[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11131-S11136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 1605. A bill to establish a program of formula grants to the 
States for programs to provide pregnant women with alternatives to 
abortion, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN'S RESOURCES ACT

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that offers compassionate choices for women facing unplanned 
pregnancies. This bill, the Women and Children's Resources Act, 
establishes an $85 million formula grant program to provide pregnant 
women with alternatives to abortion.
  The Women and Children's Resources Act (WCRA) is modeled after a 
successful program in Pennsylvania, Project Women In Need (WIN). This 
program was created under the Administration of former Governor Robert 
Casey and implemented during the current Administration of Governor Tom 
Ridge. Project WIN has filled a critical void for women seeking support 
during this confusing and uncertain time. The centers often receive 500 
calls per week.
  This legislation is designed to meet the needs of women facing one of 
the most important decisions of their lives. WCRA is intended to link 
women to a network of supportive organizations who are ready and 
willing to offer assistance in the form of pregnancy testing, adoption 
information, prenatal and postpartum health care, maternity and baby 
clothing, food, diapers and information on childbirth and parenting. 
Women can also receive referrals for housing, education, and vocational 
training. This bill seeks to provide compassionate choices to women; it 
is an effort to reach out to women and let them know they do not have 
to face this decision alone.
  The bill directs federal funding to states through a formula based on 
the number of out-of-wedlock births and abortions in a state as 
compared to this sum for the nation. Upon receipt of this grant, states 
will select their prime contractors from the private sector to 
administer the program. The prime contractor will distribute Women and 
Children's Resources Grants to crisis pregnancy centers, maternity 
homes, and adoption services on a fee-for-service basis. Faith-based 
providers may also participate in the program, but they may not 
proselytize. Further, state-wide toll-free referral systems and other 
methods of advertisement will be established to make these services 
readily available to pregnant women and their children. Low-income 
women will be given priority for these services.
  Because WCRA seeks to offer alternatives to abortion, contractors and 
subcontractors which receive funding under this bill cannot promote, 
refer, or counsel for abortion. Further, these entities must be 
physically and financially separate from any entity which promotes, 
refers, or counsels for abortion.
  Mr. President, not every woman facing an unplanned pregnancy knows 
that supportive services exist. Many believe that the future they had 
planned is no longer achievable. They feel alone and abandoned. Often, 
they mistakenly believe that abortion is their only real choice. For 
this reason, WCRA offers compassionate, life-affirming choices and 
support. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation 
appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1605

       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 ``Women and Children's 
     Resources Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Women confronted with unplanned or crisis pregnancy 
     often are left with the impression that abortion is the only 
     choice that they have in dealing with their difficult 
     circumstances.
       (2) Women often lack accurate information, supportive 
     counseling and other assistance regarding adoption and 
     parenting alternatives to abortion.
       (3) Organizations that provide accurate information, 
     supportive counseling and other assistance regarding adoption 
     and parenting alternatives to abortion often lack sufficient 
     resources to reach women in need of their services and to 
     provide for their needs.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is--
       (1) to promote childbirth as a viable and positive 
     alternative to abortion and to empower those facing unplanned 
     or crisis pregnancies to choose childbirth rather than 
     abortion;
       (2) to carry out paragraph (1) by supporting entities and 
     projects that provide information, counseling, and support 
     services that assist women to choose childbirth and to make 
     informed decisions regarding the choice of adoption or 
     parenting with respect to their children; and
       (3) to maximize the effectiveness of this Act by providing 
     funds only to those entities and projects that have a stated 
     policy of actively promoting childbirth instead of abortion 
     and that have experience in providing alternative-to-abortion 
     services.

     SEC. 3. FORMULA GRANTS TO STATES FOR ALTERNATIVE-TO-ABORTION 
                   SERVICES PROGRAMS.

