[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2209-S2213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
S. 513. A bill to designate the new hospital bed replacement building
at the Ioannis A. Lougaris Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center in Reno, Nevada, in honor of Jack Streeter; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Ioanis A. Lougaris Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
designate the new hospital bed replacement building at the Ioannis A.
Lougaris Medical Center in Reno, Nevada, in honor of Mr. Jack Streeter.
Jack Streeter is Nevada's most decorated veteran from World War II.
He was born on December 1, 1921 in Ely, Nevada. For his valiant
service, he was awarded five Silver Stars, five Purple Hearts and the
two Bronze Stars. He was a combat infantryman and served with the 1st
Infantry Division (Big Red One). He left the service as a captain, U.S.
Army.
Mr. Streeter has an incredible life history of business and
professional success. Mr. Streeter is an attorney at law, practicing
for over forty years in the State of Nevada.
Jack graduated from the University of Nevada Reno in 1943, where upon
after completing Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia, he
entered the U.S. Army as a second lieutenant. He saw combat throughout
Europe in the Second World War in such places as the Normandy invasion
on D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, the St. Lo Breakthrough, Battle of
Mortain, Battle of Mons, Battle of Aaachen, and the Battle of Hurtgen
Forest.
After leaving the Army in 1945, Jack attended Hastings Law School in
San Francisco, California, graduating in 1948. He returned to practice
law in Nevada. In 1950 he entered politics and was elected district
attorney in Reno. As District Attorney he compiled an impressive
prosecution record and founded the National District Attorney
Association.
During the next 43 years of private legal practice, jack specialized
in business law representing a variety of different enterprises. He was
active in many civic groups serving as president of the Nevada State
Jaycees, Sertoma Club, Reno Navy League, and Chairman of the
Commissioning Committee for the U.S.S. Nevada trident submarine.
Jack is on the boards of directors of the Society of the First
Infantry Division, the University of Nevada Foundation, Saint Mary's
Hospital Foundation, and he is a Knight of Malta. He also serves as the
president of the World Association of Lawyers.
Veterans in northern Nevada have long needed this new wing to their
VA Medical Center and it is only fitting that it be named in honor of
Nevada's most decorated veteran from World War II.
The new facility I am requesting be named in honor of Jack Streeter
is located in the complex known as the Ioannis A. Lougaris Va Medical
Center. Mr. Lougaris was the first living individual to have a VA
Medical Center named in his honor.
Before World War II, John Lougaris remembered the veterans of World
War I and the lack of medical aid, especially in Nevada. As a National
Executive Committeeman from Nevada, he made many trips to Washington,
DC, sixteen of them at his own expense, endeavoring to get a Veterans
Hospital established in Reno.
The first success was a 26-bed unit, built in 1939 with a $100,000
federal grant. In 1944, John's efforts led to increasing the facility
to 125 beds. He did not stop working and today the Reno VA Medical
Center which bears his honorable name, serves Nevada's veterans well as
a 107 bed facility which includes a 60 bed nursing home facility and 12
intensive care unit beds. The new bed replacement facility, which the
bill I am offering today seeks to name after Jack Streeter, was built
at the cost of $27 million and brings this hospital to a modern day
standard.
In recognition of John Lougaris's devotion, deep interest, and
untiring efforts in the development of a hospital to serve veterans in
Nevada and Northern California, the Congress of the United States, by
Public Law 97-66, rededicated the Reno VA Medical Center as the Ioannis
A. Lougaris VA Medical Center on December 17, 1981.
It was certainly a well deserved gesture when Congress designated the
VA Medical Center in honor of Ioannis A. Lougaris. It would now be
equally fitting to name the new hospital wing in honor of Mr. Jack
Streeter for his outstanding record of service to this Nation.
[[Page S2210]]
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my friend and
colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, in introducing this important
legislation today to honor an individual whose extraordinary military
service record and faithful commitment to his community warrants
special recognition.
As Senator Reid has explained, in the next few months a new wing will
be dedicated at the Ioannis A. Lougaris VA Medical Center in Reno,
Nevada. This five-story, 110-bed tower is a welcome addition to the
Reno VAMC, and will provide veterans in northern Nevada with the modern
facilities and quality inpatient care they so clearly deserve. The
purpose of the legislation we are introducing today is to name that new
wing after Mr. Jack Streeter, an individual whose lifetime is
hallmarked by his exemplary service record, his steadfast dedication to
the veterans community and his leadership in numerous charitable and
nonprofit organization.
