[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 136 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11055-S11064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000--Continued
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the business before us is the Older
Americans Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Ohio?
Mr. DeWINE. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is under the control of Senator
Jeffords of Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 108 minutes remaining.
Mr. JEFFORDS. How much time does the Senator desire?
Mr. DeWINE. One minute, and then I will ask that my colleague from
Iowa be recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the business before the Senate is the
Older Americans Act. Specifically, we have Senator Gregg's amendment. I
rise, very reluctantly, to oppose that amendment. In a moment, I will
explain to my colleagues why I believe that amendment is unnecessary
and why I believe it simply must be turned down if we are going to pass
the Older Americans Act this year.
Before I do that, I want to allow my colleague from Iowa, who has
come to the floor and has a major provision in this bill, to talk about
this provision. I compliment him on it. He has been the lead sponsor in
the Senate on a separate bill. We incorporated his bill into the Older
Americans Act. The provision he will explain to the Senate is one of
the new provisions of the Older Americans Act in this bill and it is a
major contribution. I thank him for that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have a question for the Senator from
Ohio. He has the floor. I thought we would be alternating in the spirit
of comity. What was the preference?
Mr. DeWINE. I was trying to accommodate Mr. Grassley, whom I asked to
come over here about this time. It is my understanding he has about 10
minutes. I would be happy to have you proceed at any point. At some
point, I am going to talk about the Gregg amendment and why I think it
should be opposed. I will be on the floor, so it doesn't matter when I
do it.
Ms. MIKULSKI. My suggestion is that Senator Grassley proceed and then
our colleague, Senator Murray, proceed. She wishes to speak for 10
minutes. How about if those two speak--Grassley followed by Murray--and
then, if it is appropriate, unless other Members want to speak, the
Senator and I can engage in debate on the amendment.
Mr. DeWINE. That is fine with me.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Iowa 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 782, the
Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000. I join my colleagues in
commending Chairmen Jeffords and DeWine and other members of the
committee for their hard work and endless energy in bringing this
important measure to the floor.
In its 35th year, the Older Americans Act continues to meet its
mission of helping seniors stay independent and part of their
community. The wide array of services available under the act serve as
the life-line to millions of seniors across the Nation.
Seniors in both rural and urban areas rely heavily on one or more of
these services: nutrition services such as home-delivered meals; meals
served in congregate settings; transportation services to medical
appointments; legal assistance; protection from abuse through the
ombudsman program; pension counseling services; in-home services; and
volunteer and employment opportunities for older persons.
As chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am
particularly pleased that this bill contains the National Family
Caregiver Support Program. Over the past 3 years, Senator Breaux and I
have convened a number of hearings to examine the important role that
family caregivers play. More than 20 million Americans are caring for
an aging or ailing family member. To put this number in perspective,
there are fewer than 2 million seniors living in nursing homes. So
simply by looking at the numbers, we can conclude that the bulk of
caring for our Nation's elderly is carried out by family and friends in
the form of informal caregiving.
The story of Barbara Boyd, a state legislator from Ohio who testified
before the Special Committee on Aging last year, provides a good
example of what a caregivers job entails. Ms. Boyd cared at home for
her mother who had Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer. Her mother
had $20,000 in savings and a monthly Social Security check. That went
quickly. Her prescription drugs alone ran $400 a month. Antibiotics,
ointments to prevent skin breakdown, incontinence supplies, and other
expenses cost hundreds of dollars a month.
Ms. Boyd exhausted her own savings to care for her mother, and
exhausted herself. She isn't complaining. Family caregivers don't
complain.
The contribution of family caregivers is enormous. Economically,
family caregiving is worth billions of dollars. Emotionally and
physically, caregiving is often an overwhelming task. Caregivers know
what it entails to juggle personal and professional demands with the
responsibilities that accompany caregiving.
This is why the Family Caregiving Support Program, now a part of the
Older Americans Act bill before us, is critically important to families
caring for loved ones who are ill or who have disabilities. The program
uses existing resources to meet a pressing need. In this case, the
already successful network of aging centers will administer the
program.
It will serve millions of caregivers throughout hundreds of
communities nationwide by providing: respite care; information and
assistance; caregiving counseling and training and supplemental
services to caregivers and their families.
Our country is aging, and that demographic shift creates new needs,
and this legislation helps us meet those needs. The Older Americans Act
not only serves as a critical safety net, but it embraces important
principles that we should uphold in policies that serve our nation's
elderly.
The act calls attention to the need to prepare our nation's aging
population for its own longevity by enhancing health promotion
opportunities, improving flexibility for states and area agencies on
aging, by modernizing programs and services, and in calling for a White
House Conference on Aging in 2005.
Finally, the act provides authorization for the thirteen area
agencies on aging in my home state of Iowa. In 1999, these funds
enabled the agencies to serve nearly 293,000 elderly Iowans. The
services the act funds are critical to older Americans in my state and
throughout the country.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter I recently received
from Representative Boyd be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Ohio House of Representatives,
Columbus, OH, October 16, 2000.
Senator Chuck Grassley,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: We have in the state of Ohio term
limits, and I am at the end of my fourth term. I will
certainly miss the House, but I know my work is not done. I
will continue to advocate for the elderly, especially
Alzheimer's and caregivers. There is a rumor that I will be
in other areas of ``expertise'', which are Welfare Reform,
Human Services, and healthcare. It is my understanding that I
have a great advocacy being voiced in my interest in public
policy in the state of Ohio.
My passion will always revolve around the issue of
caregiving. I have found that I remain a voice on the issue
and a sounding board for those who are heartbroken.
October 21st will be two years since Mother passed, and
there is not a day that dawns that I do not think of her.
She, in her last years, taught me more than I ever learned in
college. Everyday I marvel at the fact that I did what I set
out to do during those five and a half years. Truly, my
heavenly father watches over me.
If there is ever an opportunity to serve on a national
level, on a board or committee on caregiving, please keep me
in mind. I will be sure to keep in touch with you.
[[Page S11056]]
Thank you again for giving me an opportunity to tell my
story as a caregiver.
Yours in Service,
Barbara Boyd,
State Representative.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues
on the HELP Committee in urging passage of this important bipartisan
legislation to reauthorize the Older Americans Act.
For more than 30 years, the Older Americans Act has been our Nation's
most important resource for helping seniors get the services they need
in their own communities.
The OAA provides funding for senior centers, transportation,
recreation, adult education, Meals-on-Wheels, preventive health care,
and other essential services.
In fiscal year 2000 alone, OAA programs have provided more than $15
million in services in Washington State.
In addition, the act provides resources for the Nation's largest
program for older workers, and it provides subsidized jobs and training
to more than 65,000 low-income workers over age 54.
With more people retiring, the demand for OAA services has grown
dramatically in recent years. Unfortunately, the program has not kept
pace with current needs.
Today, we have an opportunity to finally reauthorize the Older
Americans Act, and I'm calling on my colleagues to pass a clean
reauthorization bill that is based on the bipartisan legislation
developed by the members of the HELP Committee.
As a member of the Aging Subcommittee of the HELP Committee, I have
been eager to pass a strong reauthorization bill,
While I'm disappointed it has taken so long, I know this bill will
improve the programs that seniors and their families rely on.
