[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7932-S7942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Akada, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 1304. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to
allow employees to take school involvement leave to participate in the
academic school activities of their children or to participate in
literacy training, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
time for schools act of 1999
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in 1993, thanks to the hard work of
Senator Dodd and others, we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA). It was one of the first pieces of legislation that I was
intimately involved in passing. During the last six years we've come to
realize that it has been a huge success. In fact, as we come to the
close of the decade we can honestly say that FMLA has been one of the
more useful laws we've passed in the last ten years.
Now I want to expand upon that success and allow parents a little bit
of time under the current time constraints of FMLA to participate in
school activities. The ``Time for Schools Act of 1999'' will allow a
parent 24 hours per year to participate in the academic activities of
his or her child. This 24 hour period comes from the already available
12 weeks under FMLA.
This is something our country needs. Parents overwhelmingly want more
time to support their children in school. Businesses thrive when our
schools produce well-trained graduates--and parental involvement helps
kids succeed.
As a parent, I know how difficult and how important it is to
participate in the education of children. I have been lucky to have had
the opportunity to be involved in the school lives of my children. But
many parents don't have the time it takes to do those little things
that will assure their child's success in school, because they can't
get away from their jobs.
By adding academic school activities to one of our most successful
laws, we will give parents something they need: time off to become
directly involved with their children's learning.
These days we have many dual-income families and single parents
struggling to work to make ends meet. All of these families know how
important it is to be involved in their children's learning. However,
the single largest barrier to parental involvement at schools seems to
be lack of time.
Studies have shown that family involvement is more important to
student success than family income or family education levels. In fact,
things parents can control, such as limiting excess television watching
and providing a variety of reading materials, account for almost all
the differences in average student achievement across states.
All sectors of our communities want more time for young people.
Students, teachers, parents and businesses feel something must be done
to improve family involvement. In fact, 89 percent of company
executives identified the biggest obstacle to school reform as the lack
of parental involvement.
And, a 1996 post-election poll commissioned by the national PTA found
that 86 percent of people favor legislation that would allow workers
unpaid leave to attend parent-teacher conferences, or to take other
actions to improve learning for their children.
A commitment to our children is a commitment to our nation's future.
I want to make sure all young people receive the attention they need to
succeed.
My legislation will allow parents time to: (1) attend a parent/
teacher conference; (2) participate in classroom educational
activities; or (3) research new schools.
I look at the Family and Medical Leave Act--which has helped one in
six American employees take time to deal with serious family health
problems, and which 90 percent of businesses had little or no cost
implementing--and I see success. People in my state have been able to
deal with urgent family needs, without losing their jobs.
A 1998 study by the Families and Work Institute found that 84% of
employers felt that the benefits of providing family or medical leave
offset or outweigh the costs. Taking time out for children not only
helps parents and children, but is also beneficial to business.
My bill extends the uses of family leave to another urgent need
families face--the need to help their children learn. The time is right
for the ``Time for Schools Act.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1304
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 ``Time for Schools Act of
1999''.
SEC. 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAVE.
(a) Entitlement to Leave.--Section 102(a) of the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) Entitlement to school involvement leave.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to section 103(f), an eligible
employee shall be entitled to a total of 24 hours of leave
during any 12-month period to participate in an academic
activity of a school of a son or daughter of the employee,
such as a parent-teacher conference or an interview for a
school, or to participate in literacy training under a family
literacy program.
``(B) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Family literacy program.--The term `family literacy
program' means a program of services that are of sufficient
intensity in terms of hours, and of sufficient duration, to
make sustainable changes in a family and that integrate all
of the following activities:
``(I) Interactive literacy activities between parents and
their sons and daughters.
``(II) Training for parents on how to be the primary
teacher for their sons and daughters and full partners in the
education of their sons and daughters.
``(III) Parent literacy training.
``(IV) An age-appropriate education program for sons and
daughters.
``(ii) Literacy.--The term `literacy', used with respect to
an individual, means the ability of the individual to speak,
read, and write English, and compute and solve problems, at
levels of proficiency necessary--
``(I) to function on the job, in the family of the
individual, and in society;
``(II) to achieve the goals of the individual; and
``(III) to develop the knowledge potential of the
individual.
``(iii) School.--The term `school' means an elementary
school or secondary school (as such terms are defined in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801)), a Head Start program assisted
under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), and a
child care facility operated by a provider who meets the
applicable State or local government licensing,
certification, approval, or registration requirements, if
any.
``(4) Limitation.--No employee may take more than a total
of 12 workweeks of leave under paragraphs (1) and (3) during
any 12-month period.''.
(b) Schedule.--Section 102(b)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C.
2612(b)(1)) is amended by inserting after the second sentence
the following: ``Leave under subsection (a)(3) may be taken
intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule.''.
(c) Substitution of Paid Leave.--Section 102(d)(2)(A) of
such Act (29 U.S.C.
[[Page S7933]]
2612(d)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting before the period the
following: ``, or for leave provided under subsection (a)(3)
for any part of the 24-hour period of such leave under such
subsection''.
(d) Notice.--Section 102(e) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2612(e))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Notice for school involvement leave.--In any case in
which the necessity for leave under subsection (a)(3) is
foreseeable, the employee shall provide the employer with not
less than 7 days' notice, before the date the leave is to
begin, of the employee's intention to take leave under such
subsection. If the necessity for the leave is not
foreseeable, the employee shall provide such notice as is
practicable.''.
(e) Certification.--Section 103 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
2613) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Certification for School Involvement Leave.--An
employer may require that a request for leave under section
102(a)(3) be supported by a certification issued at such time
and in such manner as the Secretary may by regulation
prescribe.''.
SEC. 3. SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT LEAVE FOR CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
(a) Entitlement to Leave.--Section 6382(a) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3)(A) Subject to section 6383(f), an employee shall be
entitled to a total of 24 hours of leave during any 12-month
period to participate in an academic activity of a school of
a son or daughter of the employee, such as a parent-teacher
conference or an interview for a school, or to participate in
literacy training under a family literacy program.
``(B) In this paragraph:
``(i) The term `family literacy program' means a program of
services that are of sufficient intensity in terms of hours,
and of sufficient duration, to make sustainable changes in a
family and that integrate all of the following activities:
``(I) Interactive literacy activities between parents and
their sons and daughters.
``(II) Training for parents on how to be the primary
teacher for their sons and daughters and full partners in the
education of their sons and daughters.
``(III) Parent literacy training.
``(IV) An age-appropriate education program for sons and
daughters.
``(ii) The term `literacy', used with respect to an
individual, means the ability of the individual to speak,
read, and write English, and compute and solve problems, at
levels of proficiency necessary--
``(I) to function on the job, in the family of the
individual, and in society;
``(II) to achieve the goals of the individual; and
``(III) to develop the knowledge potential of the
individual.
``(iii) The term `school' means an elementary school or
secondary school (as such terms are defined in section 14101
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 8801)), a Head Start program assisted under the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), and a child care facility
operated by a provider who meets the applicable State or
local government licensing, certification, approval, or
registration requirements, if any.
``(4) No employee may take more than a total of 12
workweeks of leave under paragraphs (1) and (3) during any
12-month period.''.
(b) Schedule.--Section 6382(b)(1) of such title is amended
by inserting after the second sentence the following: ``Leave
under subsection (a)(3) may be taken intermittently or on a
reduced leave schedule.''.
(c) Substitution of Paid Leave.--Section 6382(d) of such
title is amended by inserting before ``, except'' the
following: ``, or for leave provided under subsection (a)(3)
any of the employee's accrued or accumulated annual leave
under subchapter I for any part of the 24-hour period of such
leave under such subsection''.
(d) Notice.--Section 6382(e) of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) In any case in which the necessity for leave under
subsection (a)(3) is foreseeable, the employee shall provide
the employing agency with not less than 7 days' notice,
before the date the leave is to begin, of the employee's
intention to take leave under such subsection. If the
necessity for the leave is not foreseeable, the employee
shall provide such notice as is practicable.''.
