[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 155 (Friday, December 15, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11855-S11878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S11855]]
Senate
(Legislative day of Friday, September 22, 2000)
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
4577, which the clerk will report.
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4577) ``making appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and
for other purposes'', having met, have agreed: that the House
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate,
and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree
to the same; that the House agree to the title of the bill,
with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, signed
by a majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of today, December 15, 2000.)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2001 Labor/HHS
Appropriations Conference Report is now before the Senate.
This conference report serves to wrap up work on all fiscal year 2001
appropriations bills, as it includes the Treasury-General Government
and legislative branch bills. Those two bills were previously passed by
the Congress, but were vetoed by the President.
The only significant change to the bills previously passed by
Congress is the deletion of the telephone tax provision in the Treasury
bill. The conference report includes other appropriations matters,
which emerged subsequent to the completion of the other fiscal year
2001 bills.
Significant items include $150 million for repair of the U.S.S. Cole,
$100 million for intelligence activities requested by the White House,
$110 million for the new markets initiative, $100 million for volunteer
firefighter grants sought by our colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth,
and $100 million for the Library of Congress to enhance the National
Digital Library.
I want to also thank all my colleagues for their patience as I worked
with the White House for a compromise on the Alaskan Fishery/Sea Lion
protection issue. Through the hard work of many here in Congress and at
the White House, OMB and the Department of Commerce, we achieved a
compromise that meets the priorities of all parties--who share the goal
of protecting the sea lion population, and the economic well being and
viability of the commercial fishing industry in my State.
There are many specific issues that I could comment on today, but I
had the opportunity to brief members of this side of the aisle at a
conference this afternoon, and the bill is available in the Cloakroom
for review.
I urge all my colleagues to support this conference report, which
completes the work of this Congress, during this Congress. Next month,
when the 107th Congress convenes, and a new President is inaugurated,
they will both start with no carryover from this Congress.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as has been the case on far too many
occasions in the past number of years, the Senate finds itself today in
the position of having to deal with a massive omnibus appropriations
bill. We have had to pass a record number--21--of Continuing
Resolutions in order to keep the Federal Government operating since the
fiscal year began on October 1st. These Continuing Resolutions were
necessary because we in the Congress and the Administration could not
resolve our differences on a myriad of issues, most of which have not
involved funding levels at all. Rather, the haggling for the past many
weeks has been over issues such as ergonomics regulations, immigration,
and certain regulatory matters; all of which would be more
appropriately handled by the authorizing committees with jurisdiction
over them. Instead of following the established practices and the
regular
N O T I C E
Effective January 1, 2001, the subscription price of the
Congressional Record will be $393 per year or $197 for six months.
Individual issues may be purchased for $4.00 per copy. The cost for
the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies
remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based
upon the cost of printing and distribution.
Michael F. DiMario, Public
Printer
[[Page S11856]]
order of enacting the thirteen annual appropriations bills, we have in
recent years, chosen to delay appropriations bills until it is too late
to do anything other than to package them in a manner that causes such
packages to be used as vehicles for all manner of non-appropriations
issues. This has necessitated the adoption of late-year omnibus
appropriations packages well after the start of the fiscal year, such
as the one before the Senate today. This is a practice that should
never have been started and which, if not discontinued, I fear will
gravely diminish the Senate as an institution. Senators are being
denied the right to debate and amend appropriations bills, all of which
contain billions of taxpayer dollars, and literally thousands of
funding issues affecting their constituents. Instead, we are being
presented with unamendable omnibus appropriations packages, which
contain many, many matters that have not had any Senate consideration
at all. In the next Congress, the 107th Congress, we should strive
mightily, on a bipartisan basis, to return to regular order in taking
up each of the thirteen annual appropriations bills. The Appropriations
Committee has marked up each of the thirteen appropriations bills in a
timely manner every year under our distinguished Chairman, Senator
Stevens. He is indeed masterful in his handling of appropriations
matters and he is very knowledgeable on the issues that come before the
Appropriations Committee. He is also one who leads the Committee in a
bipartisan manner at all times. He gives the same consideration to
requests of Members of the Committee on both sides of the aisle, and I
am honored to serve as Ranking Member of the Committee under his
chairmanship. It has not been the fault of Ted Stevens that the
appropriations bills have, too often, been lumped together into omnibus
packages, such as the one before the Senate.