As I have traveled around my State, I've seen the impact these
programs are making. It's not just seniors who want the act
reauthorized. Their families, physicians and communities also want to
see the Act strengthened.
The safety net programs authorized in the Older Americans Act provide
a life line for our most vulnerable citizens.
The Older Americans Act closes the gaps in services and offers
seniors a way to maintain a dignified quality of life.
The nutritional assistance programs alone are critical to addressing
the needs of low and moderate income seniors.
Job training programs allow seniors to keep their economic
independence and to maintain important social ties to their
communities.
The most significant improvement in this legislation is the creation
of the new Family Caregiver Support program.
This innovative new program will offer families real support in
meeting the long term care needs of their loved ones.
It will also provide assistance to older spouses--often older women--
who are left to care for a frail family member.
The Aging Subcommittee heard testimony from many family members who
are struggling to care for their aging parents. Because they don't have
any help, they face significant financial and emotional burdens.
I know this new program will begin to address the problems facing
those families who are caring for aging relatives in their homes.
I thank the chairman of the Aging Subcommittee, Senator DeWine, for
his leadership in making this bill a reality.
I also thank Senator Mikulski for her efforts and hard work in making
sure we honor the commitment to our seniors before we adjourn for the
year.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the pending amendment and send this
bill to the President without further delay.
We cannot allow this session to end without continuing the programs
that have served America's seniors so well throughout the years.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ninety-three minutes.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio 15
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. President, I rise very reluctantly to oppose the amendment of my
colleague, Senator Gregg. I do so reluctantly because it is very well
intended. Frankly, as I listened to his speech, there was very little,
if anything, about which I disagreed. The bottom line is that the
reforms he has requested and about which he has been so eloquent over
the last few years are, in fact, included in the bill that is in front
of us. The reality is that while those reforms are already in the bill,
if his amendment were accepted, it would kill the bill at this late
date.
We need to keep in mind that the House of Representatives has already
passed this bill overwhelmingly with only two dissenting votes. This
bill is the result of over 2 years of compromise work and labor. This
bill has the accountability and the reforms that my colleague was
asking about and has requested. I salute him for bringing these issues
up not just on the floor today but, frankly, for bringing them up
during the committee hearings, and I salute him for bringing them up
before that. Because of what my colleague has done and because of the
issues he has raised, we have incorporated these reforms into this
bill. He gets a lot of credit, I believe, for doing that.
I think, therefore, his amendment is simply just not necessary and
ultimately, at this late date, turns out to be an amendment that could
kill this bill.
I would like to talk a minute about this bill from the point of view
of the Governors. I think when looking at it from the point of view of
the Governors, we can get a better understanding of the reforms this
bill makes, the improvements this bill makes, and the accountability
that is now in this bill that does not exist in the status quo.
Let me make something very clear. The killing of this bill will not
improve the status quo. We will be stuck with the status quo if this
bill goes down. The question is, Does this bill fundamentally improve
where we are today and bring about more accountability? I think clearly
a fair reading of this bill indicates that it would.
Let me talk about this bill from the point of view of the Governors.
First of all, this bill recognizes growth in States that have more
senior citizens, and therefore it is fair and it is the right thing to
do.
No. 2, this bill has numerous reforms in regard to title V. We recall
what title V is. Title V is employment for seniors who couldn't get a
job. That helps them; it not only helps them but helps the community.
We have these all over the country. My colleague talked about Green
Thumb and talked about the National Park Service. These jobs are all
over the country in all 50 States. They are very valuable to the
seniors and very valuable to the communities that are being served.
The appropriators have traditionally, year after year, split this
money 78 percent and 22 percent--78 percent going to the 9 or 10
national contractors and 22 percent going to the States. That has not
changed. That is what the appropriators have done year after year.
We bring about some more equity and fairness. We say dollars on top
of that up to $35 million--any additional dollars up to $35 million--we
are going to split and we are going to reverse that. Basically, we are
going to have 25 percent that is going to go national but 75 percent of
the money will be spent by the Governors in the local communities as
they see fit. That is a fundamental change. Again, it is one of the
reasons the Governors of our Nation want this bill.
We then go further and say beyond $35 million--if the appropriators
put in beyond $35 million--it would be a 50-50 split; again, certainly
an improvement over the status quo. Again, we get to the issue of
accountability.
The next reason the Governors like this bill is that they get to
submit for the first time a plan to the Department of Labor for the
national contractors that are coming into the States. The complaint we
hear from them now is: These national contractors come into
[[Page S11057]]
our States, and they may be doing good work, but they may be in the
wrong area or they may not spread around the States. The Governors and
the people in the States of Ohio, or Illinois, or Pennsylvania, or
Florida understand what our communities' needs are. We ought to have
some input in that.
This bill says: Yes, you can have that input. You can submit this
plan to the Department of Labor, and they have to pay attention to it
for the first time. That is an improvement in local control. That is
one of the reasons the States like this bill so much and one of the
reasons the National Governors' Association has endorsed this bill
wholeheartedly.
We next provide more accountability. We say after the national
contractor comes in, after the national contractor begins its work,
after they have this employment, if the State of Ohio or the State of
Vermont or the State of Massachusetts decides the contractor is not
doing a good job, they have redress and procedures they can follow to
hold that national group accountable--again, a very significant
improvement. Again, a reform that is contained in this bill.
In summary, Governors will have a greater role in planning and
administering a program within a State. Under our reauthorization bill,
Governors will submit a State plan to the Department of Labor which
will describe where these jobs are needed within a State, where the
population of older individuals who qualify for the program are
located, and describe how the plan would coordinate with the programs
under the Workforce Investment Act. The Governors are also given, under
our bill, the opportunity to submit recommendations to the Secretary of
Labor regarding proposed projects within the State that would be
carried out by the public and private nonprofit grantees.
Finally, under our bill, the Governors can hold those public and
private grantees that operate in their States, for the first time,
accountable if they fail to serve seniors. Under the bill, the Governor
can request the Secretary of Labor to review a public and private
nonprofit grantee operating within the State. If the grantee is not
meeting performance standards, the Secretary, under our bill, is
required to take corrective action against that grantee.
Next, new cost controls will prevent misuse of funds by the grantees.
That is very important. The reauthorization bill would codify
definitions of administrative expenses and programmatic expenses. It
would also require at least 75 percent of a grantee's funds be used for
enrollee wages and benefits. This bill also explicitly states that the
funds a grantee receives for the program must be used solely for that
particular program. Moreover, the bill expressly requires each grantee
to comply with OMB circulars and rules, and requires the grantees to
maintain records sufficient to permit tracing of funds to ensure that
funds have not been spent unlawfully.
Further, grantees will be required to serve seniors or they will lose
their grant. The reauthorization bill introduces performance measures
in competition into the program for the first time.
The bill will establish a three-strikes-and-you-are-out policy to
ensure performance goals are met. Failure to meet performance standards
will first result in technical assistance and require the grantee to
come up with a plan for the future. Failure to meet performance
standards a second consecutive year will result in a net loss of 25
percent of the grant which will be competitively bid in an open
competition. Failure to meet performance standards a third year will
cut off the grantee from the program, and the grant will be
competitively bid in open competition. Failure of a public and private
nonprofit agency grantee to meet performance standards a fourth year in
an individual State will also lead to the loss of the grant, which will
then be competitively bid in an open competition.