(e) Certification.--Section 6383 of such title is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(f) An employing agency may require that a request for
leave under section 6382(a)(3) be supported by a
certification issued at such time and in such manner as the
Office of Personnel Management may by regulation
prescribe.''.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act takes effect 120 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join in sponsoring
The Time for Schools Act of 1999, and I commend Senator Murray for her
impressive leadership. This legislation will provide parents with much-
needed assistance as they struggle to balance the needs of their
children and the demands of their jobs.
Six years ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act became the first bill
signed into law by President Clinton. Workers covered by the law can
take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year in order to care for a
newborn or adopted child, or a seriously ill family member, and know
that their jobs will be there when they get back.
By any measure, the Family and Medical Leave Act has been a
resounding success. Over 89 million Americans--70% of the workforce--
are covered by the law, and millions of workers have been able to take
the time they need to care for their families. The vast majority of
covered employers--over 90%--have found the law relatively easy to
administer, according to the bipartisan Commission on Family and
Medical Leave.
Now it is time to take another step, and extend that success to
enable parents to take up to 24 hours of unpaid family leave a year to
be involved in their children's academic activities at school. I am
proud that, under state law, parents in Massachusetts know they can
take care of their children's school needs without losing their jobs.
We should give all parents across the nation that right under federal
law, too.
Parents play a crucial role in their children's lives. But too often,
society offers them only barriers and blame as they try to raise their
children. While we hear a lot of talk about family values, the test is
whether we genuinely value families. If we do, then we must adopt
better policies to help working parents balance the competing demands
of the workplace and their responsibility to care for their children.
We know that working parents want to be more involved in their
children's lives. In a study by the PTA, two-thirds of employed parents
with children under 18 felt they did not have enough time to spend with
their children. Forty percent felt they weren't devoting enough time to
their children's education. Almost a quarter reported that attending
teacher-parent conferences created problems at work.
We know that involved parents increase the likelihood of a child's
success at school. According to some studies, it may be the single most
important factor in student learning. One study showed that the
involvement of both parents in their child's school was significantly
associated with the child's academic achievement.
The Time for Schools Act will give working parents up to 24 hours of
leave a year to participate in their children's school activities, such
as attending parent-teacher conferences, taking part in classroom
educational activities, or selecting the right school for their
children.
Responsible employers know that flexible family workplace policies
mean better, more productive workers. These policies are good for
families, and good for business. In 1998, survey by the Families and
Work Institute reported that the overwhelming majority of employers--
84%--agree that the benefits of family or medical leave offset the
costs.
The advantage of this legislation to employers are clear. A mother or
father worried about how a child is doing at school is a less effective
employee. The 24 hours of leave granted under this Act will be counted
towards the 12 weeks of leave already provided under the Family and
Medical Leave Act. In addition, workers must give employers a week's
notice, except in emergencies. As a result, the legislation will have
only a minimal impact on employers.
The tragedies we have witnessed at schools in recent years
demonstrate how important it is for parents to pay attention to how
children are doing at school. When this bill becomes law, workers will
know they don't have to stop being parents when they go to work. They
can be good parents at school, as well as after school.
Again, I commend Senator Murray for her leadership on this important
measure, and I look forward to working with her to enact it as soon as
possible this year.
______
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 1305. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to
improve the process for listing, recovery planning, and delisting, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
LISTING AND DELISTING REFORM ACT OF 1999
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Listing and
Delisting Reform Act of 1999, cosponsored by my colleague from Wyoming,
[[Page S7934]]
Senator Enzi. The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best
examples of good intentions gone astray, and so today I am taking one
small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a
regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more
effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and
state governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to
conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery
planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act,
is easier to achieve.
In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing
and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should
be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible
data that has been peer-reviewed. Recently, the Prebles Meadow Jumping
Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this
mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of good
science. One of the more significant shortcomings of the Preble's Rule
relates to confusion about claims regarding the ``known range'' of as
opposed to the alleged ``historical range.'' Historical data and
current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid
plains for southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical
habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to
uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the
State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and
landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not
foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful
species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes are desperately
needed to the Endangered Species Act.
Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, is the black tailed prairie dog.
Petitions to list the prairie dog have been filed and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has said the petition is not only warranted but
deserves further study. I have lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I
have logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over
the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of
prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that
opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the
country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on
completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the
cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for
economic survival.
My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use
scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-
reviewed. Right now, it is basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any
person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with
little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd
practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition
that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range,
population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed.
In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient
biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery
plan. Under my proposal, states are made active participants in the
process and the general public is provided a more substantial role.
This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with
regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed.
Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question
the basic premise that some species require the protection of the
Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship
on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only
reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should
be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our
communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.
In my State of Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the
Secretary of the Interior is unable to tell me what measures will be
required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary cannot tell me what
acts or omissions we can expect to face as a consequence of listing.
How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of
the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how
to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve
recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened?
This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of
Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching
practices, or the diversion of a certain amount of water, or a private
citizen's development of one's own property, is the cause for a
listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have
to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough
information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why
list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-
zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve
the goal of recovering the species?
This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of
information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to
list a species, he should know enough to tell us what will be required
for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is
all that this provision would require.
Just as the beginning of the process needs changes, we need to revise
the end of the process--the delisting procedure. Recovery and delisting
are quite simply, the goals of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is
virtually impossible to currently delist a species. There is no
certainty in the process and the States--the folks who have all the
responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list--are
not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the
species should be delisted.
Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly Bear pinpoints some of the
problems with the current delisting process. The Interagency Grizzly
Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone
ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been
removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for years over this one to noavail, despite tremendous effort
and financial resources to meet recovery objectives. Despite rebounded
populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.
The point is something needs to be done. My constituents, rightly so,
are angry and upset about this current law and the trickling effects of
countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some
real changes. These are small changes but I believe they will make big
impacts. The changes I have suggested will have a significant effect on
the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed
in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly
need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real
goal--recovery and delisting.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 1306. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code,
relating to the regulation of firearms dealers, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Targeted Gun dealer enforcement Act of 1999
Mr. SCHUMER Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Targeted Gun
Dealer Enforcement Act of 1999.'' This legislation would enable law
enforcement to crack down on certain gun dealers and ``straw
purchasers'' responsible for funneling firearms into the hands of those
who use guns in crime.
A licensed gun dealer in West Milwaukee, Wisconsin was the retail
source of 1,195 guns linked to crime between 1996 and 1998 Similarly,
1,176 crime guns recovered by law enforcement authorities over those
three years were traced to a single gun dealer in Riverdale, Illinois
In fact, 137 gun stores account for more than 13,000 crime guns seized
in 1998 Year after year, many of these 137 dealers emerge as major
sources of crime guns, even though most are not located in high-crime
areas.
The path a gun takes to a crime scene is often a path of rapid
diversion from first retail sale at federally licensed gun dealers to
an illegal market supplying juveniles and felons According to a
February 1999 ATF crime gun trace analysis report, ``New guns in
juvenile or criminal hands signal direct
[[Page S7935]]
diversion, by illegal firearms trafficking--for instance through straw
purchases or off the book sales by corrupt FFLs.''
An extremely small percentage of gun dealers are disproportionately
responsible for this problem of rapid diversion of guns from first
retail sale to crime scenes Indeed, almost half of the guns recovered
in crime and traced through ATF in 1998 are traceable to a mere 1.1
percent of the nation's licensed gun dealers Yet law enforcement's
ability to prevent certain gun dealers and straw purchasers from
supplying young people and felons with new guns for use in crime is
constrained by current federal firearms law--which limits the records
and sanctions to which law enforcement has ready access.
My legislation would give law enforcement the tools it needs to crack
down on certain gun dealers and ``straw purchasers'' responsible for
funneling firearms into the hands of those who use guns in crime The
bill would, among other things, impose strict new reporting
requirements and automatic sanctions for illegal activity upon the 0.4
percent of licensed gun dealers responsible for 25 or more crime gun
traces in given year; authorize ATF to suspend the licenses of and
impose civil monetary penalties upon licensed gun dealers who willfully
violate federal firearms law; clearly outlaw and increase penalties for
``straw purchasing''; and enable law enforcement more readily to trace
the purchase-and-sale histories of firearms used in crime.