I have had the opportunity to know Jack for many years now, dating
back to my tenure as governor of Nevada. Anyone who has come into
contact with Jack Streeter, and who had the occasion to talk with Jack
and learn more about his experiences, can understand and appreciate
what an extraordinary individual this man is.
Jack Streeter's military service record is quite well known in the
state of Nevada. He is, in fact, the most decorated World War Two
veteran in Nevada, having earned five Purpose Hearts, five Silver
Stars, and two Bronze Stars in the European Theater. Let me repeat that
Mr. President, because it truly is an astounding record. Five Purple
Hearts, five Silver Stars, and two Bronze Stars.
As a young second lieutenant during the war, Jack saw action from the
Allied invasion of Normandy to the decisive Battle of the Bulge in the
winter of 1944-45. Upon leaving the service in 1946, Mr. Streeter
earned a law degree from Hastings Law School in San Francisco and later
returned to Reno, where he was soon elected as district attorney. He
later found the National District Attorney Association and participated
in numerous civic organizations and foundations.
Jack Streeter's distinguished military service record, coupled with
his unyielding dedication to his community, merits the sort of
recognition and rememberence that this legislation will provide. To all
Nevadans who have had the opportunity to know Jack, he is a friend, a
civic leader, and most importantly, a champion of the community.
I look forward to working with Senator Reid and the entire Nevada
delegation in passing this proposal and naming this new wing after a
true American hero.
______
By Mr. COCHRAN:
S. 514. A bill to improve the National Writing Project; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
legislation to reauthorize the national writing project
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to
reauthorize the National Writing Project, the only Federal program to
improve the teaching of writing in America's classrooms.
Literacy is at the foundation of school and workspace success, of
citizenship in a democracy, and of learning in all disciplines. The
National Writing Project has been instrumental in helping teachers
develop better teaching skills so they can help our children improve
their ability to read, write, and think.
As the United States continues to face a crisis in wiring in school
heightened by the growing number of at-risk students due to limited
English proficiency and the shortage of adequately trained teachers,
continued Federal support for a program that works such as the National
Writing Project is imperative.
The National Writing Project is a national network of university-
based teacher training programs designed to improve the teaching of
writing and student achievement in writing.
Through its professional development model, the National Writing
Project recognizes the primary importance of teacher knowledge,
expertise, and leadership. The National Writing Project operates on a
teachers-teaching teachers model. Successful writing teachers attend
Invitational Summer Institutes at their local universities. During the
school year these teachers provide workshops for other teachers in the
schools.
Teachers of all subjects benefit from the training, and the success
of students who are taught by Writing Project teachers is evident: they
score better not just on writing examinations, but in reading,
mathematics, and in other subjects.
Since 1973, the National Writing Project has served over 1.8 million
teaches and administrators. Each year over 150,000 participants benefit
from the National Writing Project programs in 1 of 156 United States
sites located in 46 States and Puerto Rico. The National Writing
Project generates $6.47 for every Federal dollar.
I am pleased, that for the first time since the National Writing
Project was authorized for federal funding in 1991, the President has
requested funds to expand the National Writing Project in his budget
for Fiscal Year 2000.
This program has proven to be one of the most effective in education
today. I am proud to be associated with it, and I compliment those who
have made it so successful across the nation.
When I first introduced this bill in 1990, it was cosponsored by 40
Senators, both Republicans and Democrats. I hope it will receive equal
or greater support in the 106th Congress. I invite other Senators to
join me in sponsoring this legislation.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Reid,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Torricelli, and
Mr. Schumer):
S. 515. A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, to
make it unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to
transfer or market nonambulatory livestock, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
downed animal protection act
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Downed Animal
Protection Act, a bill to eliminate inhumane and improper treatment of
downed animals at stockyards. The legislation prohibits the sale or
transfer of downed animals unless they have been humanely euthanized.
Downed animals are severely distressed recumbent animals that are too
sick to rise or move on their own. Once an animal becomes immobile, it
must remain where it has fallen, often without receiving the most basic
assistance. Downed animals that survive the stockyard are slaughtered
for human consumption.
These animals are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to handle
humanely. They have very demanding needs, and must be fed and watered
individually. The suffering of downed animals is so severe that the
only humane solution to their plight is immediate euthanasia.
Mr. President, the bill I introduce today requires that these
hopelessly sick and injured animals be euthanized by humane methods
that rapidly an effectively render animals insensitive to pain. Humane
euthanasia of downed animals will limit animal suffering and will
encourage the livestock industry to concentrate on improved management
and handling practices to avoid this problem.