       In the case of each State that in accordance with section 6 
     submits to the Secretary of Health and Human Services an 
     application for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make a 
     grant to the State for the year for carrying out the purposes 
     authorized in section 4(a) (subject to amounts being 
     appropriated under section 11 for the year). The grant shall 
     consist of the allotment determined for the State under 
     section 7.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF STATE PROGRAMS TO 
                   PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE-TO-ABORTION SERVICES; 
                   ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAMS THROUGH CONTRACTS 
                   WITH ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--Grant funds provided under this Act may be 
     expended only for purposes of the establishment and operation 
     of a State program (carried out pursuant to contracts under 
     subsection (c)) designed to provide alternative-to-abortion 
     services (as defined in section 9) to eligible individuals as 
     described in subsection (b).
       (b) Eligible Individuals.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an individual is 
     an eligible individual for purposes of subsection (a) if--
       (A) the individual is pregnant (or has reasonable grounds 
     to believe she may be pregnant);
       (B) the individual (male or female) is the parent or legal 
     guardian of an infant under 12 months of age; or
       (C) the individual is the spouse or other partner of an 
     individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
       (2) Priority for low-income individuals.--Grant funds 
     provided under this Act shall be awarded only to States that 
     submit a grant application that assures that the State 
     program--
       (A) will give priority to serving eligible individuals who 
     are from low-income families; and
       (B) will not impose a charge on any eligible individual 
     from a low-income family except to the extent that payment 
     will be made by a third party (including a government agency) 
     that is authorized or is under legal obligation to pay such 
     charge.
       (c) Administration of Programs Through Contracts With 
     Experienced Entities and

[[Page S11132]]

     Service Providers.--Grant funds provided under this Act shall 
     be awarded only to States that submit a grant application 
     that assures that the State program will be established and 
     operated in accordance with the following:
       (1) Establishment and operation of program.--
       (A) Prime contractor.--The State shall enter into a 
     contract with a nonprofit private entity that, under the 
     contract, shall be designated as the ``prime contractor'' and 
     shall have the principal responsibility for administering the 
     State program, including subcontracting with service 
     providers.
       (B) Subcontracts with service providers.--The prime 
     contractor shall enter into subcontracts with service 
     providers for reimbursement of alternative-to-abortion 
     services provided to eligible individuals on a fee-for-
     service basis, as provided in paragraph (2)(C)(ii).
       (C) Expenditures of grant.--The prime contractor shall be 
     authorized to expend funds to administer the State program, 
     reimburse service providers, and to provide additional 
     supportive services to assist such providers in providing 
     alternative-to-abortion services to eligible individuals 
     consistent with the purposes of this Act, including providing 
     for a toll-free referral system, advertising of alternative-
     to-abortion services, purchase of educational materials, and 
     grants for new sites and new project development.
       (D) Requirement for prime contractors.--An entity may not 
     become a prime contractor unless, consistent with the overall 
     purpose of this Act, it has a stated policy of actively 
     promoting childbirth instead of abortion.
       (E) Additional requirements for prime contractors.--An 
     entity may not become a prime contractor unless--
       (i) for the 5-year period preceding the date on which the 
     entity applies to receive the contract, it has been engaged 
     primarily in the provision of core services or it has 
     operated a project that provides such services;
       (ii) it already serves as a prime contractor pursuant to a 
     State appropriation designed to fund alternative-to-abortion 
     services; or
       (iii) it is a subsidiary of an entity that meets the 
     criteria under clause (i) or (ii).
       (F) Requirements for subcontractors.--An entity may not 
     become a service provider unless--
       (i) it operates a service provider project that has a 
     stated policy of actively promoting childbirth instead of 
     abortion;
       (ii) its project has been providing alternative-to-abortion 
     services to clients for at least 1 year; and
       (iii) its project is physically and financially separate 
     from any entity that advocates, performs, counsels for or 
     refers for abortion.
       (G) Restriction.--No prime contractor or service provider 
     project may perform abortion, counsel for or refer for 
     abortion, or advocate abortion.
       (2) Expenditures under the program.--
       (A) Expenditures for start-up costs.--For the first full 
     fiscal year in which a State program has received grant funds 
     pursuant to this Act, the State shall disburse grant funds to 
     the prime contractor for start-up costs, in an amount not to 
     exceed 10 percent of the total amount of the grant made to 
     the State for that fiscal year.
       (B) Expenditures for administrative costs.--For the first 
     full fiscal year in which a State program has received grant 
     funds pursuant to this Act and for the 2 subsequent fiscal 
     years, the State shall disburse grant funds to the prime 
     contractor for administrative costs, in an amount not to 
     exceed 20 percent of the total amount of the grant made to 
     the State for those fiscal years. For all other fiscal years, 
     the State shall disburse grant funds for administrative 
     costs, in an amount not to exceed 15 percent of the total 
     amount of the grant made to the State for the fiscal year.
       (C) Expenditures for service costs.--
       (i) Disbursement to prime contractor for service costs.--
     For each fiscal year, the State shall disburse to the prime 
     contractor for service costs all remaining grant funds not 
     expended on permissible administrative or start-up costs.
       (ii) Service provider reimbursement rates.--The prime 
     contractor shall reimburse service providers for alternative-
     to-abortion services provided to eligible individuals at the 
     following fee-for-service rates:

       (I) $10 for every 10 minutes of counseling for eligible 
     individuals.
       (II) $10 for every 10 minutes of referral time spent.
       (III) $20 per individual per hour of class instruction 
     provided.
       (IV) $10 for each self-administered pregnancy test kit 
     provided.
       (V) $10 for every pantry visit.

