[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 85 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6123-S6141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE LOW-INCOME WIDOWS ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2000
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to
introduce the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act of 2000. Since 1988,
Congress has established several programs to help pay the out of pocket
medical costs for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. These programs,
commonly referred to as Medicare Buy-in or QMB, SLMB, and QI-1, operate
as federal-state partnerships and are funded through state Medicaid
programs. Depending on an eligible senior's income level, the programs
could cover the cost of Medicare Part B premiums, doctor visits,
deductibles, and co-payments.
Despite the availability of these programs, many seniors are not
aware that they may be eligible to receive these additional benefits.
According to a 1998 Families USA study, there are somewhere between 3.3
and 3.8 million seniors in America who are eligible to receive these
benefits, but not currently receiving them. In my home state, the same
study estimates that there are somewhere between 49,000 and 58,000
Kentucky seniors who may be eligible for one of these assistance
programs but are not enrolled. While the actual task of enrolling
eligible seniors
[[Page S6125]]
is left to the states, there are several important steps the federal
government, through the Social Security Administration (SSA), can and
should take.
A key component in improving participation in cost-sharing programs
is the capacity of federal and state agencies to identify those
individuals who experience a reduction in income after they have
already enrolled in Social Security and Medicare. One group at
particular risk of reduced income in their later years is widowed
spouses.
For anyone who has lost a loved one, the experience is often
overwhelming both mentally and emotionally. The loss of a spouse leaves
many elderly with the difficult task of restructuring their lives in
order to regain personal and financial stability. When SSA is informed
that a married individual has died, the agency recalculates the benefit
to determine the new benefit level. Frequently, the widowed spouse's
benefit is lower than the amount the married couple received from
Social Security. This sets up a circumstance in which a widow who was
not previously eligible to receive QMB/SLMB benefits when she was
married, would now be eligible to receive these benefits because her
income has fallen.
In an effort to address this serious problem, I am today introducing
the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act. This legislation directs Social
Security to undertake outreach efforts designed to identify and notify
individuals who may be eligible for these expanded benefits. It also
addresses the unique challenges facing widowed spouses by requiring
that when SSA recalculates the benefits for a recently widowed spouse
and finds that he or she might be eligible for these assistance
programs, the agency must:
One, notify the beneficiary that he or she may now be eligible for
this additional assistance.
Two, notify the beneficiary's state that she may be eligible so that
they can begin their own outreach efforts.
In order to help better understand how the Low-Income Widows
Assistance Act would work in practical terms, I would like my
colleagues to imagine the following scenario. Sally and Bob enjoyed 60
years of marriage, but just last fall, Bob suddenly passed away. Since
Bob's death, Sally has been having a hard time making ends meet. She
now has a lot of expenses to take care of on her own: making the house
payment, buying food and clothes, and paying for doctors' visits and
prescriptions--and not to mention the ``extras'' like birthday and
Christmas presents for her many grandchildren. While her expenses
remain essentially the same, Sally's Social Security survivors benefit
is lower than what she and Bob were receiving.
Under the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act, when SSA recalculates
Sally's benefit and finds that her monthly Social Security check has
fallen below the $855 threshold for SLMB eligibility, the agency would
be required to notify Sally that she may be eligible for SLMB benefits.
SSA also would be required to notify Sally's state government that she
may be eligible for these additional benefits. It is my hope that the
states would then use this information to conduct their own outreach
efforts to enroll Sally and others like her.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, as well
as Congressmen Lewis and Fletcher who are introducing similar
legislation in the House, to help low-income widows by enacting the
Low-Income Widows Assistance Act of 2000.
______
By Mr. CLELAND (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2815. A bill to provide for the nationwide designation of 2-1-1 as
a toll-free telephone number for access to information and referrals on
human services, to encourage the deployment of the toll-free telephone
number, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my
colleague, Senator Snowe, a bill to designate 2-1-1 as the nationwide,
toll-free number to access health and human services. Such designation
is needed to simplify access to the maze of numbers and service
organizations that currently exist. These organizations, which exist to
help people, are useless if those in need do not know how to access the
services provided.
Imagine a single mother who needs shelter and dinner one night for
herself and her children. Although she may know of a shelter providing
these services, there may be one closer that better fits her needs by
catering to children and women in need. 2-1-1 could provide her with a
targeted referral to a shelter specializing in child care and
empowering mothers to get back on their feet. Or, visualize an older
American on a fixed income, who may need assistance paying her
electricity bill during a particularly cold month, can call 2-1-1 for a
referral to an agency to assist her with her need. Also, if someone has
goods or services she would like to donate to her community, she can
call 2-1-1 for a referral to an agency with a specific need for her
items or time. All 2-1-1 calls are confidential and unaffiliated with
government agencies.
The United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta has implemented 2-1-1 service
with much success. Not only has this consolidation of human services
referrals provided direction and aid to those in need, it also has
helped pool the resources of area charitable organizations. This
pooling of resources has eliminated duplication and highlighted gaps in
current service, which in turn has improved the delivery of services to
the citizens of Metro Atlanta. Because of the great success in Atlanta,
the United Way and other non-profit groups are attempting to replicate
this service in almost every state in the nation. Petitions to
designate 2-1-1 as a referral to health and human services have been
approved or are pending in several other states. However, 2-1-1 offers
such an important service to communities, that I believe it is time to
reserve this number nationwide. Several states have indicated
reservations about pending petitions without direction from the
appropriate federal agencies that 2-1-1 will not be used for another
purpose. Senator Snowe and I believe it is time to indicate to state
and federal regulators Congress's clear support for 2-1-1.
One of the unique aspects of 2-1-1 in Metropolitan Atlanta, which I
believe can be replicated in the other states, is the generous support
it has received from the community through private donations. This
funding model is one of the unique aspects of this legislation.
Specifically, the bill stipulates that none of the costs of 2-1-1
service shall be passed on to telephone customers but will be supported
by the organizations operating the 2-1-1 service.
Mr. President, I would like to submit a letter endorsing this
legislation signed by the United Way of America, the American Red
Cross, the Alliance for Children and Families, Girls Scouts of the
United States of America, United Jewish Communities, Lutheran Services
of America, and Volunteers of America to name only a few. I realize
that N-1-1 numbers are finite in availability, but 2-1-1 is a service
in the public interest that needs a national designation. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation that will enable Americans, no
matter where they are, to obtain the assistance they need through the
use of a three digit number.
I ask consent that a copy of the United Way letter and a copy the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2815
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONWIDE DESIGNATION OF TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE
NUMBER FOR ACCESS TO HUMAN SERVICES INFORMATION
AND REFERRAL.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) N-1-1 codes, or 3-digit abbreviated dialing telephone
numbers, provide Americans with easy, efficient, nationwide
access to emergency and nonemergency information that serves
the public interest.
(2) Individuals and families often find it difficult to
navigate the complex and ever growing maze of human services
agencies and programs and often spend inordinate amounts of
time in trying to identify the agency or program that
provides a service that may be immediately or urgently
required.
(3) Americans desire to volunteer and become involved in
their communities, and this desire, together with a desire to
donate to organizations which provide human services, are
among the reasons to call a center
[[Page S6126]]
which provides information and referrals on human services.
(4) The number ``2-1-1'' is easy-to-remember and
universally recognizable and would serve well as the
designation of a telephone service for linking individuals
and families to information and referral centers which could,
in turn, make critical connections between individuals and
families in need and appropriate human services agencies,
including both community-based organizations and government
agencies.
(5) United Ways and other non-profit and governmental
centers that provide information about and referrals to human
services have secured funding for the establishment,
implementation, and current operation in the United States of
three centers that provide such information and referrals and
are accessed through the telephone number 2-1-1.
(6) United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta, Contact Helpline of
Columbus, Georgia, and United Way of Connecticut currently
utilize the telephone number 2-1-1 for the purpose of access
to information about and referral to human services.
(7) Since United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta and United Way
of Connecticut switched from 10-digit telephone numbers for
access to their centers of information and referral on human
services to the telephone number 2-1-1 for access to such
centers, the volume of calls received at such centers has
increased by approximately 40 percent. The centers of United
Way of Metropolitan Atlanta and United Way of Connecticut
each handled approximately 200,000 calls in 1999.
(8) Rapid deployment nationwide of the telephone number 2-
1-1 as a means of access to information about and referral to
human services requires coordination among State governments
and the information and referral centers of many localities.
(9) Alabama, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Utah have
approved petitions for the implementation of the telephone
number 2-1-1 statewide for that purpose, and implementation
of the use of that number for that purpose is underway.
Jurisdictions in Louisiana and Tennessee have also designated
the use of 2-1-1 for that purpose.
(10) Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin are
considering petitions to designate the telephone number 2-1-1
for that purpose.
(11) Florida and Virginia have developed statewide models
for telephone access for that purpose.
(12) The use of 2-1-1 for that purpose is being consider by
nearly every other State.
(b) Designation of Toll-Free Human Services Access
Telephone Number.--
(1) In general.--Section 251(e) of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(3) Human services access telephone number.--
``(A) Designation.--The Commission, and each commission or
other entity to which the Commission has delegated authority
under this subsection, shall designate 2-1-1 as a toll-free
telephone number within the United States for access to
information and referral centers for information about and
referral to providers of human services, including
information and referrals for purposes of volunteering and
making donations.
``(B) Applicability.--The designation under subparagraph
(A) shall apply to wire and wireless telephone service.
``(C) Payment of Costs.--The costs of a telecommunications
carrier in providing access to a provider of information and
referrals through the telephone number designated under this
paragraph shall be borne by the provider of such information
and referrals.
``(D) Call location information.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to require any telecommunications carrier
to provide call location information to a provider of
information or referrals on human services through the
telephone number designated under this paragraph.
``(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Human services.--The term `human services' means
services as follows:
``(I) Services that assist individuals in becoming more
self-sufficient, in preventing dependency, and in
strengthening family relationships.
``(II) Services that support personal and social
development.
``(III) Services that help ensure the well-being of
individuals, families, and communities.
``(ii) Information and referral center.--The term
`information and referral center' means a center that--
``(I) maintains a database of providers of human services
in a State or locality; and
``(II) assists individuals, families, and communities in
identifying, understanding, and accessing such providers and
the human services offered by such providers.''.
(2) Transition.--The Federal Communications Commission
shall provide for the implementation within a reasonable
period of time of the designation required by paragraph (3)
of section 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added
by paragraph (1) of this subsection, throughout the areas of
the United States where the designation is not in effect as
of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Support for State Efforts.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall encourage and support
efforts by States to develop and implement the use of the
toll-free telephone number 2-1-1 for access to providers of
information and referrals on human services.
(2) Activities.--In providing encouragement and support
under paragraph (1), the Commission shall--
(A) consult with appropriate State officials, including
State human services agencies, and appropriate
representatives of the telecommunications industry, United
Ways, Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS),
AIRS affiliates, law enforcement and emergency service
providers, and local non-profit and governmental information
and referral centers; and
(B) encourage States to coordinate statewide implementation
of the use of the telephone number in consultation with such
representatives.
(3) Prohibition on imposition of obligations or costs.--
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or
require the Commission to impose an obligation or cost on any
person.
(d) Provision of Call Information.--Section 222(d) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) to provide call information when required by
applicable law.''.
____
United Way of America,
Alexandria, VA June 29, 2000.
Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations support the
bill cosponsored by Senators Max Cleland (D-GA) and Olympia
Snowe (R-ME) to nationally designate the 211 abbreviated
dialing code for access to health and human services
information and referral (I&R). 211 is an easy-to-remember
and universally recognizable number that makes a critical
connection between individuals and families in need and the
appropriate community-based organizations and government
agencies. Since United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta and United
Way of Connecticut switched from 10-digit I&R numbers to 211,
the volume of calls received at both has increased by 40
percent, with each handling over 200,000 calls in 1999.
A petition to nationally designate 211 for health and human
services I&R submitted by the 211 Collaborative, of which
United Way and the Alliance of Information and Referral
Systems are members, has awaited action by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) for well over a year. FCC
inaction leaves current and ongoing 211 implementation in
state and local jurisdictions in jeopardy. Additionally, some
state public utility commissions have indicated they will not
take action on 211 petitions before the FCC makes its
decision. Further, with 211 being considered or implemented
in 45 states, if the FCC designates the number for a
different purpose, all current and future 211 call centers
would need to make significant expenditures and do
considerable outreach to convert to a new, 10-digit number.
Legislation designating 211 for human services I&R would
alleviate these concerns and would bypass a potentially
lengthy and uncertain FCC approval process. We urge you to
support the Cleland--Snowe bill. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alliance for Children and Families
Alliance of Information and Referral Systems
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging
American Red Cross
America's Blood Centers
Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies
Camp Fire Boys and Girls
Citizen's Scholarship Foundation of America
Coalition of Human Needs
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Council for Health and Human Service Ministries
Girl Scouts of the USA
Girls Incorporated
Lutheran Services of America
National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral
Agencies
National Association of State Units on Aging
National Association of WIC Directors
Service Employees International Union
The Salvation Army
United Jewish Communities
United Neighborhood Houses
United Way of America
Volunteers of America
Women in Community Service
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. L. Chafee, and Mr.