These reforms significantly improve the Older Americans Act. They
protect the taxpayers and provide seniors with a jobs program that
works. Failure to pass these reforms this year will only continue a
system that has not served the job placement needs of seniors in many
States and will not correct the deficiencies in the administration and
planning of the program. The only way these improvements will be
realized is to pass this bill, the Older Americans Act, a bipartisan,
bicameral initiative.
Under the bill, funding may only be used for provisions of title V. I
want to make this very clear. The provisions of training and jobs to
low-income seniors is the only legal use of money under our bill. You
can't use, under this bill, money for lobbying. Under our bill you
cannot use it for litigation. We make sure of that by specific
reference to the OMB circular and we make reference in the bill to that
which prohibits that type of activity.
Each grantee receiving funds must comply with the law. They cannot do
lobbying; they cannot do electioneering activities. That is under our
bill, as well.
Under our bill, the Secretary must conduct a review and apply
responsibility tests to all applicants receiving funds, just as the
Gregg amendment provided. Under our bill, it is simple: If you fail to
meet a responsibility test, you cannot be a grantee.
Putting this bill together has not been an easy task. Let me remind
my colleagues, it has been 8 years since Congress reauthorized the
Older Americans Act. It has been 5 years since that last
reauthorization expired. It has not been easy, but we are here today
with a bill that fundamentally changes the status quo. Our bill makes
significant and substantial improvements to the existing Older
Americans Act. Failure to pass this bill would mean that we are going
to be stuck with the status quo for at least 2 more years.
I will be quite candid. After what we have gone through to put this
together, if this bill fails today, I don't know how anybody thinks we
could put another bill together next year or the year after. It would
force another Congress to rehash these issues and try to pass a
bipartisan bill. Keep in mind, we now have a bill that is more
acceptable to our friends in the House. We worked this bill and
coordinated this bill closely with them. They passed this bill
yesterday 405-2. This bill has the support, as I indicated a moment
ago, for very good and substantial reasons, of the National Governors'
Association. It is not easy getting all 50 Governors to agree on
anything. They agree on this bill. They want this bill. They have
lobbied for the bill. They have been a part of putting it together.
Failure to pass this bill means we will be stuck with the status quo
for a long time.
I congratulate my colleague from New Hampshire for his work. I
believe it is abundantly clear we have covered the concerns he has
raised. The good news is if we pass the bill before the Senate, we can
change the status quo for the better, particularly title V.
Let me talk for a moment about the status of title V. It is funded
now at $440 million annually and administered by the Department of
Labor, which awards grants to 10 national organizations, AARP, Green
Thumb, U.S. Forest Service, and the State governments. As I outlined,
78 percent of the funds are awarded by the Department of Labor on a
noncompetitive basis to the 10 national organizations; 22 percent of
the funds are distributed to the States. That is the status quo. As I
indicated a moment ago, we fundamentally change that status quo.
Let me conclude by referencing the bill. If my colleagues have
concerns about the reforms, whether or not they were in this bill, I
reference them to this bill, to actually look at the bill. We provide
for accountability in regard to title V entities in two separate ways.
One, we do it before the fact, before they are chosen; second, we
provide it after the fact.
The first is what is labeled in the bill as a responsibility test. In
the section on the responsibility test, it outlines what the Federal
Government must look at before a grantee is chosen. Let me emphasize
this is not in current law. The great improvement this bill makes is we
put this in law. No matter who the Secretary of Labor is, no matter
which party runs the Department of Labor, they have to follow the law.
They have strict criteria that they have to follow. We spell it out.
The bill provides:
Before final selection of a grantee, the Secretary shall
conduct a review of available records to assess the applicant
agency or State's overall responsibility to administer
Federal funds.
As part of that, the Secretary may consider any information about
that
[[Page S11058]]
proposed grantee-specific language which I will read.
The organization's history with regard to the management of other
grants--
So I listened very carefully to the concerns of my colleague from New
Hampshire about a specific grantee. I say to him, look at the language
in this bill. We have addressed those concerns. The Department of Labor
will look at these things and they will look at a past history and they
will look at a pattern and they will look to see if there have been
problems in the past. We go on and spell this out, page after page, all
the different things the Department can look at and should, in fact,
look at:
Failure to submit required reports; failure to maintain
effective cash management or cost controls; failure to ensure
that a subrecipient complies with the Office of Management
and Budget Circular[s]; failure to audit a subrecipient
within the required period; willful obstruction of audit
process; failure to establish a mechanism to resolve a
subrecipient's audit in a timely fashion--[et cetera, et
cetera.]
I will not read them all. They are all here. Then we also provide any
history and we provide any information.
So the Department, for the first time, is being told they have to
consider this information, and that is what the law will be after we
pass this bill.
We next say after the fact, if they get that, if they do get the
grant, we then provide in a section called ``National Performance
Measures And Competition For Public And Private Nonprofit Agencies And
Organizations'':
The Secretary shall determine if each public or private
nonprofit agency or organization that is a grantee has met
the national performance measures established. . . .
We outline, as I indicated a minute ago, how that is done as well.
That is in this bill as well. We step them down and we punish them and
we eventually, if they keep doing it, say they do not get any more
money and they are gone. That is what is in this bill.
So let me conclude. We have a strong bill in front of us. It is a
bipartisan bill. It is our chance to pass the Older Americans Act. We
will not have another chance in this Congress. We may not get another
chance in the next Congress. It is the right thing to do. There are
groups across this country that want this but, more importantly, the
senior citizens of this country need it. It is the right thing to do.
We address the concerns my colleague has raised. I again thank my
colleague from New Hampshire for raising this amendment, but I very
reluctantly must oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Make
no mistake about it, we have this covered. We have the reforms in the
bill and, No. 2, if his amendment would pass, this bill would die and
we would not reauthorize the Older Americans Act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I yield myself enough time to congratulate the Senator from
Ohio for doing a tremendous job. We have been waiting 8 long years to
solve some of these problems. I also congratulate the Senator from New
Hampshire for raising these issues over and over. I firmly believe we
have, now, a bill that takes care of those problems and we have one
that we must vote in favor of, otherwise this bill will die. That would
be a terrible thing to happen.
I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask the time be charged
evenly against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for all of their
kind comments on this legislation and also how they were complimentary,
both on the content and the bipartisan nature of it. We really only
have one unresolved issue and that is the amendment raised by our
colleague from New Hampshire. I say to my colleague from New Hampshire,
we admire his stewardship over Federal funds and his insistence on
accountability. However, we think his amendment, though very well
intentioned, is really misguided.
We are concerned, both on the basis of content and then also the
consequences for this legislation. Number one, if the Gregg amendment
should prevail, this could have the consequence of really killing this
bill. This is a bill that has been arrived at through a very delicate
bipartisan agreement, not only within our own institution but in the
House. We are in the closing hours of the 106th Congress. If an
amendment is agreed to, we are going to have to have a conference or
this bill will go back to the House. Then the lid goes off and we will
be involved in a variety of other discussions. I think my colleagues
know that once you start talking you tend not to stop talking.