     For fiscal year 2001 and subsequent fiscal years, each of the 
     dollar amounts specified in this clause shall be adjusted to 
     offset the effects of inflation occurring after the beginning 
     of fiscal year 2000.
       (d) Additional Restrictions Regarding Expenditure of Grant 
     Funds.--A State applying for a grant under this Act shall 
     provide assurances, in its grant application, as follows:
       (1) No grant funds will be expended for any of the 
     following:
       (A) Performing abortion, counseling for or referring for 
     abortion, or advocating abortion.
       (B) Providing, referring for, or advocating the use of 
     contraceptive services, drugs, or devices.
       (2) No grant funds will be expended to make payment for a 
     service that is provided to an eligible individual if payment 
     for such service has already been made, or can reasonably be 
     expected to be made--
       (A) under any State compensation program, under an 
     insurance policy, or under any Federal or State health 
     benefits program; or
       (B) by an entity that provides health services on a prepaid 
     basis.
       (3) No grant funds will be expended--
       (A) to provide inpatient hospital services;
       (B) to make cash payments to intended recipients of 
     services;
       (C) to purchase or improve land, purchase, construct, or 
     permanently improve (other than minor remodeling) any 
     building or other facility; or
       (D) to satisfy any requirement that non-Federal funds be 
     expended as a precondition of the receipt of Federal funds.

     SEC. 5. SERVICES PROVIDED BY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to allow 
     States to contract with religious organizations pursuant to 
     section 4(c) on the same basis as any other nongovernmental 
     provider without impairing the religious character of such 
     organizations, and without diminishing the religious freedom 
     of eligible individuals served under the State program.
       (b) Nondiscrimination Against Religious Organizations.--
     Religious organizations are eligible, on the same basis as 
     any other nongovernmental organization, as contractors to 
     provide services under a State program described in section 
     4(c) so long as the program is implemented consistent with 
     the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. 
     Neither the Federal Government nor a State receiving a grant 
     under this Act shall discriminate against an organization 
     which is or applies to be a contractor under section 4(c) on 
     the basis that the organization has a religious character.
       (c) Religious Character and Freedom.--
       (1) Religious organizations.--A religious organization 
     receiving a contract under section 4(c) shall retain its 
     independence from Federal, State, and local governments, 
     including such organization's control over the definition, 
     development, practice, and expression of its religious 
     beliefs.
       (2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal Government 
     nor a State receiving a grant under section 2 shall require a 
     religious organization to--
       (A) alter its form of internal governance; or
       (B) remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other 
     symbols;
     in order to be eligible for a contract under section 4(c).
       (d) Employment Practices.--
       (1) Tenets and teachings.--A religious organization that 
     provides services under a program described in section 4(c) 
     may require that its employees providing assistance under 
     such program adhere to the religious tenets and teachings of 
     such organization, and such organization may require that 
     those employees adhere to rules forbidding the use of drugs 
     or alcohol.
       (2) Title vii exemption.--A religious organization's 
     exemption provided under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1, 2000e-2(e)(2)) regarding 
     employment practices shall not be affected by the receipt of 
     a contract under section 4(c).
       (e) Rights of Beneficiaries of Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--If an eligible individual has an objection 
     to the religious character of the organization from which the 
     individual receives, or would receive, alternative-to-
     abortion services, the State shall provide such individual 
     within a reasonable period of time after the date of such 
     objection with the names and addresses of alternative service 
     providers that offer a range of services similar to those 
     offered by the original service provider.
       (2) Notice.--A State receiving a grant under this Act shall 
     ensure that notice is provided to individuals described in 
     paragraph (1) of the rights of such individuals under this 
     section.
       (f) Nondiscrimination Against Beneficiaries.--A religious 
     organization shall not discriminate against an eligible 
     individual in regard to providing alternative-to-abortion 
     services on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or 
     refusal to actively participate in a religious practice.
       (g) Fiscal Accountability.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 
     religious organization receiving a contract under section 
     4(c) shall be subject to the same regulations as other 
     contractors to account in accordance with generally accepted 
     accounting principles for the use of such funds under this 
     Act.
       (2) Limited audit.--If such organization segregates funds 
     received under this Act into separate accounts, then only 
     such funds shall be subject to audit by the government.
       (h) Compliance.--Any party which seeks to enforce its 
     rights under this section may assert a civil action for 
     injunctive relief exclusively in an appropriate State court 
     against the entity or agency that allegedly commits such 
     violation.
       (i) Limitations on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes.--No 
     grant funds obtained pursuant to this Act shall be expended 
     for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.
       (j) Preemption.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to preempt any provision of a State constitution or State 
     statute that