McCain):
S. 2816. A bill to provide the financial mechanisms, resource
protections, and professional skills necessary for high quality
stewardship of the National Park System, to commemorate the heritage of
people of the United States to invest in the legacy of the National
Park System, and to recognize the importance of high quality outdoor
recreational opportunities on federally managed land; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
the national parks stewardship act
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
[[Page S6127]]
S. 2817. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to establish permanent recreation fee
authority; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the recreational fee authority act of 2000
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come before you to today to discuss one
of our nation's most valued assets--our National Parks.
Throughout the history of our country, visionary statesmen have
arisen to remind us of the natural resource heritage on which our
country rests. As early as 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt, spoke of
the challenge at hand:
We must handle the woods, the water, the grasses so that we
will hand them to our children and our children's children in
better and not worse shape than we got them.
It is a challenge we still face today, and will into the future, in
our role as stewards of the world in which we live.
Our system of National Parks and other public lands is the envy of
the world. It serves as a model for other countries, as they also seek
to preserve their natural and cultural heritage. No other country has
set aside as full a spectrum of public lands--from wilderness to urban
parks--for people to use and enjoy. But to just set them aside is, of
course, not enough. The feature that makes these lands remarkable--that
they are open and accessible to all Americans to enjoy--also threatens
their existence in the future.
Mr. President, we face an ironic question: are we loving our national
parks to death? The simple answer to that question is yes.
Earlier this year, the National Parks Conservation Association
released its list of the Ten Most Endangered National Parks. We should
all feel ashamed that they have so many endangered Parks from which to
chose. This year's list includes National Parks across the country,
from Alaska to Arizona, from Tennessee to Hawaii. It also includes
Everglades National Park in my state of Florida, where decades of human
manipulation have led to ecosystem destruction.
This list of the 2000 Ten Most Endangered National Parks is
unfortunately not comprehensive, but is representative. During the past
year I have visited several national parks to get a first hand view of
the problem. From personal experience, I can enlarge the list of
endangered national parks.
At Ellis Island National Monument, a facade of immaculate buildings
hides an inventory of dilapidated historical structures.
At Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico, lack of maintenance and
vandalism is leading to the deterioration of historical artifacts.
I recently witnessed a similar deterioration of marine-related
artifacts at a park in my own state of Florida.
In April I participated in my 359th work day at Biscayne National
Park, a chain of subtropical islands protecting mangrove shoreline,
interrelated marine systems and the northernmost coral reef in the
United States. This was my 4th workday in a National Park.
At Biscayne National Park, we Americans are in danger of losing a
piece of our history. The HMS Fowey, an 18th century British warship,
lies submerged in a highly unstable location. This very significant,
national register site has been weakened by looting, prop-wash
deflection, storms and other forces. The best choice available is to
excavate the wreckage and recover whatever of the historical record we
can. This kind of operation is well beyond the means of Biscayne
National Park's annual operating budget.
My feelings about the National Park System are truly of wonder. The
wonder that I feel at the treasures in our park system is only matched
by my wonder at how we can take such treasures for granted. The
importance of our National Parks should be reflected in our stewardship
of the National Park System. We have failed to provide the National
Park Service with the tools it needs to be good stewards of our
National Parks.
Today, with my colleagues Senator Akaka, Senator L. Chafee and
Senator McCain, I am introducing the ``National Parks Stewardship
Act''.
I would also like to include for the record a letter from the
National Parks Conservation Association expressing that organization's
support for this legislation.
This legislation seeks to give the National Park Service the tools it
needs to prepare for the next century. It also includes many of the
proposals of others who feel strongly about the importance of our
National Parks.
This bill gives park managers the protective tools needed to support
the stewardship challenges of Theodore Roosevelt. We provide three
types of tools: resource protection, financial tools and human
resources.
The first element in the resource protection section of my bill deals
with activities occurring outside park boundaries.
My inspiration for this was legislation introduced by the late
Senator John Chafee who proposed the formation of ``park protection
areas'' in 1986. John Chafee proposed that these areas be formed
outside park boundaries to create the ``buffer zone'' needed for
resource protection.
I identified strongly with this concept, having worked since the
1970's on a state-federal partnership for Everglades restoration that
focuses heavily on providing a buffer zone for Everglades National
Park. Today, the original boundaries of Everglades National Park are
surrounded by Big Cypress Preserve, an expanded park boundary, and
undeveloped land on the eastern side of the park.
It is as a memorial to John Chafee that I echo his provision in my
bill, which I hope will become a permanent component of National Park
stewardship. It is an honor to have Lincoln Chafee, a fine statesman in
his own right, as a co-sponsor.
The federal government must be unified in its stewardship of the
National Parks.
My legislation requires that federal agencies taking action on lands
bordering National Park units consult with the Department of the
Interior to ensure such actions do not degrade or destroy National Park
resources.
It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to prohibit actions on
Interior lands that will adversely impact Park resources.
The second action I propose to protect park resources relates to park
uses.
The National Park Stewardship Act requires that activities allowed in
National Parks pass the test of compatibility with natural, cultural
and historical resource protection. As our parks are used and enjoyed
by visitors, we must ensure that park resources are not inadvertently
damaged. For example, the Park Service recently issued regulations
limiting or prohibiting the use of personal water craft in some areas.
This action was only taken after the use of these water craft in some
areas was allowed at intensities seriously degrading water and air
quality, and threatening both park wildlife and other park visitors.
My bill requires the National Park Service to take action to protect
these resources before damage occurs. Activities must be analyzed and
the impacts understood before they are authorized. It also asks the
National Parks to seriously plan for the future, projecting visitation
and use trends and identify needed personnel and facilities.
Another resource protection portion of the bill focuses on ensuring
that our National Park System fully represents the history of our
nation. Each year, a smaller percentage of the American population can
trace its ancestry to those who landed at Plymouth rock, settled
Jamestown, or fought in the American revolution. Many Americans are
descended from people who crossed international boarders from the North
or South, or landed at locations from the Florida Keys to the Aleutian
Islands, from Ellis Island to the island of Oahu. All those who came to
settle write their history alongside, and often atop the history of our
country's native peoples.
The bill calls for a comprehensive look at the ethnic and cultural
content of our National Park System. It asks the National Park Service
to report this review to Congress, and to make recommendations on sites
that might round out the American story. It encourages cultural/ethnic
groups to nominate sites important to their heritage for inclusion in
the System, and to recommend changes in the interpretation of present
sites to improve historic accuracy.
America is etched with a rich historical record. I commend those who
have
[[Page S6128]]
succeeded in adding important heritage sites to the National park
System. Units like the National Underground Railroad Network to
Freedom, authorized by Congress in 1998, and the Juan Bautista de Anza
National Historic Trail in California, tracing the path of a party of
Spanish colonists in 1776, ensure that these events do not pass from
our historical landscape. There are certainly many as equally important
sites to consider.
Mr. President, I would like to include in the Record letters from the
Ambassador of Spain and the Spanish Institute for Military History and
Culture. These letters exemplify the willingness of those who
contributed to the history of the United States to help in this effort.
The Ambassador points out how the Institute's letter, ``opens the way
for a cooperation between the two institutions that could result in a
much better use of the many historical sites, of Spanish origin, on
American soil. They could ``make the stones speak'' to many people in
this country who are still unaware of a very rich and common
heritage.'' I am sure other countries will be willing to help
illustrate how the history of our country is linked to their own
history.
Our National Park System, the treasured sites of American history,
must contain the history of all Americans. If not, our National Park
System is like a partially woven tapestry, depicting only part of the
picture. Instead let our National Park System be woven, whole and
beautiful, from the multi-colored threads of history of the people of
these United States.
I hope this proposal will move us one step closer to a National Park
System where all Americans should be entitled to see the role of their
people in the exploration, settlement and development of this country.
And I see it as complementing Senator Akaka's bill, S. 2478, calling
for a study on the ``Peopling of America,'' which I am honored to co-
sponsor.
The second major section of the National Parks Stewardship act deals
with financial resources.
Last year, I introduced legislation with Senators Reid and Mack, S.
819, the National Park Preservation Act, that would provide dedicated
funding to the National Park Service to restore and conserve the
natural, cultural and historic resources in our park system. We
continue to work toward final passage of S. 819. However, this bill
alone does not meet all of the needs in our National Parks.
The need for construction and maintenance in National Parks is great.
Backlog estimates range from 2 to 8 billion dollars, depending on the
method of calculation.
In order to accommodate many visitors each year, some National Parks
have facilities and services that rival those of towns or small cities.
Along with these facilities come the problems of infrastructure
maintenance and repair that are beyond the reach of annually
appropriated budgets.
Even at Yellowstone National Park, certainly a crown jewel of the
system, a dilapidated sewer system leaking untreated waste befouls what
should be pristine streams and lakes. At Yellowstone, a park visited by
over 3 million people a year, certainly we should provide the means for
financing a new sewer system.
My colleague Senator McCain addressed this need through his bill, S.
831, which would authorize a portion of park entrance fees to be used
to secure bonds for these very necessary capital improvements. Bonding
would seem to be a workable approach, if we could find an appropriate
way for a federal agency to issue revenue bonds.
The National Parks Stewardship Act introduced today calls for the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Interior to study
and report to Congress how National Parks could issue revenue bonds to
meet such large infrastructure needs.
The authority to issue revenue bonds places into the hands of
National Park superintendents a tool to generate the funds to make
these repairs.
The second revenue provision I propose is to make the recreation fee
program in operation as a demonstration since its authorization in 1996
into a permanent park program. The program has demonstrated that park
visitors can get a good return on the fees they pay; a return paid out
in better maintained facilities, improved visitor services, and all-in-
all, a more enjoyable park visit.
To underscore the importance of recreation fee permanence, I, along
with Senator Gorton, am introducing today the ``Recreation Fee
Authority Act of 2000,'' a stand along piece of legislation containing
these provisions.
In fiscal year 1999, the recreation fee demonstration program
generated $176.4 million in fee revenue at National Parks, National
Forests, National Wildlife Refuges and Bureau of Land Management sites.
Even more important than the amount collected is the fact that the
large majority of the fees were retained at the site where collected
for use in Park operations, maintenance, resource protection and
visitor services.
Biscayne National Park, where I worked for a day in April, is one of
the units benefitting from the recreation fee demonstration program.
Last year, that park collected over $20,000 in recreation fees. At
Biscayne, these funds were used to:
replace the broken tables and grills in the picnic area;
restore a historic breeze way trail across Elliott Key; and
renovate the public showers and bathrooms on Elliott Key, improving
their accessibility for people with disabilities.
When park visitors see their ``fees at work'' in the form of improved
facilities and services, research has shown that they understand and
support the collection of an appropriate and reasonable fee. Over 95
percent of respondents to this year's National Survey on Recreation and
the Environment felt reasonable fees were acceptable as a means for
funding recreation services on public lands.
The recreation fee demonstration authority is temporary. If it is not
extended or made permanent, Biscayne and other National Parks will lose
this very necessary means to get the job done. Let's instead make this
a permanent tool for National Park Stewardship.
In addition to revenue bonding and the recreation fee program, I
propose the expanded use of Challenge Cost Share agreements, which
allow the ``leveraging'' of Park Service appropriations with funds from
the private sector and other federal agencies.
The final tool I propose in this legislation focuses on the
professional skills of those we employ as the stewards for National
Parks. Professionals typically attracted to the Service come from many
fields, including education, recreation management, and the biological
sciences. Today park managers must also demonstrate fiscal and program
accountability and management planning, skills that are not found
throughout National Park Service ranks.
I am proposing a pilot program, ``Professionals for Parks'', to
attract needed skilled professionals to National Park Service careers.
It will focus on recruiting at business schools across the country,
offering talented graduates an entry level professional job within the
National Park Service and a student loan buy-back program.
Professionals for Parks will add to National Park Service ranks the
business management skills needed for better management, leading to
long term stewardship. And we know this can make a difference.
We're looking for people like Nick Hardigg, a recent graduate of the
Yale School of Management, who is now working as Chief of Concessions
at Denali National Park. His financial analysis of the visitor
transportation system in Denali led to a newly negotiated contract with
the bus company. This contract allows for a healthy profit for the
operator and for the first time in several years does not increase fees
to park visitors. It also protects park resources by providing a
quality transportation system.
It's a long way from the Ivy League to the Alaskan wilderness. Mr.
Hardigg has made that journey, and has put his business skills to good
use for National Park stewardship.
Mr. President, the National Park Stewardship Act is not calling for a
revolution in the National Park System. It recognizes the value of what
we have in the National Park System, recognizes what we stand to lose
without immediate attention, and supplies the tools to the right people
to tackle the job.
In closing I would like to recall the words of John Chafee, a
visionary
[[Page S6129]]
statesman who helped craft much of the foundation on which our system
of environmental protection rests.
In 1994, he reminded us of the importance of our Parks stewardship
role:
I can think of no instance where the Government has
designated an area as a park and years later people have
looked back, regretted the decision, and tried to reverse it.
As we continue to develop and extract resources from the
remaining open spaces in our Nation, it is important that we
ensure that there will always be places where people can get
away and renew their spirits, breathe fresh air, and
appreciate nature's gifts.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Parks
Conservation Association,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: The National Parks and Conservation
Association (NPCA) would like to commend you and your
cosponsors for the introduction of the National Parks
Stewardship Act. This bill includes many provisions that will
promote better protection and management of national park
resources.