Mr. President, I 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. 1306
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 ``Targeted Gun Dealer
Enforcement Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF LICENSED DEALERS.
(a) Prohibition on Straw Purchases.--
(1) In general.--Section 922(a)(6) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or with respect to
the identity of the person in fact purchasing or attempting
to purchase such firearm or ammunition,'' before ``under
the''.
(2) Penalties.--Section 924(a)(3) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a violation in
relation to section 922(a)(6) or 922(d) by a licensed dealer,
licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed
collector shall be subject to the penalties under paragraph
(2) of this subsection.''.
(b) Notification of State Law Regarding Carrying Concealed
Firearms.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:
``(z) Notification of State Requirements.--It shall be
unlawful for a licensed dealer to transfer a firearm to any
person, unless the dealer notifies that person whether
applicable State law requires persons to be licensed to carry
concealed firearms in the State, or prohibits the carrying of
concealed firearms in the State.''.
(c) Revocation or Suspension of License; Civil Penalties.--
Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsections (e) and (f) and inserting the following:
``(e) Revocation or Suspension of License; Civil
Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may, after notice and
opportunity for hearing--
``(A) suspend or revoke any license issued under this
section, if the holder of such license--
``(i) willfully violates any provision of this chapter or
any rule or regulation prescribed by the Secretary under this
chapter; or
``(ii) fails to have secure gun storage or safety devices
available at any place in which firearms are sold under the
license to persons who are not licensees (except that in any
case in which a secure gun storage or safety device is
temporarily unavailable because of theft, casualty loss,
consumer sales, backorders from a manufacturer, or any other
similar reason beyond the control of the licensee, the
licensed dealer shall not be considered to be in violation of
the requirement to make available such a device);
``(B) suspend or revoke the license issued under this
section to a dealer who willfully transfers armor piercing
ammunition; and
``(C) assess and collect a civil penalty of not more than
$10,000 per violation against any holder of a license, if the
Secretary is authorized to suspend or revoke the license of
that holder under subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(2) Liability.--The Secretary may at any time compromise,
mitigate, or remit the liability with respect to any willful
violation of this subsection or any rule or regulation
prescribed by the Secretary under this subsection.
``(3) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this
subsection may be reviewed only as provided in subsection
(f).
``(4) Notification requirement.--Not less than once every 6
months, the Secretary shall notify each licensed manufacturer
and each licensed dealer of the name, address, and license
number of each dealer whose license was suspended or revoked
under this section during the preceding 6-month period.
``(f) Rights of Applicants and Licensees.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary denies an application
for, or revokes or suspends a license, or assesses a civil
penalty under this section, the Secretary shall provide
written notice of such denial, revocation, suspension, or
assessment to the affected party, stating specifically the
grounds upon which the application was denied, the license
was suspended or revoked, or the civil penalty was assessed.
Any notice of a revocation or suspension of a license under
this paragraph shall be given to the holder of such license
before the effective date of the revocation or suspension, as
applicable.
``(2) Appeal Process.--
``(A) Hearing.--If the Secretary denies an application for,
or revokes or suspends a license, or assesses a civil penalty
under this section, the Secretary shall, upon request of the
aggrieved party, promptly hold a hearing to review the
denial, revocation, suspension, or assessment. A hearing
under this subparagraph shall be held at a location
convenient to the aggrieved party.
``(B) Notice of decision; appeal.--If, after a hearing held
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary decides not to reverse
the decision of the Secretary to deny the application, revoke
or suspend the license, or assess the civil penalty, as
applicable--
``(i) the Secretary shall provide notice of the decision of
the Secretary to the aggrieved party;
``(ii) during the 60-day period beginning on the date on
which the aggrieved party receives a notice under clause (i),
the aggrieved party may file a petition with the district
court of the United States for the judicial district in which
the aggrieved party resides or has a principal place of
business for a de novo judicial review of such denial,
revocation, suspension, or assessment;
``(iii) in any judicial proceeding pursuant to a petition
under clause (ii)--
``(I) the court may consider any evidence submitted by the
parties to the proceeding, regardless of whether or not such
evidence was considered at the hearing held under
subparagraph (A); and
``(II) if the court decides that the Secretary was not
authorized to make such denial, revocation, suspension, or
assessment, the court shall order the Secretary to take such
actions as may be necessary to comply with the judgment of
the court.
``(3) Stay pending appeal.--If the Secretary suspends or
revokes a license under this section, upon the request of the
holder of the license, the Secretary shall stay the effective
date of the revocation, suspension, or assessment.''.
(d) Effect of Conviction.--Section 925(b) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``until any
conviction pursuant to the indictment becomes final'' and
inserting ``until the date of any conviction pursuant to the
indictment''.
(e) Regulation of High-Volume Crime Gun Dealers.--Section
923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(8) High-volume crime gun dealers.--
``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `high-volume
crime gun dealer' means any licensed dealer with respect to
which a designation under subparagraph (B)(i) is in effect,
as provided in subparagraph (B)(ii).
``(B) Designation of high-volume crime gun dealers.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall designate a licensed
dealer as a high-volume crime gun dealer--
``(I) as soon as practicable, if the Secretary determines
that the licensed dealer sold, delivered, or otherwise
transferred to 1 or more persons not licensed under this
chapter not less than 25 firearms that, during the preceding
calendar year, were used during the commission or attempted
commission of a criminal offense under Federal, State, or
local law, or were possessed in violation of Federal, State,
or local law; or
``(II) immediately upon the expiration date of a suspension
of the license of that dealer for a willful violation of this
chapter, if such violation involved 1 or more firearms that
were subsequently used during the commission or attempted
commission of a criminal offense under Federal, State, or
local law.
``(ii) Effective period of designation.--A designation
under clause (i) shall remain in effect during the period
beginning on the date on which the designation is made and
ending on the later of--
``(I) the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on
that date; or
``(II) the date on which the license issued to that dealer
under this section expires.
``(C) Notification requirement.--Upon the designation of a
licensed dealer as a high-volume crime gun dealer under
subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall notify the appropriate
United States attorney's office, the appropriate State and
local law enforcement agencies (including the district
attorney's
[[Page S7936]]
offices and the police or sheriff's departments), and each
State and local agency responsible for the issuance of
business licenses in the jurisdiction in which the high-
volume crime gun dealer is located of such designation.
``(D) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph--
``(i) not later than 10 days after the date on which a
handgun is sold, delivered, or otherwise transferred by a
high-volume crime gun dealer to a person not licensed under
this chapter, the high-volume crime gun dealer shall submit
to the Secretary and to the department of State police or
State law enforcement agency of the State or local
jurisdiction in which the sale, delivery, or transfer took
place, on a form prescribed by the Secretary, a report of the
sale, delivery, or transfer, which report shall include--
``(I) the manufacturer or importer of the handgun;
``(II) the model, type, caliber, gauge, and serial number
of the handgun; and
``(III) the name, address, date of birth, and height and
weight of the purchaser or transferee, as applicable;
``(ii) each high-volume crime gun dealer shall submit to
the Secretary, on a form prescribed by the Secretary, a
monthly report of each firearm received and each firearm
disposed of by the dealer during that month, which report
shall include only the name of the manufacturer or importer
and the model, type, caliber, gauge, serial number, date of
receipt, and date of disposition of each such firearm, except
that the initial report submitted by a dealer under this
clause shall include such information with respect to the
entire inventory of the high-volume crime gun dealer; and
``(iii) a high-volume crime gun dealer may not destroy any
record required to be maintained under paragraph (1)(A).
``(E) Inspection.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Secretary may inspect or examine the inventory and records of
a high-volume crime gun dealer at any time without a showing
of reasonable cause or a warrant for purposes of determining
compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
``(F) Recordkeeping by local police departments.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(B), a State or local law
enforcement agency that receives a report under subparagraph
(D)(i) may retain a copy of that record for not more than 5
years.