[[Page S11133]]

     prohibits or restricts the expenditure of State funds in or 
     by religious organizations.
       (k) Treatment of Service Providers.--This section applies 
     to awards under section 4(c) made by prime contractors to 
     service providers to the same extent and in the same manner 
     as this section applies to awards under such section by 
     States to prime contractors.

     SEC. 6. STATE APPLICATION FOR GRANT.

       An application for a grant under this Act is in accordance 
     with this section if--
       (1) the State submits the application not later than the 
     date specified by the Secretary;
       (2) the application demonstrates that the State program for 
     which grant funds are sought will be established and operated 
     in compliance with all of the requirements of this Act; and
       (3) the application is in such form, is made in such 
     manner, and contains such agreements, assurances, and 
     information as the Secretary determines are necessary to 
     carry out this Act.

     SEC. 7. DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF STATE ALLOTMENT.

       (a) In General.--The allotment of funds to be granted to 
     each State for a fiscal year is to be the State-calculated 
     percentage of the total amount available under section 11 for 
     the fiscal year.
       (b) State-Calculated Percentage.--The State-calculated 
     percentage shall be determined by dividing--
       (1) the number of children born in the State to women who 
     were not married at the time of the birth plus the number of 
     abortions performed in the State; by
       (2) the number of children born in all States to women who 
     were not married at the time of the birth plus the number of 
     abortions performed in all States as last reported by the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
       (c) Unallotted Funds for First Three Fiscal Years.--For the 
     first 3 fiscal years for which funds are appropriated under 
     section 11, if excess funds are available due to the failure 
     of any State to apply for grant funds under this Act, such 
     excess funds shall be allotted to participating States in an 
     amount equal to a percentage of the excess funds determined 
     by dividing--
       (1) the number of children born in the participating State 
     to women who were not married at the time of the birth plus 
     the number of abortions performed in the participating State; 
     by
       (2) the number of children born in all participating States 
     to women who were not married at the time of the birth plus 
     the number of abortions performed in all participating States 
     as last reported by the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention.
       (d) Unallotted Funds for Subsequent Fiscal Years.--For 
     years subsequent to the first 3 fiscal years for which funds 
     are appropriated under section 11, if excess funds are 
     available due to the failure of any State to apply for grant 
     funds under this Act, such excess funds shall be allotted to 
     participating States in an amount equal to a percentage of 
     the total excess funds determined by dividing--
       (1) the amount of service costs expended by an individual 
     participating State under this Act during the previous 
     calendar year; by
       (2) the total amount of service costs expended by all 
     participating States under this Act during the previous 
     calendar year.

     SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       The Secretary shall submit to the Congress periodic reports 
     on the State programs carried out pursuant to this Act. The 
     first report shall be submitted not later than February 1, 
     2001, and subsequent reports shall be submitted biennially 
     thereafter.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrative costs.--The term ``administrative 
     costs'' means expenditures for costs associated with the 
     administration of the State program by the prime contractor, 
     including salaries of administrative office staff, taxes, 
     employee benefits, job placement costs, postage and shipping 
     costs, travel and lodging for administrative staff, office 
     rent, telephone and fax costs, insurance and office supplies, 
     professional development for administrative staff and ongoing 
     legal, accounting, and computer consulting for the program. 
     Such term does not include expenditures for start-up costs or 
     service costs.
       (2) Alternative-to-abortion services.--The term 
     ``alternative-to-abortion services'' means core services and 
     support services as defined in this section.
       (3) Core services.--The term ``core services'' means the 
     provision of information and counseling that promotes 
     childbirth instead of abortion and assists pregnant women in 
     making an informed decision regarding the alternatives of 
     adoption or parenting with respect to their child.
       (4) Low-income family.--The term ``low-income family'' has 
     the meaning given such term under section 1006(c) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300a-4(c)).
       (5) Support services.--The term ``support services'' means 
     additional services and assistance designed to assist 
     eligible individuals to carry their child to term and to 
     support eligible individuals in their parenting or adoption 
     decision. These support services include the provision of--
       (A) self-administered pregnancy testing;
       (B) baby food, maternity and baby clothing, and baby 
     furniture;
       (C) information and education, including classes, regarding 
     prenatal care, childbirth, adoption, parenting, chastity (or 
     abstinence); and
       (D) referrals for services consistent with the purposes of 
     this Act.
       (6) Pantry visit.--The term ``pantry visit'' means a visit 
     by an eligible individual to a service provider during which 
     baby food, maternity or baby clothing, or baby furniture are 
     made available to the individual free of charge.
       (7) Referral time.--The term ``referral time'' means the 
     time taken to research and set up an appointment on behalf of 
     an eligible individual to secure support through a referral.
       (8) Referrals.--The term ``referrals'' means action taken 
     on behalf of an eligible individual to secure additional 
     support from a social service agency or other entity. 
     Referral may be for services, items and assistance regarding 
     physical and mental health (prenatal, postnatal, and 
     postpartum), food, clothing, housing, education, vocational 
     training, and for other services designed to assist pregnant 
     women and infants in need.
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (10) Service costs.--The term ``service costs'' means 
     expenditures for costs incurred by the prime contractor to 
     provide support for service provider projects, including 
     salaries for technical support staff, taxes, employee 
     benefits, job placement costs, professional development and 
     ongoing training, educational and informational material for 
     eligible individuals and counselors, advertising costs, 
     operation of a toll-free referral system, travel for 
     technical support staff, billing and database computer 
     consulting, seminars for counseling training, meetings 
     regarding program compliance requirements, minor equipment 
     purchases for service provider projects, new project 
     development, and service provider reimbursements for 
     alternative-to-abortion services.
       (11) Service provider.--The term ``service provider'' means 
     a nongovernmental entity that operates a service provider 
     project and which enters into a subcontract with the prime 
     contractor that provides for the reimbursement for 
     alternative-to-abortion services provided to eligible 
     individuals.
       (12) Service provider project.--The term ``service provider 
     project'' means a project or program operated by a service 
     provider that provides alternative-to-abortion services. All 
     service provider projects must provide core services and may 
     also provide support services.
       (13) Start-up costs.--The term ``start-up costs'' means 
     expenditures associated with the initial establishment of the 
     State program, including the cost of obtaining furniture, 
     computers and accessories, copy machines, consulting 
     services, telephones, and other office equipment and 
     supplies.
       (14) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory 
     of the Pacific Islands.

     SEC. 10. DATE CERTAIN FOR INITIAL GRANTS.

       The Secretary shall begin making grants under this Act not 
     later than 180 days after the date on which amounts are first 
     appropriated under section 11, subject to the receipt of 
     State applications in accordance with section 6.

     SEC. 11. FUNDING.

       For the purpose of carrying out this Act, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $85,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

     SEC. 12. OFFSET.

       It is the sense of the Senate that overall funding for the 
     Department of Health and Human Services should not be 
     increased under this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 1608. A bill to provide annual payments to the States and counties 
from National Forest System lands managed by the Forest Service, and 
the revested Oregon and California Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay 
Wagon Road grant lands managed predominately by the Bureau of Land 
Management, for use by the counties in which the lands are situated for 
the benefit of the public schools, roads, emergency and other public 
purposes; to encourage and provide new mechanism for cooperation 
between counties and the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management to make necessary investments in federal lands, and reaffirm 
the positive connection between Federal Lands counties and Federal 
Lands; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


       secure rural schools and community self-determination act

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is time for Congress to enact a 
new program that combines secure funding for county services with a 
fresh approach to the management of federal lands in rural communities. 
Under our legislation counties will be connected to federal lands not 
just through the cutting of timber but also through important