So we really encourage that people be aware this could sink the Older
Americans Act for the 106th Congress. I would so regret that because we
have worked so hard among ourselves with constituency groups and
others. Really, from the standpoint of process, I hope, one would
really look at this.
The second point is, in terms of the Gregg amendment itself, we are
concerned that it does not provide due process. What it would do is
allow a preliminary finding from an agency other than the Department of
Labor to stop an organization from running its jobs program. There
would be no opportunity to appeal or to be heard. There would be an
audit by the IG or GAO, which would then serve as a final determinant.
Audits are meant to raise questions, not to be a final determination.
So we would raise that as, really, a very serious question.
This amendment is not needed. Current law already prohibits using
these funds for lobbying or litigation against the Government. These
are in well-known, well-circulated OMB circulars. Also, our own
legislation pending before the Senate already has pretty firm, strict,
and clear accountability. It says if you don't meet the standards, you
lose all or part of your grant. And then those funds not used, because
you have lost them, will be able to be competed for by other national
organizations. This is a process for recompeting funds of a State or
nonprofit agency or organization that does not meet established
performance standards. I believe the process will work, and we should
not interfere with it.
We believe we do have very firm accountability in this legislation.
These performance measures in this bill are simply this: If an
organization or a State fails to meet these standards or improve its
performance, other entities will get the opportunity to competitively
bid for a portion or all of the organization's grant. We establish a
minimum amount that must be spent on enrollee wages and fringe
benefits. We clarify the way the organization must define and report
their costs, so there is no room for ambiguity. We codify our own clear
responsibility tests and have very firm criteria for granting
eligibility. We require a broad planning process so the area of
greatest need within a State is served as efficiently and as
specifically as possible. These provisions will ensure seniors get the
high-quality services they deserve, and taxpayers will get value for
their dollar.
Also, know that in addition to what we have in this legislation, as I
said, the Government already has Government-wide standards and
procedures, applicable to the suspension and debarment of any Federal
contractor and grant recipient. The NSCERC is currently engaged in an
audit resolution process with DOL. All indications are that this
process is working and we should not interfere with it.
Also, during the debate words were used such as ``slush fund,'' et
cetera. I think that was a little harsh and inaccurate. Did the
National Senior Citizens Education Research Center have problems? You
bet.
The Department of Labor did an audit. They found that there was no
malicious intent to defraud. There was no intent to be scum or scam.
What they did was essentially have a certain program related to the HIP
indemnity in the wrong category.
Do they owe the Federal Government some money? Yes. Is there
discussion ongoing now about the most effective way to recapture that?
Yes.
I ask unanimous consent that a document giving the status of the
National
[[Page S11059]]
Senior Citizens Education and Research Center grant program be printed
in the Record, along with a letter from the Department of Labor
essentially saying how all of this is currently going through a process
and is coming to a satisfactory conclusion. Some serious mistakes were
made, but they were not malicious, they were not criminal, and they
were not intentional.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Status of the National Senior Citizens Education and Research Center
Grant, October 5, 2000
The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)
provides community service employment opportunities to
economically disadvantaged senior citizens. The National
Senior Citizens Education and Research Center (NSCERC) is one
of 10 national grantees. It is funded for over $65.0 million,
which it subgrants to about 150 groups in 28 States,
including local governments, and nonprofit organizations.
This year it will provide positions to about 15,000 low-
income seniors.
Prior to 1996, the SCSEP program was operated by the
National Council of Senior Citizens, NCSC. As a result of
1995 legislation, NCSC as a 501(c)(4) organization became
ineligible to be a grantee. Consequently, a novation
agreement was made which transferred the grant to NSCERC, an
affiliated but separate 501(c)(3) organization.
An audit was conducted by the Department's Inspector
General (IG) of NCSC's program administration which covered a
three year period from July 1, 1992 thru June 30, 1995. The
audit was initiated by the IG as part of its regular
responsibility to audit federal employment programs. A Final
Determination was issued in March, 2000 disallowing nearly $5
million. This determination is under appeal to the
Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ's). The
ALJ's decision can be appealed to the Secretary.
``About 78 percent of the disallowed costs are attributed
to NCSC's/NSCERC's treatment of the program's Hospital
Indemnity Insurance Plan (HIP) refunds and administrative
funds. Payments for participant insurance were charged to the
SCSEP grant. NCSC/NSCERC treated the refunds as royalty
income instead of program income, crediting the refunds to
the NCSC organization rather than to the SCSEP grant.''
The OIG has also conducted audits of the NCSC's/NSCERC's
grants for subsequent fiscal years. There are substantial
amounts of questioned costs for these years, as well. A large
portion of the questioned costs related to the same issue,
the proper application of HIP refunds. The Department, NCSC,
and its successor grantee NSCERC continue to work to resolve
issues related to these subsequent audits. On March 24, 2000,
the Department issued an Initial Determination on the second
audit, covering the period 7/1/95 to 6/30/96. This
determination proposes to disallow $1.3 million in direct
cost against both NCSC and NSCERC. The Department anticipates
issuing a final determination in the near future.
As a result of these audit findings the Department has
taken the following steps:
1. Payments for the hospital insurance indemnity plan,
which produced the refunds were phased out as of September
1999.
2. An escrow account has been established to receive
refunds and other insurance payments until a final resolution
can be reached on the audits. As of March 2000, the escrow
account totaled approximately $3.1 million.
3. A clear organizational separation was established
between NCSC and NSCERC. Each organization now has a separate
board and management.
4. The Department is committed to providing ``due process''
and a fair and equitable resolution of the audit findings.
____
U.S. Department of Labor, Assistant Secretary for
Employment and Training,
Washington, DC, October 24, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: We are pleased to respond to your
request for information about the status of the agency
determinations with respect to the Department of Labor's
(DOL) Final Determination of the National Council of Senior
Citizens (NCSC) and National Senior Citizens Education and
Research Center (NSCERC) audits conducted by the DOL's Office
of the Inspector General (OIG).
Prior to 1996, NCSC operated a grant under the Senior
Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). Pursuant to
legislative and regulatory requirements, NCSC as a 501(c)(4)
organization became ineligible to be a grantee. Consequently
a novation agreement was made which transferred the grant to
NSCERC, an affiliated but separate 501(c)(3) organization.
The status of the DOL's Final Determination is as follows:
Background: The OIG issued an audit on February 3, 1999
which covered the period from July 1, 1992 through June 30,
1995--with a total cost audited of $184,746,124. Of the
audited costs, $5,814,942 or 3.1 percent of the total grant
funds was questioned by the auditors.
Final Determinations: On March 2, 2000, ETA issued a Final
Determination disallowing $4,961,583 or 2.7 percent of the
total costs audited.
Current Status: The Final Determination was appealed to the
Office of Administrative Law Judges on March 20, 2000.
The OIG issued a second audit on September 24, 1999. The
resolution status of this audit is as follows:
Background: The audit covered the period from July 1, 1995
through June 30, 1996 with a total cost audited of
$60,828,900. Of the audited costs, the auditors questioned
$2,250,828 or 3.7 percent; they also questioned the indirect
cost allocation base proposed by NCSC and NSCERC.
Initial Determination: On March 24, 2000, ETA issued an
Initial Determination proposing a disallowance of $1,262,607
in direct costs and an undetermined amount of indirect costs
pending the negotiation of a Final Indirect Cost Agreement
between the Department of Labor, NCSC and NSCERC.