Downed animals compromise a tiny fraction, less than one-tenth of one
percent, of animals at stockyards. Banning their sale or transfer would
cause no economic hardship. The Downed Animal Protection Act will
prompt stockyards to refuse crippled and distressed animals, and will
make the prevention of downed animals a priority for the livestock
industry. The bill will reinforce the industry's commitment to humane
handling of animals.
The problem of downed animals has been addressed by major livestock
organizations such as the United Stockyards Corp., the Minnesota
Livestock Marketing Association, the National Pork Producers Council,
the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, and the Independent Cattlemen's
Association of Texas. All of these organizations have taken strong
stands against improper treatment of animals by adopting ``no-downer''
policies. I want to commend these and other organizations, as well
[[Page S2211]]
as responsible and conscientious livestock producers throughout the
country, for their efforts to end an appalling problem that erodes
consumer confidence.
Despite a strong consensus within industry, the animal welfare
movement, consumers, and government that downed animals should not be
sent to stockyards, this sad problem continues, causing animal
suffering and an erosion of public confidence in the industry.
Mr. President, this legislation will complement industry effort to
address this problem by encouraging better care of animals at farms and
ranches. Animals with impaired mobility will receive better treatment
in order to prevent them from becoming incapacitated. The bill will
remove the incentive for sending downed animals to stockyards in the
hope of receiving some salvage value for the animals and would
encourage greater care during loading and transport. The bill will also
discourage improper breeding practices that account for most downed
animals.
My legislation would set a uniform national standard, thereby
removing any unfair advantages that might result from differing
standards throughout the industry. Furthermore, no additional
bureaucracy will be needed as a consequence of my bill because
inspectors of the Packers and Stockyards Administration regularly visit
stockyards to enforce existing regulations. Thus, the additional burden
on the agency and stockyard operators will be insignificant.
______
By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 516. A bill to benefit consumers by promoting competition in the
electric power industry, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
the electric utility restructuring empowerment and competitiveness act
of 1999 (eureca)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electric
Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999. This
legislation empowers the states to restructure their electric
industries at the rate and in the way they decide. My legislation
imposes no ``retail choice mandate'' or deadline on the States so as to
fully allow the best market ideas and approaches to occur. As well,
EURECA removes Federal impediments to competition and deregulates and
streamlines the industry.
My bill gives the States the leading role in implementing competition
in the electric power industry. This approach contrasts with the bills
introduced in the House and Senate last Congress that required
competition nationwide by a date certain. A Federal mandate on the
States requiring retail competition by a date certain is not in the
best interest of all classes of consumers. I am concerned such an
approach would cause increased prices for low density States with
relatively low cost power. This bill will protect States' rights and
allow States maximum latitude to adapt competition to their own
individual needs.
I believe States are in the best position to deal with this complex
issue. Although the cost of electricity varies across the country,
electric industry restructuring can result in lower consumer prices for
everyday goods and services, the development of innovative new products
and services, and a growing, more productive economy.
We have spent the last two Congresses holding hearings to review the
state of competition in the electric power industry and discussing
numerous pieces of legislation dealing with restructuring. Meanwhile,
20 individual States have passed their own legislation introducing
competition into the retail electric industry and many other States are
considering such proposals. According to industry statistics, nearly 50
percent of all Americans now live in States committed to retail
competition. States are clearly taking the lead--they should continue
to have that role--and this bill encourages more innovation by
affirming States' ability to implement retail choice policies.
It is critical to the welfare of the States that each one have an
opportunity to ready and equip themselves for a successful transition
to a deregulated environment. By learning from the States which have
already implemented competition, other states can take precautions and
adopt laws that will best protect them as they adjust to this new
competitive environment. With FERC's Order 888, which created
competitive wholesale power supply markets through the availability of
non-discriminatory open-access transmission service under tariff, we
have seen at both the State and Federal levels that we are now in a
critical testing period in the implementation of market-based policies.
Specifically, we saw the price spikes that occurred last summer in the
Midwest. After holding a hearing on the subject, the experts agreed
that we are indeed in a transition period. Although no one could point
to one specific reason for the occurrence, and many were suggested, all
seemed to agree for the need of national reliability standards.
Traditionally, reliability of the transmission system was managed by
a voluntary, industry-led organization known as the North American
Electric Reliability Council. We have added many new players to the
transmission grid, making for an increasingly decentralized and
competitive U.S. electricity industry. And, as determined by a recently
issued DOE Task Force Report, ``the old institutions of reliability are
no longer sufficient.'' I have added a section on reliability to my
legislation. The industry collectively came up with a legislative
proposal that would transform NERC from a voluntary system of
reliability management to NAERO, an organization that is mandatory in
nature and subject to FERC oversight. Sustaining system reliability is
crucial for protecting all classes of consumers and such an
organization can help ensure that power markets function efficiently.