As you know, the beginning of the 21st century is a
watershed moment for Americans and our National Park System.
One hundred and twenty-eight years after the establishment of
Yellowstone, we have a magnificent park system that stretches
from the coast of Maine to the tropical reefs of American
Samoa. Millions people visit and enjoy these parks every
year.
However, the National Park System also is severely
troubled. Threats to the health of the National Park System
fall into several broad categories: lack of funding;
activities that damage park resources from inside and outside
park boundaries; and poor management. As a result, basic
information about park resources is lacking, much of the
infrastructure and visitor services are in poor condition,
and parks are increasingly jeopardized by activities around
them.
Your National Stewardship Act addresses many of these
concerns by:
Facilitating the issuance of national park revenue bonds
that would help finance needed improvements at national
parks;
Requiring that all activities in national parks be
consistent with resource protection and preservation;
Ensuring that other federal government agencies respect the
integrity of national park lands;
Promoting the protection of the historical documents in
National Park Service collections;
Expanding the opportunities for national park managers to
develop public administration and business management skills.
The National Parks Stewardship Act also ensures that the
National Park System will better represent the diverse
heritage of all people of the United States. Support for the
National Park System runs deep in the hearts of millions of
Americans. That support, however, will wane if significant
numbers of people feel disconnected from the message and
meaning of the parks. To ensure continued public support, and
historical relevance, the National Parks Stewardship Act
requires that the National Park Service review existing sites
to determine if there are deficiencies in the accurate
representation of all peoples that contributed to the shaping
of the United States. We commend you for this farsighted
proposal.
Thank you for undertaking this effort to assure the
vitality of the National Park System through the 21st century
and beyond. We look forward to promoting this legislation
with you.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Kiernan.
____
El Embajador de Espana,
Washington, DC, April 27, 2000.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator, I have read with the utmost interest your
proposed legislation on the role of the National Park Service
of the United States in conservation and promotion of
historic sites in this country.
With respect to the numerous monuments left by Spain in the
southern States, we would certainly welcome all possible
cooperation with the Park Service to give these venerable
ruins a real cultural and educational purpose. We believe
that solid support from historians and other experts from
Spanish official institutions such as our Ministry of Defense
or the Institute for the Protection of Historic Legacy, could
make these sites incite the interest of new generations on
pages of their past that they might have insufficient
knowledge of.
I have written to the two aforementioned Spanish cultural
institutions to ensure their willingness to collaborate with
the National Park Service on the goals set forth in the draft
Resolution.
In the meantime, let me assure you of our enthusiastic
support for your initiative that I certainly hope will muster
the necessary backing from the rest of the Senate.
Thanking you most warmly for your enlightened defense of
the cultural integrity of this great country.
I remain,
Yours very sincerely,
Antonio de Oyarzabal.
____
El Embajador de Espana,
Washington, DC, June 9, 2000.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator, I am pleased to enclose the attached letter
from my friend General Penaranda, the Director of the
Institute for Military History and Culture in Madrid, in
response to my request for support to your initiative in
Congress, on behalf of the ``National Park Service.''
I think General Penaranda's very enthusiastic answer opens
the way for a cooperation between the two institutions that
could result in a much better use of the many historical
sites, of Spanish origin, on American soil. They could ``make
the stones speak'' to many young people in this country who
are still unaware of a very rich and common heritage.
Embajada de Espana,
Madrid, May 29, 2000.
His Excellency Ambassador Antonio de Oyarzabal Marchesi,
Ambassador of Spain to the U.S.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ambassador and Friend: It gives me great pleasure to
be able to oblige you with regard to the wishes of the
National Park Service which you refer to in your letter of
April 26. I have consulted this Institute's Standing
Committee on Historical Studies (Comision Permanente de
Estudios Historicos) regarding the possibility of satisfying
the possible American request, and it could not be more
favorably disposed to the idea. It is very satisfying to be
able to cooperate in some way in the efforts to heighten the
historical value of the old Spanish military monuments in the
U.S. as well as that of any other collection of documents,
books or movables that can be considered part of this
important historical legacy.
This institute has a considerable collection of documents
and artifacts in its archives relating to the ancient
viceroyalty and overseas provinces. Most of the items have
already been catalogued (some have even been studied by U.S.
specialists). Now we are in the advanced stages of
negotiation with Puerto Rico whose Legislative Assembly has
already allocated a budget for cataloguing, microfilming and
digitizing all the material in our historical military
archives about matters related to that island.
In any case, Antonio, you know that you can count on the
Institute for Military History and Culture to initiate a
collaborative effort with the National Park Service. It would
be advisable to establish direct contact between the National
Park Service and this Institute so as to define the matters
of most interest to them. While we could begin in writing, a
trip to Spain by a director or historian of the Park Service
so that they might gain an understanding in situ of our
capabilities with regard to their projects would be very
fruitful. They will be most warmly received.
I am at your service!
With my best regards,
Juan Ma de Penaranda y Algar.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Florida, Senator Graham, in introducing legislation today that seeks to
permanently authorize the recreation fee program for the federal land
management agencies. Congress authorized the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program in the FY 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Recissions
and Appropriations Act, and has extended the program through the
Interior Appropriations bill several times since 1996.
In the Pacific Northwest, the fees collected by the National Park
Service and Forest Service have been a tremendous additional resource
to provide improved campgrounds, trails, and other visitor facilities.
As chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Committee, I have
consistently provided increases for operations, maintenance, and repair
of park, forest, and refuge facilities. Regardless, this country's love
affair with recreation and the great outdoors has begun to take its
toll on the public lands we enjoy so much.
Since I took over the chairmanship of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, I also have been faced with an unending list of federal
land acquisition proposals. The demand to increase the federal
government's land base cannot be considered in a vacuum, especially
when we're faced with at least a $12 billion maintenance backlog on the
lands we already own. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office
recommended last year that the federal government place a ten-year
moratorium on land acquisitions in an effort to address the backlog in
maintenance projects.
I don't support taking such an extreme step. Rather, I believe we can
have a reasonable level of land acquisitions, but we also need to
commit to
[[Page S6130]]
finding the additional resources to maintain what we already have. I am
committed to providing access to our public lands, but this can only
happen if we have enough funding to maintain the land and facilities
treasured by Americans and visitors from all over the world.
Over the past five years of the fee demonstration project, the
federal agencies have tested various types of fees and collection
methods in preparation for the possibility of some day establishing a
long-term, consistent, and fair fee program. In general terms, the
project has been a great success, providing the federal land management
agencies nearly $200 million last year in additional revenue for
maintenance and repair projects, and resources for improved visitor
services.
In 1999, at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest in my state, the program
allowed this Forest to clear 739.6 miles of trail, hire 22 trail
maintenance workers, develop leveraged partnerships with non-profit
groups to accomplish maintenance work with volunteers, and maintain 67
trailhead toilets and 136 trailheads. All of this vital work was
accomplished by charging $3 for day passes or $25 for an annual pass.
Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported the Interior
Appropriations bill, which extends the Recreation Demonstration Fee
Program through the end of fiscal year 2002. Despite my resistance to
using the Interior bill to continue this program, I felt it was vital
to provide the agencies certainty for another year. In fact, recent
improvements to the Forest Service fee program in the Northwest,
including the new Northwest Forest Pass, would have been jeopardized
without the extension.
With that said, I believe the Senate, through the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, deserves the opportunity to fully consider
legislation to permanently authorize the recreation fee program. The
success stories are abundant, but by no means am I blind to the
problems we've seen over the past five years. Most importantly, the
public deserves the opportunity to participate, both through hearings
and contact with their elected representatives, to provide us the input
we need to authorize a permanent program.
That's why I have chosen to join Senator Graham today in introducing
a bill to begin the debate over how and whether Congress should
permanently authorize the recreation fee program. The bill we've
crafted provides the framework for a permanent program that will build
upon the successes and correct the problems we've seen so far.
I want to stress that this bill will serve as the starting point for
what I hope to be a full and deliberative discourse on recreation fees.
I intend to work with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to
hold a series of hearings, including field hearings, so representatives
of recreation groups, gateway communities, and other interested parties
can air their concerns and suggestions. My staff and I have spent a
considerable amount of time meeting and talking with recreation groups
based in Washington state. I am certain there will be many ways we can
improve the legislation introduced today to address their concerns
through the committee process, and I am excited to continue that
dialogue.
It goes without saying that no one really wants to pay a fee to
recreate on public lands. The key to making a permanent program a
success in the future will depend on keeping the fees reasonable and
the results tangible. The most important component of the Recreation
Fee Demonstration Project is the requirement that 80 percent of the
fees remain at the site the fees are collected. The legislation
introduced today maintains that requirement. In addition, Congress and
the Administration must make a firm commitment to uphold its
responsibility to continue to increase appropriations in the future to
reduce the maintenance backlog. It's a two-way street, and we must all
do our part.
Further, I fully expect to address other issues raised by my friends
in the recreation community. Although the situation has improved
recently, the multiple fee structures tested by the Forest Service
created a confusing and frustrating situation for hikers and rock
climbers. In particular, rock climbers have been hit with multiple fees
for just one visit to the forest. Many recreationists are calling for
multi-agency passes. I find this idea intriguing and would urge further
discussion through the committee process. I must note, however, that
multi-agency fees may distract from the expectation that fees remain at
the facilities and sites where they are collected. Further, some
outdoor enthusiasts are concerned the fee program could inspire over-
building on our public lands to justify collection of the fees. I, too,
am concerned with preserving the integrity of our public lands and
avoiding the impulse to provide unnecessary facilities. This
legislation directs the agencies to place a priority on deferred
maintenance projects. But again, these are topics that deserve
thoughtful discussion, and I look forward to addressing them in the
near future.
Finally, many active recreationists have made a strong case for
developing a recognition program that rewards volunteers for dedicating
their time to improving our public lands. Many forests and parks have
well-developed volunteer programs, while others do not. I am dedicated
to working with recreation groups to provide the agencies appropriate
guidelines in the bill to develop a consistent program that provides
volunteers reduced or free access to our public lands.
Again, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for being a leader
in the protection of the nation's public lands. I look forward to
working with him, and the members of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, to authorize a permanent program that provides necessary
resources to maintain and improve these national treasures for
generations to come.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON:
S. 2818. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to
establish a flexible fallow program under which a producer may idle a
portion of the total planted acreage of the loan commodities of the
producer in exchange for higher loan rates for marketing assistance
loans on the remaining acreage of the producer; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
the food security and land stewardship act of 2000
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to amend
the 1996 farm bill. This legislation is really the culmination of at
least two years of work on the part of two agricultural producers from
my home State of South Dakota. These two individuals, Craig Blindert of
Salem and Phil Cyre of Watertown, have devoted an enormous amount of
time and energy refining the proposal I am introducing today and I want
to express my thanks and gratitude.
While some policy makers purport to have all the answers to
agricultural policy and our current economic disaster in farm country,
I am proud that two South Dakota farmers approached me with their plan.
Mr. Blindert and Mr. Cyre exhibit a quality inherent to a farmer that
most policy makers will never exhibit, something I call ``tractor seat
common sense.'' Former President Eisenhower once said, farming looks
mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away
from a farm. Instead of pretending I have all of the answers, I think
it just makes good practical sense to listen to farmers who know their
business better than anyone in the world, and that is what I have tried
to do with this proposal.
Unfortunately, all of that expertise our farmers demonstrate about
the production of crops and livestock, marketing, and risk management
means little when our farm policy and agribusinesses minimizes them
into mere price takers. The legislation I am introducing today attempts
to allow farmers to become price setters in response to the free
market, and it attempts to ensure responsibility from agribusiness to
finally offer a decent price for commodities.
The current economic setting and commodity price forecast for farmers
and ranchers remains disastrous. Crop prices have absolutely collapsed
with corn prices at a 12 year low, soybeans prices at a 27 year low,
and wheat prices that have not been so low since 1977. Meatpacker
concentration and unfair livestock dumping are still crippling
livestock producers. Prices paid for livestock have remained low in the
pork and lamb sectors while they have
[[Page S6131]]
recovered, at a very limited and still unprofitable rate, for cattle
producers. As a result, net farm income has plummeted to around $40
billion this past year, plunging $9 billion from last year, without
government assistance. Agricultural exports are down over $11 billion
from 1996, and constricted global demand for our agricultural products
restricts exports from boosting prices.
It is clear that once again this disastrous marketplace clouds the
landscape of rural America as a woefully inadequate farm bill continues
to rip the safety net from beneath farmers and ranchers. If not for
government market loss assistance the last three years--a record level
of $23 billion in 1999--many hard-working farmers and ranchers might be
out of business.
The course of the last few years under the current farm bill has
given all of us the opportunity to measure the theories of Freedom to
Farm against the practical reality of experience. The measurable
results of that practical experience should convince Congress we cannot
delay to reform the current farm bill. Some tend to ignore this
reality, choosing instead to overlook the flawed farm policy, in hopes
that over time our nation's family farmers and ranchers will find
themselves enjoying the prosperity of our booming economy. However,
most farmers merely read about this prosperity as they face escalating
production expenses, eroding equity, and collapsing crop prices.
Delay in reforming farm policy is dangerous to the entire fabric of
rural America. The other day a farmer remarked to me, ``the best time
for Congress to write a better farm bill would have been in 1996, but,
the next best time is today.'' I couldn't agree more.