Current Status: The Department of Labor's Office of Cost
Determination is currently in negotiations with NCSC and
NSCERC to reach an agreement on the final indirect cost rate.
If an agreement is reached, a Final Determination will be
issued relating to the questioned direct costs only. If no
agreement is reached, a Final Determination will be issued
addressing both the direct and indirect questioned costs with
an indirect costs rate determined by the Office of Cost
Determination.
A third OIG audit was issued March 29, 2000. It covered the
period from July 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997. The
Department of Labor has not issued an Initial Determination,
pending a review of the indirect cost rate.
Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact
Raymond J. Uhalde, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor. Mr.
Uhalde can be reached at (202) 693-2700.
As a courtesy, I am sending a copy of this letter to Senate
Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman,
Senator Jeffords.
Sincerely,
Raymond J. Uhalde
(For Raymond L. Bramucci).
____
Good Reasons To Support SCSEP
The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)
authorized under Title V of the Older Americans Act should be
preserved and expanded for the following reasons:
1. The SCSEP is our country's only workforce development
program designed exclusively to maximize the productive
contributions of a rapidly growing older population through
training, retraining, and community service and is a good
model of success in the area of welfare-to-work programs.
History has taught us that mainstream employment and training
programs like JTPA and CETA are not successful in serving
older workers. A targeted approach is needed.
2. The SCSEP is primarily operated by private, nonprofit
national aging organizations that are customer-focused,
mission driven, and experienced in serving older, low-income
people. These nonprofit organizations work in close
partnership with the Governors, Department of Labor, aging
network, and employment and training system, actively
participating in One Stop Service initiatives designed to
streamline and integrate services.
3. The SCSEP is a critical part of the Older Americans Act,
balancing the dual goals of community service as well as
employment and training for low-income seniors. Many
nutrition programs and other services for seniors are
dependent on labor provided by SCSEP.
4. The SCSEP has consistently exceeded all goals
established by Congress and the Department of Labor,
surpassing the 20% placement goal for more than 15 years.
Virtually all appropriated funds are spent each grant year,
in stark contrast to similar programs.
5. The SCSEP is a means tested program, serving low-income
Americans age 55+. The program serves less than 1% of those
who are eligible; long waiting lists are common in most areas
of the country.
6. The SCSEP serves the oldest and poorest in our society,
and those most in need: 41% of enrollees are minorities--the
highest minority participation rate of any Older Americans
Act program; 73% are female; 36% are age 70 and older; 83%
are age 60 and older; 36% do not have a high school
education; and 11 % have disabilities.
7. The SCSEP ensures national responsiveness to local needs
by directly involving participants in meeting critical human
needs in their communities, from child and elder care to
public safety and environmental preservation. The SCSEP has
been a major contributor to national disaster relief efforts,
most recently resulting from floods in the midwest,
hurricanes in the southeast, and the California earthquakes.
8. The SCSEP has demonstrated high standards of performance
and fiscal accountability unique in government programs. Less
than 15% of funding is spent on administrative costs--one of
the lowest rates among federal programs.
9. The SCSEP historically has enjoyed strong public support
because it is based on the principles of personal
responsibility, lifelong learning, and service to community.
In addition, the program is extremely popular among
participants, host agencies, employers, communities, and the
membership of our nation's largest aging organizations.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the other point I want to make is we
have
[[Page S11060]]
the accountability. This is a good program, and it is hard to
administer. The Senior Community Service Employment Program is under
title V. Do you know what it does? It helps old people of modest income
find work. This is not easy.
This program itself serves the oldest and poorest in our society.
Forty-one percent are minorities, the highest minority participation of
any Older Americans Act program. This primarily helps women. Seventy
percent of them are women. They are old. They are poor. They are trying
to add extra money to hold body, soul, and prescription drugs together.
At the same time, 83 percent are over 60; 36 percent do not have a
high school education; 11 percent have disabilities. This is a very
intensive hands-on program to operate. It takes a lot of help to get
people ready for a job and a lot of professionalism to find the jobs
for them. By all accounts, all of the grantees have met those criteria.
I could go through example after example in my own State, but I will
give two. An 85-year-old woman is now a senior aide working as a
library assistant for $7.17 an hour. Another 71-year-old female was
employed as a customer service rep of one of our Maryland agencies
because she had good manners and a good work ethic, and therefore they
taught her the skills to earn some extra money. These are the kinds of
people this program helps.
Many of the nonprofits that operate these programs operate with a
very low margin. This is a very cost-intensive and labor-intensive
program to operate. I hope we defeat the Gregg amendment because:
First, it is not necessary. We have good, tight accountability
requirements in the bill and responsibility. Second, it will kill the
bill. And third, we do not need to add more bureaucracy, more shackles,
more audits, more paperwork just because we are cranky with one
organization. Let's give them the chance to meet the responsibilities
established by the Department of Labor and pay the money back, and
let's renew the Older Americans Act and leave this Senate with our
heads held high that we defied the laws of inertia in this institution
and reauthorized the Older Americans Act.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself such time as I may use.
Mr. President, the case has been very well stated by the Senators
from Ohio, Vermont, and Maryland. I listened carefully to the points
the Senator from New Hampshire made earlier today. It is worthy for our
committee to give consideration to these points. I thought the Senator
from Ohio and others thoroughly explained how steps were already taken
to address those issues and went into considerable detail in explaining
the provisions of the bill that will address the challenges which the
good Senator raised.
A great deal of time was taken by the committee to address those
challenges. I think the committee has done a good job in addressing
them. I do not think, therefore, that amendment is necessary to ensure
the interests of the elderly people, as well as the taxpayers.
We must remember that it is not unusual for auditors to identify
expenditures which do not conform with the terms of a grant, and for
the Department to require repayment of the disputed amounts. Disallowed
costs are usually nothing more than good-faith errors or honest
disagreements over the interpretation of the terms of a grant.
For example, during 1998, the Employment and Training Administration
of the Department of Labor which administers title V of the Older
Americans Act, amongst the many workforce programs it supervises,
reviewed 84 audits, examining $30 million in questioned costs, and
ultimately disallowed $18 million in grantee expenditures. The
disallowed costs included agencies of State and local governments, as
well as private organizations, and the disallowance of costs is a
routine part of supervision that in no way impugns the integrity of the
grantees involved.
The Gregg amendment is an extreme and unfair response to a problem
which has already been remedied. The Department of Labor has already
disallowed the insurance royalty payments which were the major focus of
the inspector general's report on NCSC's Title V program grant, ordered
the financial practice in question terminated, and demanded repayment
of the disallowed costs. The cost items which DOL has disallowed cover
the period between 1992 and 1996. The objectionable practices have been
stopped. The matter is currently before an administrative law judge.