One of the most important aspects of this debate--assuring that
universal service is maintained--is a critical function that each state
PUC should have the ability to oversee and enforce. In my legislation,
nothing would prohibit a state from requiring all electricity providers
that sell electricity to retail customers in that state to provide
electricity service to all classes and consumers of electric power. All
classes of consumers should have access to adequate, safe, reliable and
efficient energy services at fair and reasonable prices, as a result of
competition.
Mr. President, my proposal will create greater competition at the
wholesale level by prospectively deregulating wholesale sales of
electricity. We did this in natural gas and it worked--I am confident
it will work in electricity. Although everyone talks about
``deregulating'' the electricity industry, it is really the generation
segment that will be deregulated. The FERC will continue to regulate
transmission in interstate commerce, and State PUCs will continue to
regulate retail distribution services and sales.
When FERC issued Order 888, it allowed utilities to seek market-based
rates for new generating capacity. This provision goes a step further
and allows utilities to purchase wholesale power from existing
generation facilities, after the date of enactment of this Act, at
prices solely determined by market forces.
Furthermore, the measure expands FERC authority to require non-public
utilities that own, operate or control transmission to open their
systems. Currently, the Commission cannot require the Power Marketing
Administration (PMAs), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
municipalities and cooperatives which own transmission to provide
wholesale open access transmission service. Since approximately 22
percent of all transmission is beyond open access authority, requiring
these non-public utilities to provide this service will help ensure
that a true wholesale power market exists.
One of the key elements of this measure is streamlining and
modernizing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)
and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). While both
of these initiatives were enacted with good intentions, there is
widespread belief that the Acts have fulfilled their original
obligations and have outlived their usefulness.
My bill amends Section 210 of PURPA on a prospective basis. Current
PURPA contracts would continue to be honored and upheld. However, upon
enactment of this legislation, a utility
[[Page S2212]]
that begins operating would not be required to enter into a new
contract or obligation to purchase electricity under Section 210 of
PURPA.
With regard to PUHCA, I've included Senators Shelby's and Dodd's
``Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1999.'' This language is
identical to the bipartisan legislation reported by the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the 105th Congress. Under this
proposal, PUHCA would be repealed. Furthermore, all books and records
of each holding company and each associate company would be transferred
to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)--which currently has
jurisdiction over the 19 registered holding companies--to FERC. This
allows energy regulators, who truly know the industry to oversee the
operations of these companies and review acquisitions and mergers.
These consumer protections are an important part of PUHCA reform.
Mr. President, an issue that must be resolved in order for a true
competitive environment to exist is that of utilities receiving
``subsidies'' by the federal government and the U.S. tax code. For
years, investor owned utilities (IOUs) have claimed inequity because of
tax-exempt financing and low-interest loans that municipalities and
rural cooperative receive. On the other side of the equation, these
public power systems maintain that IOUs receive benefits in the tax
code such as accelerated depreciation, investment tax credits and
deferred income tax and many use tax-exempt debt for pollution control
bonds. Are these in a way, ``subsidies?'' The jury is still out on how
best to tackle these difficult issues but without a doubt, we will need
to come to a resolution.
Finally, my bill directs the Inspector General of the Department of
the Treasury to file a report to the Congress detailing whether and how
tax code incentives received by all utilities should be reviewed in
order to foster a competitive retail electricity market in the future.
Mr. President, with respect to federal comprehensive restructuring
legislation, it is the states themselves that hold the key to ultimate
success. EURECA allows states to continue to move forward and craft
electricity proposals that best fit their own particular needs. This
legislation is the best solution to move forward with a better product
for all classes of consumers and the industry as a whole.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. DeWine,
and Mr. Robb):
S. 517. A bill to assure access under group health plans and health
insurance coverage to covered emergency medical services; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
ACCESS TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ACT OF 1999
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators
Chafee, Robb, and Mikulski, to introduce the Emergency Medical Services
Act of 1999. Americans today are routinely denied coverage by their
managed care plans for visits to the emergency department for
legitimate emergency medical conditions. This legislation establishes a
national definition, known as the prudent layperson standard, for the
purposes of receiving emergency room treatment. The Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 applied this definition to the Medicaid and Medicare programs.
