRA providers--psychiatric
facilities--out of a cost-based payment system and into a
[[Page S11975]]
system where they will be paid prospectively, like most other Medicare
providers.
I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this important piece
of legislation.
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. 2582
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 Psychiatric
Hospital Prospective Payment System Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. MEDICARE PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR PSYCHIATRIC
FACILITIES.
(a) Establishment of Prospective Payment System.--Section
1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Prospective Payment System for Inpatient Psychiatric
Services.--
``(1) Amount of payment.--
``(A) During transition period.--Notwithstanding section
1814(b), but subject to the provisions of section 1813, the
amount of payment with respect to the operating and capital-
related costs of inpatient hospital services of a psychiatric
facility (as defined in paragraph (7)(C)) for each day of
services furnished in a cost reporting period beginning on or
after October 1, 2000, and before October 1, 2003, is equal
to the sum of--
``(i) the TEFRA percentage (as defined in paragraph (7)(D))
of the facility-specific per diem rate (determined under
paragraph (2)); and
``(ii) the PPS percentage (as defined in paragraph (7)(B))
of the applicable Federal per diem rate (determined under
paragraph (3)).
``(B) Under fully implemented system.--Notwithstanding
section 1814(b), but subject to the provisions of section
1813, the amount of payment with respect to the operating and
capital-related costs of inpatient hospital services of a
psychiatric facility for each day of services furnished in a
cost reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 2003,
is equal to the applicable Federal per diem rate determined
under paragraph (3) for the facility for the fiscal year in
which the day of services occurs.
``(C) New facilities.--In the case of a psychiatric
facility that does not have a base fiscal year (as defined in
paragraph (7)(A)), payment for the operating and capital-
related costs of inpatient hospital services shall be made
under this subsection using the applicable Federal per diem
rate.
``(2) Determination of facility-specific per diem rates.--
``(A) Base year.--The Secretary shall determine, on a per
diem basis, the allowable operating and capital-related costs
of inpatient hospital services for each psychiatric facility
for its cost reporting period (if any) beginning in the base
fiscal year (as defined in paragraph (7)(A)), such costs
determined as if subsection (b)(8) did not apply.
``(B) Updating.--The Secretary shall update the amount
determined under subparagraph (A) for each cost reporting
period after the cost reporting period beginning in the base
fiscal year and before October 1, 2003, by a factor equal to
the market basket percentage increase.
``(3) Determination of the federal per diem rate.--
``(A) Base year.--The Secretary shall determine, on a per
diem basis, the allowable operating and capital-related costs
of inpatient hospital services for each psychiatric facility
for its cost reporting period (if any) beginning in the base
fiscal year (as defined in paragraph (7)(A)), such costs
determined as if subsection (b)(8) did not apply.
``(B) Updating to first fiscal year.--The Secretary shall
update the amount determined under subparagraph (A) for each
cost reporting period up to the first cost reporting period
to which this subsection applies by a factor equal to the
market basket percentage increase.
``(C) Computation of standardized per diem rate.--The
Secretary shall standardize the amount determined under
subparagraph (B) for each facility by--
``(i) adjusting for variations among facilities by area in
the average facility wage level per diem; and
``(ii) adjusting for variations in case mix per diem among
facilities (based on the patient classification system
established by the Secretary under paragraph (4)).
``(D) Computation of weighted average per diem rates.--
``(i) Separate rates for urban and rural areas.--Based on
the standardized amounts determined under subparagraph (C)
for each facility, the Secretary shall compute a separate
weighted average per diem rate--
``(I) for all psychiatric facilities located in an urban
area (as defined in subsection (d)(2)(D)); and
``(II) for all psychiatric facilities located in a rural
area (as defined in subsection (d)(2)(D)).
``(ii) For hospitals and units.--Subject to paragraph
(7)(C), in the areas referred to in clause (i) the Secretary
may compute a separate weighted average per diem rate for--
``(I) psychiatric hospitals; and
``(II) psychiatric units described in the matter following
clause (v) of subsection (d)(1)(B).
If the Secretary establishes separate average weighted per
diem rates under this clause, the Secretary shall also
establish separate average per diem rates for facilities in
such categories that are owned and operated by an agency or
instrumentality of Federal, State, or local government and
for facilities other than such facilities.
``(iii) Weighted average.--In computing the weighted
averages under clauses (i) and (ii), the standardized per
diem amount for each facility shall be weighted for each
facility by the number of days of inpatient hospital services
furnished during its cost reporting period beginning in the
base fiscal year.
``(E) Updating.--The weighted average per diem rates
determined under subparagraph (D) shall be updated for each
fiscal year after the first fiscal year to which this
subsection applies by a factor equal to the market basket
percentage increase.
``(F) Determination of federal per diem rate.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall compute for each
psychiatric facility for each fiscal year (beginning with
fiscal year 2001) a Federal per diem rate equal to the
applicable weighted average per diem rate determined under
subparagraph (E), adjusted for--
``(I) variations among facilities by area in the average
facility wage level per diem;
``(II) variations in case mix per diem among facilities
(based on the patient classification system established by
the Secretary under paragraph (4)); and
``(III) variations among facilities in the proportion of
low-income patients served by the facility.
``(ii) Other adjustments.--In computing the Federal per
diem rates under this subparagraph, the Secretary may adjust
for outlier cases, the indirect costs of medical education,
and such other factors as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(iii) Budget neutrality.--The adjustments specified in
clauses (i)(I), (i)(III), and (ii) shall be implemented in a
manner that does not result in aggregate payments under this
subsection that are greater or less than those aggregate
payments that otherwise would have been made if such
adjustments did not apply.
``(4) Establishment of patient classification system.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish--
``(i) classes of patients of psychiatric facilities (in
this paragraph referred to as `case mix groups'), based on
such factors as the Secretary determines to be appropriate;
and
``(ii) a method of classifying specific patients in
psychiatric facilities within these groups.
``(B) Weighting factors.--For each case mix group, the
Secretary shall assign an appropriate weighting factor that
reflects the relative facility resources used with respect to
patients classified within that group compared to patients
classified within other such groups.
``(5) Data collection; utilization monitoring.--
``(A) Data collection.--The Secretary may require
psychiatric facilities to submit such data as is necessary to
implement the system established under this subsection.
``(B) Utilization monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor
changes in the utilization of inpatient hospital services
furnished by psychiatric facilities under the system
established under this subsection and report to the
appropriate committees of Congress on such changes, together
with recommendations for legislation (if any) that is needed
to address unwarranted changes in such utilization.
``(6) Special adjustments.--Notwithstanding the preceding
provisions of this subsection, the Secretary shall reduce
aggregate payment amounts that would otherwise be payable
under this subsection for inpatient hospital services
furnished by a psychiatric facility during cost reporting
periods beginning in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by such
uniform percentage as is necessary to assure that payments
under this subsection for such cost reporting periods are
reduced by an amount that is equal to the sum of--
``(A) the aggregate increase in payments under this title
during fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, that is
attributable to the operation of subsection (b)(8); and
``(B) the aggregate increase in payments under this title
during fiscal years 2001 and 2002 that is attributable to the
application of the market basket percentage increase under
paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(E) of this subsection in lieu of
the provisions of subclauses (VI) and (VII) of subsection
(b)(3)(B)(ii).
Reductions under this paragraph shall not affect computation
of the amounts payable under this subsection for cost
reporting periods beginning in fiscal years after fiscal year
2002.
``(7) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) The term `base fiscal year' means, with respect to a
hospital, the most recent fiscal year ending before the date
of the enactment of this subsection for which audited cost
report data are available.
``(B) The term `PPS percentage' means--
``(i) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 2000, and before October 1, 2001, 25
percent;
``(ii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 2001, and before October 1, 2002, 50
percent; and
[[Page S11976]]
``(iii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 2002, and before October 1, 2003, 75
percent.
``(C) The term `psychiatric facility' means--
``(i) a psychiatric hospital; and
``(ii) a psychiatric unit described in the matter following
clause (v) of subsection (d)(1)(B).
``(D) The term `TEFRA percentage' means--
``(i) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 2000, and before October 1, 2001, 75
percent;
``(ii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 2001, and before October 1, 2002, 50
percent; and
``(iii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 2002, and before October 1, 2003, 25
percent.''.
(b) Limit on Reductions Under Balanced Budget Act.--Section
1886(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8)(A) Notwithstanding the amendments made by sections
4411, 4414, 4415, and 4416 of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, in the case of a psychiatric facility (as defined in
subparagraph (B)(ii)), the amount of payment for the
operating costs of inpatient hospital services for cost
reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1997, and
before October 1, 2000, shall not be less than the applicable
percentage (as defined in subparagraph (B)(i)) of the amount
that would have been paid for such costs if such amendments
did not apply.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph:
``(i) The term `applicable percentage' means--
``(I) 95 percent for cost reporting periods beginning on or
after October 1, 1997, and before October 1, 1998;
``(II) 92.5 percent for cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 1998, and before October 1, 1999; and
``(III) 90 percent for cost reporting periods beginning on
or after October 1, 1999, and before October 1, 2000.
``(ii) The term `psychiatric facility' means--
``(I) a psychiatric hospital; and
``(II) a psychiatric unit described in the matter following
clause (v) of subsection (d)(1)(B).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall apply as if included in the enactment of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my
colleague John Breaux in sponsoring the Medicare Psychiatric Hospital
Prospective Payment System Act of 1998. This legislation maintains the
integrity and availability of Medicare inpatient psychiatric care by
changing how Medicare currently pays for services provided to
beneficiaries in free standing psychiatric hospitals and distinct-part
psychiatric units of general hospitals. This bill eases the transition
of psychiatric facilities to a prospective payment system (PPS) while
phasing in substantial cuts in payments to these providers as required
by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Currently, psychiatric hospitals and units are exempt from PPS. This
bill is budget neutral over five years, and ensures that until PPS is
established, inpatient psychiatric care will not be compromised or
disrupted because of major budget reductions. Finally, this legislation
prevents the type of dislocations we now face in the Home Health Care
industry.
The purpose of this bill is to give psychiatric facilities a period
of adjustment to the mandates of BBA while not jeopardizing patient
care. It provides for a transition period that will help providers
adjust to a prospective payment system that will be installed in three
years. At the end of this time period psychiatric facilities will be
paid on a prospective payment basis like other hospital providers in
the Medicare program. Psychiatric hospital managers understand that the
financial limitations imposed by BBA on their facilities must be met,
and this bill smooths out the requirements for accomplishing this in
such a way that the integrity of patient care is maintained. I urge my
colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this important piece of
legislation.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
S. 2583. A bill to provide disadvantaged children with access to
dental services; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
Mr. Bingaman. Mr. President today I introduce with my friend
and colleague, Senator Thad Cochran, the Childrens Dental Health
Improvement Act of 1998. The bill is designed to increase access to
dental services for our disadvantaged children.
Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment or
``EPSDT'' program requires states to not only pay for a comprehensive
set of child health services, including dental services, but to assure
delivery of those services. Unfortunately, low income children do not
get the dental service they need. Despite the design of the Medicaid
program to reach children and ensure access to routine dental care, the
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services
reported in 1996 that only 18 percent of children eligible for Medicaid
received even a single preventive dental service. The same report shows
that no state provides preventive services to more than 50% of eligible
children. Dentist participation is too low to assure access. We are
falling short of our obligation to these children.
In the past few months, I have had the opportunity to speak to many
of New Mexico's rural health providers and have learned that for New
Mexico, the problem is of crisis proportions. Less than 1% of New
Mexico's Medicaid dollars are used for children's oral health care
needs. My state alone projects a shortage of 157 dentists and 229
dental hygienists. Children in New Mexico and elsewhere are showing up
in emergency rooms for treatment of tooth abscesses instead of getting
their cavities filled early on or having dental decay prevented in the
first place.