Congress cannot continue to overlook the link between the current
financial stress our family producers face and the 1996 farm bill
provisions which eliminated the financial safety net for farmers.
Consequently, there should be no higher priority for this Congress to
accomplish in farm policy than to restore a fair price from a truly
free marketplace.
The legislation I am introducing today is not a radical departure
from the current farm bill. We try to reinforce the advantages of
Freedom to Farm while improving upon other areas of our farm policy.
Coined ``Flexible Fallow'' by the farmers who developed it, my proposal
adds a voluntary, annual, conservation-use feature to the loan rate
provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill. Should a farmer desire to operate
under current farm bill conditions, my legislation ensures that
opportunity. However, should a farmer need greater leverage over crop
production and marketing, Flex Fallow guarantees that planting and
marketing flexibility.
Neil Harl of Iowa State University, arguably the most respected
agricultural economist in the country, has enthusiastically endorsed my
Flex Fallow proposal. In a letter to me he describes Flex Fallow as
``the missing link to the 1996 farm bill.'' He believes this proposal
will function in a market oriented fashion and ensure that ``farmers
continue to make production decisions based upon their own operations
in a manner that makes economic sense.''
Mr. President, farmers electing to devote a portion of their total
crop acreage to conservation-use under my bill receive a higher loan
rate on their remaining crop production. On an annual and crop-by-crop
basis, farmers can choose to conserve up to thirty percent of their
total crop acreage.
An adjustable loan rate schedule is a key feature of this proposal.
With the exception of wheat and soybeans, the proposed base loan rates
for 0 percent participation in Flex Fallow (otherwise known as full
production) are set at 2000 levels. Participation in Flex Fallow is
directly proportional to increased loan rates. For corn, wheat, and
soybeans, loan rates increase by one percent for each one percent
increase in conservation-use.
In 1999, the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI)
completed an analysis of the Flex Fallow proposal. I believe the
results were very promising. In years and regions (areas of the country
with a wide basis) of low commodity prices, Flex Fallow encourages
farmers to voluntarily set-aside land in turn for a higher loan rate.
Yet in years of better commodity prices, farmers are inclined to
produce for the market, planting most or all of their land to crop
production. The reduced plantings in years of poor crop prices, like
the last three years, would lead to higher crop prices. More
specifically, reduced plantings in the first two years of the program
would translate into the following higher crop prices. Corn prices rise
27 cents per bushel over current levels, soybean prices climb 44 cents
per bushel, wheat prices recover 29 cents per bushel, and cotton prices
rise 9 cents per pound. The FAPRI analysis predicts a commodity price
recovery in the long-term, and the analysis found participation in Flex
Fallow to decline after 2002.
While I work on this amendment to the current farm bill, I am
absolutely open to other ideas and alternatives that revise our farm
policy. Unlike the authors of the 1996 farm bill, I do not cling to a
pride in authorship in a farm program. So, I want the opportunity to
support as many viable alternatives as possible.
In summary, here are a few highlights of the Flex Fallow farm bill
amendment I am introducing today. Flex Fallow is flexible and
adjustable enough to meet the needs of individual farm operations. Flex
Fallow is voluntary. Flex Fallow is market-oriented because it permits
farmers the freedom to plant for marketplace conditions. Flex Fallow
emphasizes conservation practices. Flex Fallow updates yield data and
eliminates current base acres. Flex Fallow targets disaster assistance
to producers who suffer from weather-related crop loss and price
collapse. Finally, Flex Fallow will result in a modest cost to
taxpayers. The FAPRI analysis finds net Commodity Credit Corporation
expenditures under Flex Fallow to compare with that of the 1996 farm
bill without billion-dollar emergency spending additions.
In the coming months I anticipate a full airing of my Flex Fallow
amendment to the farm bill, alongside other pieces of farm bill reform
legislation that others in Congress may introduce. I expect to refine
this proposal after discussing it further with farmers and farm
organizations across South Dakota and the entire country. As a result,
it is likely I will introduce another piece of legislation similar to
Flex Fallow in the next session of Congress, wherein two other
significant issues will be addressed.
First, of critical importance to me is the need to design a farm bill
in the future that targets the benefits to family-sized farmers and
ranchers. Too often, Congress and the Administration devise tactics to
ignore and plow under the existing farm program payment limitations. If
we have a limited amount of taxpayer funds in which to devote to price
support for farmers, it simply makes sense to target those benefits to
small and mid-sized family producers. While the amendment I introduce
today does not alter current payments limits under the farm bill, I am
a strong supporter of targeting. As such, I will work to place
sensible, responsible, payment limitations that provide benefits to all
but ensure targeted benefits to the small and mid-sized family farmers
and ranchers who need and deserve greater attention from Congress.
Second, I believe Congress will be unable to develop a future farm
bill without the support of those in the conservation and wildlife
community. I am a strong supporter of conservation programs that
protect sensitive soil and water resources, promote wildlife habitat,
and provide farmers and landowners with benefits and incentives to
conserve land. Flex Fallow can work very well with both short-term and
longer-term conservation practices. It is my goal to bring conservation
groups together with farm interests in order to develop a well-balanced
approach to future farm policy that protects our resources while
promoting family-farm agriculture.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Dr. Harl
be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Iowa State University
of Science and Technology,
Ames, IA, April 17, 2000.
Senator Tim Johnson,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnson: It is my understanding that
legislation based on the
[[Page S6132]]
``Flexible-Fallow'' concept developed and advanced by Craig
Blindert and Phil Cyre of South Dakota is being prepared for
introduction. I would like to write in strong support of the
legislation and do so most enthusiastically.
Mr. Blindert called me in late 1998 with a request for a
half day to discuss a farm bill proposal. I was extremely
busy at the time but reluctantly agreed to set aside an
afternoon in late December. As the proposal was explained, I
could see that what Blindert and Cyre had developed was the
missing link for the 1996 farm bill. I wrote in strong
support of the proposal following that meeting--encouraging
an analysis by the Food and Agriculture Policy Research
Institute (FAPRI)-- and am even more supportive today.
The weak element of the 1996 farm bill was the downside
protection in the event of pressure on the supply side for
commodities. A series of normal to good weather years, a drop
of nearly 20 percent in exports and the relentless effects of
technology have combined to produce very low prices for most
crops.
What I find so appealing about the Blindert-Dyre proposal
is that--(1) the proposal would function in a market-oriented
manner; (2) it would be most appealing in the so-called
``swing'' areas which are expected to shift land use patterns
when prices for intensively-produced crops are low and to
return to such production when prices recover; (3) the
proposal would self-correct when prices rise; (4) it would
entail only a modest amount of administrative involvement on
a discretionary basis; (5) it would enable producers to
continue to make decisions based on their own situation, in a
manner that makes economic sense to them; and (6) the cost
would be modest to taxpayers and to consumers.
I would be pleased to respond further in support of the
proposal. Mr. Blindert and Mr. Cyre are to be commended for
developing what I believe would be an enormously helpful
adjunct to the 1996 farm bill.
Sincerely,
Neil E. Harl,
Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor in Agriculture,
Professor of Economics and Director, Center for International
Agricultural Finance.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 2819. To provide for the establishment of an assistance program
for health insurance consumers; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
the health care consumer assistance act
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator
Jeffords today to introduce the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act.
This important legislation seeks to address a significant problem that
currently exists in the health insurance market, the lack of a reliable
source of information and assistance for health care consumers.
In 1997, President Clinton's Health Quality Commission identified the
need for consumer assistance programs that allow consumers access to
accurate, easily understood information and get assistance in making
informed decisions about health plans and providers. Earlier this
month, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Consumer Reports
magazine released the results of a survey they conducted on consumer
satisfaction with their health plans. Their survey is part of a larger
project looking at ways to improve how consumers resolve problems with
their health insurance plans. The survey found that while most people
who experienced a problem with their plan were often able to resolve
them, the majority of those surveyed were confused about where to go
for information and help if they have a problem with their health plan.
Eventhough a growing number of states have taken steps to give patients
new rights in dealing with their health insurance plans, most consumers
are either unaware or do not know how to exercise those rights.
The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Jeffords seeks to
remedy this information gap by providing grants to states that wish to
establish health care consumer assistance programs. These programs are
designed to help consumers understand and act on their health care
choices, rights, and responsibilities. Under this bill, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services will offer states funds to create or
contract with an independent, nonprofit agency to provide a variety of
information and support services for health care consumers, including
the following: educational materials for health care consumers about
strategies to resolve problems and grievances; operate a 1-800
telephone hotline to respond to consumer inquiries; coordinate and make
referral to other private and public health care entities when
appropriate; conduct education and outreach in the community; and
collect and disseminate data about nature of inquiries, problems and
grievances handled by the program.
The concept of a health care consumer assistance program has already
received considerable support and several states have taken the
initiative to create these programs. Governors and state legislatures
in many states including, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin
have introduced or enacted health care ombudsman legislation. While
some states have successfully launched their programs, other state
initiatives have faltered due to a lack of sufficient funding.
While important strides are being made to enhance health care
consumer information and resources, clearly more needs to be done to
expand access to these simple and cost-effective services to all
Americans.
Mr. President, I believe that Americans deserve access to the
information and assistance they need to be empowered and informed
health care consumers. As the health insurance system becomes more
confusing and complex, it is critically important that as consumers
navigate this system, they have a place where they can go for
information, counseling and assistance. As health plan options become
more complicated and the web of policies and principles governing those
plans becomes more enmeshed, people need a reliable, accessible source
of information, and state health care consumer assistance programs have
proven their ability to meet this challenge. I look forward to working
with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, in advancing this important and
timely legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of my bill
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2819
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 ``Health Care Consumer
Assistance Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) People with health care insurance or coverage have many
more options with respect to coverage of, payment or payments
for, items, services or treatments. Also, their health plans,
coverages, rights, and providers are frequently being
reorganized, expanded, or limited.
(2) All consumers need information and assistance to
understand their health insurance choices and to maximize
their access to needed health services. Many do not
understand their health care rights or how to exercise them,
despite the current efforts of both the public and private
sectors.
(3) Few people with health care coverage have independent
credible sources of information or assistance to guide their
decisionmaking or to help resolve problems.
(4) It is important to maintain and strengthen a productive
working relationship between all consumers and their health
care professionals and health insurance providers.
(5) Federally initiated health care consumer assistance and
information programs targeted to consumers of long-term care
and to medicare beneficiaries under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) are effective, as are a
number of State and local consumer assistance initiatives.
(6) The principles, policies, and practices of health care
providers for delivering safe, effective, and accessible
health care can be enriched by State-based collaborative,
independent education, problem resolution, and feedback
programs. Health care consumer assistance programs have
proven their ability to meet this challenge.
(7) Health care consumers want and need reliable
information about their health care options that integrates
data and effective resolution strategies from the full range
of available resources. Health care consumer assistance
programs can provide that reliable, problem-solving
information to help in navigating the health care system.
(8) Health care delivered to individuals and within
communities can be improved by collecting and examining
consumers' experiences, questions, and problems and the ways
in which their questions and problems are resolved. Health
care consumer assistance programs can educate and inform
consumers to be more effective, self-directed health care
consumers.
(9) Many states have created health care consumer
assistance programs. The Federal
[[Page S6133]]
Government can assist the States in developing and
maintaining effective health care consumer assistance
programs.
SEC. 3. GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall award
grants to States to enable such States to establish and
administer (including the administration of programs
established by States prior to the enactment of this Act)
consumer assistance programs designed to provide information,
assistance, and referrals to consumers of health insurance
products.
(b) State Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including a State plan that describes--
(1) the manner in which the State will establish, or
solicit proposals for, and enter into a contract with, an
entity eligible under subsection (d) to serve as the health
care consumer assistance office for the State;
(2) the manner in which the State will ensure that the
health care consumer assistance office will assist health
care consumers in accessing needed care by educating and
assisting health insurance enrollees to be responsible and
informed consumers;
(3) the manner in which the State will coordinate and
distinguish the services provided by the health care consumer
assistance office with the services provided by the long-term
care ombudsman authorized by the Older Americans Act of 1965
(42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the State health insurance
information program authorized under section 4360 of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-
4), the protection and advocacy program authorized under the
Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of
1986 (42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq.), and any other programs that
provide information and assistance to health care consumers;
(4) the manner in which the State will coordinate and
distinguish the health care consumer assistance office and
its services from enrollment services provided under the
medicaid and State children's health insurance programs under
titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396
et seq. and 1397aa et seq.), and medicare and medicaid health
care fraud and abuse activities including those authorized by
Federal law under title 11 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1301 et seq.);
(5) the manner in which the State will provide services to
underserved and minority populations and populations residing
in rural areas;
(6) the manner in which the State will establish and
implement procedures and protocols to ensure the
confidentiality of all information shared by consumers and
their health care providers, health plans, or insurers with
the office established under subsection (d)(1) and to ensure
that no such information is used, released or referred
without the express permission of the consumer, except to the
extent that the office collects or uses aggregate information
as described in section 4(c)(8);
(7) the manner in which the State will provide for the
collection of non-Federal contributions for the operations of
the office in an amount that is not less than 30 percent of
the amount of Federal funds provided under this Act; and
(8) the manner in which the State will ensure that funds
made available under this Act will be used to supplement, and
not supplant, any other Federal, State, or local funds
expended to provide services for programs described under
this Act and those described in paragraphs (3) and (4).