In an effort to facilitate a return to the regular order in the
Senate's handling of the thirteen annual appropriations bills, I was
pleased to have the support of both Leaders, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lott,
in my amendment to the Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill for
Fiscal Year 2001 to restore Senate Rule XXVIII, Paragraph 2. That
provision makes it out of order for extraneous matters to be included
in conference reports. Several years ago, in connection with the
Senate's consideration of an FAA conference report, the Senate voted to
overturn the Chair when it ruled that there was extraneous matter in
that conference report. The effect of that vote to overturn the Chair
was to negate Rule XXVIII, Paragraph 2. Consequently, it has not been
out of order for any matter to be inserted in any conference report
since that time. Upon enactment of the Commerce/Justice/State
Appropriations bill, and as a result of my amendment thereto,
Rule XXVIII, Paragraph 2 will be restored. This will mean that in the
107th Congress, it will not be in order for extraneous matters to be
placed in a conference report. Upon a point of order's being made in
that regard, if sustained, such a conference report will be rejected. I
believe that restoration of this rule will go a long way toward
eliminating these annual omnibus appropriations measures that the
Senate has had to deal with in the past several years and is again
being asked to adopt here today.
Having said that, Mr. President, I shall vote for the pending
conference report. It contains the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations
bills for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, for the Department of the Treasury and General Government,
and for the Legislative Branch. By far, the largest of these
appropriations bills is the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill.
In the agreement reached on the Labor/HHS bill, the funding totals
some $108.9 billion in budget authority for Fiscal Year 2001. This is
an increase of almost $12 billion from last year and represents the
largest ever one-year increase for the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill.
This amounts to more than a 12 percent increase above last year's
level, and will enable funding levels for education to be increased by
almost 15 percent, including an appropriation of more than $1 billion
for a new school renovation program. The Labor/HHS Appropriations bill
also includes critical funding for many health programs such as the
Ryan White AIDS program, NIH, child immunization, substance abuse
prevention, and mental health programs. All of these programs are
funded at levels substantially higher than last year. As Members are
aware, the bill also funds the Head Start program, and the low income
home energy assistance program, LIHEAP. I recognize that a number of
Senators believe that we should have insisted upon even higher levels
for the Labor/HHS bill. While I might agree with those Senators, and
although a tentative agreement in October would have funded the Labor/
HHS Appropriations bill at a level of over $112 billion, that agreement
fell through over a legislative rider involving ergonomics.
After weeks of haggling over the ergonomics issue, as well as other
issues such as immigration, and overall funding levels, I feel that we
have no other choice than to accept this compromise that is before the
Senate today. As I say, it does not fully please any Senator. I am sure
there are some who feel that the funding levels are too high; but the
time has long since passed for us to complete our work and get this
final appropriations package to the President's desk.
In addition to the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill, this package
contains funding for the Legislative Branch, and the Department of the
Treasury and General Government, which measure funds a number of
programs for law enforcement, as well as the U.S. Customs Service--the
federal agency with responsibility for border patrol and enforcement of
our immigration laws.
There is also a division of this omnibus package that includes a
number of non-appropriations matters. Those matters were considered
carefully by Chairman Stevens, Chairman Young, Mr. Obey and myself, at
the request of Members of the House and Senate. There were many more
such matters that were considered, but were not included in this final
package.
Finally, the package contains a division relating to tax matters,
including the so-called Balanced Budget Act, BBA, Medicare fix. Those
tax matters were inserted into the omnibus package by the Leadership,
and they fall into the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means and Finance
Committees. Accordingly, we Appropriations Members were not involved in
that process.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this
conference agreement. Despite its having all the flaws that we have
seen in previous omnibus appropriations bills, the time has come to
finish the work of the 106th Congress. In that way, we will have a
clean slate for the new Congress, the 107th Congress, when it convenes
on January 3rd, and for the new Administration, when our new President,
George W. Bush, is sworn into office on January 20th.