Some will say: ``Why care about a few cavities in kids?'' In reality,
this is a complex children's health issue. Chronically poor oral health
is associated with growth and development problems in toddlers and
compromises children's nutritional status. These children suffer from
pain and cannot play or learn. Their personal suffering is real. In
reality, untreated dental problems get progressively worse and
ultimately require more expensive interventions. Many of these children
come to emergency rooms and ultimately must be treated in the operating
room.
Tooth decay remains the single most common chronic disease of
childhood and according to the Children's Dental Health Project, it
affects more than half of all children by second grade. Tooth decay in
children six year olds is 5 to 8 more common than asthma which is often
cited as the most common chronic disease of childhood.
National data confirm that pediatric oral health in the U.S. is
backsliding. Healthy People 2000 goals for dental needs of children
will not be met. As this chart shows:
52% of our 6 to 8 year olds have dental caries, or cavities compared
to 54% in 1986. Our goal was to decrease this to 35% by the year 2000;
we have only succeeded in a 2% change in this area.
Additionally, we have slid backwards in some areas. The Healthy
People 2000 oral health indicators show an increase in the percentage
of children with untreated cavities. In 1986, 28% of our 6 to 8 year
olds had untreated cavities compared to now where we find 31% of these
children have untreated cavities.
Tooth decay is increasingly a disease of low and modest income
children. A substantial portion of decay in young children goes
untreated. In fact, forty seven percent of decay in children aged 2
through 9 is untreated.
The Children's Dental Health Improvement Act is designed to attack
the problem from many fronts. First, our bill addresses the issue of
provider shortage by expanding opportunities for training pediatric
dental health care providers. Next, we will work toward increasing the
actual care provided under the Medicaid program. Additionally, we have
looked at the need for pediatric dental research to facilitate better
approaches for care. Finally, we have put into place greater measures
for surveillance of the problem and have looked at the need to increase
accountability in the area of actual treatment once a problem is
identified.
I am committed to solving the problem of adequate access to dental
care for our children and view this as a public health issue that has
gone unnoticed for too long. I will welcome my colleagues to work with
me to ensure that these children have healthy smiles vs. chronic pain
from untreated problems.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 1998 printed in the Record.
[[Page S11977]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2583
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children's
Dental Health Improvement Act of 1998''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
TITLE I--EXPANDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRAINING PEDIATRIC DENTAL HEALTH
CARE PROVIDERS
Sec. 101. Children's dental health training and demonstration programs.
Sec. 102. Increase in National Health Service Corps dental training
positions.
Sec. 103. Maternal and child health centers for leadership in pediatric
dentistry education.
Sec. 104. Dental officer multiyear retention bonus for the Indian
Health Service.
Sec. 105. Medicare payments to approved nonhospital dentistry residency
training programs; permanent dental exemption from
voluntary residency reduction programs.
Sec. 106. Dental health professional shortage areas.
TITLE II--ENSURING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER THE
MEDICAID AND SCHIP PROGRAMS
Sec. 201. Increased FMAP and fee schedule for dental services provided
to children under the medicaid program.
Sec. 202. Required minimum medicaid expenditures for dental health
services.
Sec. 203. Requirement to verify sufficient numbers of participating
dentists under the medicaid program.
Sec. 204. Inclusion of recommended age for first dental visit in
definition of EPSDT services.
Sec. 205. Approval of final regulations implementing changes to EPSDT
services.
Sec. 206. Use of SCHIP funds to treat children with special dental
health needs.
Sec. 207. Grants to supplement fees for the treatment of children with
special dental health needs.
Sec. 208. Demonstration projects to increase access to pediatric dental
services in underserved areas.
TITLE III--PEDIATRIC DENTAL RESEARCH
Sec. 301. Identification of interventions that reduce transmission of
dental diseases in high risk populations; development of
approaches for pediatric dental assessment.
Sec. 302. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
Sec. 303. Consensus development conference.
TITLE IV--SURVEILLANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Sec. 401. CDC reports.
Sec. 402. Reporting requirements under the medicaid program.
Sec. 403. Administration on Children, Youth, and Families.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 501. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Children's oral health impacts upon and reflects
children's general health.
(2) Tooth decay is the most prevalent preventable chronic
disease of childhood and only the common cold, the flu, and
otitis media occur more often among young children.
(3) Despite the design of the medicaid program to reach
children and ensure access to routine dental care, in 1996,
the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human
Services reported that only 18 percent of children eligible
for medicaid received even a single preventive dental
service.
(4) The United States is facing a major dental health care
crisis that primarily affects the poor children of our
country, with 80 percent of all dental caries in children
found in the 20 percent of the population.
(5) Low income children eligible for the medicaid program
and the State children's health insurance program experience
disproportionately high levels of oral disease.
(6) The United States is not training enough pediatric
dental health care providers to meet the increasing need for
pediatric dental services.
(7) The United States needs to increase access to health
promotion and disease prevention activities in the area of
oral health for children by increasing access to pediatric
dental health providers.
TITLE I--EXPANDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRAINING PEDIATRIC DENTAL HEALTH
CARE PROVIDERS
SEC. 101. CHILDREN'S DENTAL HEALTH TRAINING AND DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAMS.
Part E of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 294o et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 779. CHILDREN'S DENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS.
``(a) Training Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Bureau
of Health Professions, shall develop training materials to be
used by health professionals to promote oral health through
health education.
``(2) Design.--The materials developed under paragraph (1)
shall be designed to enable health care professionals to--
``(A) provide information to individuals concerning the
importance of oral health;
``(B) recognize oral disease in individuals; and
``(C) make appropriate referrals of individuals for dental
treatment.
``(3) Distribution.--The materials developed under
paragraph (1) shall be distributed to--
``(A) accredited schools of the health sciences (including
schools for physician assistants, schools of medicine,
osteopathic medicine, dental hygiene, public health, nursing,
pharmacy, and dentistry), and public or private institutions
accredited for the provision of graduate or specialized
training programs in all aspects of health; and
``(B) health professionals and community-based health care
workers.
``(b) Demonstration Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to
schools that train pediatric dental health providers to meet
the costs of projects--
``(A) to plan and develop new training programs and to
maintain or improve existing training programs in providing
dental health services to children; and
``(B) to assist dental health providers in managing complex
dental problems in children.
``(2) Administration.--
``(A) Amount.--The amount of any grant under paragraph (1)
shall be determined by the Secretary.
``(B) Application.--No grant may be made under paragraph
(1) unless an application therefore is submitted to and
approved by the Secretary. Such an application shall be in
such form, submitted in such manner, and contain such
information, as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe.
``(C) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under
subsection (a), the applicant must demonstrate to the
Secretary that it has or will have available full-time
faculty and staff members with training and experience in the
field of pediatric dentistry and support from other faculty
and staff members trained in pediatric dentistry and other
relevant specialties and disciplines such as dental public
health and pediatrics, as well as research.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.''.
SEC. 102. INCREASE IN NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS DENTAL
TRAINING POSITIONS.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall increase
the number of dental health providers skilled in treating
children who become members of the National Health Service
Corps under subpart II of part D of title III of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d et seq.) so that there are
at least 100 additional dentists and dental hygienists in the
Corps by 2000, at least 150 additional dentists and dental
hygienists in the Corps by 2001, and at least 300 additional
dentists and dental hygienists in the Corps by 2002. The
Secretary shall ensure that at least 20 percent of the
dentists in the Corps are pediatric dentists and that another
20 percent of the dentists in the Corps have general practice
residency training.
SEC. 103. MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH CENTERS FOR LEADERSHIP IN
PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY EDUCATION.
(a) Expansion of Training Programs.--The Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall, through the Maternal and
Child Health Bureau, establish not less than 36 additional
training positions annually for pediatric dentists at centers
of excellence. The Secretary shall ensure that such training
programs are established in geographically diverse areas.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry
out this section.
SEC. 104. DENTAL OFFICER MULTIYEAR RETENTION BONUS FOR THE
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.
(a) Terms and Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Dental officer.--The term ``dental officer'' means an
officer of the Indian Health Service designated as a dental
officer.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Indian Health Service.
(3) Creditable service.--The term ``creditable service''
includes all periods that a dental officer spent in graduate
dental educational (GDE) training programs while not on
active duty in the Indian Health Service and all periods of
active duty in the Indian Health Service as a dental officer.
(4) Residency.--The term ``residency'' means a graduate
dental educational (GDE) training program of at least 12
months, excluding general practice residency (GPR) or a 12-
month advanced education general dentistry (AEGD).
(5) Specialty.--The term ``specialty'' means a dental
specialty for which there is an Indian Health Service
specialty code number.
(b) Requirements for Bonus.--
[[Page S11978]]
(1) In general.--An eligible dental officer of the Indian
Health Service who executes a written agreement to remain on
active duty for 2, 3, or 4 years after the completion of any
other active duty service commitment to the Indian Health
Service may, upon acceptance of the written agreement by the
Director, be authorized to receive a dental officer multiyear
retention bonus under this section. The Director may, based
on requirements of the Indian Health Service, decline to
offer a such a retention bonus to any specialty that is
otherwise eligible, or to restrict the length of a such a
retention bonus contract for a specialty to less than 4
years.
(2) Limitations.--Each annual dental officer multiyear
retention bonus authorized under this section shall not
exceed the following:
(A) $14,000 for a 4-year written agreement.
(B) $8,000 for a 3-year written agreement.
(C) $4,000 for a 2-year written agreement.
(c) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a
dental officer multiyear retention bonus under the section, a
dental officer shall--
(A) be at or below such grade as the Director shall
determine;
(B) have at least 8 years of creditable service, or have
completed any active duty service commitment of the Indian
Health Service incurred for dental education and training;
(C) have completed initial residency training, or be
scheduled to complete initial residency training before
September 30 of the fiscal year in which the officer enters
into a dental officer multiyear retention bonus written
service agreement under this section; and
(D) have a dental specialty in pediatric dentistry or oral
and maxillofacial surgery.
(2) Extension to other officers.--The Director may extend
the retention bonus to dental officers other than officers
with a dental specialty in pediatric dentistry based on
demonstrated need. The criteria used as the basis for such an
extension shall be equitably determined and consistently
applied.
(d) Termination of Entitlement to Special Pay.--The
Director may terminate at any time a dental officer's
multiyear retention bonus contract under this section. If
such a contract is terminated, the unserved portion of the
retention bonus contract shall be recouped on a pro rata
basis. The Director shall establish regulations that specify
the conditions and procedures under which termination may
take place. The regulations and conditions for termination
shall be included in the written service contract for a
dental officer multiyear retention bonus under this section.
(e) Refunds.--
(1) In general.--Prorated refunds shall be required for
sums paid under a retention bonus contract under this section
if a dental officer who has received the retention bonus
fails to complete the total period of service specified in
the contract, as conditions and circumstances warrant.
(2) Debt to united states.--An obligation to reimburse the
United States imposed under paragraph (1) is a debt owed to
the United States.
(3) No discharge in bankruptcy.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a discharge in bankruptcy under title 11,
United States Code, that is entered less than 5 years after
the termination of a retention bonus contract under this
section does not discharge the dental officer who signed such
a contract from a debt arising under the contract or
paragraph (1).
SEC. 105. MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO APPROVED NONHOSPITAL DENTISTRY
RESIDENCY TRAINING PROGRAMS; PERMANENT DENTAL
EXEMPTION FROM VOLUNTARY RESIDENCY REDUCTION
PROGRAMS.
(a) Medicare Payments To Approved Nonhospital Dentistry
Training Programs.--Section 1886 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395ww) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(l) Payments For Nonhospital Based Dental Residency
Training Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning January 1, 1999, the Secretary
shall make payments under this paragraph to approved
nonhospital based dentistry residency training programs
providing oral health care to children for the direct and
indirect expenses associated with operating such training
programs.
``(2) Payment amount.--
``(A) Methodology.--The Secretary shall establish
procedures for making payments under this subsection.