(c) Amount of Grant.--
(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 4
for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award a grant to a
State in an amount that bears the same ratio to such amounts
as the number of individuals within the State covered under a
health insurance plan (as determined by the Secretary) bears
to the total number of individuals covered under a health
insurance plan in all States (as determined by the
Secretary). Any amounts provided to a State under this
section that are not used by the State shall be remitted to
the Secretary and reallocated in accordance with this
paragraph.
(2) Minimum amount.--In no case shall the amount provided
to a State under a grant under this section for a fiscal year
be less than an amount equal to .5 percent of the amount
appropriated for such fiscal year under section 5.
(d) Provision of Funds For Establishment of Office.--
(1) In general.--From amounts provided under a grant under
this section, a State shall, directly or through a contract
with an independent, nonprofit entity with demonstrated
experience in serving the needs of health care consumers,
provide for the establishment and operation of a State health
care consumer assistance office.
(2) Eligibility of entity.--To be eligible to enter into a
contract under paragraph (1), an entity shall demonstrate
that the entity has the technical, organizational, and
professional capacity to deliver the services described in
section 4 throughout the State to all public and private
health insurance consumers.
SEC. 4. USE OF FUNDS.
(a) By State.--
(1) In general.--A State shall use amounts received under a
grant under this Act to establish and operate of a health
insurance consumer assistance office as provided for in this
section and section 3(d).
(2) Noncompliance.--If the State fails to enter into or
renew a contract for the operation of a State health
insurance consumer assistance office, the Secretary shall
reallocate amounts to be provided to the State under this
Act.
(b) By Entity.--An entity that enters into a contract with
a State under section 3(d) shall use amounts received under
the contract to establish and operate a health insurance
consumer assistance office.
(c) Activities of Office.--A health insurance consumer
assistance office established under this Act shall--
(1) operate a toll-free telephone hotline to respond to
requests for information and assistance with health care
problems and assist all health insurance consumers to
navigate the health care system;
(2) acquire or produce and disseminate culturally and
language appropriate educational materials concerning health
insurance products available within the State, how best to
access health care, and the rights and responsibilities of
the health care consumer;
(3) educate health care consumers about strategies that
such consumers can implement to promptly and efficiently
resolve inquiries, problems, and grievances related to health
insurance and access to health care;
(4) refer health care consumers to appropriate private and
public entities so that inquiries, problems, and grievances
with respect to health insurance and access to health care
can be handled promptly and efficiently;
(5) coordinate with health organizations in the State,
State health-insurance related agencies, and State
organizations responsible for administering the programs
described listed in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 3(b) so
as to maximize the ability of consumers to resolve health
care questions and problems and achieve the best health care
outcomes;
(6) conduct education and outreach within the State in
partnership with consumers, health plans, health care
providers, health care payers and governmental agencies with
health oversight responsibilities;
(7) provide information to consumers about an internal,
external, or administrative grievance or appeals procedure
(in nonlitigative settings) to appeal the denial,
termination, or reduction of health care services, or the
refusal to pay for such services, under a health insurance
plan; and
(8) provide information to State agencies, employers,
health plans, insurers, and the general public concerning the
kinds of inquiries, problems, and grievances handled by the
office.
(d) Confidentiality and Access to Information.--The health
insurance consumer assistance office of a State shall
establish and implement procedures and protocols to ensure
the confidentiality of all information shared by consumers
and their health care providers, health plans, or insurers
with the office and to ensure that no such information is
used, released or referred to State agencies or outside
entities without the expressed permission of the consumer,
except to the extent that the office collects or uses
aggregate information described in subsection (c)(8).
(e) Availability of Services.--The health insurance
consumer assistance office of a State shall not discriminate
in the provision of information and referrals regardless of
the source of the individual's health insurance coverage or
prospective coverage, including individuals covered under
employer-provided insurance, self-funded plans, the medicare
or medicaid programs under title XVII or XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 and 1396 et seq.), or under any
other Federal or State health care program.
(f) Designation of Responsibilities.--
(1) Within existing state entity.--If the health insurance
consumer assistance office of a State is located within an
existing State regulatory agency or office of an elected
State official, the State shall ensure that--
(A) there is a separate delineation of the funding,
activities, and responsibilities of the office as compared to
the other funding, activities, and responsibilities of the
agency; and
(B) the office establishes and implements procedures and
protocols to ensure the confidentiality of all information
shared by consumers and their health care providers, health
plans, or insurers with the office and to ensure that no
information is transferred or released to the State agency or
office without the expressed permission of the consumer.
(2) Contract entity.--In the case of an entity that enters
into a contract with a State under section 3(d), the entity
shall provide assurances that the entity has no real or
perceived conflict of interest in providing advice and
assistance to consumers regarding health insurance and that
the entity is independent of health insurance plans,
companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care.
(g) Subcontracts.--The health insurance consumer assistance
office of a State may carry out activities and provide
services through contracts entered into with 1 or more
nonprofit entities so long as the office can demonstrate that
all of the requirements of this Act are complied with by the
office.
(i) Training.--
(1) In general.--The health insurance consumer assistance
office of a State shall ensure that personnel employed by the
office
[[Page S6134]]
possess the skills, expertise, and information necessary to
provide the services described in subsection (c).
(2) Contracts.--To meet the requirement of paragraph (1),
an office may enter into contracts with 1 or more nonprofit
entities for the training (both through technical and
educational assistance) of personnel and volunteers. To be
eligible to receive a contract under this paragraph, an
entity shall be independent of health insurance plans,
companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care.
(3) Limitation.--An amount not to exceed 7 percent of the
amount awarded to an entity under a contract under section
3(d) for a fiscal year may be used for the provision of
training under this section.
(j) Administrative Costs.--An amount not to exceed 1
percent of the amount of a grant awarded to the State under
this Act for a fiscal year may be used by the State for
administrative expenses.
(k) Term.--A contract entered into under this section shall
be for a term of 3 years.
SEC. 5. FUNDING.
There are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 to
carry out this Act.
SEC. 6. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
that contains--
(1) a determination by the Secretary of whether amounts
appropriated to carry out this Act for the fiscal year for
which the report is being prepared are sufficient to fully
fund this Act in such fiscal year;
(2) with respect to a fiscal year for which the Secretary
determines under paragraph (1) that sufficient amounts are
not appropriated, the recommendations of the Secretary for
fully funding this Act through the use of additional funding
sources; and
(3) information on States that have been awarded a grant
under this Act and a summary of the activities of such States
and the data that is produced.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to join in introducing
the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act. This important bill has been
crafted to help Americans navigate our increasingly complex and ever
changing health care system. I want to recognize the leadership of
Senator Jack Reed in bringing this issue forward for consideration.
Americans need and want help with their health care. In a recent
national survey, Consumers Report and the Kaiser Family Foundation
learned that half of all managed care plan members have had a problem
with their plan in the last year. The vast majority of those
``problems'' were minor and successfully resolved in a very short
period of time. However, a large number of Americans report significant
financial consequences, lost time at work, or actual health declines as
a result of these disputes.
The same survey reports that 84% of Americans want ``an independent
place to turn for help'' with their health care rights. In fact,
Americans prefer, by a wide margin, an independent source of help, as
provided for in the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act, rather than a
right to sue.
Three years ago, my own state recognized that Vermonters needed an
independent program to help them navigate the complex health care
delivery system. The state offices of the Division of Banking and
Insurance and the Office of Vermont Health Access (our Medicaid agency)
jointly administer the Vermont Ombudsman. It has helped Vermonters find
care providers and use appeal procedures.
It is time for the federal government to play a constructive role in
aiding states like Vermont that will answer the needs of their citizens
for a consumer-focused, consumer-directed health care assistance
program. This bill builds on the existing state-based programs to
provide an office that provides consumers with the basic and credible
information they want and need to make all kinds of important health
care decisions.
The bill gives each State the opportunity to design a consumer
assistance program that meets local needs. At the same time, the grant
program calls upon the state to coordinate this overall health care
consumer assistance office's activities with its existing consumer
assistance offices such as the long-term care Ombudsman program for
long term care consumers and its work in registering children and
families for S-CHIP.
Access to quality health care services is a priority for every
American family, every state, and this nation. It is clearly time for a
federal commitment to help families get the health care information and
assistance they want and need.
Once again, I want to thank Senator Reed for this bipartisan effort
on such important health legislation. Health care consumers, plans,
providers, and states will be well served by enacting our legislation
as soon as possible.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS (by request):
S. 2820. A bill to provide for a public interest determination by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission with respect to repair, replacement,
or refund actions, and to revise the civil and criminal penalties,
under both the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
the consumer product safety commission enhanced enforcement act
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce at the request of
the Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),
the Consumer Product Safety Commission Enhanced Enforcement Act of
2000. This legislation is designed to enhance the authority of the CSPC
to prevent the manufacture and sale of defective products.
The legislation seeks to accomplish this goal in two significant
ways. First, it proposes to remove the cap that exists under current
law on the maximum civil penalty that can be assessed to companies that
market products in violation of federal consumer product safety
regulations. Currently, the maximum civil penalty that can be assessed
to companies that violate consumer product safety laws is $1,650,000, a
figure that is less than the amount that generally could be assessed by
the CPSC. According to the agency, in many instances, it seeks
penalties against very large companies, which likely are not deterred
by the $1,650,000 cap. Second, the legislation proposes to increase the
CPSC's authority over recalls by authorizing the Commission to
determine the manner in which a defective product is to be corrected.
Currently, a company that has marketed a defective product has the
right to determine the remedy that is offered to the public, regardless
of whether the selected remedy is the most effective solution. The
proposed legislation alters this situation by permitting the CPSC to
choose the remedy that is best suited to protect the public as opposed
to the company.
For these reasons, Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this act
on behalf of the Administration and the CPSC.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Moynihan, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Biden):
S. 2823. A bill to amend the Andean Trade Preference Act to grant
certain benefits with respect to textile and apparel, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the plan colombia trade act
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by Senators
DeWine, Moynihan, Grassley, Dodd, Coverdell, and Biden, to introduce
the Plan Colombia Trade Act, a bill that would provide additional trade
benefits to the nations of the Andean Trade Pact, which includes
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
This bill is an important component of Plan Colombia, which seeks to
address not only the nation's crisis with respect to massive
narcotrafficking and insurgent and paramilitary forces, but also
focuses on Colombia's deep economic recession. The bill is consistent
with U.S. policy of promoting trade and combating drugs on a regional
basis, thereby ensuring that U.S. benefits and assistance provided to
one nation do not adversely affect other nations in the immediate
region. Such a strategy is the only way to avoid what is often
described as the ``balloon effect,'' which has meant that the drug
problem, at best, is displaced from one location to another. Finally,
the bill would re-assert our commitment to promote economic growth and
regional stability throughout the Andean region, and to provide
alternatives to the cultivation and exportation of illegal narcotics.
Passage of this legislation by the Senate will signal the United
States' support of the Andean Trade Pact's economic reform efforts, and
will boost the confidence of both domestic and international investors
in pursuing
[[Page S6135]]
business opportunities that create jobs and enhance international trade
in the Andean region, particularly in Colombia. In addition, this bill
would ensure that U.S. trade with these important nations is not
adversely affected by the recent passage of the ``Trade and Development
Act of 2000,'' which provided significant trade benefits to the
Caribbean Basin.
To briefly summarize, the ``Plan Colombia Trade Act,'' would extend,
for approximately one year, additional trade benefits to Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru-nations that currently benefit from the
Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991 (commonly known as the ATPA). New
trade benefits would include some--but not all--trade benefits extended
to the nations of the Caribbean Basin under the ``Trade and Development
Act of 2000,'' which was signed by the President on May 18, 2000.
Specifically, the bill would extend duty-free, quota-free treatment to
apparel articles assembled or cut in ATPA beneficiary nations using
yarns and fabric wholly formed in the United States, thereby achieving
a measure of parity with the CBI nations, as well as expanding an
important source of economic and employment growth for the U.S. textile
and apparel industry.
In its March 2000 interim report, ``First Steps Toward a Constructive
U.S. Policy in Colombia,'' a Council on Foreign Relations/Inter-
American Dialogue Independent Task Force--which I co-chair with Brent
Scowcroft--recommended the extension of the ATPA, to include the same
benefits as those contained under the Caribbean Basin Initiative.
Specifically, we recommended the following:
Indeed, Colombia's economic well-being is absolutely
critical, and in this area the United States can be more
helpful. Perhaps even more important than providing increased
assistance to the Colombian government to support employment
programs is assuring Colombia greater access to U.S. markets
for its products. Extending trade-related benefits to
Colombia would have a positive impact on the country's
prospects for higher growth and employment levels.
Although the bill provides benefits to all ATPA beneficiaries, it is
particularly critical to Colombia, which in 1998 exported 59 percent of
all textiles and apparel from the Andean region to the U.S., two-thirds
of which were assembled and/or cut from U.S. yarns and fabric.