[[Page S11134]]

road maintenance projects, watershed improvements and programs that 
promote tourism and recreation.
  Since 1908, natural resource dependent communities have received 
federal funds for schools, roads and basic services based on the level 
of federal timber programs. The Forest Service cuts timber and the 
counties receive revenue. This has long constituted the traditional 
relationship between the counties and federal land management.
  Now, as a result of changes in natural resource policies causing 
declines in timber production, many of our rural communities are 
finding it almost impossible to fund essential programs for school 
children, infrastructure and other needs.
  There is a crisis in rural, timber-dependent America that must be 
addressed now. This crisis can be addressed now and in the future by 
providing secure, consistent funding to counties, and by encouraging a 
new cooperative relationship between these communities and federal land 
managers.
  Congress must promptly enact a new program that combines traditional 
funding for county services with creative new policies that provide 
real connections between rural communities and the federal lands they 
cherish.
  Senator Craig and I have been discussing how this might be 
accomplished because we realize that no pending proposal addressing the 
county payment issue has won the support of both the Congress and the 
Clinton administration.
  In an effort to break this gridlock, we have developed the Secure 
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act bill.
  Our proposal would work as follows:
  Counties will receive a consistent payment amount each year totaling 
75% of the average of the top three federal land revenue years for 
their area between 1985 and the present, tied to the Consumer Price 
Index for rural areas. That consistent payment amount will be a 
combination of traditional 25% payments from the Forest Service and 50% 
payments from the Bureau of Land Management plus money from the general 
treasury where the traditional revenue stream does not rise to the 
level of the necessary consistent payment amount.
  Counties would receive an additional 25% of the average amount 
described above from the general treasury to use for projects 
recommended by local community advisory committees and approved by the 
Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. These projects could 
include watershed restoration, road maintenance, or timber harvest, 
among other opportunities, as long as the project is in compliance with 
all applicable forest plans and environmental laws.
  The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management would be required to 
certify that a local consensus of environmental, industry, and other 
stakeholders exists, as well as approve the proposed project as 
environmentally sound. If consensus proposals cannot be developed in a 
particular county, then the money would be made available to counties 
that have developed such proposals. It bears repeating that all 
projects would have to comply with all environmental laws and 
regulations, as well as all applicable forest plans.
  We believe that this bill has the potential to break the impasse on 
the county payment issue on Capitol Hill. But even more important, it 
represents an opportunity to forge a new charter for federal/county 
government cooperation, to encourage local citizens to seek consensus-
based solution for resource conflicts, and to make critical investments 
in the stewardship of our federal lands.
  This proposal will not please the proponents favoring pure decoupling 
of payments from timber harvest. It will also be opposed by those who 
are prepared to hobble the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land 
Management if they feel the timber harvest levels are not high enough. 
Our objective is to break the gridlock on federal support of counties, 
while bringing the nature of the relationship between the federal land 
managers and public land dependent communities into the twenty-first 
century. This bill provides a foundation to help rural counties through 
their immediate crisis, and down a path that will make sense in the 
next century.
 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from 
Oregon, Senator Wyden and Senator Smith of Oregon to introduce the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 1999.
  Perhaps as much as any other state, our counties have suffered as 
federal forest lands have been beset with conflict, and as the receipts 
promised to counties for educational purposes have decreased 
dramatically. Senator Wyden's counties are also suffering, as are other 
counties throughout the West and the country as a whole. Today, we wish 
to propose a solution to this problem.
  When the National Forests were withdrawn from the Public Domain at 
the turn of the century, they were established with a basic commitment 
to local governments. Gifford Pinchot and other visionary 
conservationists of that day persuaded often-skeptical Federal and 
local government officials that retention of lands by the Federal 
Government, the creation of forest reserves, and the sustainable 
management of these forests would be good for local people, good for 
local governments, good for the country, and good for the environment.
  Pinchot and his peers based these assurances on the proposition that 
the proceeds from the sustainable management and sale of the fiber, 
forage, and other resources from these reserved Federal lands would be 
shared between the local and Federal Governments. Consequently, 
cooperative management between local governments and Federal land 
managers--both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management--
has been a hallmark of good intergovernmental cooperation in many of 
our states, including Oregon and Idaho. In many cases, local 
governments have incurred costs from increased police, search and 
rescue, and fire protection associated with federally owned lands.
  Our Federal forests have been crucial to the education of our 
children. Receipts from the sale of Federal timber and other 
commodities have been a vital component of county school and road 
budgets. In many cases, these funds have supported school lunches, 
special education, and a variety of assistance measures for 
disadvantaged children. In a very real sense, the bounty of our forests 
has allowed us to give a hand to our most needy rural children, 
including Native Americans and Hispanics. So this should be the one 
federal program through which concerns for the ``environment and 
education'' can be fulfilled by the same thoughtful actions.
  However, we live in a different time, and federal forest management 
policies have become a source of considerable controversy. Timber sales 
have been reduced. Revenues both to the Federal treasury and the 
counties have decreased precipitously. Consequently, our rural school 
systems are in crisis.
  Unfortunately, rather than coming together to forge a solution to 
these problems, the extremes on both sides of the equation are moving 
further apart. And they are placing our school children in the center 
of the controversy. One group seems to want to hold our school children 
hostage--to use the diminishing receipts and the deteriorating school 
systems as leverage to advantage their side of the forest management 
debate, favoring increased timber harvests. The other extreme would 
make our rural school children orphans--sending them out into the 
wilderness with no secure financial support in order to expedite the 
achievement of their goal of eliminating federal timber sales.
  Senator Wyden and I reject both of these extremes. We reject the 
notion that we cannot provide the school systems with additional 
support, without increasing timber harvesting. At the same time, we 
reject the proposition that we should completely ``decouple'' the 
support for rural schools from any responsibility on the part of the 
federal land management agencies, thereby totally separating local 
concerns from federal land management.
  Gifford Pinchot articulately outlined the responsibility that the 
Federal Government generally, and the Forest Service and BLM 
specifically, assumed when the Federal forests were withdrawn from 
disposal or later retained in Federal ownership. In its simplest terms, 
this is a responsibility to provide local governments with a source of