``(B) Total amount of payments.--In making payments to
approved non-hospital based dentistry residency training
programs under this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure
that the total amount of such payments will not result in a
reduction of payments that would otherwise be made under
subsection (h) or (k) to hospitals for dental residency
training programs.
``(C) Approved programs.--The Secretary shall establish
procedures for the approval of nonhospital based dentistry
residency training programs under this subsection.''.
(b) Permanent Dental Exemption From Voluntary Residency
Reduction Programs.--
(1) In general.--Section 1886(h)(6)(C) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(6)(C)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as
subclauses (I) through (III), respectively, and indenting
such subclauses (as so redesignated) appropriately;
(B) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting the
following:
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes'';
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Definition of `approved medical residency training
program'.--In this subparagraph, the term `approved medical
residency training program' means only such programs in
allopathic or osteopathic medicine.''.
(2) Application to demonstration projects and authority.--
Section 4626(b)(3) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (42
U.S.C. 1395ww note) is amended by inserting ``in allopathic
or osteopathic medicine'' before the period.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) Subsection (a).--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
SEC. 106. DENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREAS.
(a) Designation.--Section 332(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254e(a)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(4)(A) In designating health professional shortage areas
under this section, the Secretary may designate certain areas
as dental health professional shortage areas if the Secretary
determines that such areas have a severe shortage of dental
health professionals. The Secretary shall develop, publish
and periodically update criteria to be used in designating
dental health professional shortage areas.
``(B) For purposes of this title, a dental health
professional shortage area shall be considered to be a health
professional shortage area.''.
(b) Loan Repayment Program.--Section 338B(b)(1)(A) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l-1(b)(1)(A)) is
amended by inserting ``(including dental hygienists)'' after
``profession''.
(c) Technical Amendment.--Section 331(a)(2) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(a)(2)) is amended by
inserting ``(including dental health services)'' after
``services''.
TITLE II--ENSURING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER THE
MEDICAID AND SCHIP PROGRAMS
SEC. 201. INCREASED FMAP AND FEE SCHEDULE FOR DENTAL SERVICES
PROVIDED TO CHILDREN UNDER THE MEDICAID
PROGRAM.
(a) Increased FMAP.--Section 1903(a)(5) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``equal to 90 per centum'' and inserting
``equal to--
``(A) 90 per centum'';
(2) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) the greater of the Federal medical assistance
percentage or 75 per centum of the sums expended during such
quarter which are attributable to dental services for
children;''.
(b) Fee Schedule.--Section 1902(a) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (65), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (65) the following:
``(66) provide for payment under the State plan for dental
services for children at a rate that is designed to create an
incentive for providers of such services to treat children in
need of dental services (but that does not result in a
reduction or other adverse impact on the extent to which the
State provides dental services to adults).''.
SEC. 202. REQUIRED MINIMUM MEDICAID EXPENDITURES FOR DENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES.
Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)), as amended by section 201(b), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (65), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (66), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (66) the following:
``(67) provide that, beginning with fiscal year 1999--
``(A) not less than an amount equal to 7 percent of the
total annual expenditures under the State plan for medical
assistance provided to children will be expended during each
fiscal year for dental services for children (including the
prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment of dental
conditions); and
``(B) the State will not reduce or otherwise adversely
impact the extent to which the State provides dental services
to adults in order to meet the requirement of subparagraph
(A).''.
SEC. 203. REQUIREMENT TO VERIFY SUFFICIENT NUMBERS OF
PARTICIPATING DENTISTS UNDER THE MEDICAID
PROGRAM.
Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)), as amended by section 202, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (66), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (67), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
[[Page S11979]]
(3) by inserting after paragraph (67) the following:
``(68) provide that the State will annually verify that the
number of dentists participating under the State plan--
``(A) satisfies the minimum established degree of
participation of dentists to the population of children in
the State, as determined by the Secretary in accordance with
the criteria used by the Secretary under section 332(a)(4) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254e(a)(4)) to
designate a dental health professional shortage area; and
``(B) is sufficient to ensure that children enrolled in the
State plan have the same level of access to dental services
as the children residing in the State who are not eligible
for medical assistance under the State plan.''.
SEC. 204. INCLUSION OF RECOMMENDED AGE FOR FIRST DENTAL VISIT
IN DEFINITION OF EPSDT SERVICES.
Section 1905(r)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396d(r)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ``and, with
respect to dental services under paragraph (3), in accordance
with guidelines for the age of a first dental visit that are
consistent with guidelines of the American Dental
Association, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, and
the Bright Futures program of the Health Resources and
Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human
Services,'' after ``vaccines,''.
SEC. 205. APPROVAL OF FINAL REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING CHANGES
TO EPSDT SERVICES.
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue
final regulations implementing the proposed regulations based
on section 6403 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1989 (Public Law 101-239; 103 Stat. 2262) that were contained
in the Federal Register issued for October 1, 1993.
SEC. 206. USE OF SCHIP FUNDS TO TREAT CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL
DENTAL HEALTH NEEDS.
(a) In General.--Section 1905 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``or subsection (u)(3)''
and inserting ``subsection (u)(3), or subsection (u)(4)'';
and
(2) in subsection (u)--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4)(A) For purposes of subsection (b), the expenditures
described in this paragraph are expenditures for medical
assistance described in subparagraph (B) for a low-income
child described in subparagraph (C), but only in the case of
such a child who resides in a State described in subparagraph
(D).
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the medical
assistance described in this subparagraph consists of the
following:
``(i) Dental services provided to children with special
oral health needs, including advanced oral, dental, and
craniofacial diseases and conditions.
``(ii) Outreach conducted to identify and treat children
with such special dental health needs.
``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), a low-income child
described in this subparagraph is a child whose family income
does not exceed 50 percentage points above the medicaid
applicable income level (as defined in section 2110(b)(4)).
``(D) A State described in this subparagraph is a State
that, as of August 5, 1997, has under a waiver authorized by
the Secretary or under section 1902(r)(2), established a
medicaid applicable income level (as defined in section
2110(b)(4)) for children under 19 years of age residing in
the State that is at or above 185 percent of the poverty line
(as defined in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block
Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2), including any revision required
by such section for a family of the size involved).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
4911 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33;
111 Stat. 570).
SEC. 207. GRANTS TO SUPPLEMENT FEES FOR THE TREATMENT OF
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL DENTAL HEALTH NEEDS.
Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 511. GRANTS TO SUPPLEMENT FEES FOR THE TREATMENT OF
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL DENTAL HEALTH NEEDS.
``(a) Authority to Make Grants.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to any other payments made
under this title to a State, the Secretary shall award grants
to States to supplement payments made under the State
programs established under titles XIX and XXI for the
treatment of children with special oral health care needs.
``(2) Definition of children with special oral, dental, and
craniofacial health care needs.--In this section the term
`children with special oral health care needs' means children
with advanced oral, dental and craniofacial conditions or
disorders, and other chronic medical, genetic, and behavioral
disorders with dental manifestations.
``(b) Application of Other Provisions of Title.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
other provisions of this title shall not apply to a grant
made, or activities of the Secretary, under this section.
``(2) Exceptions.--The following provisions of this title
shall apply to a grant made under subsection (a) to the same
extent and in the same manner as such provisions apply to
allotments made under section 502(c):
``(A) Section 504(b)(4) (relating to expenditures of funds
as a condition of receipt of Federal funds).
``(B) Section 504(b)(6) (relating to prohibition on
payments to excluded individuals and entities).
``(C) Section 506 (relating to reports and audits, but only
to the extent determined by the Secretary to be appropriate
for grants made under this section).
``(D) Section 508 (relating to nondiscrimination).
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.''.
SEC. 208. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO INCREASE ACCESS TO
PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES IN UNDERSERVED AREAS.
(a) Authority to Conduct Projects.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services, through the Administrator of the Health
Care Financing Administration, the Administrator of the
Health Resources and Services Administration, the Director of
the Indian Health Service, and the Director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention shall establish
demonstration projects that are designed to increase access
to dental services for children in underserved areas, as
determined by the Secretary.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
TITLE III--PEDIATRIC DENTAL RESEARCH
SEC. 301. IDENTIFICATION OF INTERVENTIONS THAT REDUCE THE
BURDEN AND TRANSMISSION OF ORAL, DENTAL, AND
CRANIOFACIAL DISEASES IN HIGH RISK POPULATIONS;
DEVELOPMENT OF APPROACHES FOR PEDIATRIC ORAL
AND CRANIOFACIAL ASSESSMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, through the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, the
Indian Health Service, and in consultation with the Agency
for Health Care Policy and Research and the National
Institutes of Health, shall--
(1) support community based research that is designed to
improve our understanding of the etiology, pathogenesis,
diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of pediatric oral,
dental, craniofacial diseases and conditions and their
sequelae in high risk populations; and
(2) develop clinical approaches for pediatric dental
disease risk assessment.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry
out this section.
SEC. 302. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH.
Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
299a(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) the barriers that exist to dental care for children
and the establishment of measures of oral health quality,
including access to oral health care for children.''.
SEC. 303. CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE.
(a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2000, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and
the National Institute of Dental Research, shall convene a
conference (to be known as the ``Consensus Development
Conference'') to examine the management of early childhood
caries and to support the design and conduct of research on
the biology and physiologic dynamics of infectious
transmission of dental caries. The Secretary shall ensure
that representatives of interested consumers and other
professional organizations participate in the Consensus
Development Conference.
(b) Experts.--In administering the conference under
subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall solicit the participation of experts in dentistry,
including pediatric dentistry, public health, and other
appropriate medical and child health professionals.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
TITLE IV--SURVEILLANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
SEC. 401. CDC REPORTS.
(a) Collection of Data.--The Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in collaboration with other
organizations and agencies shall annually collect data
describing the dental, craniofacial, and oral health of
residents of at least 1 State from each region of the
Department of Health and Human Services.
(b) Reports.--The Director shall compile and analyze data
collected under subsection (a) and annually prepare and
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
concerning the oral health of certain States.
[[Page S11980]]
SEC. 402. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.
Section 1902(a)(43)(D) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396a(43)(D)) is amended--
(1) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' and inserting
``with the specific dental condition and treatment provided
identified,'';
(2) in clause (iv), by striking the semicolon and inserting
a comma; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) the percentage of expenditures for such services that
were for dental services, and
``(vi) the percentage of general and pediatric dentists who
are licensed in the State and provide services commensurate
with eligibility under the State plan;''.
SEC. 403. ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES.
The Administrator of the Administration on Children, Youth,
and Families shall annually prepare and submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report concerning the
percentage of children enrolled in a Head Start or Early
Start program who have access to and who obtain dental care,
including children with special oral, dental, and
craniofacial health needs.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
this Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Extension of effective date for state law amendment.--
In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social
Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services
determines requires State legislation in order for the plan
to meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments
made by this Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as
failing to comply with the requirements of such amendments
solely on the basis of its failure to meet the additional
requirements before the first day of the first calendar
quarter beginning after the close of the first regular
session of the State legislature that begins after the date
of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the previous
sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year
legislative session, each year of the session is considered
to be a separate regular session of the State
legislature.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 2585. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to eliminate a
threshold requirement relating to unreimbursable expenses for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; to
the Committee on Finance.
Amendment to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, with my friend
and colleague from South Dakota, Tim Johnson, legislation to make
several common-sense changes to the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program. This bill removes an unintended and unjustified
barrier blocking certain children from qualifying for the compensation
program. It also makes the necessary changes to allow new drugs to be
incorporated into the program, including the newly-approved rotavirus
vaccine.
The Vaccine Act dates back to 1986, when Congress determined that a
no-fault alternative to the tort system would best accommodate the dual
objectives of ensuring proper compensation to victims of vaccine
injuries and fostering continued development and broad-scale
availability of lifesaving vaccines.
Through the Vaccine Act, children seriously injured by a childhood
vaccine can receive compensation for medical care, custodial or
residential care, lifetime lost earnings, pain and suffering, and
emotional distress--benefits comparable to those awarded through the
judicial tort system.