``(G) License renewal.--Notwithstanding subsection (d)(2),
the Secretary shall approve or deny an application for a
license submitted by a high-volume crime gun dealer before
the expiration of the 120-day period beginning on the date on
which the application is received.
``(H) Effect of failure to comply.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (e), the
Secretary shall, after notice and an opportunity for a
hearing--
``(I) suspend for not less than 90 days any license issued
under this section to a high-volume crime gun dealer who
willfully violates any provision of this section (including
any requirement of this paragraph);
``(II) revoke any license issued under this section to a
high-volume crime gun dealer who willfully violates any
provision of this section (including any requirement of this
paragraph) and who has committed a prior willful violation of
any provision of this section (including any requirement of
this paragraph); and
``(III) revoke any license issued under this section to a
high-volume crime gun dealer who willfully violates any
provision of section 922 or 924.
``(ii) Stay pending appeal.--Notwithstanding subsection
(f)(3), the Secretary may not stay the effective date of a
suspension or revocation under this subparagraph pending an
appeal.''.
SEC. 3. ENHANCED ABILITY TO TRACE FIREARMS.
(a) Voluntary Submission of Dealer's Records.--Section
923(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read
as follows:
``(4) Voluntary submission of dealer's records.--
``(A) Business discontinued.--
``(i) Successor.--When a firearms or ammunition business is
discontinued and succeeded by a new licensee, the records
required to be kept by this chapter shall appropriately
reflect that fact and shall be delivered to the successor.
Upon receipt of those records, the successor licensee may
retain the records of the discontinued business or submit the
discontinued business records to the Secretary.
``(ii) No successor.--When a firearms or ammunition
business is discontinued without a successor, records
required to be kept by this chapter shall be delivered to the
Secretary within 30 days after the business is discontinued.
``(B) Old records.--A licensee maintaining a firearms
business may voluntarily submit the records required to be
kept by this chapter to the Secretary if such records are at
least 20 years old.
``(C) State or local requirements.--If State law or local
ordinance requires the delivery of records regulated by this
paragraph to another responsible authority, the Secretary may
arrange for the delivery of records to such other responsible
authority.''
(b) Centralization and Maintenance of Records.--Section
923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(9) Centralization and maintenance of records by
secretary.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary--
``(A) may receive and centralize any information or records
submitted to the Secretary under this chapter and maintain
such information or records in whatever manner will enable
their most efficient use in law enforcement investigations;
and
``(B) shall retain a record of each firearms trace
conducted by the Secretary, unless the Secretary determines
that there is a valid law enforcement reason not to retain
the record.''.
(c) Licensee Reports of Secondhand Firearms.--Section
923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(10) Licensee reports of secondhand firearms.--A licensed
importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall
submit to the Secretary, on a form prescribed by the
Secretary, a monthly report of each firearm received from a
person not licensed under this chapter during that month,
which report shall not include any identifying information
relating to the transferor or any subsequent purchaser.''.
SEC. 4. GENERAL REGULATION OF FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
(a) Transfers of Crime Guns.--Section 924(h) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or having
reasonable cause to believe'' after ``knowing''.
(b) Increased Penalties for Trafficking in Firearms With
Obliterated Serial Numbers.--Section 924(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``(k),''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(k),'' after ``(j),''.
SEC. 5. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES.
The United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the
Federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the amendments made
by this Act.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague Senator
Schumer in introducing the ``Targeted Gun Dealer Enforcement Act of
1999.'' This bill will give law enforcement the tools they need to
prevent suspect gun dealers from supplying firearms to criminals and
plaguing our communities with gun violence.
Guns kill 34,000 Americans every year--thirteen children every day.
They kill more teen-agers than any natural cause.
This bill allows the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to
closely monitor those gun dealers who they should be monitoring--the
dealers who have had more than 25 crime guns traced to them in the last
year.
The facts in Illinois are particularly compelling on this issue. In
Illinois, 26 gun dealers account for more crime guns than the remaining
3,700 Illinois federally licensed gun dealers combined.
These figures show that while most gun dealers are law abiding and
responsible, some shops have become ``convenience stores'' for
criminals. Twenty-six dealers were the source of more than 1,600 crime
guns with each dealer responsible for selling at least 25 guns used in
crimes in 1998.
This bill will help law enforcement find out why these dealers are
the source of guns later used to commit crimes. The bill will require
high volume crime dealers to report handgun sales to ATF and local
police. Law enforcement can then use these records to more effectively
trace crime guns.
The bill will also encourage gun dealers to sell guns more
responsively. In the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, ATF found
that many guns used by youths to commit crimes are purchased from
licensed dealers by individuals acting as ``straw'' purchasers. A
``straw purchaser'' is a person who illegally purchases a firearm for
another person, such as a juvenile or a felon.
This bill seeks to address that problem by prohibiting the sale of a
firearm when a seller has ``reason to know'' that such firearm will be
used to commit a crime of violence or a drug crime. Current law
requires actual knowledge on the part of the dealer that the buyer will
use the firearm to commit a crime of violence. This change will make it
easier for law enforcement to target dealers who they believe are
turning a blind eye in supplying guns to buyers under questionable
circumstances.
In 1998, Chicago police officers conducted ``Operation Gunsmoke,'' an
investigation to target gun-sellers just outside the city limits. Seven
undercover officers purchased 171 guns from 12 suburban gun stores in a
three month period. Not one dealer refused to sell the agents weapons
even as the agents openly violated laws needed to purchase firearms.
This investigation was key to the City of Chicago's
[[Page S7937]]
groundbreaking lawsuit against the gun industry on the theory of public
nuisance.
We must act now to keep guns from getting into the hands of
criminals. I applaud Senator Schumer's leadership on this issue and
hope my colleagues will join us in this important effort to make our
communities safer. The statistics show most gun dealers are
responsible, but a few unscrupulous dealers are supplying criminals
with guns that plague our communities.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. McConnell):
S. 1307. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to permit
participating households to use food stamp benefits to purchase
nutritional supplements providing vitamins or minerals, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
food stamp vitamin and mineral improvement act of 1999
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Hatch and Senator McConnell in introducing the Food Stamp Vitamin and
Mineral Improvement Act of 1999.
Mr. President, this bipartisan legislation is very simple and I
believe makes just plain common sense. It would give those Americans
using food stamps the ability to purchase vitamin and mineral
supplements for themselves and their families.
The change called for in this legislation has been supported by a
broad coalition of groups and nutrition experts. For example, it is
backed by the Alliance for Aging Research, the Spina Bifida Association
of America, the National Osteoporosis Foundation and the National
Nutritional Foods Association. Nutrition experts such as Dr. Paul
Lachance, Chair of the Department of Food Science at Rutgers
University, Dr. Jeffrey Blumberg of Tufts University, Dr. Charles
Butterworth, Director of Human Nutrition at the University of Alabama
Birmingham, and Dr. Dennis Heldman, Chair of the Department of Food
Science and Human Nutrition at the University of Missouri have also
called for making this common sense change to food policy.
Mr. President, I believe this legislation would contribute
substantially to improving the nutrition and health of a segment of our
society that too often falls below recommended levels of nutrient
consumption.
Scientific evidence continues to mount showing that sound nutrition
is essential for normal growth and cognitive development in children,
and for improved health and the prevention of a variety of conditions
and illnesses.
Studies have also shown, unfortunately, that many Americans do not
have dietary intakes sufficient to meet even the conservative
Recommended Daily Allowances or RDA's for a number of essential
nutrients. Insufficient dietary intakes are especially critical for
children, pregnant women and the elderly.
A recent study conducted by the Tufts University School of Nutrition,
and based on government data, showed that millions of poor children in
the United States have dietary intakes that are well below the
government's Recommended Daily Allowance for a number of important
nutrients. The study found that major differences exist in the intakes
of poor versus non-poor children for 10 out of 16 nutrients (food
energy, folate, iron, magnesium, thiamin, vitamin A, vitamin B6,
vitamin C, vitamin E, and zinc). Moreover, the proportion of poor
children with inadequate intakes of zinc is over 50 percent; for iron,
over 40 percent; and for vitamin E, over 33 percent.