The proposal would simply ensure that all private health plans afford
their consumers the same kinds of protections available to Medicaid and
Medicare beneficiaries.
Mr. President, current law places patients in the unreasonable
position of fearing that payment for emergency room visits will be
denied even when conditions appear to both the patient and emergency
room personnel to require urgent treatment. For example, a patient who
is experiencing chest pains and believes that she is having a heart
attack may not be covered by a health plan if the diagnosis later turns
out to be indigestion. Enactment of the ``prudent layperson''
definition would end this phenomena by ensuring coverage when a
reasonable person, who believes that she is in need of care, presents
herself at an emergency room and is treated.
Federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
(EMTALA), already requires that all persons who come to a hospital for
emergency care be given a screening examination to determine if they
are experiencing a medical emergency, and if so, that they receive
stabilizing treatment before being discharged or moved to another
facility. As a result, emergency, room doctors and hospitals face a
catch-22. Practitioners are required by EMTALA and their own
professional ethics to perform diagnostic tests and exams to rule out
emergency conditions, but may be denied reimbursement due to HMO prior
authorization requirements or a finding after diagnosis that the
condition was not of an emergency.
This legislation also provides a process for the coordination of
post-stabilization care. Consider this example: a patient goes into the
emergency room complaining of chest pains, in an obvious emergent
condition. Subsequently, the chest pains subside, therefore, the
patient is considered clinically ``stabilized.'' However, this does not
mean that the patient is out of danger. At that point the emergency
room physician may recommend a follow up test, such as an EKG, but is
frequently unable to get the health plan to authorize any follow-up
care.
This portion of the bill would require that treating emergency
physicians and health plans timely communicate with each other to
determine what the necessary post-stabilization care should be. Health
plans, in conjunction with the treating physician, may arrange for an
alternative treatment plan that allows the health plan to assume care
of the patient after stabilization. For instance, the plan may
recommend that the patient by transferred to an in-network hospital, or
it may agree to cover the tests recommended by the emergency room
physician.
Our legislation has been strongly endorsed by Kaiser Permanente, one
of our nation's oldest, largest, and most respected managed care plans,
and the American College of Emergency Physicians. The legislation has
also received the strong support of the American Osteopathic
Association, the Federation of American Health Systems, and the
National Council of Senior Citizens, among many others.
I would ask that my colleagues join us in supporting this important
legislation.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 520. A bill for the relief of Janina Altagracia Castillo-Rojas and
her husband, Diogenes Patricio Rojas; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
private relief bill
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a private bill
for the relief of Janina Altagracia Castillo-Rojas and her husband,
Diogenes Patricio Rojas. My bill would grant permanent resident status
to Janina and Diogenes, who face deportation later this month to the
Dominican Republic as a result of a technicality in current federal
immigration law.
Janina has been denied citizenship because her mother was the child
of a U.S. citizen female and foreign male. Previous law allowed only
children of U.S. citizen males and foreign females to claim U.S.
citizenship.
In 1994, Senator Paul Simon passed the Immigration and Nationality
and Technical Corrections Act, which allowed individuals born overseas
before 1934 to U.S. citizen mothers, and their descendants, to claim
U.S. citizenship. As a result of that 1994 law, Janina's mother
received U.S. citizenship in January 1996.
However, when Janina attempted to attain citizenship as a descendant
of a direct beneficiary of this legislation, her application was
denied. Despite the 1994 law, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service required that Janina's mother meet transmission requirements:
she must have been physically present in the U.S. for 10 years prior to
Janina's birth, 5 of which over the age of 16 years, in order for
Janina to derive citizenship. Since her mother was prohibited from
becoming a U.S. citizen until 1996, however, this requirement is
unreasonable.
While 60 years of discriminatory law was corrected in 1994, the
citizenship qualifications of the line of descendants of those U.S.
citizen females remain adversely impacted. The private relief bill I
introduce today will grant Janina and her husband Diogenes permanent
resident status to continue
[[Page S2213]]
their lives in this country until this provision can be amended.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 520
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.),
Janina Altagracia Castillo-Rojas and her husband, Diogenes
Patricio Rojas, shall be held and considered to have been
lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon
payment of the required visa fees.
SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.
Upon the granting of permanent residence to Janina
Altagracia Castillo-Rojas and her husband, Diogenes Patricio
Rojas, as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall
instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate
number during the current fiscal year the total number of
immigrant visas available to natives of the country of the
aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Feingold, and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 521. A bill to amend part Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for a waiver of or
reduction in the matching funds requirement in the case of fiscal
hardship; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________