Tragically, some children have been unfairly denied the right to
petition for benefits under the program because they did not incur
$1,000 or more in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
At first glance, the eligibility requirement of at least $1,000 in
out-of-pocket medical expenses may seem like a reasonable way of
deterring individuals from petitioning for benefits if they lack a
material claim to compensation. In reality, however, the absence of
out-of-pocket health care expenses does not mean a child has not been
seriously injured, nor does it suggest they have access to other
sources for recoupment of the losses their injury has exacted.
Many children, including the children of military personnel, Native
American children covered by the Indian Health Service, children with
Medicaid coverage, and children covered under employer-sponsored health
plans with minimal cost-sharing requirements, do not have high out-of-
pocket health care costs.
While health insurance may remove the burden of high medical bills,
it does not replace lost income or cover custodial and residential
care. It cannot compensate for the toll these injuries have taken and
will take on the lives of these children. Health care costs are just
one component of the compensation for which a seriously injured child
is eligible.
I know of a Native American child in my own state who was profoundly
injured after receiving a diptheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccination.
Within hours of receiving the shot, this five-month-old child had a
seizure and suffered severe brain damage because of the defective
pertussis component of the shot.
The doctors tell us that his disabilities will, throughout his
lifetime, preclude this little boy from having a normal life. He will
never live or work independently. But, because he receives health care
from the Indian Health Service (IHS), he is not eligible for any
benefits under the vaccine compensation program. Not only is this child
barred from compensation for lost income and emotional trauma, he is
denied financial support for his injury-related assisted living needs.
Through legislation intended to foster continued improvements in
public health, the federal government has obstructed this child's right
to sue vaccine manufacturers. But the program's gate-keeping mechanism
is off the mark. What we are saying--however unintentionally--to this
particular child and others like him is: ``Fend for yourself.'' To deny
this child the benefits available to other injured children is
indefensible.
The Vaccine Act contains other safeguards to prevent unjustified
requests for compensation. For example, no benefits claim is accepted
without a thorough review and significant medical proof of severe
injury directly related to a childhood vaccination. The $1,000
threshold is unnecessary.
Senator Johnson and I certainly are not alone in calling for the
repeal of the $1,000 threshold. In fact, we are in very good company.
The Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines voted unanimously to
recommend elimination of the $1,000 threshold.
I hope this Congress will seize the opportunity to reconcile the
intended and actual standards of fairness by which the National Vaccine
Compensation Program fulfills its role in the public health system. In
so doing, we will make a tremendous difference in the lives of children
in desperate need of our support.
There is also a disconnect between the Act's intended consequences
and its actual effect in regard to enrollment of new vaccines. Several
vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration
and have met the standards established in the Vaccine Act are still not
fully integrated into the program.
There are currently several vaccines Congress has approved for
taxation and inclusion in the Vaccine Compensation Program that,
because of a technical error in the legislation, were not authorized as
compensable. This bill will fully integrate those vaccines into the
program, and it will ensure that all new vaccines will be automatically
compensable once the tax is levied.
In addition, it initiates the 75 cents-per-vaccination tax on the
rotavirus vaccine, which will ensure compensation for recipients of
that vaccine. The rotavirus vaccine was approved by the FDA in August
of this year to protect against rotavirus gastroenteritis, which causes
about 125 deaths and 50,000 hospitalizations per year among infants in
the United States. Initiation of the excise tax will help protect the 4
million children who are expected to receive the vaccine annually.
The changes proposed in this bill are not controversial. They are
common-sense, and they are overdue. When Congress established the
Vaccine Compensation Program, its intent was to protect the rights of
victims without jeopardizing an invaluable weapon against childhood
illnesses. The underpinning of this program is fairness, a standard
that cannot be met until Congress makes these important changes.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
[[Page S11981]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2585
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 ``Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program Modification Act''.
SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT OF
UNREIMBURSABLE EXPENSES.
Section 2111(c)(1)(D)(i) of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i)) is amended by striking ``and
incurred unreimbursable expenses due in whole or in part to
such illness, disability, injury, or condition in an amount
greater than $1,000''.
SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF ROTAVIRUS GASTROENTERITIS AS A TAXABLE
VACCINE.
(a) In General.--Section 4132(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining taxable vaccine) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(K) Any vaccine against rotavirus gastroenteritis.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) Sales.--The amendment made by this section shall apply
to sales after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Deliveries.--For purposes of paragraph (1), in the case
of sales on or before the date of the enactment of this Act
for which delivery is made after such date, the delivery date
shall be considered the sale date.
SEC. 4. VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND.
(a) Amendments Related to Section 904 of 1997 Act.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 9510(c) of the 1986 Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--Amounts in the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund shall be available, as provided in
appropriation Acts, only for--
``(A) the payment of compensation under subtitle 2 of title
XXI of the Public Health Service Act (as in effect on August
6, 1997) for vaccine-related injury or death with respect to
any vaccine--
``(i) which is administered after September 30, 1988, and
``(ii) which is a taxable vaccine (as defined in section
4132(a)(1)) at the time the vaccine was administered, or
``(B) the payment of all expenses of administration
incurred by the Federal Government in administering such
subtitle.''.
(2) Section 9510(b) of the 1986 Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Limitation on transfers to vaccine injury
compensation trust fund.--No amount may be appropriated to
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund on and after the
date of any expenditure from the Trust Fund which is not
permitted by this section. The determination of whether an
expenditure is so permitted shall be made without regard to--
``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or
referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently
enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive
the application of this paragraph.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to which they relate.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 2586. A bill to amend parts A and D of title IV of the Social
Security Act to require States to pass through directly to a family
receiving assistance under the temporary assistance to needy families
program all child support collected by the State and to disregard any
child support that the family receives in determining the family's
level of assistance under that program; to the Committee on Finance.
Children First Child Support Reform Act of 1998
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to put
America's children first by putting more resources into the hands of
families and encouraging more parents to live up to their child support
obligations. My legislation, the Children First Child Support Reform
Act, would direct that all child support collected through the Federal-
State Child Support Enforcement Program be passed through, or paid,
directly to the children and families to whom it is owed and
disregarded in the calculation of public assistance benefits. My
legislation will assure non-custodial parents that the child support
they pay will actually contribute to the well-being of their child,
rather than the government, and will also reduce administrative burdens
on the state.
As my colleagues know, since its inception in 1975, our Federal-State
Child Support Enforcement Program has been tasked with collecting child
support for families receiving public assistance and other families
that request help in enforcing child support. Towards this end, the
program works to establish paternity and legally-binding support
orders, while collecting and disbursing funds on behalf of families so
that children receive the support they need to grow up in healthy,
nurturing surroundings.
But on one crucial point, the current program does not truly work on
behalf of families and, perhaps more importantly, may actually work
against families by discouraging non-custodial parents from meeting
their child support obligations.
If the family was never on public assistance, the support is
collected by the Child Support Enforcement Program and sent directly to
the family. However, under current law, most child support collected on
behalf of families receiving public assistance is retained by the state
and Federal governments as reimbursement for welfare expenditures. In
addition to this cost recoupment function, collections made on behalf
of welfare families are used to fund the child support program in many
states.
Thus, under current law, we have a system where the vast majority of
children on public assistance never actually receive the child support
that is paid on their behalf. The government keeps the money. The
research shows that many non-custodial parents who pay support do not
believe that their payment actually benefits their children. They
realize and resent that they are paying the government. Worse yet, some
non-custodial parents may decide not to pay support because it does not
go to their children. Some custodial parents also are skeptical about
working with the child support agency to secure payments since the
funds are generally not forwarded to them.
Mr. President, we know that an estimated 800,000 families would not
need public assistance if they could count on the child support owed to
them. In addition, we know that 23 million children are owed more than
$40 billion in outstanding support. Clearly, the vital importance of
child support in keeping families off of assistance remains as true
today as when the program began. In a world with TANF time limits, it
has never been more important. And with these figures in mind, it is
not unthinkable that some policymakers may have or might still consider
this program as a means of recovering welfare expenditures.
But I am convinced that that thinking must change, if not cast off
entirely, because, simply put, times have changed. The welfare reform
law of 1996, which I supported, paved the way for time limits and work
requirements that provide clear and compelling incentives for families
to enter the workforce and find a way to stay there. Open ended,
unconditional public support is no longer a reality, and our goal and
responsibility as policymakers, now more than ever before, is to give
families the tools and resources they need to prepare for and
ultimately survive the day when they are without public assistance.
We fundamentally changed welfare, now we must fundamentally reexamine
the central role of child support in helping families as they struggle
to become and remain self-sufficient. And I say we go down the road of
putting children first, a path on which we have already made some
progress. Under the welfare reform law, states will eventually be
required to distribute state-collected child support arrears owed to
the family before paying off arrears owed to the state and Federal
governments for welfare expenditures. In addition, states were given
the option of continuing to passthrough directly the first $50 of child
support to the family.
One state, my state of Wisconsin, has opted to pass through all child
support collected on behalf of participating families to those
families. As you know, Wisconsin has been a leader and national model
in the area of welfare reform. Under Wisconsin's welfare program, child
support counts as income in determining financial eligibility for
welfare assistance, but once eligibility is established, the child
support income is disregarded in calculating program benefits. In other
words, families are allowed to keep their own money. Non-custodial
parents can be assured that their contribution counts and that their
child support payments go to their children. And both parents are
[[Page S11982]]
presented with a realistic picture of what that support means in the
life of their child. I believe we, as a nation, should follow
Wisconsin's example.
The full passthrough and disregard approach also has significant
benefits on the administrative side. The current distribution
requirements place significant computer, accounting and paperwork
burdens on the states. They are also costly. Data from the Federal
Office of Child Support demonstrates that nearly 20 percent of program
expenditures are spent simply processing payments. States are required
to maintain a complicated set of accounts to determine whether support
collected should be paid to the family or kept by the government. These
complex accounting rules depend on whether the family ever received
public assistance, the date a family begins and ends assistance,
whether the non-custodial parent is current on payments or owes
arrears, the method of collection and other factors.
We know that we have already asked much of the states in the realm of
automation, systems integration and welfare law child support
enforcement adjustments. We hope and believe these improvements will
lead to better collection rates. Now we have a chance to simplify and
improve distribution of support. What could be simpler than a
distribution system in which all child support collected would be
delivered to the children to whom it is owed? A distribution system in
which child support agencies would distribute current support and
arrears to both welfare and non-welfare families in exactly the same
way?
Mr. President, I am raising these points and introducing this
legislation today, in the final week of the 105th Congress, as a
marker, as a starting point to this discussion. Child support financing
must be addressed. First, our current distribution scheme is out of
step with the philosophy of current welfare policy. We must move the
child support program from cost-recovery to service delivery for all
families. Second, the current financing scheme is no longer workable.
TANF caseloads are decreasing dramatically, even as overall child
support caseloads are increasing. Therefore, while the system needs
additional resources, the portion of the caseload that produces those
resources is decreasing. We must put the child support program on a
sound financial footing that confirms a strong Federal and state
commitment to the program.
So, I believe it is time to begin a discussion on the issue of child
support financing and the vital role of the child support program in
helping families help themselves. The Administration has already begun
to meet with policymakers, state administrators, and children's
advocates to discuss the future of child support financing. I want to
begin today, and ultimately end the debate, by pushing for a financing
system that puts more resources into the hands of children, that lets
our nation's families keep more of their own money.
But let me strongly affirm that adopting a children first policy is
only one of my goals. At this time, my proposal addresses only one half
of the financing issue. Yes, we should put children first, but let me
stress that I have every intention of continuing to refine this
proposal so that it addresses the second point as well--finding
alternative financing mechanisms so that states can maintain and
strengthen their child support programs. Without adequate funding,
state child support programs cannot deliver effective child support
services to the families that so desperately need them. I want to
continue working with my colleagues, Wisconsin and the other states,
advocates and families to sort out the rest of the financing question.