While I recognize that there are those who predict a continuation of
the gridlock that we have seen in the recent past, or perhaps greater
gridlock in the next Congress, as it struggles to work with the Bush
Administration; I hope and believe that there will be unprecedented
opportunities for bipartisan efforts to prevail in solving the Nation's
most pressing problems; to maintain a vital national defense, and to
find solutions which ensure that our Medicare and Social Security
programs can sustain the promised for our citizens over the coming
century. I am optimistic that the new Congress will be prepared to work
with the Bush Administration. I know that the overwhelming number of
Members of the House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis, join me in
pledging our best efforts to do so, and our good faith commitment to
achieve results in these critical areas, on behalf of the American
people.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, after protracted negotiations, the
Administration and I have reached an agreement that provides the
necessary protections for the Steller sea lion while allowing for the
needs of fishermen who depend on the robust and healthy groundfish
stocks off Alaska. I believe the Senate knows my personal feelings, and
the feelings of practically all those who are involved in the
harvesting, processing, and subsequent marketing of the millions of
tons of seafood that come from the North Pacific and Bering Sea, on
this matter. While we recognize that the Steller sea lion deserves
protection, we are not convinced
[[Page S11857]]
that the Commerce Department has proven, let alone adequately tested,
its hypothesis that fishing contributes to the sea lions' decline. A
few minutes spent skimming the biological opinion reveals the lack of
science underlying the proposed actions it contains. For example, the
Commerce Department states in its biological opinion that it does not
know if fishing impacts sea lions, or that sea lions would likely
continue to decline even if all fishing were halted.
Nonetheless, the lives of our fishermen will continue to be affected
by this opinion. Our agreement provides a three-step phase-in process
for fishery restrictions proposed to be implemented by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Alaska groundfish fisheries
under Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements. This section is
intended to lessen the negative economic consequences to the fishing
community caused by the restrictions and to ensure that any Steller sea
lion protective measures do not create negative consequences for the
conservation of the fisheries and ecosystem. This is accomplished by
requiring the Secretary to rely on the fishery management provisions in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the regional council processes,
when implementing reasonable and prudent alternatives under the
Endangered Species Act.
Unfortunately, work on this provision was not completed until shortly
before the conference agreement was filed on the final day of this
session. I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis
of this provision be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Section-by-Section Analysis
Subsection (a) includes findings by Congress concerning the
decline of the Steller sea lion and need for scientists to
study the relationship between commercial fisheries and sea
lions. It also includes findings confirming that the
authority to manage federal fisheries lies with the regional
councils created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It clarifies
that the Secretary is required to comply with, and use the
procedures established under, the Magnuson-Stevens Act when
implementing measures to comply with the Endangered Species
Act. This finding recognizes that the Administration should
not use the Endangered Species Act to implement fishery
management measures without respect to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, particularly the processes by which the councils
develop, review, and promulgate fishery management measures.
The appropriate forum to develop fishery management measures,
including those measures necessary to protect threatened and
endangered species, are the regional councils.
Subsection (b) requires the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council to conduct an independent scientific
review of the November 30, 2000 biological opinion (hereafter
the ``Opinion'') issued by NMFS for the Bering Sea/Aleutian
Islands and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries, drawing upon
the expertise of the National Academy of Sciences. This
subsection reflects the Congress's deep concerns over the
validity and objectivity of the science relied on in the
biological opinion and the process by which the Commerce
Department developed this opinion. It directs the Secretary
of Commerce to cooperate with the North Pacific Council's
scientific review, and requests the National Academy of
Sciences to give the review its highest priority.
Subsection (c)(1) directs the Secretary to submit proposed
Magnuson-Stevens Act fishery conservation and management
measures to implement the reasonable and prudent alternatives
(RPAs) to the North Pacific Council immediately or as soon as
possible, and then tasks the Council with preparing a fishery
management amendment or amendments under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act to implement such conservation and management measures.
While the amendments must implement the measures necessary to
protect sea lions and, it is equally important that such
measures provide for the conservation and safe conduct of the
fisheries, as required in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Congress
remains concerned that the proposed closures would have
forced small vessels to fish in dangerous waters during the
winter storm season, a prospect specifically commented upon
by our Coast Guard.
Subsection (c)(2) requires the RPAs, as developed by the
North Pacific Council under subsection (c)(1), to become
effective on January 1, 2002. To address Congress' concerns
about the objectivity and validity of the scientific
conclusions of this opinion the opinion must incorporate
changes warranted by the scientific review required under
subsection (b) or other new information that comes to the
Secretary or Council's attention. The Council and Secretary
are directed to jointly develop a schedule for the
development of FMP amendment or amendments to implement the
RPAs beginning in the 2002 fisheries. Subsection (c)(2)
specifies that the RPAs shall not go into effect immediately,
but shall be phased in according to subsection (c)(3) during
the 2001 fisheries.
Subsection (c)(3) requires the 2001 Bering Sea/Aleutian
Island and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries to be managed
in accordance with the regulations promulgated for the 2000
fisheries prior to the issuance of the July 19, 2000 court
injunction in those fisheries (which has since been lifted).