Furthermore, the legislation reported from the HELP Committee already
addresses the financial accountability of title V program operators. It
establishes strong new performance measures which program operators
must meet each year, and provides for removal of operators who
consistently fail to meet performance standards. It sets strict limits
on the purposes for which the funds can be used. It sets forth in
statute a 14-point ``Responsibility Test'' which each program operator
must pass in order to be eligible to participate in the title V
programs. Section 514(d) requires a detailed examination of the
organization's past performance in administering federal funds. The
Department will have ample authority to disqualify those program
operators whom it deems untrustworthy or unreliable. The procedures we
have established are tough and fair. After extensive review of the
Senior Community Service Employment Program, the committee believes
that these new performance standards and responsibility tests will
effectively protect the interest of both the senior citizens who
participate in the program and the taxpayers who fund it.
senator gregg's ``dear colleague letter''
The Senator from New Hampshire claimed in a ``Dear Colleague'' dated
September 27 that: ``Under current law, nine grantees--mostly aligned
with the Democratic Party and organized labor--receive over $400
million in federal grant dollars on a noncompetitive basis.'' This
statement is both factually inaccurate and highly misleading. Firstly,
over $400 million does not go to private organizations under the Senior
Citizens Community Employment Act. Of that amount, $96 million actually
goes directly to state government agencies, and an additional $28
million goes to the U.S. Forest Service. Secondly, the largest private
grantee is Green Thumb, which receives $107 million each year. Green
Thumb's principal activity is operating senior employment programs and
its political involvement is minimal. AARP receives $51 million and the
National Council on the Aging receives $38 million. They are broadbased
advocacy groups for senior concerns, not aligned with any political
party. Another $38 million is divided amongst four organizations
focused on serving low income minorities--African-Americans, Hispanics,
Asians, and American Indians, and $15 million is provided to the
National Urban League to support its senior employment efforts.
The National Council of Senior Citizens, which the Senator from New
Hampshire has so sharply criticized, receives less than 15 percent of
the total appropriation for title V. While I certainly disagree with
the allegations he has leveled against NCSC, it would be grossly unfair
to impugn the legitimacy of the entire Senior Community Service
Employment Program based on those allegations even if his claims about
NCSC were accurate. The same organizations which are receiving funds
today to operate senior employment programs were selected to operate
those programs in the Reagan and Bush administrations, as well as in
the current administration. The facts clearly demonstrate that these
program operators were not selected because of their partisan
``alignment,'' as the ``Dear Colleague'' letter implies. They have been
selected because of their strong track record of delivering employment
services to seniors.
ncsc/nscerc programs
As I noted earlier, the inspector general reports which the Senator
from New Hampshire discussed cover the period from 1992 to 1996. In
fact, NCSC has not been the recipient of grants to operate senior
employment programs since that time. As a result of legislation passed
by Congress in 1995, NCSC as a 501(c0(4) organization became ineligible
to be a grantee. A new 501(c)(3) organization, the National Senior
Citizens Education and Research Center (NSCERC) was established to
receive the grant and operate the program. Federal funds received by
NSCERC have been used by NSCERC to operate the senior employment
program. Thus,
[[Page S11061]]
the activities, political and otherwise, which NCSC may have engaged in
since that time are not relevant to the operation of the Senior
Community Service Employment program in any way.
Let's look at the program which NSCERC operates and the impact it has
on the lives of thousands of older Americans each year. One hundred and
forty-four senior employment projects are operated by NSCERC in 27
states and the District of Columbia. More than 15,500 seniors are
enrolled in these programs each year, working in public and non-profit
organizations. Most of these older workers would be living below the
poverty line but for this program. Three quarters of them are women and
half are minorities. A third of them never graduated from high school.
Without this program it would be extremely difficult for them to find
employment. This program makes an enormous difference in their lives.
(Worker Profiles).
The impact of the program extends far beyond the seniors who are
employed in it. They perform a broad variety of community services,
including teaching children as aides in schools and day care centers,
performing clerical work in libraries and in government and charitable
organization offices, delivering meals to homebound elderly, assisting
with in-home health care services, and driving senior citizen transport
vans. Their work touches the lives of countless people--the very young
and the very old, the sick, the frail, and the disabled. We should not
make light of their contributions, nor of the importance of the non-
profit senior employment program operators who make the program
possible.
Let me give you a few examples. NSCERC works with the Flint Michigan
Community School system and operates a Senior AIDES project in the
schools. Dr. James E. Ray, the Superintendent of Community Education
explains the importance of the program:
Flint Community Schools and NSCERC have piloted a unique
Title V intergenerational tutor training program. This
initiative has proven to be very successful in meeting the
educational and emotional needs of our at-risk elementary
school children, while at the same time providing income
assistance and social purpose for low-income senior citizens.
It has been so successful in fact that a consultant for the
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recommended that DOL partner
with the U.S. Department of Education to expand the program
nationwide.
NSCERC works with the Mexican American Opportunity Foundation in Los
Angeles to help Hispanic children bridge the language barrier. Martin
Castro, president of the foundation, describes the program:
Since 1978, our agency, the Mexican American Opportunity
Foundation, has operated three Title V Programs through
contractual agreements with the National Council of Senior
Citizens and now with the National Senior Citizens Education
and Research Center. Our three Senior AIDES Programs, with a
combined enrollment of almost 300 Senior Aides, have provided
thousands of Hispanic elderly with the opportunity to remain
in the workforce while simultaneously increasing their skills
to obtain unsubsidized employment . . . This partnership has
allowed our organization to develop a comprehensive
intergenerational model in teaching preschool children in a
bilingual and bicultural environment. It has allowed our
preschool children in East Los Angeles, the majority of whom
speak only Spanish, to learn English by the time they enter
Kindergarten. Senior Aides assigned to our child care centers
have contributed enormously to the success of this teaching
model.
NSCERC and its predecessor NCSC have worked with Seniors Inc. in
Colorado to operate that state's largest program. Seniors Inc.'s
executive director Lewis Kallas explains the significance of NSCERC's
participation:
Seniors Inc. is Colorado's largest Title V local sponsor
with 225 senior positions in 18 countries. We have contracted
with Colorado's Aging Services Division and NSCERC to
effectively administer the Title V Program since 1970. Our
long and positive relationship and experiences with NCSC, and
now NSCERC, have resulted in a Colorado program that serves
as a national model. Much of this success is directly
attributed to the National Council of Senior Citizens and
NSCERC. These national organizations do business with one
thing in mind--the needs of older and vulnerable senior
citizens--My insight is not in passing; but rather historic
and based upon real experiences that I now have enhanced the
lives of thousands of low-income Colorado seniors.
While the prime purpose of the program is to fund community service
employment for low income seniors, it also helps to train these workers
and place many of them in unsubsidized jobs. Of the nine national
organizations and fifty states that operate senior employment programs,
NSCERC has one of the highest success rates in placing senior workers
in unsubsidized jobs. It has the third highest placement rate amongst
national organizations, and its placement rate is higher than the rates
achieved by 41 of the states. (1998)
``disallowed costs''
The Senator from New Hampshire has made it sound as if having
``disallowed costs'' means a program operator has engaged in serious
misconduct. That is simply not an accurate portrayal. Agencies which
receive substantial federal grants are audited routinely. It is not
unusual for the auditors to identify expenditures which do not conform
with the terms of a grant, and for the Department to require repayment
of the disputed amounts. ``Disallowed costs'' are usually nothing more
than good faith errors or honest disagreements over the interpretation
of the terms of a grant. For example, between 1997 and 1999, the
Employment and Training Administration of the Department of Labor,
which administers title V of the Older Americans Act amongst the many
workforce programs it supervises, reviewed 71 audits--examining $102.4
million in questioned costs out of $1.9 billion in federal grants
examined, and ultimately disallowing $76.8 million in grantee
expenditures. The percentage of costs questioned by the inspector
general was 5.3 percent, and the percentage disallowed by the
Department of Labor was 4.0 percent. The grantees found to have
``disallowed costs'' included agencies of State and local governments
as well as numerous private organizations. The disallowance of costs is
a routine part of grant supervision, and in no way impugns the
integrity of the grantees involved.