This legislation addresses an important, albeit unintentional,
contradiction in U.S. policy towards Colombia. With the recent passage
of enhanced trade benefits to the countries of Caribbean Basin
Initiative, Colombia stands to lose up to 150,000 jobs in the apparel
industry. At least ten (10) U.S.-based companies that purchase apparel
from Colombian garment manufacturers have already indicated their near-
term intentions to shift production to CBI countries due to the
significant cost savings associated with the new trade benefits
afforded to the Caribbean basin. Some of these U.S. companies have
utilized Colombia as a manufacturing base for over ten (10) years,
providing desperately needed legitimate employment in the Colombian
economy.
In summary, the immediate reaction of these companies to enhanced
Caribbean trade benefits clearly demonstrates the negative effects of
the CBI legislation on Colombia. It would be foolish for the Congress
to approve a comprehensive aid package for Colombia, while
simultaneously implementing legislation that puts tens of thousands of
Colombians out of work. This bill will address that critical,
unintended contradiction.
On a more comprehensive scale, passage of this legislation is
critical to ensure that all nations in the Western Hemisphere can
maintain their long-term competitiveness with Asian nations,
particularly in the textile industry. At present, the textile products
of most Asian nations are subject to quotas imposed by the Multi-Fiber
Agreement, now known as the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. This
restriction on Asian textiles has enabled the nations of the Western
Hemisphere to remain competitive, and further, the Andean region--
specifically Colombia--has become a significant market for fabric woven
in U.S. mills from yarn spun in the U.S., originating from U.S. cotton
growers.
However, in 2005, these Asian import quotas will be phased out. At
that time, textile production in both the Andean region and the
Caribbean basin will be placed at a distinct and growing disadvantage.
Disinvestment in the region will occur, reducing the incentive to use
any material from U.S. textile mills or cotton grown in the United
States.
background
Seventeen years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the first legislation
to provide trade preferences to the twenty-seven countries of the
Caribbean Basin. In 1983, the Caribbean Basin was a region inflamed
with violent conflict and rampant drug trafficking that threatened the
political and economic stability of our closest neighbors, as well as
our own national security. The primary goal of the Caribbean Basin
Initiative (CBI) was to stabilize the region by building stronger and
more diverse economies, encouraging growth in international trade,
developing a strong economic relationship between the U.S. and the
region, and creating employment opportunities in the legitimate economy
as an alternative to drug trafficking.
Following enactment of CBI, the U.S. trade position with the region
improved from a deficit of $3 billion in 1983, to a surplus of nearly
$3.5 billion in 1998. Between 1983 and 1998, U.S. exports to the region
increased fourfold, while total imports from the region grew by less
than 20 percent. On a per capita basis, the U.S. trade surplus with the
region has consistently outpaced the U.S. trade surplus with any other
region of the world--in fact, since 1995, U.S. exports to the CBI
region have increased by almost 32 percent.
In 1991, after 8 years of resounding success in the CBI region,
Congress passed the ATPA, providing CBI-like trade benefits to the
countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. In the nine years
following enactment of ATPA, U.S. exports to the Andean region have
more than doubled--from $3.8 billion in 1991 to over $8.6 billion in
1998. U.S. exports to Colombia account for over half of this increase,
growing from $2 billion in 1991 to $4.8 billion in 1998. During the
same time period, Andean exports to the U.S. increased by almost 80
percent. In addition, in 1998, the U.S. achieved a $309 million trade
surplus with the ATPA nations. Under ATPA, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador,
and Peru enjoyed the same trade benefits that we had extended to the
CBI region. However, on May 18, 2000, the President signed the ``Trade
and Development Act of 2000,'' which extended additional trade
benefits--particularly with respect to textiles and apparel--to the
nations of the CBI region. Therefore, our Andean trading partners are
now likely to lose significant trade and investment opportunities that
will shift to the CBI, given the additional trade benefits included in
the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000.''
Need for the ``Plan Colombia Trade Act''
The United States is at now a critical juncture with its neighbors in
the Andean region. As was demonstrated by the recent passage of the
``Trade and Development Act of 2000.'' it is clear that we must
continue enhance our trading relationship with our partners in the
Caribbean and the Andean region.
In particular, these additional trade benefits should be extended to
Colombia, which is currently fighting a war for the survival of its
democratic institutions, its free market economy and for the future of
its people. Those challenging Colombia's future include drug
traffickers, guerilla groups (the FARC and the ELN) and other elements
of society who seek to foster instability and fear. A comprehensive
strategy in response to the crisis in essential for Colombia.
The government of Colombia, therefore, has formulated Plan Colombia.
The United States government, in turn, has responded generously to
Columbia's needs by considering a supplemental appropriations package
of more than $1.6 billion to help the country in this time of crisis.
This will supplement over $4.0 billion being spent by Colombia itself.
Fundamental to Plan Colombia (and to the government's ability to
succeed in its efforts to safeguard the country) will be efforts to
encourage economic growth and provide jobs to the Colombian people.
Today in Colombia more than one million people are displaced, the
unemployment rate is nearly 20 percent and Colombia is experiencing
[[Page S6136]]
the worst recession in 70 years. Without new economic opportunities,
more and more Colombians will turn to illicit activities to support
their families or seek to join the growing numbers of people who are
leaving the country to find a better, safer future for their families.
Measuring both imports and exports, Colombia is by far the most
important U.S. trade partner in the ATPA region. In 1998, over 53
percent of U.S. exports to the Andean region went to Colombia, and over
53 percent of U.S. imports from the Andean region originated from
Colombia.
Mr. President, to promote economic growth and regional stability, the
Congress must consider additional trade measures that benefit the
entire Andean region. Therefore, Congress should grant CBI parity to
the ATPA beneficiaries, specifically with respect to textiles and
apparel. During 1999, Colombia and its Andean neighbors exported
approximately $562 million in textiles and apparel to the United
States. While insignificant in comparison to the $8.4 billion in
textile and apparel exports originating in the CBI region, Andean
textile and apparel production sustains more than 200,000 jobs in
Colombia alone--valuable jobs in the legitimate economy. Absent CBI
parity, the Andean region will find itself at a significant competitive
disadvantage with the 27 countries of the CBI region.
Mr. President, upon final passage of CBI enhancement legislation, I
stated that we had initiated the process of establishing true
``partnership for success'' with some of our most important neighbors.
Although that legislation was a good start, it was only the beginning.
I urge my colleagues to look towards the future by supporting the
``Plan Colombia Trade Act,'' and by taking advantage of the real
economic benefits that can be achieved by further enhancing our
relationship with all of the nations of the Western Hemisphere.
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. 2823
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 ``Plan Colombia Trade Act''.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL TRADE BENEFITS TO
CERTAIN ANDEAN COUNTRIES.
(a) In General.--Section 204(b) of the Andean Trade
Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203(b)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Exceptions to Duty-Free Treatment.--
``(1) In General.--Subject to paragraphs (2), the duty-free
treatment provided under this title shall not apply to--
``(A) textile and apparel articles which are subject to
textile agreements;
``(B) footwear not designated at the time of the effective
date of this Act as eligible for the purpose of the
generalized system of preferences under title V of the Trade
Act of 1974;
``(C) tuna, prepared or preserved in any manner, in
airtight containers;
``(D) petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum,
provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS;
``(E) watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets
and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to,
mechanical, quartz digital or quartz analog, if such watches
or watch parts contain any material which is the product of
any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty
apply;
``(F) articles to which reduced rates of duty apply under
subsection (c);
``(G) sugars, syrups, and molasses classified in
subheadings 1701.11.03, 1701.12.02, 1701.99.02, 1702.90.32,
1806.10.42, and 2106.90.12 of the HTS; or
``(H) rum and tafia classified in subheading 2208.40.00 of
the HTS.
``(2) Transition period treatment of certain textile and
apparel articles.--
``(A) Articles covered.--During the transition period, the
preferential treatment described in subparagraph (B) shall
apply to the following articles:
``(i) Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary
countries.--Apparel articles assembled in one or more
beneficiary countries from fabrics wholly formed and cut in
the United States, from yarns wholly formed in the United
States, that are--
``(I) entered under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS; or
``(II) entered under chapter 61 or 62 of the HTS, if, after
such assembly, the articles would have qualified for entry
under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS but for the fact that
the articles were embroidered or subjected to stone-washing,
enzyme-washing, acid washing, perma-pressing, oven-baking,
bleaching, garment-dyeing, screen printing, or other similar
processes.
``(ii) Apparel articles cut and assembled in one or more
beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles cut in one or more
beneficiary countries from fabric wholly formed in the United
States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, if such
articles are assembled in one or more such countries with
thread formed in the United States.
``(iii) Special rules.--
``(I) Exception for findings and trimmings.--(aa) An
article otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under
this paragraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment
because the article contains findings or trimmings of foreign
origin, if such findings and trimmings do not exceed 25
percent of the cost of the components of the assembled
product. Examples of findings and trimmings are sewing
thread, hooks and eyes, snaps, buttons, `bow buds',
decorative lace, trim, elastic strips, zippers, including
zipper tapes and labels, and other similar products. Elastic
strips are considered findings or trimmings only if they are
each less than 1 inch in width and are used in the production
of brassieres.
``(bb) In the case of an article described in clause (ii)
of this subparagraph, sewing thread shall not be treated as
findings or trimmings under this subclause.
``(II) Certain interlining.--(aa) An article otherwise
eligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph
shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the
article contains certain interlinings of foreign origin, if
the value of such interlinings (and any findings and
trimmings) does not exceed 25 percent of the cost of the
components of the assembled article.
``(bb) Interlinings eligible for the treatment described in
division (aa) include only a chest type plate, `hymo' piece,
or `sleeve header', of woven or weft-inserted warp knit
construction and of coarse animal hair or man-made filaments.
``(cc) The treatment described in this subclause shall
terminate if the President makes a determination that United
States manufacturers are producing such interlinings in the
United States in commercial quantities.
``(III) De minimis rule.--An article that would otherwise
be ineligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph
because the article contains fibers or yarns not wholly
formed in the United States or in one or more beneficiary
countries shall not be ineligible for such treatment if the
total weight of all such fibers or yarns is not more than 7
percent of the total weight of the good. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, an apparel article containing elastomeric
yarns shall be eligible for preferential treatment under this
paragraph only if such yarns are wholly formed in the United
States.
``(IV) Special origin rule.--An article otherwise eligible
for preferential treatment under clause (i) or (ii) of this
subparagraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment
because the article contains nylon filament yarn (other than
elastomeric yarn) that is classifiable under subheading
5402.10.30, 5402.10.60, 5402.31.30, 5402.31.60, 5402.32.30,
5402.32.60, 5402.41.10, 5402.41.90, 5402.51.00, or 5402.61.00
of the HTS duty-free from a country that is a party to an
agreement with the United States establishing a free trade
area, which entered into force before January 1, 1995.
``(iv) Special rule for fabrics not formed from yarns.--
``(I) Application to clause (i).--An article otherwise
eligible for preferential treatment under clause (i) of this
subparagraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment
because the article is assembled in one or more beneficiary
countries from fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics
are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and
are wholly formed and cut in the United States.
``(II) Application to clause (ii).--An article otherwise
eligible for preferential treatment under clause (ii) of this
subparagraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment
because the article is assembled in one or more beneficiary
countries from fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics
are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and
are wholly formed in the United States.
``(B) Preferential treatment.--During the transition
period, the articles to which this paragraph applies shall
enter the United States free of duty and free of any
quantitative restrictions, limitations, or consultation
levels.
``(C) Transition period.--In this paragraph, the term
`transition period' means, with respect to a beneficiary
country, the period that begins on the date of enactment of
the Plan Colombia Trade Act or October 1, 2000, whichever is
later, and ends on the date that duty-free treatment ends
under this title.''.
(b) Factors Affecting Designation.--
(1) In general.--Section 203(d) of the Andean Trade
Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3202(d)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) the extent to which such country adheres to
democratic principles and the rule of law.''.
[[Page S6137]]
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
take effect on the earlier of--
(A) October 1, 2000; or
(B) the date of enactment of the Plan Colombia Trade
Act.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the Plan
Colombia Trade Act along with my colleague, Senator Bob Graham. This
important bill will supplement Plan Colombia by expanding trade
benefits to the countries of Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.
Plan Colombia is an important package that provides about a billion
dollars to the government of Colombia, and other countries in that
region. These funds will go to fight drugs, eradicate the crops which
create them, and provide for alternative development. Unfortunately,
Plan Colombia does not provide for an important measure that we can do
to help these countries, that is to stimulate their economy. We can
achieve this by passing the Plan Colombia Trade Act, which will provide
assistance to develop their textile and apparel industries.
Developing the apparel industry of these countries will encourage
global trade, and offer the good people of that region a future filled
with prosperity. Additionally, the trade benefits outlined in this bill
will enhance peace, stability, and prosperity in that region, which
will ultimately yield a better quality of life for all involved. This
bill will not only benefit the struggling economies of Colombia,
Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru, but will advance the economy of the United
States as well.
As important as the assistance package to Colombia is, most of the
money we provide will not reach ordinary Colombians. They also are
engaged in the effort to combat illegal drugs. We need to ensure that
they are not penalized for doing so. The current bill helps us help
Colombians not with cash but with opportunity. It preserves legitimate
jobs in a country sorely beset with problems.