The 2000 regulations provide substantial protections for
Steller sea lions, while maintaining the comprehensive and
proven framework that has protected the marine resources of
the North Pacific and been fine-tuned for more than two
decades. These regulations for the first months of the 2001
fisheries are to be implemented by emergency rule so that the
fisheries can begin by January 20, 2001.
Subsection (c)(4) requires the Secretary of Commerce to
amend regulations based on the 2000 regulations, but which
are consistent to the extent practicable with the RPA's, by
January 20, 2001. The Secretary is to consult with the North
Pacific Council in preparing these draft regulations, with
the goal of incorporating some of the protective concepts in
the RPAs for these regulations, in time for the fisheries to
open no later than January 20, 2001. Under paragraph (7) of
subsection (c), the draft regulations amended upon the
recommendation of the North Pacific Council until March 15,
2001. As soon after March 15, 2001 as possible, the Secretary
of Commerce will publish and implement the regulations, and
these regulations shall then govern the Bering Sea/Aleutian
Island and Gulf of Alaska fisheries for the remainder of
2001, consistent with all the requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. It is our intent that the Secretary provide
ample opportunity for the public to comment on these
regulations before the regulations take effect.
Subsection (c)(5) requires that the ``Global Control Rule''
from the RPA's take effect immediately in the fisheries, this
is particularly important during the period during the Spring
and/or early summer of 2001 when the fisheries are being
managed under the 2000 regulations. Paragraph (5) modifies
the Global Control Rule during 2001 to limit any reduction to
not more than ten percent of the total allowable catch in any
of the fisheries.
Subsection (c)(6) provides the North Pacific Council with
the authority to recommend, and the Secretary of Commerce
with the authority to approve, modifications to the RPAs
contained in the regulations that will take effect in the
Spring or early-summer of the 2001 fisheries. These
modifications may include the opening of additional
designated Steller sea lion critical habitat for fishing by
small boats, the postponement of seasonal catch levels inside
critical habitat for small boats, or other measures to ensure
that small boat fishermen and on-shore processors in Alaska
are not adversely affected during 2001 as compared to the
fisheries before the July 19, 2000 injunction. This was
specifically agreed to by both the Congressional and
Administration negotiators to allow coastal Alaskan fishermen
to fish in the safer waters closer to shore.
Subsection (d) appropriates $20 million to the Secretary of
Commerce to develop and implement a comprehensive research
and recovery program for the Steller sea lion, and to study
the myriad of factors which may be causing the decline of the
Steller sea lion. Subsection (d) specifically requires that
the theories of nutritional stress, localized depletion, and
food competition with the fisheries be tested to determine
their validity. This subsection also directs the Secretary of
Commerce to implement non-lethal measures on a pilot basis to
protect Steller sea lions from marine mammal predation,
including killer whales, and to determine the extent to which
predation may be causing the decline or preventing recovery.
The Secretary is strongly encouraged to cooperate with the
Alaska SeaLife Center, the North Pacific Universities Marine
Mammal Consortium, the University of Alaska, and the North
Pacific Council in the development and use of these funds.
The Alaska SeaLife Center should receive $5,000,000 of these
funds to continue their important work on Steller sea lion
science.
Subsection (e) provides $30 million as a direct payment to
the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference to distribute to
the fishing communities, businesses, western Alaska community
development quota program groups, individuals, and other
entities that have been hurt by the economic losses already
inflicted as a result of Steller sea lion restrictions. The
President of SWAMC is required to submit a written report to
the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Senate and House
appropriations committees within six months after receiving
the funds to indicate how they have been distributed.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in these waning days and hours of the 106th
Congress, the focus in Washington is naturally on what action is taking
place to resolve the remaining fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills
and concluding the business of this Congress. However, all around us,
life goes on. Our constituents in the steel industry must be among the
few in America who will not be happy to see the 106th Congress adjourn
sine die. Our constituents in the steel industry will see Congress's
adjournment as a thinning of the bucket brigade that has spent the last
two years trying to bail out an
[[Page S11858]]
industry being flooded by cheap, illegally dumped steel. These people,
our constituents from Weirton and Wheeling, West Virginia, from
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Alabama, Maryland, Utah--their arms are tired,
their voices hoarse from the effort of keeping their heads above water
and shouting for help. As we look forward to adjournment, they are
continuing to face a flood whose undertow threatens to pull them under.