By advocating a full passthrough and disregard approach, I am
absolutely not advocating a disinvestment in our child support system
by either the Federal government or the states. Our commitment to this
program must remain strong and steadfast.
But it is time for us to create a system that truly serves families
by giving them the tools to survive in a world without public support.
It is time for a child support financing system that truly puts
families, and not the government, first.
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. 2586
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 ``Children First Child Support
Reform Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTED
BY OR ON BEHALF OF FAMILIES RECEIVING
ASSISTANCE UNDER TANF.
(a) Requirement to Pass All Child Support Collected
Directly to the Family.--
(1) In general.--Section 457 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 657) is amended--
(A) by striking all that precedes subsection (f) and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 457. DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTED SUPPORT.
``(a) Distribution to Family.--
``(1) In General.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(f), any amount collected on behalf of a family as support by
a State pursuant to a plan approved under this part shall be
distributed to the family.
``(2) Families under certain agreements.--In the case of an
amount collected for a family in accordance with a
cooperative agreement under section 454(33), the State shall
distribute the amount so collected pursuant to the terms of
the agreement.
``(b) Hold Harmless Provision.--If the amounts collected
which could be retained by the State in the fiscal year (to
the extent necessary to reimburse the State for amounts paid
to families as assistance by the State) are less than the
State share of the amounts collected in fiscal year 1995, the
State share for the fiscal year shall be an amount equal to
the State share in fiscal year 1995.'';
(B) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (c); and
(C) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking
``Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``Amounts Collected On
Behalf of Children in Foster Care.--Notwithstanding''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)(I))(aa) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa)) is amended by striking
``457(a)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``457''.
(B) Section 454B(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 654b(c)) is
amended by striking ``457(a)'' and inserting ``457''.
(b) Disregard of Child Support Collected For Purposes of
Determining Amount of TANF Assistance.--Section 408(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(12) Requirement to disregard child support in
determining amount of assistance.--
``(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403 shall disregard any amount received by a family
as a result of a child support obligation in determining the
amount or level of assistance that the State will provide to
the family under the State program funded under this part.
``(B) Option to include child support for purposes of
determining eligibility.--A State may include any amount
received by a family as a result of a child support
obligation in determining the family's income for purposes of
determining the family's eligibility for assistance under the
State program funded under this part.''.
(c) Elimination of TANF Requirement to Assign Support to
the State.--
(1) In general.--Section 408(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 452 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 652)
is amended--
(i) in subsection (a)(10)(C), by striking ``section
408(a)(3) or under''; and
(ii) in subsection (h), by striking ``or with respect to
whom an assignment pursuant to section 408(a)(3) is in
effect''.
(B) Section 454(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 654(5)) is
amended by striking ``(A) in any case'' and all that follows
through ``the support payments collected, and (B)''.
(C) Section 456(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 656(a)) is
amended--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``assigned to the State
pursuant to section 408(a)(3) or''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``assigned''.
(D) Section 464(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)) is
amended by striking ``section 408(a)(3) or ''.
(E) Section 466(a)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
666(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``408(a)(3) or ''.
(F) Section 458A(b)(5)(C)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 658a(b)(5)(C)(i)(I)), as added by the Child
Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-200; 112 Stat. 645) is amended by striking ``A or''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section take effect on October 1,
1998.
(2) Child support performance and incentive act conforming
amendment.--The amendment made by subsection (c)(2)(F) shall
take effect on October 2, 1999.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
[[Page S11983]]
S. 2587. A bill to protect the public, especially seniors, against
telemarketing fraud and telemarketing fraud over the Internet and to
authorize an educational campaign to improve senior citizens' ability
to protect themselves against telemarketing fraud over the Internet; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
telemarketing fraud and seniors protection act
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, online consumer purchases are poised to
explode to more than $300 billion early in the next Century. But the
goldrush in cyberbuying is likely to carry along with it a boom in
cyberfraud. Congress can help head-off this cybercrime by extending our
current telemarketing laws to encompass fraud on the Net.
In response to the staggering $40 billion consumers lose in telephone
fraud each year, Congress earlier this summer passed the 1998
Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act. I strongly supported that effort.
The new law builds upon the four federal laws enacted since the early
1990s that deal directly with telemarketing fraud. The 1998 law
stiffens penalties for telemarketing fraud by toughening the sentencing
guidelines--especially for crimes against the elderly, requires
criminal forfeiture to ensure the booty of telemarketing crime is not
used to commit further fraud, mandates victim restitution to ensure
victims are the first ones compensated, adds conspiracy language to the
list of telemarketing fraud penalties so that prosecutors can find the
masterminds behind the boiler rooms, and will help law enforcement zero
in on quick-strike fraud operations by giving them the authority to
move more quickly against suspected fraud.
The 1998 law is a good step forward but it's not enough to deal with
today's digital economy. As more Americans go online, cyberscams are
bound to proliferate. The Congressional crackdown on telemarketing
fraud will only encourage cyberscammers to migrate to the Net unless
the law gets there first. That is the purpose of the legislation I am
introducing today.
The Telemarketing Fraud and Seniors Protection Act simply extends
current law against telemarketing fraud to include the same crimes
committed over the Internet. The approach expands the existing law
applicable to mail, telephone, wire, and television fraud to fraud over
the Internet, and its enforcement would follow the same division of
labor there is today between the Federal Trade Commission and the
Department of Justice. The bill would apply the same tough penalties
that Congress enacted earlier this year to cyberscams. The growth of
Internet telephony makes it more attractive for cyberscammers to set up
shop offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. law. My bill would address this
problem by allowing law enforcement to freeze the assets and deny entry
to the United States of those convicted of cyberfraud.
The bill takes special aim against those attempt to defraud one of
our most vulnerable groups--our senior citizens. Seniors are the target
for more than 50 percent of telemarketing fraud. Although telemarketers
convicted of fraud face stiff penalties--a minimum of 5-10 years in
jail and restitution payments to their victims, we also need to better
educate and inform senior citizens on how to avoid becoming victims of
telemarketing fraud in the first place, and how to assist law
enforcement in catching the perpetrators.
The legislation would also authorize the Administration on Aging,
through its network of area agencies of aging, to conduct an outreach
program to senior citizens on telemarketing fraud. Seniors would be
advised against providing their credit card number, bank account or
other personal information unless they had initiated the call
unsolicited. They would also be informed of their consumer protection
rights and any toll-free numbers and other resources to report
suspected illegal telemarketing.
Mr. President, the Federal Trade Commission is off to a good start
against cyberscammers. Some of the operations the FTC has targeted are
not companies at all, but merely websites that promise consumers
everything from huge new consulting contracts to the elimination of bad
credit reports. They may use scare tactics to frighten consumers into
sending important personal financial information and hundreds of
dollars for services the consumer will never see, or attempt to lure
consumers with the promise of help them cash in on the Internet
explosion. The FTC also has a strong operation going against junk e-
mailers. My legislation will complement and strengthen the FTC's effort
to target telemarketing fraud over the Internet and especially when
such fraud is aimed at seniors.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this important legislation, and
ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2587
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--TELEMARKETING FRAUD OVER THE INTERNET
SECTION 101. EXTENSION OF CRIMINAL FRAUD STATUTE TO INTERNET.
Section 1343 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by----
(1) striking ``or television communication'' and inserting
``television communication or the Internet''; and
(2) adding at the end thereof the following: ``For purposes
of this section, the term `Internet' means collectively the
myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities,
including equipment and operating software, which comprise
the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ
the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any
predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to
communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.''.
SEC. 102. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SANCTIONS.
The Federal Trade Commission shall initiate a rulemaking
proceeding to set forth the application of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) and other
statutory provisions within its jurisdiction to deceptive
acts or practices in or affecting the commerce of the United
States in connection with the promotion, advertisement,
offering for sale, or sale of goods or services through use
of the Internet, including the initiation, transmission, and
receipt of unsolicited commercial electronic mail. For
purposes of this section, the term `Internet' means
collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications
facilities, including equipment and operating software, which
comprise the interconnected worldwide network of networks
that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such
protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or
radio.
TITLE II--SPECIAL PROTECTION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
SEC. 201. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that----
(1) telemarketing fraud costs consumers nearly
$40,000,000,000 each year;
(2) senior citizens are often the target of telemarketing
fraud;
(3) fraudulent telemarketers compile into ``mooch lists''
the names of potentially vulnerable consumers;
(4) according to the American Association of Retired
Persons, 56 percent of the names on ``mooch lists'' are
individuals age 50 or older;
(5) the Department of Justice has undertaken successful
investigations and prosecutions of telemarketing fraud
through various operations, including ``Operation
Disconnect'', ``Operation Senior Sentinel'', and ``Operation
Upload'';
(6) the Federal Bureau of Investigation has helped provide
resources to assist organizations such as the American
Association of Retired Persons to operate outreach programs
designed to warn senior citizens whose names appear on
confiscated ``mooch lists'';
(7) the Administration on Aging was formed, in part, to
provide senior citizens with the resources, information, and
assistance their special circumstances require;
(8) the Administration on Aging has a system in place to
effectively inform senior citizens of the dangers of
telemarketing fraud; and
(9) senior citizens need to be warned of the dangers of
telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet before they
become victims.
SEC. 202. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this title through education and
outreach to protect senior citizens from the dangers of
telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet and to
facilitate the investigation and prosecution of fraudulent
telemarketers.
SEC. 203. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Aging,
shall publicly disseminate in each State information designed
to educate senior citizens and raise awareness about the
dangers of telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet.
(b) Information.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall----
(1) inform senior citizens of the prevalence of
telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet targeted
against them;
[[Page S11984]]
(2) inform senior citizens of how telemarketing fraud and
fraud over the Internet works;
(3) inform senior citizens of how to identify telemarketing
fraud and fraud over the Internet;
(4) inform senior citizens of how to protect themselves
against telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet,
including an explanation of the dangers of providing bank
account, credit card, or other financial or personal
information over the telephone to unsolicited callers;
(5) inform senior citizens of how to report suspected
attempts at telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet;
(6) inform senior citizens of their consumer protection
rights under Federal law; and
(7) provide such other information as the Secretary
considers necessary to protect senior citizens against
fraudulent telemarketing over the Internet.
(c) Means of Dissemination.--The Secretary shall determine
the means to disseminate information under this section. In
making such determination, the Secretary shall consider----
(1) public service announcements;
(2) a printed manual or pamphlet;
(3) an Internet website; and
(4) telephone outreach to individuals whose names appear on
``mooch lists'' confiscated from fraudulent telemarketers.
(d) Priority.--In disseminating information under this
section, the Secretary shall give priority to areas with high
concentrations of senior citizens.
SEC. 204. AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT GIFTS.
The Secretary may accept, use, and dispose of unconditional
gifts, bequests, or devises of services or property, both
real and personal, in order to carry out this title.
SEC. 205. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this title, the term ``State'' includes the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 2588. A bill to provide for the review and classification of
physician assistant positions in the Federal Government, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
office of personnel management legislation
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by
Senator Nickles and Senator Inouye to introduce legislation that
directs the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) to develop a
classification standard appropriate to the occupation of physician
assistant.
Physician assistants are a part of a growing field of health care
professionals that make quality health care available and affordable in
underserved areas throughout our country. Because the physician
assistant profession was very young when OPM first developed employment
criteria in 1970, the agency adapted the nursing classification system
for physician assistants. Today, this is no longer appropriate.
Physician assistants have different education and training requirements
than nurses and they are licensed and evaluated according to differnt
criteria.
The inaccurate classification of physician assistant has led to
recruitment and retention problems of physician assistants in Federal
agencies, usually caused by low starting salaries and low salary caps.
Because it is recognized that physician assistants provide cost-
effective health care, this is an important problem to resolve.
This legislation mandates that OPM review this classification in
consultation with physician assistants and the organizations that
represent physician assistants. The bill specifically states that OPM
should consider the educational and practice qualifications of the
position as well as the treatment of physician assistants in the
private sector in this review.