Most garments that are produced in Colombia are subject to a 20-30%
duty rate upon importation into the U.S. As an example, swimsuits are
subject to a duty rate of 33%. By granting duty-free and quota-free
benefits to apparel assembled in these countries from U.S. made yarn,
and U.S. made fabric, these countries will now be able to compete with
other developing countries that currently enjoy duty-free and quota-
free benefits. It will also afford them the opportunity to participate
in the global economy. This will encourage additional export of U.S.
made cotton and yarn, stimulate U.S. investment in the region and
create needed jobs as well.
This bill is an opportunity to help rebuild a region which has been
plagued by the drug trade. We can assist these countries, not by giving
them more money, but by providing these enhanced trade opportunities.
By helping our neighbors in the south to maintain political and
economic stability, we will in effect be securing the National Security
of the United States. This legislation will provide these countries
with the opportunity build their industry and their struggling
economies and will improve the quality of their everyday lives.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill which will have a
positive effect on the prosperity of our neighbors in Colombia,
Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Breaux):
S. 2825. A bill to strengthen the effectiveness of the earned income
tax credit in reducing child poverty and promoting work; to the
Committee on Finance.
the tax relief for working families act of 2000
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be joined by Senators
Jeffords and Breaux in introducing the Tax Relief for Working Families
Act of 2000. This bipartisan bill is designed to strengthen the
effectiveness of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in reducing child
poverty and promoting work.
Our bill will increase the EITC for families with three or more
children. Families could qualify for almost an additional $500.
Obviously, raising a large family costs more, and these families have a
higher poverty rate of 29 percent, more than double the poverty rate of
children in smaller families. Nearly three out of every five poor
children live in families with three or more children.
A report by the Committee for Economic Development found that the
``EITC has become a powerful force in dramatically raising the
employment of low-income women in recent years.'' The report also
recommended further expansions of the EITC. Since research shows that
larger families have greater problems leaving welfare for work, this
legislation should build upon our welfare reform efforts.
But even more compelling than national statistics are the real
stories from West Virginia families. One woman in Huntington, West
Virginia is struggling to raise five daughters and care for her husband
who was disabled in a roofing accident. That family is managing on
approximately $13,000 a year. She works the night shift, but must
currently rely on the public bus. Her shift begins at midnight, but the
last bus is at 9:00 p.m. so she takes the earlier bus, and spends
several hours waiting for her shift instead of having time with her
family. Last year, she used the EITC to pay her bills, including a
winter coat for one of her daughters. With an increase, she hopes to
save for a used car.
Another West Virginia mother is recently divorced and struggling to
raise four sons, ranging in age from sixteen to seven. Her 16-year-old
son has Downs Syndrome. Last year she earned $13,800 and she used her
EITC to purchase a used van so she would have reliable transportation
for her 50-mile commute to work. Another year, the EITC helped pay for
new mattresses for her children's beds. With an increase, she'd like to
save a little money in case of an emergency or for better housing.
These are real stories of real families who are working hard to make
ends meet but need and deserve more help.
This is a bipartisan bill. We have closely consulted with leading
groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Catholic
Charities U.S.A., the United Way of America, and the Progressive Policy
Institute.
In addition to increasing the EITC available to large families, our
bill includes several bipartisan provisions to simplify the credit by
conforming the definition of earned income and simplifying the
definition of a dependent child.
Some may question the cost of expanding the EITC, but I believe,
compared to other tax proposals such as providing additional marriage
tax relief, investing an additional $8 billion over the next five years
is a reasonable investment to help low-wage working families. Most of
these families are married. All are struggling, but working hard to do
the right thing for their children. In its letter supporting our
efforts, Catholic Charities U.S.A. describes our legislation is ``pro-
family, pro-marriage, and pro-work.''
During the 1998 tax year, over 19 million working Americans got $30.5
billion in tax relief, thanks to the EITC. In my state, about 141,000
West Virginians claimed $210.7 million. About nineteen percent of West
Virginia taxpayers benefit from the EITC. In my state, 84 percent of
taxpayers earn less than $50,000. I believe that this legislation to
expand the EITC for families with three or more children will help more
West Virginians than many of the other, more expensive provisions under
consideration as part of the marriage penalty relief debate.
We know that the EITC works. It encourages work, and it helps lift
families out of poverty. I urge my colleagues to join with Senators
Jeffords and Breaux to help hard working families raise their children.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senators
Rockefeller and Breaux to introduce a bill that will provide a third-
tier earned income tax credit (EITC) for families with three or more
children. I believe that the additional tax credit provided by this
bill could be of significant help to working low-income families.
The EITC is a refundable tax credit to low-income families. It is
only available to taxpayers who work and earn wages. Indeed, the EITC
was enacted to encourage taxpayers to work--even at low-paying jobs--
rather than relying on government programs. The EITC
[[Page S6138]]
has played a key role in reducing the poverty rate for families. By
some estimates, it has been the single most important factor in
removing children from poverty.
As currently structured, the EITC provides a credit to families with
one child, and a higher credit to families that have two or more
children. Families with three or four children receive the same EITC as
families with two children.
For low-income families of four, we have seen significant progress in
reducing the incidence of poverty. The combination of the minimum wage,
the EITC, and food stamps can raise a family of four with a full-time
year-round minimum wage worker close to the poverty line. But poverty
persists in large families where there are more than two children. In
families with three or more children, the official poverty rate is 29
percent--twice the rate for families with two children. While children
in families with three or more children were 37 percent of all children
in the United States in 1998, they comprised 57 percent of the children
living in poverty.
It is not surprising that reducing poverty is more problematic in
large families. As family size rises, so do family expenses. Welfare
benefits increase with family size; wages, however, do not. For a large
family, moving from welfare to work may actually mean less money. In
addition, with more children, child care is not only more expensive, it
is also more complicated.
With surplus projections now reaching $1.7 trillion, there are a
whole host of tax reform proposals--many meritorious--circulating on
Capitol Hill. In the debate about tax cuts, we must not lose sight of
our most vulnerable workers. We should build on the proven success of
the EITC to help these workers. I believe a larger earned income tax
credit for families with three or more children will help put more low-
income families on the path to self-sufficiency, while at the same time
helping welfare reform succeed.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 2826. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for coverage of substitute adult day care services under the
Medicare Program; to the Committee on Finance.
the medicare adult day services alternative act
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as this Congress continues to deliberate
options of how best to care for our senior population, it is critical
to consider, as well, the role that caregivers play in accommodating
the delivery of such care to loved ones. Family caregivers are often
forced to make difficult sacrifices. By just one measure, it is
estimated that the average loss of income to these caregivers is more
than $600,000 in wages, pensions and Social Security benefits. This
does not have to be the case, though.
It does not have to be the case with the choices afforded by
legislation I am pleased to be introducing today along with Senator
Rockefeller of West Virginia aimed at reforming Medicare's home health
benefit. The Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act of 2000 would
provide Medicare beneficiaries who qualify for home health benefits the
choice to receive those services in qualified adult day care centers,
and simultaneously assist family caregivers with the very real
difficulties in caring for a homebound family member.
It is with America's Medicare beneficiaries and family caregivers in
mind which makes the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act a
winner for Medicare, for patients and for their caregivers. First, it
would allow patients to receive home health services in a setting that
promotes rehabilitation by providing social interaction, meals and
therapeutic activities above and beyond the provision of the prescribed
home health benefit. Second, caregivers for homebound patients would be
able to maintain employment outside of the home because they would know
that their family member is in a healthy, protected environment during
the day.
With this legislation, patients could elect to receive some, or all,
of their home health benefit in a home or an adult day care congregate
setting. I think my colleagues would agree with me that the opportunity
to interact with others with similar needs can improve patients' mental
and physical wellbeing. While not expanding the existing eligibility
criteria for home health, this legislation offers Medicare
beneficiaries a greater sense of autonomy afforded by receiving
necessary care outside of their homes.
The adult day care center would be paid 95% of the rate paid to a
home health agency for providing the Medicare-covered service. But
within that lump-sum payment, the adult day care center would also be
required to cover transportation, medication management, therapeutic
activities, and meals.
The Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act recognizes the
benefit that will come to family members of Medicare recipients of this
service. These caregivers will be able to attend to other things in
today's fast-paced family life, knowing their loved ones are well cared
for. This creative solution to health care delivery also adequately
reimburses providers and is designed to be budget neutral.
I hope that members on both sides of the aisle will join me in
advancing this important issue for Medicare beneficiaries and their
families. As this Congress considers various proposals to improve
Medicare's home health benefit, this proposal deserves the serious
attention and consideration of my colleagues. I look forward to working
with them to enact this pro-beneficiary, potentially cost-saving reform
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2826
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Adult Day Services
Alternative Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) adult day care offers services, including medical care,
rehabilitation therapies, dignified assistance with
activities of daily living, social interaction, and
stimulating activities, to seniors who are frail, physically
challenged, or cognitively impaired;
(2) access to adult day care services provides seniors and
their familial caregivers support that is critical to keeping
the senior in the family home;
(3) more than 22,000,000 families in the United States
serve as caregivers for aging or ailing seniors, nearly 1 in
4 American families, providing close to 80 percent of the
care to individuals requiring long-term care;
(4) nearly 75 percent of those actively providing such care
are women who also maintain other responsibilities, such as
working outside of the home and raising young children;
(5) the average loss of income to these caregivers has been
shown to be $659,130 in wages, pension, and Social Security
benefits;
(6) the loss in productivity in United States businesses
ranges from $11,000,000,000 to $29,000,000,000 annually;
(7) the services offered in adult day care facilities
provide continuity of care and an important sense of
community for both the senior and the caregiver;
(8) there are adult day care centers in every State in the
United States and the District of Columbia;
(9) these centers generally offer transportation, meals,
personal care, and counseling in addition to the medical
services and socialization benefits offered; and
(10) with the need for quality options in how to best care
for our senior population about to dramatically increase with
the aging of the baby boomer generation, the time to address
these issues is now.
SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF SUBSTITUTE ADULT DAY CARE SERVICES UNDER
MEDICARE.
(a) Substitute Adult Day Care Services Benefit.--
(1) In general.--Section 1861(m) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395x(m)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``or (8)'' after ``paragraph (7)'';
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in paragraph (7), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (7), the following new
paragraph:
``(8) substitute adult day care services (as defined in
subsection (uu));''.
(2) Substitute adult day care services defined.--Section
1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``Substitute Adult Day Care Services; Adult Day Care Facility
``(uu)(1)(A) The term `substitute adult day care services'
means the items and services described in subparagraph (B)
that are furnished to an individual by an adult day care
facility as a part of a plan under subsection
[[Page S6139]]
(m) that substitutes such services for a portion of the items
and services described in subparagraph (B)(i) furnished by a
home health agency under the plan, as determined by the
physician establishing the plan.
``(B) The items and services described in this subparagraph
are the following items and services:
``(i) Items and services described in paragraphs (1)
through (7) of subsection (m).
``(ii) Transportation of the individual to and from the
adult day care facility in connection with any such item or
service.
``(iii) Meals.
``(iv) A program of supervised activities designed to
promote physical and mental health and furnished to the
individual by the adult day care facility in a group setting
for a period of not fewer than 4 and not greater than 12
hours per day.
``(v) A medication management program (as defined in
subparagraph (C)).
``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B)(v), the term
`medication management program' means a program of services,
including medicine screening and patient and health care
provider education programs, that provides services to
minimize--
``(i) unnecessary or inappropriate use of prescription
drugs; and
``(ii) adverse events due to unintended prescription drug-
to-drug interactions.
``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C),
the term `adult day care facility' means a public agency or
private organization, or a subdivision of such an agency or
organization, that--
``(i) is engaged in providing skilled nursing services and
other therapeutic services directly or under arrangement with
a home health agency;
``(ii) meets such standards established by the Secretary to
ensure quality of care and such other requirements as the
Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and
safety of individuals who are furnished services in the
facility;
``(iii) provides the items and services described in
paragraph (1)(B); and
``(iv) meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) through (8)
of subsection (o).
``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term `adult day
care facility' shall include a home health agency in which
the items and services described in clauses (ii) through (v)
of paragraph (1)(B) are provided by others under arrangements
with them made by such agency.
``(C) The Secretary may waive the requirement of a surety
bond under paragraph (7) of subsection (o) in the case of an
agency or organization that provides a comparable surety bond
under State law.
``(D) For purposes of payment for home health services
consisting of substitute adult day care services furnished
under this title, any reference to a home health agency is
deemed to be a reference to an adult day care facility.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Sections 1814(a)(2)(C) and
1835(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395f(a)(2)(C); 1395n(a)(2)(A)(i)) are each amended by
striking ``section 1861(m)(7)'' and inserting ``paragraph (7)
or (8) of section 1861(m)''.
(b) Payment for Substitute Adult Day Care Services.--
Section 1895 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Payment Rate for Substitute Adult Day Care
Services.--In the case of home health services consisting of
substitute adult day care services (as defined in section
1861(uu)), the following rules apply:
``(1) The Secretary shall determine each component (as
defined by the Secretary) of substitute adult day care
services (under section 1861(uu)(1)(B)(i)) furnished to an
individual under the plan of care established under section
1861(m) with respect to such services.
``(2) The Secretary shall estimate the amount that would
otherwise be payable under this section for all home health
services under that plan of care other than substitute adult
day care services for a week or other period specified by the
Secretary.
