[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.

                          ____________________