Mr. President, I believe that this legislation will make an important
correction that will help federal agencies make better use of these
providers of cost-effective, high quality health care.
______
By Mr. MURKOSWKI:
S. 2589. A bill to provide for the collection and interpretation of
state of the art, non-intrusive 3-dimensional seismic data on certain
federal lands in Alasks, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
legislation authorizing 3-d seismic testing in alaska
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to
ensure that when Congress looks at ways to reduce the United States'
dependence on foreign oil, it does so with the best science available.
The legislation I introduce today would require the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct 3-dimensional (3-D) seismic testing on the Arctic
Coastal Plain of Alaska.
This testing leaves no footprint. In fact, just last year the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service allowed such testing to be done in the Kenai
National Wildlife Refuge, declaring such testing would have no
significant impact.
It would have even less impact on the frozen tundra in ANWR.
It is also a possibility that the oil industry would be willing to
share in the cost of such testing. Let's at least find out what kind of
resource we are talking about.
Mr. President, I think it is important that we look at some of the
history of his area and the testing that has occurred there.
In May of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that a mean
of 7.7 billion barrels of producible oil may reside in the 1002 Area of
the Arctic Oil Reserve.
This estimate was in stark contrast to a declaration by Secretary
Babbitt in 1995 when he pronounced the Arctic Oil Reserve's oil
possibilities to be about 898 million barrels.
In the interest of looking at this amazing leap in the estimate of
the AOR's producible oil, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee last week, and invited the U.S. Geological
Survey to participate.
Three things rang clear at that hearing:
First, while these estimates were the highest ever and proved the
1002 area of the AOR has the greatest potential of securing our
Nation's energy needs--they were extremely conservative.
For instance, these estimates were based on a minimum economic field
size of 512 million barrels. When in practice the minimum economic
field size in Alaska is much lower than that. Consider the following
examples of current economic fields in Alaska:
Northstar: 145 mm/bb (With a sub-sea pipeline) is deemed economic.
Badami: 120 mm/bb is deemed economic. Liberty: 120 mm/bb is deemed
economic. Sourdough: 100+ mm/bb (adjacent to Aor) is deemed economic.
The second fact that rang clear is while these new estimates show a
clearer picture of the Western portion of the AOR, much remains unclear
about the oil and gas potential of the massive structures present in
the Eastern portion.
The USGS has slightly downgraded the potential of the Eastern portion
because they do not have similar data that was available to them on the
Western portion.
Third, technology has increased so dramatically that we can now
extract greater amounts of oil from wells with far less impact on the
environment at a cost of 30 percent less than 10 years ago.
Consider this, Mr. President: In June of 1994, Amerada Hess concluded
the Northstar field in Alaska was uneconomic because development would
exceed $1.2 billion and eventually sold the field to BP.
Today, BP expects to begin production of that field's 145 million
barrels of reserves in 2000. Estimated development costs: $350
million--a 70 percent reduction from just 4 years ago!
Mr. President, all these factors point toward the logical conclusion
that underlying the 1.5 million-acre oil reserve in Alaska lies greater
reserves than recently estimated, and we need to confirm them with
better science.
Dr. Thomas J. Casadevall, acting director of the USGS, was very clear
in his explanation that if the newer three dimensional (3-D) seismic
data were available from the Arctic Oil Reserve, their high May
estimates of producible oil could increase significantly.
Casadevall explained that their new estimates, while supported by
sound science and peer review, were still based on 2-D seismic tests
done more than a decade ago.
Kenneth A. Boyd, director, Division of Oil and Gas of the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, likened the advance of the new testing
to the difference between an x-ray and a CAT-scan.
He said the available information from 2-D seismic as opposed to 3-D
seismic is that the former produces a line of data while the latter
produces a cube of data. The cube can be turned
[[Page S11985]]
and examined from all sides and the geologic information proves
invaluable for exploration.
This data has revolutionized exploration and development of the North
Slope of Alaska. Modern 3-D data provides enhanced and incredibly
accurate imaging of potential subsurface reservoirs.
This in turn reduces exploration and development risk, reduces the
number of drilled wells, and in turn reduces both overall costs and
environmental impacts.
Of course there is little pressure to allow testing or exploration of
the Coastal Plain with gas prices at a 30-year low. However, the
Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in 10
years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign oil. It
would take that same 10-year period to develop any oil production in
AOR.
It seems prudent to plan ahead to protect our future energy security.
If the Nation were to be crunched in an energy crisis--like the Gulf
war that would require the speedup of development; that development
could impact the environment negatively because it would not have the
benefit of thoughtful planning.
I believe it is as criminal as stealing gold to refuse to acknowledge
the potential for producible oil in the Coastal Plain of the AOR. If we
don't know what the resource is, how can we protect it or make an
informed decision about the use of the area?
And how can those in this administration or the environmental
community argue it is a bad idea to seek a greater understanding of
these public lands? Particularly, when the Congress set aside the area
under a special designation for future Congresses to determine whether
it contains the quantities of oil that, if produced, would
significantly enhance our national energy security.
Mr. President, this legislation will also better enable the Secretary
of the Interior to protect the Federal petroleum resources underlying
the Coastal Plain. However, without knowing what those Federal
resources are however, there is no way to protect them.
Just last year a major oil discovery was announced on State lands
immediately adjacent to the federal border. Production from this well
could drain portions of the federal reserve without adequate
compensation to the federal treasury.
The Secretary has an obligation to protect the Federal resource
underlying ANWR and this legislation will provide him the tools to do
so.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to make it perfectly clear that this
bill is being pushed by those of us in Congress who believe that if you
are to make a decision about the best use of our public lands that you
should do so with the benefit of the best available science.
It is not, as Secretary Babbitt has suggested, an effort being pushed
by the petroleum industry.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 2591. A bill to provide certain secondary school students with
eligibility for certain campus-based assistance under title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
TECH-PREP OPPORTUNITIES ACT
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I introduce a piece of
legislation that, I believe, takes an important step toward giving more
individuals the ability to earn good wages so that they can support
themselves and their families. This bill will allow community colleges
to use their campus-based student aid to assist students who are
concurrently enrolled in a high school and in a vocational-technical
program in a community college. This legislation helps us solve a
national problem, but it also helps more young people achieve the
American Dream.
We must recognize that a degree from a four-year college or
university is not the only ticket to a successful, productive life.
Only 60% of high school graduates enroll in college, and only 20% end
up with a four-year degree. Community colleges are playing an
increasingly important role in helping the other 80% of our students
obtain the advanced technical training that is vital to our economy and
to their futures.
Today the Senate also passed the conference report that will
reauthorize vocational education. I am pleased to have played a role in
this process. At my request the conferees have included language that
will encourage institutions to investigate opportunities for tech-prep
secondary students to enroll concurrently in secondary and
postsecondary coursework. The bill that I am introducing today builds
upon this concept in a tangible way.
As we address the need for highly skilled workers in Nebraska and
throughout the nation, we must change the way that we think about our
education system, and especially the way that we think about those
students who are on the verge of graduation. We must make certain that
a high school diploma has real value, that it says to an employer, ``I
have the skills and the knowledge to make a valuable contribution to
your business.''
This legislation allows community colleges to offer a helping hand to
students who are still in high school but have exhausted the
vocational-technical offerings and are ready and able to enroll in such
programs at a community college. Throughout the nation many students
are already dually enrolled, but either the school district pays the
tuition or the student must pay it. In Nebraska, more than 100 students
in Omaha Public Schools are dually enrolled. And more than 50 in
Bellevue Public Schools are dually enrolled. Some students have the
ability to enroll in a vocational-technical program, but they do not
have the financial means. By making this change in law, community
colleges can assist those students if they choose to do so.
With a Federal commitment of $7,400,000 last year, Nebraska provided
vocational and applied technology education to approximately 70,000
secondary students and 47,800 postsecondary students. This money is a
wise investment, but we need to do more.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress next year to
further our commitment to preparing our young people to achieve the
American Dream.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Conrad):
S. 2592. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act to permit a State to register a Canadian pesticide for
distribution and use within that State; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
canadian cross-border chemical legislation
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, I introduce the first in
what will be a number of bills addressing the inequalities in the
availability and pricing of agricultural chemicals between the United
States and Canada. This bill focuses on the differences in prices
between identical or nearly identical chemicals. The need for this bill
is created by chemical companies who use our chemical labeling laws to
protect their pricing and marketing system. By labeling similar
products only for use in different states or countries or only for use
on certain plants, chemical companies are able to extract unreasonable
profits from farmers who desperately need their products.
A second part of my effort to correct differences between
agricultural chemicals used in Canada and the United States is a study
by the General Accounting Office (GAO). I am now finalizing discussions
with GAO as to the specific areas to be studied and the scope of the
study. It is my expectation that I will introduce legislation in the
next session of Congress to correct the remaining deficiencies.
Of particular concern lately has been the significant difference in
farm chemical prices between Canada and the United States. Because our
farmers are engaged in a difficult trade battle with Canada,
differences in agricultural chemical prices between Canada and the
United States place our farmers at a disadvantage with their Canadian
competition. This bill is drafted to correct
As introduced today, the bill sets up a procedure by which states may
apply for, and receive, an Environmental Protection Agency label for
agricultural chemicals sold in Canada which are identical or
substantially similar to agricultural chemicals used in the United
States. Initially, this bill will allow the cross border movement of
similar chemicals. Eventually, it is my expectation that this bill,
along with the GAO study, will lead to an equalization of farm chemical
availability and prices across the border.
[[Page S11986]]
I request my colleagues' support in this effort to bring fairness to
cross-border chemical pricing.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM:
S. 2593. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a credit against tax for employers who provide child care assistance
for dependents of their employees, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
The Worksite Child Care Development Center Act of 1998
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
designed to aid millions of American families with one of their most
pressing needs--child care. This legislation would make child care more
accessible to millions of families who find it not only important, but
necessary, to work.
In the ideal world, most parents, I believe, would prefer to have
their children raised by at least one parent at home. However, for a
vast majority of families in America, this ideal is not possible. And
for the working poor and many in the middle class of our society, this
ideal is a luxury that they cannot afford.
The legislation which I am introducing today would not solve the
child care needs of American parents. However, it would serve to
provide a much needed incentive--a jump start--to promote employer
provided child care, particularly among our nation's small businesses.
The legislation I am introducing today would offer a tax credit to
those employers who undertake the responsibility of assisting their
employees with child care expenses. This bill--the Worksite Child Care
Development Center Act of 1998--would modify that part of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 which relates to business tax credits. It would do
so by providing child care tax credits to employers for--
A one-time 50 percent tax credit, not to exceed $100,000,
specifically for facilities start-up expenses, which includes expansion
and renovations of an employer-sponsored child care facility;
A 50 percent tax credit, not to exceed $25,000 annually, for those
expenses related to the operating costs of maintaining a child care
facility; and
A 50 percent tax credit, not to exceed $50,000 annually, specifically
for those employers who provide payments or reimbursements for their
employees' child care expenses.
One may ask, ``Why is this legislation important to American
employers and employees?'' Mr. President, I submit to you that there
are four compelling reasons for the Congress to pass this legislation.
First, child care is a major concern for American families. We should
be concerned about child care because it has become one of today's most
pressing social issues. Ask working parents today to identify their top
daily concerns, and a large proportion will most certainly identify
quality, affordable child care as one of them.
On June 1st of this year, I hosted a Florida statewide summit on
child care, which was attended by over 500 residents of my state who
shared with me their concerns, and sometimes their frustrations, about
this issue. The feedback that I received from my constituents covered a
myriad of issues reflecting the high level of concern that parents have
regarding access, quality, and the level of investment we are making in
child care. We had five panel sessions moderated and staffed by 25 of
Florida's most distinguished professionals in the field of child
development and human services and education. The panels covered a wide
range of issues from affordability and access, to quality of care, to
public-private partnerships between government and businesses.