Today, as a result of this continuing crisis in steel, imports make up
almost 40 percent of the U.S. market, compared to a historical rate of
approximately 18 percent.
Congress has tried to respond. Members have supported individual
companies and groups in filing trade cases with the Administration,
attempting to use our anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws as they
were intended, to thwart illegal actions by foreign competitors.
Members of Congress, myself included, have introduced, supported, and
fought for passage of legislation to help this core American industry.
But the flood of illegally dumped steel continues, fed by the Asian
economic crisis, the failure of the Russian economy, and foreign
competitors seeking to gain a competitive edge with the help of illegal
government subsidies. When one trade case is filed with regard to one
type of steel, these competitors switch to another type of steel,
forcing affected U.S. companies to bear the cost of their sales losses
combined with the cost and time of collecting data and building their
legal cases. The overall effect is to grind small companies down to the
verge of collapse.
In 1977, there were 16,961 steelworkers on the payroll in West
Virginia. In March 2000, there were just 6,857, a loss of 10,104 good-
paying jobs. That's a 60 percent loss. So you understand why I am
concerned. The national picture is no brighter. In 1980, there were
1,142,000 workers nationwide in the primary metals industry, which
includes steel. As of September 2000, that total employment number had
dropped to just 692,000, a drop of approximately 39 percent.
In the last two years, thousands of steelworkers have been laid off,
some for considerable periods. Six steel companies have declared
bankruptcy since 1998. But total steel imports in 2000 will be over
2\1/2\ times higher than in 1991. Total steel imports through August
2000 are 17 percent higher than over the same period in 1999 and are
greater even than imports over the same period in 1998, a record year.
At the same time, steel prices continue to be depressed, with hot-
rolled steel prices 12 percent lower in August 2000 than in the first
quarter of 1998, and average import customs values for all steel
products more than 15 percent lower over the same period.
Is this how we want to end an era of American history? Do we want to
watch the linchpin of the American industrial revolution--our steel
industry--be felled by government subsidized foreign competition, aided
and abetted by indifferent application of the very trade laws
implemented to protect American companies and American workers from
illegal competition? I certainly hope not. When our crippled Aegis
destroyer, the ill-fated U.S.S. Cole, is brought home for repairs, I
would like American steel to bind up those wounds. I don't want to be
dependent on foreign sources of steel for critical national defense
needs. During World War II, I was a welder, helping to build the ships
that supported our forces in that war. Today, I am a legislator, and I
want to help the industry that supports our forces in war and in other
critical missions.
I had prepared a resolution, cosponsored by Senators Specter,
Rockefeller, Abraham, Baucus, Bayh, DeWine, Durbin, Hollings, Kohl,
Levin, Lincoln, Lugar, Mikulski, Santorum, Sarbanes, Schumer, Sessions,
Shelby, Thurmond, Voinovich, and Wellstone, that would be a Senate
companion to H. Res. 635. H. Res. 635 was introduced on October 18, and
currently has 237 cosponsors. This resolution would call upon the
President to take all appropriate action within his power to provide
relief to the steel industry injured by these unfair actions of our
trading partners. It would request an immediate and expedited U.S.
International Trade Commission investigation for positive adjustment
under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. I am pleased that my
resolution was, instead, accepted and included in the conference report
to accompany the Labor/HHS appropriations bill.
This action by the Administration is necessary. We need a broad-
based, comprehensive approach to dealing with this crisis in the
domestic steel industry. Fighting this war one skirmish at a time, on
one product type at a time by one company at a time, is simply and
slowly bleeding our steel companies dry. We cannot let them continue to
pick our steel companies off one at a time. We need to put the full
weight of our attention and our resources on dealing comprehensively
with this matter. We need to be vigilant across all fronts, and we need
to develop longer strategic vision if we are to preserve this vital
domestic industry.
We need a level playing field. I have no doubt that American steel
companies can compete on a level playing field. But they cannot compete
against steel that is priced at or below the cost of production by
foreign companies subsidized by governments who seek not only to
preserve their own steel production capacity, but to profit by gaining
U.S. market share and putting our companies into bankruptcy. I am,
unfortunately, confident that the International Trade Commission's
investigation will find that the steel crisis of 1998 is far from over.
In fact, steel imports are on track to match or possibly exceed the
record figures of 1998. So, sadly, our domestic steel producers should
have no problem meeting the stringent standards of proof required under
section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to prove that an injury has or can
be expected to occur.