``(3) The total amount payable for home health services
consisting of substitute adult day care services under such
plan may not exceed 95 percent of the amount estimated to be
payable under paragraph (2) furnished under the plan by a
home health agency.
``(4) No payment may be made under this title for home
health services consisting of substitute adult day care
services described in clauses (ii) through (v) of section
1861(uu)(1)(B).''.
(c) Adjustment in Case of Overutilization of Substitute
Adult Day Care Services.--
(1) Monitoring expenditures.--Beginning with fiscal year
2002, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
monitor the expenditures made under the medicare program
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395
et seq.) for home health services (as defined in section
1861(m) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m))) for the fiscal
year, including substitute adult day care services under
paragraph (8) of such section (as added by subsection (a)),
and shall compare such expenditures to expenditures that the
Secretary estimates would have been made for home health
services for that fiscal year if subsection (a) had not been
enacted.
(2) Required reduction in payment rate.--If the Secretary
determines, after making the comparison under paragraph (1)
and making such adjustments for changes in demographics and
age of the medicare beneficiary population as the Secretary
determines appropriate, that expenditures for home health
services under the medicare program, including such
substitute adult day care services, exceed expenditures that
would have been made under such program for home health
services for a year if subsection (a) had not been enacted,
then the Secretary shall adjust the rate of payment to adult
day care facilities so that total expenditures for home
health services under such program in a fiscal year does not
exceed the Secretary's estimate of such expenditures if
subsection (a) had not been enacted.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to items and services furnished on or after the
date on which the prospective payment system for home health
services furnished under the medicare program under section
1895 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff) is
established and implemented.
______
By Mr. ALLARD.
S. 2827. A bill to provide for the conveyance of the Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center at Ft. Lyon, Colorado, to the State of
Colorado, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
legislation to improve healthcare options for veterans
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve
the healthcare options for veterans in southern Colorado. To do this, I
am expediting the transfer of the Ft. Lyon facility to the State of
Colorado, which will allow the Veterans Administration (VA) to
implement their plan to use the annual $8.6 million in savings from the
closure of Fort Lyon to provide better service to Colorado's veterans
through new outpatient clinics in La Junta, Lamar and Alamosa and a
smaller, more efficient nursing home in Pueblo, CO.
Ft. Lyon is a historical building, but it is simply not more
important than the needs of those who served us. I would prefer that
the money currently used to maintain the facility was instead used to
provide medical care for those veterans who need it.
This bill will lead to an improvement in medical services for
veterans in several ways. With the estimated $8.6 million in savings to
be realized after the Ft. Lyon closure, clinics will be set up in local
communities which will be closer and more responsive to their local
veteran communities. This bill mandates that the VA must open the
replacement clinics before they convey Ft. Lyon to the State of
Colorado, to ensure there is no gap in service. This bill will help to
ensure that no service-connected veteran's needs are unmet. No veteran
will go homeless. Every veteran who needs a nursing home bed due to
service connected illness will still be granted one. Those veterans
currently in Ft. Lyon will continue to receive nursing home care, at no
additional charges to them. The cemetery and historic Kit Carson chapel
will remain fully accessible to the public. And the people of the
region will also be assisted by the opening of a state facility to
replace Ft. Lyon in the local economy. Without this legislation, there
are no guarantees any of this would occur.
I hope that this bill will be considered and pass quickly, so that
the savings and the improvements in veteran's healthcare can begin as
soon as possible.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gregg,
Mr. Gorton, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 2829. A bill to provide for an investigation and audit at the
Department of Education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
department of education investigation and audit legislation
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
requiring an audit of accounts at the U.S. Department of Education that
are susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse. It is unfortunate that
Congress has to be dealing with this issue, but unfortunately, it is
all too necessary.
As Members of the Senate have been debating education this year, we
have stressed the need for accountability of federal funds. Before we
stress accountability at the local level, though, we must ensure that
accountability is also occurring at the federal level. It we are going
to increase the budget for the Department of Education, as the Fiscal
Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human
[[Page S6140]]
Services, and Education Appropriations bill does, we have the
responsibility to determine whether the Department is properly
accounting for the funding that they already have.
The U.S. Department of Education is already having problems
overseeing the programs that it currently administers. For the second
year in a row, the Department of Education has been unable to address
its financial management problems. In its last two audits, the
Department was unable to account for parts of its $32 billion program
budget and the $175 billion owed in student loans. Every year, the
Department is required to undergo an independent audit. Unfortunately,
for Fiscal years 1998 and 1999, auditors have declared the Department
of Education inauditable.
The House Education and the Workforce Committee has been holding
hearing on financial problems at the Department of Education, and has
found serious instances of duplicate payments to grant winners and an
$800 million college loan to a single student. In its 1998 audit, the
Department blamed its problems on a faulty new accounting system that
cost $5.1 million, in addition to the cost of manpower to try to fix
the system. A new accounting system will be the third in five years.
The most recent 1999 audit showed that the Department's financial
stewardship remains in the bottom quartile of all major federal
agencies. It also sent duplicate payments to 52 schools in 1999 at a
cost of more than $6.5 million. In addition, none of the material
weaknesses cited in the 1998 audit were corrected.
These instances show that the Department is currently vulnerable to
fraud, waste, and abuse. The House of Representatives has already
indicated its support for a fraud audit at the Department of Education
by passing its own version of this bill on June 13, 2000, by an
overwhelming vote of 380-19. Before Congress entrusts the U.S.
Department of Education with funding that is so important to our
nation's schools and students, we must demand that the funds they
already have are well-managed.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 2830. A bill to preclude the admissibility of certain confessions
in criminal cases; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the miranda reaffirmation act of 2000
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its
landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona. I applaud that decision.
Miranda struck a balance between the needs of law enforcement and the
rights of a suspect that has worked well for 34 years. There is no
reason to upset that balance now.
Shortly after Miranda was decided in 1966, I became State's Attorney
for Chittenden County, Vermont. I remember clearly the immediate impact
that this momentous decision had upon law enforcement, prosecutors,
criminal defendants and the criminal justice system as a whole. The
Supreme Court's pronouncement that all suspects in custody needed to be
advised of certain constitutional rights, including the privilege
against self-incrimination, before being questioned was as new then as
it is familiar today.
The Miranda decision put into place a fair and bright-line rule that
both protects the rights of the accused and has proven workable for law
enforcement. Statements stemming from custodial interrogation of a
suspect are inadmissible at trial unless the police first provide the
suspect with a set of four specific warnings: (1) you have the right to
remain silent; (2) anything you say may be used as evidence against
you; (3) you have the right to an attorney; and (4) if you cannot
afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
These warnings are necessary to dispel the compulsion inherent in
custodial surroundings and so ensure that any statement obtained from
the suspect is truly the product of his free choice. As author and
former Federal prosecutor Scott Thurow wrote in an opinion article in
Wednesday's New York Times: ``The requirement to recite Miranda is an
important reminder to the police that the war on lawlessness is always
subject to the guidance of the law.''
Over the last 34 years, the Miranda rule has developed into a bedrock
principle of American criminal law. The required issuance of Miranda
warnings has been incorporated in local, State and Federal police
practice across this nation. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say, as
the Court said this week, that Miranda warnings ``have become part of
our national culture.''
Two years after Miranda was decided, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. 3501,
which laid down a rule that purported to overrule Miranda and to
restore the case-by-case, totality-of-the-circumstances test of a
confession's ``voluntariness'' that the Miranda decision found
constitutionally inadequate. The validity of section 3501 did not come
before the Court until now because no Administration of either party
sought to use it, out of concern for its dubious constitutionality. The
issue was finally presented only because an organization of
conservative activists maneuvered a case before the most conservative
Federal appeals court in the country. To her credit, Attorney General
Reno declined to argue that Miranda had been invalidated by section
3501. She also declined to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Miranda,
on the ground that it has proved to be workable in practice and in many
respects beneficial to law enforcement.
The Court's decision this week in Dickerson v. United States--
announced by the Chief Justice and joined by six other Justices--erased
any doubt that the protections announced in Miranda are
constitutionally required and cannot be overruled by an act of
Congress. Section 3501's attempt to authorize the admission at trial of
statements that would be excluded under Miranda is therefore
unconstitutional, as I have long believed.
This week's resounding reaffirmation of the Miranda rule should put
to rest the issue of Miranda's continuing vitality. Most law
enforcement officers made their peace with Miranda long ago: It is time
for the rest to do the same. That is why I am disturbed by Justice
Scalia's parting shot in Dickerson. In a dissenting opinion joined by
Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia vowed to continue to apply section 3501
until such time as it is repealed.
Mr. President, that time has come. I am introducing a bill today,
together with my good friend, Senator Feingold, to repeal section 3501.
I can think of no good reason to allow this patently unconstitutional
statute to remain on the books. On the contrary, leaving section 3501
on the books is sure to invite more unwarranted attacks on Miranda by
the same conservative activists who brought us the Dickerson case.
Enough is enough. Whatever you think of Miranda's reasoning and its
resulting rule, seven Supreme Court Justices have reaffirmed its
constitutional pedigree. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution by repudiating
an unconstitutional statute.
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. 2830
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 ``Miranda Reaffirmation Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18.
Section 3501 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a) and (b); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as
subsections (a), (b), and (c) respectively.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from
Vermont to introduce the Miranda Reaffirmation Act, a bill that repeals
two sections of the United States Criminal Code because they directly
conflict with the constitutional rule set forth by the United States
Supreme court in the 1966 landmark decision of Miranda v. Arizona.
This week, nearing the conclusion of a busy term, the United States
Supreme Court handed down several very important decisions. In one of
the more highly anticipated rulings, Dickerson v. United States, the
Court held by a 7-2 majority that the rule announced in Miranda is
still the supreme law of this
[[Page S6141]]
land. As we are all aware, the Miranda rule instructs all law
enforcement officers that prior to an in-custody interrogation they
must inform suspects of several important constitutional rights: the
right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to have
counsel appointed if they cannot afford one.
As the Court noted, ``Miranda has become embedded in routine police
practice to the point where the warning have become part of our
national culture.'' Millions of American children have first learned
about their constitutional rights by watching police dramas on
television and hearing the famous Miranda warnings given to criminal
suspects.
Mr. President, the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the Miranda rule
was extremely important. In the Dickerson case, a private legal
foundation and a law professor intervened in a criminal case and
questioned whether Miranda warnings are constitutionally required.
Relying on 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3501, they argued that law enforcement
officers should not have to inform suspects of their basic
constitutional rights before proceeding with in-custody interrogations
as long as any confessions obtained were determined to be voluntary.
While every administration since the law was passed in 1968 has refused
to make this argument, a lower court in the Dickerson case agreed with
it. Section 3501 was enacted in 1968, just two years after the original
Miranda decision. It was a clear attempt by Congress to overturn the
constitutional rule laid down in that case.
It is a strange quirk of history that the validity of Sec. 3501 and
Congress's attempt to overrule Miranda was addressed for the first time
by the Supreme Court in the Dickerson case. The reason is that a series
of Departments of Justice, under both Republican and Democratic
Presidents assumed that the statute was unconstitutional and refused to
proceed under it. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court agreed with that
view.
Writing for a seven justice majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed
out that ``because of the obvious conflict between our decision in
Miranda and Sec. 3501 we must address whether Congress has the
constitutional authority to thus supercede Miranda.'' Second, the Chief
Justice reiterated the established principle that ``Congress may not
legislatively supercede our decision[s] interpreting and applying the
constitution,'' and he concluded by ruling that ``Miranda announced a
constitutional rule that Congress may not supercede legislatively.''
Justice Scalia, in dissent, disagreed vehemently with the majority's
analysis. In a somewhat curious declaration of defiance he wrote:
``[U]ntil Sec. 3501 is repealed, [I] will continue to apply it in all
cases where there has been a sustainable finding that the defendant's
confession was voluntary.''
Mr. President, as a result of the Court's unequivocal ruling in
Dickerson, we now have a law on the books that the Court has ruled is
inconsistent with what the Constitution requires with respect to
constitutional in-custody interrogations. That may seem to be a matter
of little consequence, but the statement of Justice Scalia that he will
continue to apply it in future cases shows that it is not. The bill
that we are introducing today eliminates this potential problem by
removing the unconstitutional provision from the criminal code.
This repeal will accomplish two things. It will bring our criminal
code into line with what the Supreme Court has now firmly established
as the law of the land, and it will remove from the books an
ineffective law that Justice Rehnquist considered ``more difficult than
Miranda for law enforcement officers to conform to, and for courts to
apply in a consistent manner.'' The prophylactic rule established by
Miranda has worked well and stood the test of time. Law enforcement
officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys have found that it is a
far better way to protect the constitutional rights of those accused of
crimes than the ``voluntariness'' standard that was in place before
Miranda and that Sec. 3501 attempted to keep in place.
Mr. President, it is simply not appropriate for the existing criminal
code to conflict with what the Supreme Court has ruled that the
Constitution requires. It is our duty to act to repeal a provision that
the Department of Justice has refused to apply and that the Supreme
Court has held, in any event, cannot be enforced. As the ranking member
of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I
am proud to join the ranking member of the full Committee, Senator
Leahy, in offering this straightforward and commonsense measure.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 2831. A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act to improve conservation and management of sharks and
establish a consistent national policy toward the practice of shark-
finning; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________