I am pleased that I was able to hear from my constituents and from
experts regarding the extent and nature of the problem. One participant
summed it up well, ``The issues addressed in the summit today are
concerns that need to continue to be addressed until the needs are met;
however, the needs are going to continue to grow as our preschoolers
and school-agers go into middle schools.''
Mr. President, it's no wonder that there is so much interest in the
issue of child care. Child care, when it is available, is provided to a
child at one of the most important times in that child's life. Indeed,
recent research has confirmed what many of us had always believed--that
quality child care can positively influence cognitive and social
development. Current scientific research tells us that the most crucial
period in children's brain development and brain readiness--which
determines so much of the course for the rest of their lives--is that
time between birth and the age of three.
Second, America's workforce is changing. The work place has changed
dramatically over the past fifty years. In 1947, just over one-quarter
of all mothers with children between 6 and 17 years of age were in the
labor force. By 1996, the labor force participation rate of working
mothers had tripled. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 65
percent of all women with children under 18 years of age are now
working. This percentage is not expected to decrease--it is expected to
grow. As we enter the 21st century, women will comprise 60 per cent of
all new entrants into the labor market. A large proportion of these
women are expected to be mothers of children under the age of six.
The implications for employers are clear. Employers understand well
that our nation's workforce is changing rapidly. Those employers who
can attract and hold onto the best employees are likely to be among the
most competitive.
Many of our larger corporations and government agencies have
recognized this and are already moving in that direction. For example,
our nation's military is often cited as having a model child care
program for its personnel. Military leaders know well the relationship
between a parent's peace of mind and satisfaction with good child care
and job performance.
In my State of Florida, several major firms have taken similar steps
to invest in their employees. I recently visited Ryder Corporation's
Kids' Corner child care center in Miami where more than 100 children
are cared for in a top-notch day care program. Ryder has received many
accolades, including being recognized as the Best Employer of Women in
the State of Florida by the Florida Commission on the Status of Women.
Ryder now plans on extending the care that it provides to the children
of employees by establishing a charter school on-site.
Similarly, NationsBank, formerly Barnett Bank, in Jacksonville,
operates a state of the art child care facility for its employees.
According to Ms. Mari White, the Senior Vice President of Work
Environment Integration at NationsBank--and a member of my informal
Advisory Committee on Child Care--this program makes good business
sense. She views the availability of child care at the work site as a
workforce retention tool for NationsBank as well as a great recruitment
tool for new employees. In addition to its day care center, NationsBank
also operates a Satellite Learning Center--a charter school for
employees' children.
I commend Ryder Corporation, NationsBank, and the many other
corporations in Florida and throughout the nation, which have taken the
important step forward in providing child care for its employees. I
submit to you that small businesses, which do not have the resources to
undertake such efforts, ought to have the ability to offer similar
benefits to its employees. My legislation is intended to make it easier
for them to do so.
Third, child care is important for the success of Welfare Reform.
This legislation is an important component to our national welfare
policy. While most American families struggle with child care, this
problem is most acute among the working poor and the middle class.
In 1996, Congress and the President changed welfare as we knew it. We
made fundamental changes to the policies, and the social expectations,
relating to work and welfare. The federal government has asked our
business community and governmental agencies to work in partnership in
keeping the working poor off of the welfare rolls. If we are to see the
reforms of 1996 succeed, we must ensure that the means to succeed are
provided.
The working poor--particularly those formerly on welfare--face major
challenges associated with staying off of welfare. These challenges
include their ability to:
(1) get to and from work;
(2) obtain the job training they need to get and hold onto their job;
and
[[Page S11987]]
(3) access to affordable and quality child care.
Although States spend millions of dollars each year on subsidized
child care, at any given time there may be up to twice as many children
eligible who are not enrolled in the system. These children are on
child care waiting lists. In the State of Florida for example, as of
July of this year, there were 29,744 children on the state's wait list
for these services. Many of these families on waiting lists do not
receive temporary cash assistance because they work in low-wage jobs,
such as in the retail sector, hotel and motel business, fast food
restaurants, nursing homes, and child care centers. They earn too much
money to qualify for many government programs, yet they earn too little
money to have real choices about their child care.
This is not an issue of whether they should stay at home or work--
they must work. In other words, for them child care is not an option,
it is a necessity. I am reminded of a letter that I recently received
from Ms. Ruth Pasarell-Valencia, the Commissioner at the Housing
Authority of the City of Miami Beach, in which she states, ``We need to
wake up from the nightmare of child care neglect. In this era of
Welfare Reform and cuts in many public assistance benefits, we have to
be very careful not to hurt our children in the process of making
adults self-sufficient.''
By addressing our citizens' child care needs, particularly that of
our working poor, the federal government has an opportunity to
contribute to the success of welfare reform. This legislation offered
today would be one part of the federal government's response to this
need.
Fourth, small businesses need this support.
Mr. President, I believe that the provisions contained in my
legislation will be a boon for American small businesses. According to
the Small Business Administration, small businesses in America employ:
Fifty two percent of all private workers;
Sixty one percent of private workers on public assistance; and
Thirty eight percent of private workers in high-tech occupations.
Small businesses have contributed virtually all of the net new jobs
which have been created during these recent years of job growth. And
small businesses represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods leaving
the United States. Small businesses are truly a big piston in the
engine of our nation's economy.
Yet, we know that the owners of small businesses struggle to make
ends meet. That is why initiatives like the one I propose are important
for strengthening the vitality of our small business community. For
small businesses, resources are limited and survival in a competitive
world market is difficult. Think of the impact on a small business when
one of its employees is absent for the day to care for his or her child
because that employee's day care worker is sick that day with the flu.
According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, employers surveyed
reported positive benefits associated with providing child care to its
employees. The Treasury Department's data indicates:
Sixty two percent reported higher morale;
Fifty four percent reported reduced absenteeism;
Fifty two percent reported increased productivity; and
Thirty seven percent reported lower job turnover.
Providing child care to employees can be a major step-up for small
businesses. My legislation would provide tax credits to the employers
who make investments to help their businesses and their employees with
child care, or back-up child care when their regular services are not
available.
Mr. President, in concluding, I would like to thank the 30 members of
my Informal Children's Development Advisory Committee in Florida which
has provided invaluable support to me, my staff, and Floridians
throughout the state. This group of dedicated individuals, who hail
from a wide variety of professions, were instrumental in organizing the
Child Care Summit which we held in South Florida in June of this year.
They have worked with child care professionals, parents, and business
groups to raise awareness on this issue, and have supported my efforts
to draft this important legislative proposal.
To them, I offer my deepest thanks for the assistance they have
provided me and for all of their hard work on behalf of the welfare of
children in Florida.
I would like to quote Ms. Janet Ndah, the Dean of Students at the
Punta Gorda Middle School in Punta Gorda, Florida, who says of my
legislation: ``As an educator and a working parent, care for children
is definitely a priority and a challenge. Therefore, I am extremely
supportive of this child care act and in particular, the tax credits
that employers would receive as they begin a site-based child care
facility.''
Ms. Phyllis J. Siderits, who works at the Florida Department of
Health--and who has served as a member of my Advisory Committee--also
has written to me of the benefits of this proposal: ``This Act is of
benefit to employers as well as employees. For too long, I have
witnessed the inability to maintain qualified and competent employees
because of child care issues, whether those issues were ones of
compensation, scheduling and work time difficulties, or caretaker
concerns. It is especially gratifying to know that this act would be of
benefit to employees who have children with special needs and allow the
employees to have closer contact with their children during the day
where employer-sponsored child care facilities exist. We have not
supported single-parent or dual-parent families who work and have
tremendous difficulties obtaining child care. The ideal solution is an
employer-sponsored child care facility. I think this proposed
legislation offers all of the incentives to create a win-win solution
for employers and employees.''
Mr. President, I am disappointed that it seems that the
Administration's child care initiatives will not pass Congress this
year. That comprehensive proposal outlined by the President at the
start of this year would have provided much needed support to American
families in this vital area. However, I believe that the legislation
which I am introducing today would make a valuable contribution to the
quality of life and care for families; the success of Welfare Reform;
and the strengthening of our small business community.
On July 30, 1998, I introduced, with 20 of my colleagues, a Senate
Resolution which would designate October 11, 1998 as National
Children's Day. That legislation now has 52 cosponsors and is awaiting
passage by this Congress. It is only fitting that I am introducing this
child care legislation just days prior to that date which the United
States Senate is designating as ``National Children's Day.''
Mr. President, it is in recognition of our commitment to the children
of our nation that I introduce the Worksite Child Care Development
Center Act of 1998. Our children and their families deserve our
support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of S.
Res. 260 and a list of the members of the Advisory Committee be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. Res. 260
Whereas the people of the United States should celebrate
children as the most valuable asset of the Nation;
Whereas children represent the future, hope, and
inspiration of the United States;
Whereas the children of the United States should be allowed
to feel that their ideas and dreams will be respected because
adults in the United States take time to listen;
Whereas many children of the United States face crises of
grave proportions, especially as they enter adolescent years;
Whereas it is important for parents to spend time listening
to their children on a daily basis;
Whereas modern societal and economic demands often pull the
family apart;
Whereas encouragement should be given to families to set
aside a special time for all family members to engage
together in family activities;
Whereas adults in the United States should have an
opportunity to reminisce on their youth and to recapture some
of the fresh insight, innocence, and dreams that they may
have lost through the years;
Whereas the designation of a day to commemorate the
children of the United States will provide an opportunity to
emphasize to children the importance of developing an ability
to make the choices necessary to distance themselves from
impropriety and to contribute to their communities;
[[Page S11988]]
Whereas the designation of a day to commemorate the
children of the Nation will emphasize to the people of the
United States the importance of the role of the child within
the family and society;
Whereas the people of the United States should emphasize to
children the importance of family life, education, and
spiritual qualities; and
Whereas children are the responsibility of all Americans
and everyone should celebrate the children of the United
States, whose questions, laughter, and tears are important to
the existence of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) it is the sense of the Senate that October 11, 1998,
should be designated as ``National Children's Day''; and
(2) the President is requested to issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States to observe
``National Children's Day'' with appropriate ceremonies and
activities.
____
Senator Graham's Appointees to the Informal Florida Statewide
Children's Development Advisory Committee
1997-1998 Members
Ms. Mary Bryant, Children's Coordinator, Executive Office
of the Governor, Tallahassee; Ms. Gloria Dean, ESOL
Instructor, Neptune Beach Elementary School, Jacksonville;
Ms. Tana Ebbole, Executive Director, Children's Services
Council, West Palm Beach; Dr. Rebecca Fewell, Director,
Debbie Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine,
Miami; Mr. William S. Fillmore, President, Florida Head Start
Directors Association, Pinellas Park.
Dr. Steve Freedman, Director, Institute for Child Health
Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville; Ms. Jane Goodman,
Executive Director, Guard Ad Litem-Miami, Miami; Dr. Mimi
Graham, Director, Center for Prevention and Early
Intervention Policy, Florida State University, Tallahassee;
Mr. Ted Granger, President, United Way of Florida,
Tallahassee; Ms. Mary Frances Hanline, Associate Professor,
Department of Special Education, Florida State University,
Tallahassee.
Dr. Delores Jeffers, Executive Director, Lawton and Rhea
Chiles Center for Healthy Mothers and Babies, Department of
Community and Family Health, University of South Florida,
Tampa; Ms. Katherine Kamiya, Chairwoman, Florida Interagency
Coordinating Council for Infants and Toddlers, Lawton and
Rhea Chiles Center for Healthy Mothers and Babies,
Tallahassee; Ms. Daniella Levine, Executive Director, Human
Services Coalition of Dade County, Inc., Coral Gables; Dr.
Ann Levy, Director, Educational Research Center for Childhood
Development, Florida State University, Tallahassee; Ms.
Barbara Mainster, Executive Director, Redlands Christian
Migrant Association, Immokalee.