[[Page S11135]]

revenue that they are otherwise denied as a consequence of their 
inability to tax federal lands. That responsibility is still as 
relevant today as it was at the turn of the century or during the 
Depression. It is still relevant today, irrespective of what options we 
choose for how to manage our Federal forests.
  Indeed, the most telling flaw in the proposal to decouple county 
payments from timber receipts is the notion that this responsibility--
willing assumed by the Forest Service at the turn of the century and 
BLM during the Depression--should be transformed into either the sole 
responsibility of the federal taxpayer, or no one's responsibility as 
it becomes another entitlement program which the Federal Government and 
taxpayers feel free to eliminate or reduce as their needs dictate.
  Our proposal starts by establishing a set payment amount with which 
the counties can provide support for rural school systems. This set 
payment is based upon an average of representative years of timber 
receipts. In this respect, this proposal is similar to that offered by 
the Clinton Administration, and to H.R. 2389 being considered in the 
House.
  But here is where the similarity stops. We would not establish a 
separate appropriations line--which in all likelihood would be 
underfunded like the existing Payment in Lieu of Taxes System. Nor 
would we impose the responsibility to meet this payment on the Forest 
Service's or the BLM's annual budget.
  Instead, we provide the Forest Service and the BLM with the authority 
to use any available receipts to meet these payments, and--only if 
these receipts fall short--to make up the difference from unobligated 
funds in the General Treasury. The intent here is to retain an 
obligation on the part of the Forest Service and the BLM, but to 
provide some flexibility in meeting this obligation.
  Based upon our experience with the Quincy Library Group, the 
Applegate Partnership, and elsewhere, we have come to conclude that the 
best, recent decisions concerning federal resource management have 
enjoyed significant, local input. That is why our proposal contains a 
unique element--Senator Wyden's idea, actually--to foster both local 
consensus and federal accountability around the management of federal 
lands.
  Only 75 percent of the money to be given to the counties is provided 
for the traditional school and road programs. The remaining 25 percent 
would be provided to the counties for federal land management 
investments. The counties may fund either commercial or noncommercial 
projects on the federal lands at the recommendation of local advisory 
groups, and with the agreement of federal land managers. Projects must 
comply with all environmental laws and regulations, and must be 
consistent with the applicable land management plan. Any proceeds from 
revenue generating projects will be split equally between the affected 
county and the federal land management agency. The county share will go 
to supporting schools and roads, while the federal share will go to 
infrastructure maintenance or ecosystem restoration. Any funds left-
over because of a lack of local agreement will be reallocated to 
counties where agreement on resource stewardship priorities has been 
reached.
  This proposal is as value-neutral concerning the resource debate as 
we could make it. It neither encourages nor discourages a particular 
resource management outcome. But it does have a very heavy prejudice 
that Senator Wyden and I have become very passionate about. We are in 
favor of people of goodwill reasoning together to improve the quality 
of their lives and the quality of our environment. We cannot legislate 
an end to conflict. But we can use the legislative process to create an 
environment in which people are motivated to resolve their differences. 
That is what we think this bill does.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
        Roberts, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Hagel);
  S. 1609. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
revise the update factor used in making payments to PPS hospitals under 
the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.