The inspector general's audit which questioned certain expenditures
by NCSC covered the fiscal years 1992 through 1995. The audit was
completed in February of 1999. Based on that audit, the Department of
Labor issued its final determination disallowing $5 million in costs
over the three year period. During that period, NCSC had received
approximately $180 million in funding for the operation title V
programs. Thus, the amount disallowed constituted less than 3 percent
of the federal funds which NCSC received during that period. Most of
the disputed amount involved one administrative practice by NCSC which
was disapproved by the auditors. A subsequent audit covering fiscal
year 1996 led to an initial determination of $1.3 million in disallowed
costs for that period. Most of the disallowance arose from the same
disputed administrative practice. Again, this disallowance involved
less than 3 percent of the $61 million in funding which the
organization received to operate title V programs.
The administrative practice which gave rise to the disallowances
involved payments from a health insurance company which provided
coverage to NCSC members and to title V program participants. The
health insurance premiums for senior citizens participating in the
title V program were properly paid from the title V grant. Under the
terms of the policy, the insurance company made a payment to NCSC at
the end of each year based upon the profit it made on the account
during that year. NCSC viewed those payments as ``royalties'' for the
use of the organization's name by the insurer in soliciting business.
Such royalties would belong to the organization. The DOL auditors
viewed those payments as ``rebates.'' If they were rebates, then the
portion attributable to title V participants should have been credited
to the federal grant. The treatment of those payments from the insurer
constitutes an overwhelming majority (approximately 80 percent of the
costs which DOL has disallowed).
When the issue of these disputed payments from the insurance company
was raised by the first inspector general's Report in early 1999, the
practice was stopped. Federal funds have not been used to purchase
insurance for more than one year. Over $3 million has been placed by
NCSC in an escrow account to cover a portion of the reimbursement which
the Department of Labor is seeking. The issue of whether the payments
were ``royalties'' or ``rebates'' is currently pending before an
administrative law judge. Like all disputes regarding disallowed costs,
this case will
[[Page S11062]]
be resolved through the established legal process. Congressional
intervention in that legal process would be wrong. The administrative
practice which the auditors objected to is no longer taking place. It
was terminated more than one year ago. No congressional action is
needed to prevent this practice from occurring in the future. Any
attempt to change the law retroactively or to impose harsh additional
penalties after the fact would be unfair and unconstitutional. Congress
is expressly prohibited from passing ex post facto laws, and that is
what the Gregg amendment would be.
conclusion
There are governmentwide regulations established by the Office of
Management and Budget which set forth the standards for debarring a
grantee from further participation in a federal program. The
disallowance of costs in the NCSC/NSCERC matter is not the type of
incident which would even remotely justify debarment under the existing
rules. There is no rational basis for establishing a different
debarment standard for title V of the Older Americans Act than for
every other program in the federal government. Yet, that is what the
Gregg amendment would do. It would set a much harsher standard and
apply that standard retroactively. The amendment should be soundly
rejected.
The rules governing debarment should remain uniform throughout the
federal system. These rules certainly should not be changed
retroactively for one program.
The Senate should not allow this issue to jeopardize passage of the
Older Americans Act, which is so important to the well-being of so many
senior citizens across America. The legislation before you represents a
delicate consensus which has been reached across the aisle and between
the Chambers. Its provisions have been carefully negotiated over a 2-
year period. It is supported by the National Governors' Association and
by more than 40 senior citizens organizations. The House of
Representatives has already passed it. The Gregg amendment would
unravel that consensus. If the Gregg amendment were to pass, the Older
Americans Act would not be reauthorized this year. We should not allow
this narrow issue to stand in the way of a very important bill. We owe
it to millions of seniors to look at the big picture--to reauthorize
the Older Americans Act and to create the National Family Caregiver
Program.
So I again commend all of our colleagues, the chairman of our
committee, Senator DeWine, and particularly the good work of the
Senator from Maryland. Their work has been indispensable.
I think we have a very solid piece of legislation. I hope we will get
an overwhelming vote in the Senate in support of it.
Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield me time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty-eight minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Sure.
Mr. BREAUX. Five minutes is fine.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me
some time to make some comments on this very important legislation.
The Older Americans Act is a piece of legislation that is incredibly
important, not only to the 14 percent of all Americans who are legally
classified as being elderly--those who are over the age of 65--but it
is a piece of legislation that is incredibly important, not only to
them but also to their children, to their grandchildren, and to other
members of their family and friends who are concerned that, while we
make great strides in technology in this country in keeping people
living longer, it is also extremely important we recognize that just
having medical technology to allow people to live longer is not as
important as also making sure we allow them to live better.
It is one thing to live longer, but if you are living longer in
conditions that are not what we, as Americans, think are ideal,
sometimes people wonder whether, in fact, it is really worth it.
So the Older Americans Act clearly addresses some of these types of
issues and questions about how do we, with medical science, as a
society, allow our citizens to enjoy living longer lives but also
living better, more fruitful lives in their golden years.
Part of that is the Older Americans Act, which provides, in many
cases, some of the services that allow people to live better lives. It
really is a wonder that this act is supported not only by seniors in
this country but, I think, by most Americans by a very large margin. It
has not been reauthorized in over 5 years. People would say: What is
the matter, Congress? Don't you realize the importance and the numbers
of older Americans who depend on this particular piece of legislation?
In many cases, they depend on it for their transportation because
many seniors are homebound and have no way of getting around. It is a
program that provides hot meals delivered to the homes of seniors who
do not have the ability to go outside their home for meals. That is
extremely important. It is a program that encourages the employment of
more and more seniors in the workforce, which is incredibly important
at a time when we actually have a labor shortage in this country. It
has been shown, very clearly, that the shortfall can be made up, in
many cases, by talented, experienced, learned seniors who can
contribute to the workforce past their normal retirement years.
It is a program that provides assistance for adult day care, which is
extremely important now, as more and more of the traditional caregivers
are working themselves. It is a program that helps provide adult day
care for seniors in this country, which is incredibly important.
It is a program that addresses the question of abuse prevention, and
helps elders in this country to know what their civil rights are to
make sure they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous
telemarketers, for instance.
All of those things are done by the Older Americans Act, which
expired 5 years ago.
Finally, today, this body--and the House did a couple days ago, I
think--will be able to reauthorize this very important program.
I am delighted that part of the program contains legislation that I
have introduced called the National Caregiver Program. I introduced it
along with Senator Chuck Grassley and other distinguished Members of
the Senate. This is now going to be part of the Older Americans Act.