For some nutrients, such as vitamin A and magnesium, the proportion
of poor children with inadequate intakes is nearly six times as large
as for non-poor children.
Pregnant women also have high nutritional needs. Concerns about
inadequate folate intake by pregnant women prompted the Public Health
Service to issue a recommendation regarding consumption of folic acid
by all women of childbearing age who are capable of becoming pregnant
for the purpose of reducing the incidence of spina bifida or other
neural tube defects. That is why this change has long been a priority
of the Spina Bifida Association of America.
Furthermore, the percent of pregnant and nursing women who get the
RDA level of calcium has dropped from just 24 percent in 1986 to a mere
16 percent in 1994. That's 84 percent of women who aren't getting
enough calcium--which we know is critical to preventing the
debilitating effects of osteoporosis.
And again, the evidence is that lower income women, many of whom are
eligible for Food Stamps, are more likely to have inadequate intake of
key nutrients. Women with income of 130 percent or less of the poverty
level have higher rates of deficiencies in intake of Vitamins A, E, C,
B-6 and B-12, as well as Iron, Thiamin, Riboflavin and Niacin than
those with higher incomes.
Obviously, the best way to obtain sufficient nutrient intake is
through eating a variety of nutritious foods, but some groups--
particularly those at the greatest risk, including children, pregnant
women and the elderly--may find it significantly difficult to obtain
sufficient nutrient intake through foods alone. Accordingly, many
people in our nation do rely on nutritional supplements to ensure that
they and their families are consuming sufficient levels of key
nutrients.
This legislation would enable low-income people to have greater
access to nutritional supplements to improve their nutrient intake.
Currently, recipients of food stamps are not allowed to use those
resources to purchase nutritional supplements. This restriction clearly
serves as an impediment to adequate nutrition for low-income people who
may need supplements to ensure they are consuming sufficient levels of
nutrients. It defies common sense.
This restriction also prevents food stamp recipients from exercising
their own responsibility and choice to use food stamps for purchasing
nutritional supplements that they determine are important to adequate
nutrition for their children or themselves. It is a glaring
inconsistency that food stamps may currently be used to purchase a
variety of non-nutritious or minimally nutritious foods but not to
purchase nutritional supplements. Incredibly, you can use Food Stamps
to buy Twinkies, but not Vitamin C or a multivitamin.
Opponents of this legislation will argue that food stamps are most
effectively used to improve nutrition through purchasing food rather
than nutritional supplements, and that if food stamps may be used for
nutritional supplements, households will be less able to stretch their
resources to purchase sufficient quantities of food.
The available evidence indicates, however, that food stamp households
actually make more careful and effective use of their resources in
purchasing nutritious foods than consumers in general. Since food stamp
households necessarily have a limited amount of money to spend on
food--and generally already find it difficult to meet their food
needs--they simply cannot afford to make unwise or unnecessary
purchases of nutritional supplements using food stamps which would
otherwise be used for food.
In addition, a month's worth of daily multivitamin supplements can
cost as little as one can of soda. So I believe the concerns that food
stamps will be wasted or unwisely used for nutritional supplements is
unfounded.
Our proposal is also clearly consistent with the stated purpose of
the Food Stamp program, that is to ``promote the general welfare and to
safeguard the health of the nation's population by raising the
nutrition among low-income households.''
So, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join us in
supporting this legislation designed to improve opportunities for low-
income Americans to ensure adequate nutrition for their families and
themselves. Simply put, if you think it doesn't make sense that Food
Stamps can be used to buy twinkies and doughnuts but not Vitamin C or a
daily multi-vitamin supplement, you should support this bipartisan
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 1307
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 ``Food Stamp Vitamin and
Mineral Improvement Act of 1999''.
[[Page S7938]]
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the dietary patterns of Americans do not result in
nutrient intakes that fully meet recommended dietary
allowances of vitamins and minerals;
(2) children in low-income families and the elderly often
fail to achieve adequate nutrient intakes from diet alone;
(3) pregnant women have particularly high nutrient needs,
which they often fail to meet through diet alone;
(4)(A) scientific studies show that nutritional supplements
that contain folic acid (a B vitamin) can prevent as many as
60 to 80 percent of neural tube birth defects;
(B) the Public Health Service, in September 1992,
recommended that all women of childbearing age who are
capable of becoming pregnant should consume at least 0.4 of a
milligram of folic acid per day for the purpose of reducing
the risk of having a pregnancy affected with spina bifida or
other neural tube birth defects; and
(C) the Food and Drug Administration has approved a health
claim for folic acid to reduce the risk of neural tube birth
defects;
(5) infants who do not receive adequate intakes of iron may
be somewhat impaired in mental and behavioral development;
and
(6) scientific evidence indicates that increasing intake of
specific nutrients over an extended period of time protects
against diseases or conditions such as osteoporosis,
cataracts, cancer, and heart disease.
SEC. 3. USE OF FOOD STAMPS TO PURCHASE VITAMINS AND MINERALS.
Section 3(g)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2012(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``or food product'' and
inserting ``, food product, or nutritional supplement
providing a vitamin or mineral''.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1308. A bill to amend section 468A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 with respect to deductions for decommissioning costs of nuclear
power plants; to the Committee on Finance.
nuclear decommissioning fund
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator John
Breaux in introducing The Nuclear Decommissioning Funds Clarification
Act. This change in the tax law is necessary because the electricity
industry is rapidly moving from a regulatory monopoly model to the
competitive marketplace.
In 1984, Congress enacted Code Section 468A which was designed to
allow state public service commissions to authorize that future costs
for decommissioning nuclear power plants could be charged by a utility
to its customers to be dedicated to a nuclear decommissioning fund.
Currently, utilities are permitted a deduction for contributions to
their decommissioning funds. The amount that can be deducted is
currently limited to the cost of service amount or the ruling amount.
The cost of service amount is the amount of decommissioning costs
included in the taxpayer's cost of service for ratemaking purposes. The
ruling amount is the amount that the IRS determines to be necessary to
provide for level funding of an amount equal to the taxpayer's nuclear
decommissioning costs.
Since Section 468A was adopted, the electricity industry landscape
has been substantially transformed. Since 1992, more than 20 states
have approved plans to introduce competition and all states are
considering deregulation. The Energy Committee which I chair has also
held several hearings on Federal deregulation proposals and it is my
hope that a federal deregulation bill will be adopted in this Congress.
Since deductible contributions made to a nuclear decommissioning fund
are based on limitations reflected in cost-of-service ratemaking,
companies operating in a competitive market can no longer deduct
contributions to decommissioning funds. Our bill clarifies the
deductibility of nuclear decommissioning costs in a market environment
and codifies the definition of nuclear decommissioning costs that limit
contributions.
This legislation also clarifies a number of tax issues relating to
decommissioning funds to ensure that nuclear utilities can operate
effectively in this new competitive environment.
______
By Mr. SESSIONS:
S. 1309. A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 to provide for the preemption of State law in
certain cases relating to certain church plans; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
church plan parity and entanglement prevention act of 1999
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
protect the health and pension benefits of thousands of clergy and lay
workers. This legislation clarifies the regulatory status of church
benefit programs and allows service providers to continue contracting
with church plans.
Unfortunately, state insurance statutes, in all but three states,
fail to address the legal status of these benefit programs. Thus, under
some interpretations of state insurance law it is possible to conclude
that these employer plans are subject to regulation as insurance
companies. This uncertain legal status has caused service providers to
refuse to contract with church plans--leaving these programs without
the necessary tools to maximize benefits and reduce costs.
Recently, the Insurance Department of South Dakota informed the
church benefits community that either federal or state legislation is
necessary to exempt their programs from their state's insurance laws.
With the possibility that 46 more states could make the same request, I
believe the only practical solution is for Congress to clarify the
status of these plans. That is what my legislation does.