             the american hospital preservation act of 1999

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
my colleagues Senators Abraham, Bennett, Roberts, Burns, and Hagel, the 
American Hospital Preservation Act of 1999.
  Mr. President, the single biggest Medicare dollar issue facing 
hospitals today is a recently enacted reduction in the annual inflation 
adjustment for inpatient hospital payments. Prior to 1997, Medicare 
provided an annual inflation adjustment for the PPS (prospective 
payment system) payments it makes to hospitals, according to the 
patient's diagnosis. The inflation update is calculated using the 
projected increase in the hospital market basket indicator (MBI), which 
is just a way to calculate the overall inflation rate for hospital 
costs.
  To achieve savings in the Medicare program, the 1997 balanced budget 
agreement between Congress and the President included a tightening of 
the MBI to ensure after-inflation savings in Medicare.
  The bill I am introducing today will ease that tightening somewhat to 
reflect the savings we've made beyond our original estimate. 
Specifically, the bill will restore .5 percent of those scheduled 
reductions in the MBI for FY '00 through '02.
  This restoration will bring inpatient reimbursement rates closer in 
line to actual health care inflation, which is necessary given the 
significant reductions in government and private health insurance plans 
that providers are increasingly experiencing. The bill will also serve 
to help hospitals and other institutional providers to adjust to new 
outpatient payment systems as well as greater than anticipated costs 
stemming from Y2K compliance, prescription drugs, and blood supplies. 
Y2K compliance alone is estimated to cost hospitals between $7 billion 
and $8 billion. To make matters worse, the Health Care Finance 
Administration (HCFA) has been making cuts in its payments to hospitals 
and other Medicare providers that are even beyond the savings Congress 
originally called for.
  My bill will provide a temporary shot in the arm to hospitals already 
hard hit by overall Medicare provider reimbursement cuts, and 
particularly cuts in outpatient services. As hospitals learn to adjust 
to the new reimbursement system for outpatient services, continuing to 
receive inflation adjustments might just mean the difference between 
disaster and survival.
  This bill also reflects the recommendation made by the Medicare 
Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) to provide the \1/2\ percent 
restoration to the inpatient MBI.
  This legislation is particularly justified considering that, far from 
the $115 billion originally envisioned to be saved through FY '02, the 
Medicare system is now projected to be in about $200 billion better 
shape than anticipated. Savings in Medicare from hospitals alone are 
estimated to be $20 billion more than first estimated.
  Mr. President, rural hospitals, and all hospitals for that matter, 
operate on very slim margins yet manage to bring cutting-edge medical 
care to the communities they serve. But changes in Medicare payments to 
hospitals have put many institutions in a bind. Others are fighting for 
their lives.
  Rural communities across Texas have felt the impact of hospital 
closures for more than a decade now. When a rural hospital closes, 
local residents lose access to routine, preventative care, not to 
mention emergency services that can save life and limb. Doctors and 
other highly trained professionals move away. Then people must drive a 
hundred miles or more in some cases to get the care city dwellers take 
for granted. Local economies suffer when jobs are lost. Existing 
businesses may have to move, and new businesses won't locate in places 
where health care is unavailable. Hospital closure can be a death-kneel 
for struggling towns.

  Other rescue efforts are moving forward to preserve the ability of 
our nation's hospitals and other Medicare providers to provide adequate 
health care to their patients. I am cosponsoring a number of bills that 
have been introduced to strengthen hospitals' financial position. one 
would limit hospitals' losses under the new outpatient reimbursement 
system; another would

[[Page S11136]]

increase the reimbursements made to rural hospitals for seniors in 
Medicare Choice-Plus (managed care) plans.
  Finally, my successful effort to ensure that states' tobacco 
settlement funds stay in our state and out of the clutches of the 
federal government has meant that many hospitals across the country are 
receiving a financial boost. As a result, hospitals across Texas and 
health care systems across the country are in line to receive the 
lion's share of $246 billion in state tobacco settlement payments over 
the next 25 years and beyond.
  America's hospitals aren't out of the woods yet, but first aid is on 
the way.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I urge my colleagues to support and 
pass the American Hospital Preservation Act of 1999.
  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. 1609

       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 ``American Hospital 
     Preservation Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF PPS HOSPITAL PAYMENT UPDATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)(i)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (XV), by striking ``1.8 percentage 
     points'' and inserting ``1.3 percentage points''; and
       (2) in subclause (XVI), by striking ``1.1 percentage 
     points'' and inserting ``0.6 percentage point''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

                          ____________________