Ms. Esmin Master, Executive Director, First Coast
Developmental Academy, Jacksonville; Mr. James E. Mills,
Executive Director, Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas
County, Pinellas Park; Mr. James J. Mooney, Director, Metro-
Dade Office of Youth and Family Development, Miami; Ms. Susan
Muenchow, Executive Director, Florida Children's Forum,
Tallahassee; Ms. Joan Nabors, Executive Director, Florida
Initiatives, Inc., Tallahassee.
Ms. Rose Naff, Executive Director, Florida Healthy Kids
Corporation, Tallahassee; Ms. Janet Ndah, Dean of Students,
Punta Gorda Middle School, Punta Gorda; Dr. Pam Phelps, Vice
President, Creative Center for Childhood Research and
Training, Tallahassee; Ms. Patricia Pierce, Associate
Executive Director, Institute for Child Health Policy,
Gulfport; Mr. Larry Pintacuda, Chief of Child Care, Florida
Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee.
Mr. Peter Roulhac, Vice President, First Union National
Bank of Florida, Miami; Ms. Phyliss Siderits, Assistant
Division Director, Children's Medical Services, Tallahassee;
Dr. Linda Stone, Program Director, Lawton and Rhea Chiles
Center for Healthy Mothers and Babies, University of South
Florida, Winter Park; Dr. Barbara Weinstein, President/CEO,
Family Central, Fort Lauderdale; Dr. Anita Zervigon-Hakes,
Interagency Coordinator, Maternal and Child Health, Lawton
and Rhea Chiles Center for Healthy Mothers and Babies
Tallahassee.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Murkowski):
S. 2595. A bill to amend the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 to provide affordable housing and community development assistance
to rural areas with excessively high rates of outmigration and low per
capita income levels; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
the rural recovery act of 1998
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
will help rural areas affected by severe population loss improve their
economic conditions and create high-paying jobs. We are experiencing
first-hand the challenge of retaining entire generations in many parts
of rural South Dakota as the agricultural crisis deepens and fewer and
fewer young people can find economically-rewarding opportunities that
give them reason to stay. As a result, young people are being forced to
leave the towns in which they grew up for better jobs in urban areas,
causing a depressing loss of generational continuity and a foreboding
sign for the future of these rural communities.
Too often we forget that while the economic growth experienced in our
urban areas is a necessary element of a sound national economy, the
health and vitality of our rural areas are just as critical to our
Nation's economic future, and to its character. If nothing is done to
address the out-migration that is currently being experienced by our
most rural communities, we will continue to jeopardize the future of
rural America.
That is why I am introducing legislation to provide these critical
rural areas with the resources necessary to create the good jobs that
will help young families remain active residents of the rural
communities in which they choose to live. The Rural Recovery Act of
1998 would provide a minimum of $250,000 per year to counties and
tribes with out-migration levels of fifteen percent or higher, per-
capita income levels that are below the national average, and whose
exterior borders are not adjacent to a metropolitan area.
The legislation authorizes the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development to set aside $50 million in Community Development
Block Grant funding. The money, which is already included in the
agency's budget, will be allocated on a formula basis to rural counties
and tribes suffering from out migration and low per-capita income
levels.
County and tribal governments will be able to use this Federal
funding to improve their industrial parks, purchase land for
development, build affordable housing and develop economic recovery
strategies. All of these important steps will help rural communities
address their economic challenges and plan for stable long-term growth
and development.
While Federal agencies such as the United States Department of
Agriculture's Office of Rural Development and the Economic Development
Administration do provide aid for rural development purposes, there are
no federal programs that provide a steady source of funding for rural
areas most affected by severe out migration and low per-capita income.
For these areas, the process of encouraging economic growth is arduous.
I strongly believe the Rural Recovery Act of 1998 will provide the long
term assistance required to aid the coordinated efforts of local
community leaders as they begin economic recovery efforts that will
ensure a bright future for rural America.
In August, Senator Murkowski and I introduced legislation to provide
assistance to rural communities that experience extremely high electric
power rates. Today, I am pleased that he has agreed to join me in
cosponsoring this legislation to assist rural areas with high out-
migration and low per-capita incomes. It is important that Congress do
whatever it can to assist these economically-challenged rural areas to
remain vibrant participants in the American Dream. Senator Murkowski
and I expect to combine these bills and introduce them as a single
piece of legislation next year.
I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Murkowski and I during
the 106th Congress to enact these important new policies. 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. 2596
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 ``Rural Recovery Act of
1998''.
SEC. 2. RURAL RECOVERY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS.
Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 123. RURAL RECOVERY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANTS.
``(a) Findings; Purpose.--
``(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(A) a modern infrastructure, including affordable
housing, wastewater and water service, and advanced
technology capabilities is a necessary ingredient of a modern
society and development of a prosperous economy with minimal
environmental impacts;
[[Page S11989]]
``(B) the Nation's rural areas face critical social,
economic, and environmental problems, arising in significant
measure from the growing cost of infrastructure development
in rural areas that suffer from low per capita income and
high rates of outmigration and are not adequately addressed
by existing Federal assistance programs; and
``(C) the future welfare of the Nation and the well-being
of its citizens depend on the establishment and maintenance
of viable rural areas as social, economic, and political
entities.
``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide
for the development and maintenance of viable rural areas
through the provision of affordable housing and community
development assistance to eligible units of general local
government and eligible Indian tribes in rural areas with
excessively high rates of outmigration and low per capita
income levels.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible unit of general local government.--The term
`eligible unit of general local government' means a unit of
general local government that is the governing body of a
rural recovery area.
``(2) Eligible indian tribe.--The term `eligible Indian
tribe' means the governing body of an Indian tribe that is
located in a rural recovery area.
``(3) Grantee.--The term `grantee' means an eligible unit
of general local government or eligible Indian tribe that
receives a grant under this section.
``(4) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any
Indian tribe, band, group, and nation, including Alaska
Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and any Alaskan Native Village,
of the United States, which is considered an eligible
recipient under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638) or was considered an
eligible recipient under chapter 67 of title 31, United
States Code, prior to the repeal of such chapter.
``(5) Rural recovery area.--The term `rural recovery area'
means any geographic area represented by a unit of general
local government or an Indian tribe--
``(A) the borders of which are not adjacent to a
metropolitan area;
``(B) in which--
``(i) the annual population outmigration level equals or
exceeds 15 percent, as determined by Secretary of
Agriculture; and
``(ii) the per capita income is less than that of the
national nonmetropolitan average; and
``(C) that does not include a city with a population of
more than 2,500.
``(6) Unit of general local government.--
``(A) In general.--The term `unit of general local
government' means any city, county, town, township, parish,
village, borough (organized or unorganized), or other general
purpose political subdivision of a State; Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and
American Samoa, or a general purpose political subdivision
thereof; a combination of such political subdivisions that,
except as provided in section 106(d)(4), is recognized by the
Secretary; the District of Columbia; and the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands.
``(B) Other entities included.--The term also includes a
State or a local public body or agency (as defined in section
711 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970),
community association, or other entity, that is approved by
the Secretary for the purpose of providing public facilities
or services to a new community as part of a program meeting
the eligibility standards of section 712 of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1970 or title IV of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1968.
``(c) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants in
accordance with this section to eligible units of general
local government and eligible Indian tribes that meet the
requirements of subsection (d) to carry out eligible
activities described in subsection (f).
``(d) Eligibility Requirements.--
``(1) Statement of rural development objectives.--In order
to receive a grant under this section for a fiscal year, an
eligible unit of general local government or eligible Indian
tribe--
``(A) shall--
``(i) publish a proposed statement of rural development
objectives and a description of the proposed eligible
activities described in subsection (f) for which the grant
will be used; and
``(ii) afford residents of the rural recovery area served
by the eligible unit of general local government or eligible
Indian tribe with an opportunity to examine the contents of
the proposed statement and the proposed eligible activities
published under clause (i), and to submit comments to the
eligible unit of general local government or eligible Indian
tribe, as applicable, on--
``(I) the proposed statement and the proposed eligible
activities; and
``(II) the overall community development performance of the
eligible unit of general local government or eligible Indian
tribe, as applicable; and
``(B) based on any comments received under subparagraph
(A)(ii), prepare and submit to the Secretary--
``(i) a final statement of rural development objectives;
``(ii) a description of the eligible activities described
in subsection (f) for which a grant received under this
section will be used; and
``(iii) a certification that the eligible unit of general
local government or eligible Indian tribe, as applicable,
will comply with the requirements of paragraph (2).
``(2) Public notice and comment.--In order to enhance
public accountability and facilitate the coordination of
activities among different levels of government, an eligible
unit of general local government or eligible Indian tribe
that receives a grant under this section shall, as soon as
practicable after such receipt, provide the residents of the
rural recovery area served by the eligible unit of general
local government or eligible Indian tribe, as applicable,
with--
``(A) a copy of the final statement submitted under
paragraph (1)(B);
``(B) information concerning the amount made available
under this section and the eligible activities to be
undertaken with that amount;
``(C) reasonable access to records regarding the use of any
amounts received by the eligible unit of general local
government or eligible Indian tribe under this section in any
preceding fiscal year; and
``(D) reasonable notice of, and opportunity to comment on,
any substantial change proposed to be made in the use of
amounts received under this section from 1 eligible activity
to another.
``(e) Distribution of Grants.--
``(1) In general.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
distribute to each eligible unit of general local government
and eligible Indian tribe that meets the requirements of
subsection (d)(1) a grant in an amount described in paragraph
(2).
``(2) Amount.--Of the total amount made available to carry
out this section in each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
distribute to each grantee the amount equal to the greater
of--
``(A) the pro rata share of the grantee, as determined by
the Secretary, based on the combined annual population
outmigration level (as determined by Secretary of
Agriculture) and the per capita income for the rural recovery
area served by the grantee; and
``(B) $250,000.
``(f) Eligible Activities.--Each grantee shall use amounts
received under this section for 1 or more of the following
eligible activities, which may be undertaken either directly
by the grantee, or by any local economic development
corporation, regional planning district, nonprofit community
development corporation, or statewide development
organization authorized by the grantee:
``(1) The acquisition, construction, repair,
reconstruction, operation, maintenance, or installation of
facilities for water and wastewater service or any other
infrastructure needs determined to be critical to the further
development or improvement of a designated industrial park.
``(2) The acquisition or disposition of real property
(including air rights, water rights, and other interests
therein) for rural community development activities.
``(3) The development of telecommunications infrastructure
within a designated industrial park that encourages high
technology business development in rural areas.
``(4) Activities necessary to develop and implement a
comprehensive rural development plan, including payment of
reasonable administrative costs related to planning and
execution of rural development activities.
``(5) Affordable housing initiatives.
``(g) Performance and Evaluation Report.--
``(1) In general.--Each grantee shall annually submit to
the Secretary a performance and evaluation report, concerning
the use of amounts received under this section.
``(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include a description of--
``(i) publish a proposed statement of rural development
objectives and a description of the proposed eligible
activities described in subsection (f) for which the grant
will be used; and
``(A) the eligible activities carried out by the grantee
with amounts received under this section, and the degree to
which the grantee has achieved the rural development
objectives included in the final statement submitted under
subsection (d)(1);
``(B) the nature of and reasons for any change in the rural
development objectives or the eligible activities of the
grantee after submission of the final statement under
subsection (d)(1); and
``(C) any manner in which the grantee would change the
rural development objectives of the grantee as a result of
the experience of the grantee in administering amounts
received under this section.
``(h) Retention of Income.--A grantee may retain any income
that is realized from the grant, if--
``(1) the income was realized after the initial
disbursement of amounts to the grantee under this section;
and
``(2) the--
``(A) grantee agrees to utilize the income for 1 or more
eligible activities; or
``(B) amount of the income is determined by the Secretary
to be so small that compliance with subparagraph (A) would
create an unreasonable administrative burden on the grantee.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 1999 through 2005.''.
____________________