Mr. President, my legislation is within the spirit of the National
Securities Markets Improvement Act (NSMIA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-290) which
not only exempted church plans from federal securities laws--providing
the same treatment secular plans had previously enjoyed--but, also
preempted state securities laws. This is not a unique idea. Similarly,
the Internal Revenue Code includes numerous accommodations to the
special circumstances of church plans. For example, the church plans
which annuitize benefits are deemed not to be commercial insurers for
purposes of maintaining their tax-exempt status.
Mr. President, I have heard from ministers in my state about the
urgency to move this legislation expeditiously. Indeed, Bishop Wesley
Morris of the United Methodist Church visited me about this very
matter. It is supported by the Church Alliance, a coalition of more
than 30 denominational benefit programs, including the Presbyterian
Church in America, the Rabbinical Pension Board, the Christian Brothers
Service, the United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, the
Episcopal Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and many others.
While these denominations may disagree about certain theological
issues, they are united in providing sound health care and pension
programs to their ministers and lay workers. Furthermore, while there
are differing opinions with the Senate, and among ourselves, about
health care legislation, there should be no disagreement that we need
to protect benefit plans that serve ministers and lay workers. It makes
no sense to leave these programs at the mercy of 47 different insurance
laws. Every person active in his or her church knows the rising cost of
health care is a problem.
Mr. President, I want to clarify two points with respect to
preemption of State laws as provided by this legislation. The exception
that allows states to enact legislation applicable to church plans is
intended to permit states to regulate church plans only if a specific
statute is passed by a State legislature on a stand-alone basis and the
sole purpose of the statute is to regulate church plans.
Furthermore, I want to point that this legislation is intended to
permit insurance companies and other service providers to contract with
church plans regardless of whether such church plans would have been
treated as multiple-employer welfare arrangements under State law, if
this legislation had not been enacted.
Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass this measure.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Levin, Mr. Bennett,
Mr. Santorum, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Specter, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Frist, Mr. Helms, and
Mr. Abraham):
S. 1310. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
modify the interim payment system for home health services, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare
Home
[[Page S7939]]
Health Equity Act of 1999, which is designed to provide a measure of
financial and regulatory relief for cost-efficient home health agencies
across the country. These agencies are experiencing severe financial
problems that are inhibiting their ability to deliver much-needed care,
particularly to chronically ill seniors with complex needs.
America's home health agencies provide invaluable services that have
enabled a growing number of our most frail and vulnerable Medicare
beneficiaries to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where
they want to be--in the comfort and security of their own homes.
In 1996, home health was the fastest growing component of Medicare
spending, consuming one out of every eleven Medicare dollars, compared
with one in every forty in 1989. The program grew at an average annual
rate of more than 25 percent from 1990 to 1997. As a consequence, the
number of home health beneficiaries more than doubled, and Medicare
home health spending soared from $2.5 billion in 1989 to $18.1 billion
in 1996.
This rapid growth in home health spending understandably prompted
Congress and the Administration, as part of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, to initiate changes that were intended to make the program more
cost-effective and efficient. Therefore, there was widespread support
for the provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which called for
the implementation of a prospective payment system for home care. Until
this system can be implemented, home health agencies are being paid
according to an ``interim payment system,'' or IPS.
In trying to get a handle on costs, however, Congress and the
Administration created a system that penalizes efficient agencies and
that may be restricting access for the very Medicare beneficiaries who
need care the most--the sicker seniors with complex, chronic care needs
like diabetic, wound care patients or IV therapy patients who require
multiple visits.
Unfortunately, the ``interim payment system'' is critically flawed in
that it effectively rewards the agencies that provided the most visits
and spent the most Medicare dollars in 1994, the base year, while it
penalizes low-cost, more efficient providers--and their patients. None
of us should tolerate wasteful expenditures, but neither should we
impede the delivery of necessary services by low-cost providers.
Home health agencies in the Northeast and the mid-West have been
among those particularly hard-hit by the interim payment system. As the
Wall Street Journal observed last year, ``If New England had been just
a little greedier, its home health industry would be a lot better off
now--Ironically, the region is getting clobbered by the system because
of its tradition of non-profit community service and efficiency.''
Even more troubling, this flawed system may force our most cost-
efficient providers to stop accepting Medicare patients with more
serious health care needs. According to a recent survey by the Medicare
Payment Advisory Commission, almost 40 percent of the home health
agencies surveyed indicated that there were patients whom they
previously would have accepted whom they no longer accept due to the
IPS. Thirty-one percent of the agencies admitted that they had
discharged patients due to the IPS. These discharged patients tended to
be those with chronic care needs who required a large number of visits
and were expensive to serve. As a consequence, these patients caused
the agencies to exceed their aggregate per-beneficiary caps.
I simply do not believe that Congress and the Administration intended
to construct a payment system that inevitably discourages home health
agencies from caring for those seniors who need care the most. Last
year's Omnibus Appropriations bill did provide a small measure of
relief for home health agencies. This proposal did not, however, go far
enough to relieve the financial distress that cost-effective agencies
are experiencing.
These problems are all the more pressing given the fact that the
Health Care Financing Administration was unable to meet its original
deadline for implementing a prospective payment system. As a result,
home health agencies will be struggling under the IPS far longer than
Congress envisioned when it enacted the Balanced Budget Act.
Moreover, it now appears that Congress greatly underestimated the
savings stemming from the BBA. Medicare spending for home health fell
by nearly 15 percent last year, and the CBO now projects that post-BBA
reductions in home care spending will exceed $47 billion in FY 1998-
2002. This is a whopping three times greater than the $16 billion CBO
originally estimated for that time period.
I recently chaired a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI)
hearing where we heard about the financial distress and cash-flow
problems cost-efficient agencies across the country are experiencing.
Witnesses expressed concern that these problems are inhibiting their
ability to deliver much-needed care, particularly to chronically ill
patients with complex needs. More than a thousand agencies have closed
in the past year because the reimbursement levels under Medicare fell
so far short of their actual operating costs. Others are laying off
staff or declining to accept new patients with more serious health
problems.
This points to the most central and critical issue--cuts of this
magnitude cannot be sustained without ultimately affecting care for our
most vulnerable seniors. At the PSI hearing, Barbara Smith, a senior
research staff scientist with the Center for Health Services Research
and Policy at George Washington University, testified that the
preliminary findings of her studies suggest significant potential
effects on beneficiaries, particularly those with unstable chronic care
needs. Her research shows that these patients are being displaced from
home care or are experiencing significant changes in services that
appear to be driven by reimbursement policies rather than by clinical
considerations. In her testimony, she stated:
``My main concern is that we are carving out a wedge of
people who are chronically ill and have intensive needs for
services who are not going to have a reliable source of care
in any sector. They are becoming the health care system's
untouchables.''
Moreover, the financial problems that home health agencies have been
experiencing have been exacerbated by a number of new regulatory
requirements imposed by HCFA, including the implementation of OASIS,
the new outcome and assessment information data set; new requirements
for surety bonds; sequential billing; IPS overpayment recoupment; and a
new 15-minute increment home health reporting requirement. Witnesses at
the PSI hearing expressed particular frustration about what Maryanna
Arsenault, the CEO of the Visiting Nurse Service in Saco, Maine, termed
HCFA's regulatory policy of ``implement and suspend.'' They pointed to
examples such as the hastily enacted requirements for surety bonds and
sequential billing where no sooner had a mandate been put into an
effect, than it was suspended but only after agencies had invested
significant time and resources in compliance.
The legislation that my colleague from Missouri and I are introducing
today, along with a bipartisan group of 16 of our colleagues, responds
to these concerns. It makes needed adjustments to the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 and related federal regulations to ensure that Medicare
beneficiaries have access to medically-necessary home health services.