If I may take a moment to say what the National Caregiver Program
does, I think it addresses something that is an incredibly serious
problem, and one that is growing every day, of the so-called ``sandwich
generation''--those adults in this country who are trying to raise
small children but also are having to divide up their time by helping
to take care of their senior parents. That is a very serious problem
for many Americans--making sure I am taking care of my children, that I
am raising them properly, but that I am also taking care of my parents
who have given me so much and it is now time for me to help them in
their golden years.
The National Caregiver Program will provide $125 million a year. It
is an authorization to provide assistance for all of those who are
caring for an aging parent or an aging spouse, for instance, in their
home. I think this is very important and something that this
legislation, for the first time, will make available.
We have had hearings in Louisiana by the aging committee, of which I
serve as the ranking Democratic member, with Chairman Chuck Grassley.
We are told there are about 22 million families in America who are
struggling every day in their lives to provide care for their children
and at the same time trying to balance that with caring for a senior
parent or a senior spouse.
The National Caregiver Program that is now part of this legislation
will provide information to these families about available services of
which many of them are not aware. This program will offer individual
counseling to these family caregivers about support groups and how you
go about making caregiving work more efficiently and better.
It will provide respite care, which is so incredibly important.
Sometimes families who are providing 24-hour-a-day care, 7 days a week,
12 months out of the year for their children, and are trying to do it
for their parents as well--in the same home--quite frankly,
[[Page S11063]]
need a break. They need a rest from this 24-hour-a-day burden, which
they are happy to do. It is a joy to be able to be in a position to
provide this type of service. But every now and then you simply need a
break.
The National Caregiver Program will be able to provide what we call
respite care, to give someone a break, to get out of the house, to go
out with their family and enjoy a meal outside of the home, or to take
a child to a school function, knowing that someone will be there to
take care of their adult family member who still resides in their home.
Also, it can provide some other supplemental services, which I happen
to think is incredibly important.
So I say to my colleagues--both on the Republican side as well as on
our side of the aisle--this is good legislation. It is important
legislation. Everywhere I went in Louisiana over the past couple days,
I spoke with senior groups and aging councils, and they all asked the
same question: Senator, when is Congress going to get around to passing
the Older Americans Act? For the life of me, I never had a good reason
to tell them why we have not done it before.
Is this a program that has some things that are not run 100 percent
correctly? We have had examples of that in the past, but you cannot
tell me a Federal program that can't be improved upon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 5 minutes.
Mr. BREAUX. I ask for 2 more minutes, if that is all right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BREAUX. Let me conclude by saying there were problems in the
program back in the early 1990s that are being corrected--have been
corrected. I think the fact is, Congress is showing that we are going
to provide careful and adequate oversight to this program. I think it
is very important. We, on the aging committee, have spent an incredible
amount of time, under Chairman Grassley's leadership, looking at
programs that benefit seniors. We are making sure we have GAO looking
at these programs, and making sure they are run properly. I can tell
you, they are getting a great deal more scrutiny than they have had in
the past. The end result is that we have a better program than we had
back in the early 1990s.
It is essential. It is important. It is necessary. It has widespread,
across-the-board support. I commend Senator Jeffords and Senator
Kennedy for at last being able to bring this to the floor of the
Senate. They eliminated all the roadblocks. I think this is well on its
way to passing as a clean bill. I strongly support it and strongly
oppose any amendments which would probably result in the bill not
passing because of the lateness of the hour. I add my strong voice to
the support of those who know this is the right thing to do and the
right time to do it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend from Vermont on the
floor. If he wanted to make some other remarks on this legislation, I
would certainly yield for that purpose, if I could get the floor back
after he has concluded. I want to address the Senate on another related
matter on health care.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I have 3 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield then to the Senator from Vermont and ask
unanimous consent that after he concludes, I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I first thank all Members for the
support they have given to this legislation during the period it has
been under consideration. It has been a long time, some 8 years now,
for those of us who have been strong in wanting to get it revised and
take a good look at it. Eight years is long enough.
I also thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his long-term efforts
to reauthorize the act. As the chairman of the Aging Subcommittee
during the last Congress, Senator Gregg was instrumental in bringing to
light many of the improvements that are now included in this bill.
Let me be clear about the changes that have been made to the Senior
Employment programs in this bill, the effort that has gone into
crafting this balanced agreement, and the broad support this compromise
enjoys.
This act makes significant reforms to the Senior Employment Program.
That is where the problems have been. It focuses the purposes of
employment programs on enrollee economic self-sufficiency and on
unsubsidized employment in the public and private sectors. It
coordinates SCEP with the Workforce Investment Act programs. That is
important. Importantly, it implements stringent eligibility and
accountability tests for all grant applicants. Administrative and
program costs are now defined in statute and capped so that resources
are directed into employment services for the elderly.
The bill includes new cost controls that will prevent the misuse of
funds by grantees. It also would require at least 75 percent of a
grantee's funds be used for enrollee wages and benefits, and the bill
explicitly states that the funds a grantee receives must be used solely
for the employment program.
Moreover, the bill expressly requires each grantee to comply with OMB
circulars and rules and requires the grantees to maintain records
sufficient to permit tracing of funds to ensure that funds have not
been spent unlawfully.
The bill institutes and requires performance outcome measures, annual
grantee evaluations, grantee accountability, and it creates a new grant
competition for those not meeting performance measures.
It provides Governors and States greater resources and influence over
job slot allocations, but also requires broad stakeholder participation
in a State Senior Employment Services Plan coordinated through the
Governors' offices.
This bill marks a landmark agreement between the States and the
grantee providers of jobs. The bill allocates new funding above the
current level of effort such that any increases up to $35 million will
be divided 75 percent to States and 25 percent to other grantees;
amounts above $35 million would be divided 50/50. This was very
important to the States and a good compromise.
Finally, grantees will be required to serve seniors or they will lose
their grant. Our bill introduces performance measures and competition
into the senior employment program for the first time. The bill would
establish a ``three strikes and you're out'' policy to ensure
performance goals are met.
Failure to meet performance measures will first result in technical
assistance and will require the grantee to come up with a plan on how
it will meet performance measures in the future.
Failure to meet performance standards a second consecutive year will
result in a loss of 25 percent of the grant, which will be
competitively bid in an open competition.
Failure to meet performance standards a third consecutive year will
cut off the grantee from the program, and the grant will be
competitively bid in an open competition.
Failure of a public and private nonprofit agency grantee to meet
performance measures in an individual state will also lead to the loss
of the grant, which will then be competitively bid in an open
competition.
These reforms significantly improve the Older Americans Act, protect
the taxpayers and, and provide seniors with a jobs program that works.
Failure to pass these reforms this year will maintain the status quo.
It will only continue a system that does not serve the job placement
needs of seniors in many states, and will not correct the deficiencies
in the administration and planning of the program. The only way these
improvements will be realized is to pass the Older Americans Act
Amendments of 2000, a bipartisan, bicameral initiative.
The bill will bring agreement for the first time in almost 10 years.
It is supported by the National Governors Association, the Southern
Governors Association, the Administration, and over 40 national aging
groups. Yesterday, the House passed this measure on a vote of 405-2.
This measure has 73 cosponsors in the Senate.
This is a delicate compromise, and any further amendments to this
measure will surely prevent it from being enacted this year. I urge all
of my colleagues to vote against any amendments and join in the
bipartisan and bicameral effort to pass the Older Americans Act.
[[Page S11064]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
____________________