Among other provisions, the bill eliminates the automatic 15 percent
reduction in Medicare home health payments now scheduled for October 1,
2000, whether or not a prospective payment system is enacted. When the
Balanced Budget Act was enacted, CBO reported that the effect of the
BBA would be to reduce home health expenditures by $16.1 billion
between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. CBO's March 1999 revised analysis
estimates those reductions to exceed $47 billion--three times the
anticipated budgetary impact. A further 15 percent cut would be
devastating to cost-efficient providers and would further reduce
seniors' access to care. Moreover, it is unnecessary since the budget
target for home health outlays will be achieved, if not exceeded,
without it.
The legislation will also provide supplemental ``outlier'' payments
to home health agencies on a patient-by-patient
[[Page S7940]]
basis, if the cost of care for an individual is considered to be
significantly higher than average due to the patient's particular
health and functional condition. This provision would remove the
existing financial disincentive for agencies to care for patients with
intensive medical needs who, according to recent reports issued by both
the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission (MedPAC), are the individuals most at risk of losing access
to home health care under the IPS.
The current IPS unfairly penalizes historically cost-efficient home
health agencies that have been most prudent with their Medicare
resources. Our legislation builds on reforms in last year's Omnibus
Appropriations Act by gradually raising low-cost agencies' per-
beneficiary limits up to the national average over three years, or
until the new home health prospective payment system is implemented and
IPS is terminated.
To decrease total costs in order to remain under their per-
beneficiary limits, agencies have had to significantly reduce the
number of visits to patients, which has, in turn, increased the cost of
each visit. Implementation of OASIS has also significantly increased
agencies' per-visit costs. Therefore, the legislation will increase the
IPS per-visit cost limit from 106 to 108 percent of the national
median.
Other provisions of the legislation will:
Extend the current IPS overpayment recoupment period from one to
three years without interest;
Revise the surety bond requirement for home health agencies to more
appropriately target fraud;
Eliminate the 15-minute incremental reporting requirement; and
Maintain the Periodic Interim Payment (PIP) program through the first
year of implementation of the prospective payment system to ensure that
such a dramatic change in payment systems does not create new cash-flow
problems for agencies. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-
section summary further detailing these provisions be included in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
Mr. President, the Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1999 will
provide a measure of financial and regulatory relief to beleaguered
home health agencies in order to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries
have access to medically-necessary home health services, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Home Health Equity Act of 1999--Summary
The Home Health Equity Act of 1999 is intended to make
needed adjustments to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and
related federal regulations to ensure that Medicare
beneficiaries have access to medically-necessary home health
care services.
Major Provisions
Eliminates the automatic 15 percent reduction in Medicare
home health payments now scheduled for October 1, 2000.
Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (as amended by the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act), expenditures for Medicare home health
care are to be reduced by 15 percent, whether or not a
Medicare home health prospective payment system is
implemented on October 1, 2000. This provision would
eliminate that proposed reduction. When it was enacted, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the effect of
the BBA would be to reduce home health expenditures by $16.1
billion between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. CBO's March 1999
revised analysis now estimates those reductions to exceed $47
billion--three times the anticipated budgetary impact. A
further 15 percent cut to home health cost limits would be
devastating to cost-efficient providers and would reduce
seniors' access to care. Moreover, it is unnecessary since
the budget target for home health outlays will be achieved,
if not exceeded, without it.
Provides supplemental ``outlier'' payments to home health
agencies on a patient-by-patient basis if the cost of care
for an individual is considered by the Secretary to be
significantly higher than average due to the patient's
particular health and functional condition.
Recent reports issued by both the General Accounting Office
(GAO) and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC)
conclude that patients with intensive medical needs are the
individuals most at risk of losing access to home health care
under the Interim Payment System (IPS). This provision would
remove the existing financial disincentive under the IPS for
agencies to care for these patients.
Increases the per-beneficiary cost limit for agencies with
limits below the national average to the national average
cost per patient over a three-year period or until the
Medicare home health prospective payment system is
implemented.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997's Interim Payment System
(IPS) bases an agency's average per-patient reimbursement on
that agency's average cost per patient in 1993 or 1994. As a
consequences, the system unfairly penalizes historically
cost-efficient home health agencies that have been most
prudent with their Medicare resources. This provision builds
on reforms made by the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (OCESSA) by gradually raising
low-cost agencies' per-beneficiary limits up to the national
average over three years or until the new home health
prospective payment system is implemented and IPS is
terminated.
Increases the IPS per-visit cost limit to 108 percent of
the national median.
The Balanced Budget Act reduced the per-visit cost limit
from 112 percent of the mean to 105 percent of the median.
The OCESSA increased the limit to 106 percent of the median.
This provision would further increase it to 108 percent of
the national median. Most analysts agree that the growth in
Medicare home health expenditures in the early 1990s was due
to the high number of visits provided to patients, not to the
cost per visit. CBO confirms that controlling use, not price,
is the key to Medicare home health cost containment. To
decrease total costs in order to remain under their per-
beneficiary limits, agencies have had to significantly reduce
the number of visits to patients, which has, in turn,
increased the cost of each visit. Implementation of OASIS has
also significantly increased agencies' per-visit costs.
Revises the surety bond requirements for home health
agencies to more appropriately target fraud.
This provision would clarify that the surety bond
requirement is only to be used to protect against
overpayments based on fraudulent claims or behavior. Perhaps
the main problem with the surety bond proposal that HCFA
developed last year (and which is currently in regulatory
limbo) was that it went beyond Congressional intent. Congress
enacted the original surety bond provision as a way to use
private sector monitors to help keep fraudulent providers out
of the market. HCFA tried, through the regulations it
developed, to use surety bonds as a means to recover any
overpayments they made to home health agencies. This
unnecessarily increased both the costs and difficulties
agencies encountered in trying to obtain a surety bond.
Extends the IPS overpayment recoupment period to three
years without interest.
The BBA did not require HCFA to publish information on
calculating the IPS per-visit limits until January 1, 1998,
even though the limits were effective beginning October 1,
1997. Similarly, HCFA was not required to publish information
related to the calculation of the agencies' annual aggregate
per-beneficiary limit until April 1, 1998, despite an October
1 start date. More than a year after the implementation of
the IPS, HCFA's fiscal intermediaries still had not notified
many agencies of the visit and per-beneficiary limits under
which they were expected to operate. Moreover, throughout
this period, fiscal intermediaries continued to pay agencies
in accordance with the previous years' limits, resulting in
significant overpayments to many home health agencies
throughout the country.
Fiscal intermediaries have begun to issue notices of
overpayments to these agencies and are demanding repayment.
This has posed a significant problem, particularly for
smaller agencies that do not have large cash reserves. To
ease these repayment problems, HCFA has directed the fiscal
intermediaries to allow home health agencies to extend their
repayments over 12 months. Many agencies, however, say that
this is insufficient. This provision would extend the
overpayment recoupment period to three years without
interest.
Eliminates the 15-minute incremental reporting period.
The BBA mandates that home health agencies record the
length of time of home health visits in 15-minute increments,
which the HCFA will implement on July 1, 1999. Unfortunately,
HCFA's instructions implementing the 15-minute reporting
requirement are excessively labor-intensive. As proposed by
HCFA, the only time that can be counted is time spent
actively treating the beneficiary. Time for travel or for
administrative duties that are essential to patient care,
such as charting or coordinating work with the physician, may
not be counted. Implementation of the 15-minute reporting
requirement will not only be difficult for staff, but will
also be disruptive to patient care. This provision would
eliminate the current 15-minute reporting requirement. An
alternative to the 15-minute reporting requirement that
better measures time of direct patient care and its
relationship to outcomes should be developed within the
context of the Medicare home health PPS.
Temporarily maintains the Periodic Interim Payment (PIP)
program
PIP is a program that is available to many home health
agencies that permits HCFA to make payments to the agencies--
based on
[[Page S7941]]
historical payment levels--prior to the final settlement of
claims and cost-reports. This program, which is scheduled to
terminate on October 1, 2000, has been invaluable to
participating agencies and has helped them to avoid cash-flow
difficulties. This provision would continue PIP through the
first year of implementation of the prospective payment
system to ensure that such a dramatic change in payment
systems does not create new cash-flow problems.
Mr. BOND. In the last couple days, a lot of people have been talking
about the Medicare program and what we want it to look like as we think
far ahead into the future. I'm glad this is happening, because this is
an important debate. We do need to discuss things like a prescription
drug benefit, comprehensive Medicare reform, the long-term solvency of
the program, and other related issues.
But as we focus on the future of Medicare, we also need to do our
best to make sure that the existing program is working as well as it
can. That's why we're here today. Part of the existing program-- the
home health care benefit--is completely broken, and we've come together
to try to fix it.
Why do we care? Well, home health care is the key to fulfilling what
is virtually a universal desire among seniors and those with
disabilities--to remain independent and within the comfort of their own
homes despite their health problems. For people who have difficulty
leaving their home and who have health conditions that require low- to
mid-level medical attention, home health care is a tremendous help.
Home health care keeps these people out of more expensive and less
comfortable settings such as nursing homes and hospitals. And home care
is often the only source of care for many disabled individuals and
frail elderly, especially those living in underserved rural and urban
areas of our country. Simply put, home health is crucial to millions of
Americans' comfort and health, and we must make sure they continue to
have access to it.
The problem is that more and more Americans do not have access to
needed home health services--they simply cannot find a home health
agency that will care for them. This means they will either not receive
the care they need, or that they will get this care, they'll just get
it at more expensive and intimidating facilities like hospitals or
nursing homes. This is the crisis we are facing.
I would like to take a moment to describe several different ways this
home health crisis is rearing its ugly head across the country.
First, we have seen literally thousands of home health agencies close
their doors in the last two years. Perhaps as many as 2,000 of the
10,000 agencies that existed in 1997 have either been driven out of
business or out of Medicare. In Missouri alone, about 75 out of 300
home health agencies have closed since 1997, including the well-
respected and well-established Visiting Nurse Association of Greater
St. Louis. A few of the agencies that have closed have no doubt been
shady characters we should be glad to see go. But many--and perhaps
most--of the agencies that have closed are legitimate providers with
real patients.
Second, those agencies that have survived have had to change
drastically the way they operate. Many have been forced into layoffs
and cutbacks in other areas that directly or indirectly impact patient
care. Many face chronic cash flow problems and may be forced to refund
large amounts of cash to the Health Care Financing Administration--
perhaps in the hundreds of thousands of dollars--that they accidentally
received because they had not yet been informed of the new ground rules
for home health payments. Because of the bizarre incentives against
caring for patients with the most complex cases, many home health
agencies have also been actively managing the types of patients they
care for, trying to avoid or discharge costlier patients.
All of this is bad for patients, and it will likely get worse.
Without Congressional action, it may never get better. I truly believe
that without significant changes, home health services within Medicare
could practically disappear. Home health services would theoretically
still be part of the Medicare program, but few if any people with
Medicare would be able to receive care in their home simply because
there will be nobody there to provide it for them.
The Medicare Home Health Equity Act--which I am introducing today
with Senator Collins and 12 other colleagues--responds to this crisis
and attempts to save home health care within the Medicare program.
This bill addresses a variety of payment and regulatory issues, all
of which have impeded or prevented home health agencies from providing
high-quality, efficient care. Two provisions are particularly critical.
First, as I have mentioned, home health agencies currently have
little incentive to provide care for sicker and costlier patients. In
fact, because more complex patients put an agency at risk of exceeding
the annual per patient budget that is now in place for each home health
agency, there is actually an incentive not to care for sicker patients.
The result--which shouldn't be a surprise--is that home health agencies
are actively trying to avoid these sicker patients, either leaving them
without care or leaving them to check in to a more expensive health
facility such as a nursing home or a hospital.
The Medicare Home Health Equity Act solves this problem by creating a
system of ``extra'' payments for sicker patients--sometimes these are
called ``outlier'' payments. Under this plan, home health agencies
would be assured from the start that they could receive extra payments
for patients who meet the criteria for ``sicker'' patients. This way,
we can remove the incentive for home health agencies to try to deny
care to seniors with complex cases.
The second crucial provision in the bill is something similar to a
last-minute pardon from the governor. In addition to all of the
problems they have faced in the last couple of years, home health
agencies are scheduled to take another huge payment cut--about 15% of
the total amount they receive from Medicare--in October of 2000. I fear
that this cut would truly be the death-knell for the industry. We
cannot allow this radical payment reduction to take place.
In addition to these core provisions, the Collins-Bond bill deals
with a variety of payment and regulatory issues, all designed to make
sure that Medicare recipients continue to have access to quality home
health care and that the home health agencies are permitted to provide
that care in an efficient manner.
I would like to commend Senator Collins for her leadership on this
issue. I am pleased that we were able to develop a joint bill so that
we could unite our forces behind one bipartisan legislative vehicle and
one bipartisan solution. It is also encouraging to see that all of the
national trade associations that represent home health agencies are
supporting this bill. Finally, I would like to again thank this bill's
cosponsors for supporting this effort and for helping to raise
awareness that there is a home health crisis that desperately needs our
attention in Congress.
I for one pledge to do my best to maintain seniors access to home
health care. We cannot allow home health services within the Medicare
program to disappear. It doesn't make sense for the patients, and it
doesn't make sense for Medicare.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1311. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish an eleventh region of the Environmental
Protection Agency, comprised solely of the State of Alaska; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EPA REGION 11
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to create a new regional office for the Environmental Protection Agency
to be based in Alaska. I have been concerned for some time about the
relationship between the federal government and my constituents. Alaska
has always provided unique challenges for federal regulators. Its
weather, remoteness, and the special problems caused by them have often
resulted in a disconnect between federal regulators and my state.
Currently, Alaska is part of Region 10 of the EPA based in Seattle.
While it rains a lot in Seattle, the environment of Washington state is
much more similar to Oregon and Idaho than Alaska. Alaska comprises 17%
of America's total size and faces climactic extremes unheard of in the
lower 48.
[[Page S7942]]
For example, many people have heard that the unique geography of Los
Angeles creates extreme atmospheric inversion conditions that
contributes to its air pollution. However, I have been told that my
home town of Fairbanks actually has a greater inversion problem than
not only Los Angeles, but also anywhere else in the world except for
the South Pole.
I also believe that the cost issue is an important one since creation
of a regional office would lower the tremendous travel and temporary
duty costs faced by lower 48 based EPA staff who must fly back and
forth to Alaska. Basing them in Alaska should significantly reduce
these travel costs.
I recognize that some may feel that the creation of a new regional
office in Alaska is unwise. I would point out that I do not believe
that the Seattle office has regularly handled Alaska issues poorly, but
I do believe that these issues could be handled better if there was a
regional office located in Alaska. Alaska faces wetland challenges like
no other state. Our nation has seen a tremendous loss in wetlands in
states such as California that has lost over 80% of its original
wetlands. In comparison, Alaska has lost less than half of one percent
of our nation's wetlands due to development even though we are a large
producer of our nation's natural resources. Alaska is a state where
wetlands banking is not an appropriate solution to address the loss of
wetlands in California. Alaska's wetlands are also very different than
those found in California or anywhere else in our nation. Much of
Alaska's wetlands are frozen for all but a few months of the year.
Even the Clean Air Act has a different application in Alaska. Low
sulfur diesel in the lower 48 for on-road usage is not appropriate for
my state where the percentage of diesel used for on-road uses is
minuscule compared to that of the off-road uses. This situation is
reversed in every other state. Fortunately, the EPA has seen fit to
waive the low sulfur diesel requirement until a new lower national
standard for both off and on-road diesel is in place during the next
decade. However, we need to ensure that all federal regulations put
into place reflect the realities of every state in our nation. Creation
of a new Alaska based regional office of the EPA would be a firm step
forward towards this goal.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support
this bill in order to make the EPA more efficient and responsive to
some unique environmental challenges in my state.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the
Record.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF EPA REGION FOR ALASKA.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall establish--
(1) an eleventh region of the Environmental Protection
Agency, comprised solely of the State of Alaska; and
(2) a regional office for the region located in the State.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this Act.
____________________