I commend the many Members of the Senate who join me in calling for
this action to be taken, for standing up for steel and the men and
women and families who depend on steel jobs. I also commend the Senate
for including this provision in this bill. I urge the Administration to
proceed immediately to initiate a Section 201 investigation of steel
dumping. It is urgently needed.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 70 days and 20 continuing resolutions
after what was supposed to be our October 6 adjournment date, the 106th
Congress is coming to an end. Let us hope the upcoming New Year brings
with it a renewed spirit of bipartisan cooperation.
This year, such cooperation took a back seat to partisan bickering
and ill-advised parliamentary tactics that had the effect of further
polarizing this body. How many mornings did Americans awake to
newspaper headlines reporting that Congress and the president still,
weeks and months after we were to adjourn, had not finished their work?
There are many good provisions in the legislation soon to be sent to
the President and I want to thank all those who put in long hours to
bring this Congress to a close. I am particularly supportive of the
Medicare changes that will strengthen the quality of health care for
our seniors.
In 1997, Congress made some difficult, but necessary, changes in the
financial structure of the Medicare system as part of the Balanced
Budget Act. These changes were needed to preserve and protect the
system and delay its impending bankruptcy from 2001 until 2015, while
also increasing choice and expanding benefits for beneficiaries.
Despite the changes, there has been increasing concern that certain
reimbursement reductions and caps contained in the Budget Act are
resulting in access problems for our seniors. Personally, I have grown
concerned about the potentially negative impact on the delivery of
health care in our rural communities and for our most frail elderly if
we do not make certain adjustments.
I am also pleased this legislation addresses many of the concerns
raised by my constituents and the Arizona health care community. This
proposal improves senior health care by increasing access to critical
preventative benefits--including bi-annual pap smear screenings and
pelvic exams, glaucoma screenings, colon cancer screening, and medical
nutrition therapy for patients with diabetes and renal disease. Rural
hospitals are strengthened by updating reimbursement policies and
increasing access for seniors to emergency and ambulatory services in
rural areas. And this legislation significantly lowers co-payments for
out-patient hospital visits.
[[Page S11859]]
I am also pleased that Native Americans will not be overlooked in
this legislative package, but instead will receive an economic boost
through equitable treatment of tribal governments for unemployment tax
purposes, a change to the tax law that I have been advocating for
nearly a decade. An important stimulus to economic development in
Indian country is to provide employment tax credits and incentives,
including unemployment compensation benefits. This change to the
Federal Unemployment Tax Act, FUTA, will correct an uneven
interpretation in the tax law by finally including tribal employees in
the Nation's comprehensive unemployment benefit system.
Unfortunately, I must oppose this legislation for a variety of
reason. Once again, I must object to the pork barrel spending in this
year-end legislative package and in all of the appropriations bills
that have become law. Regrettably, the process that got us to this
point led to what a New York Times headline aptly characterized as
``The Politics of the Surplus.'' In other words, we paved our way home
by spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on budget items that never
went through a merit-based review process.
In the run-up to this final agreement, over $24 billion in pork
barrel spending (a list of this spending may be found on my Senate Web
site) was doled out and that figure will surely climb once we get a
good look at the bills before us. Mr. President, our appetite for pork
barrel spending was so large this year, in fact, that NBC News
highlighted our feast on their Nightly News segment, ``The Fleecing of
America.''
Who among us will ever forget the 1.5 million taxpayer dollars we
have already approved to restore ``a 56-foot iron rendition of the
Roman god of fire and metalworking, Vulcan''?
Or the $1.5 million for sunflower research?
Or the $400,000 for the Southside Sportsman Club?
Or the $250,000 to develop improved varieties of potatoes''?
Or the $100,000 for the ``Trees Forever Program"?
Or the $176,000 for the Reindeer Herders Association?
Or Or the $5 million for insect rearing?
But, there is more to come in this year-end budget deal, which has at
least $1.9 billion in pork. For instance, in the Conference Report for
the Commerce, State, and Justice Appropriations bill, some examples of
earmarks having never undergone the appropriate merit-review process
include: $3 million for Red Snapper research, $1 million for Hawaiian
coral reef monitoring, $500,000 for the California Ozone study,
$200,000 for the Kotzebue Sound test fishery for king crab and sea
snail, $600,000 for fall chinook rearing for the Columbia River
hatcheries program, $750,000 for bottle-nosed dolphins, $3,338,000 for
sea turtles, $1 million for winter pollack survey in Alaska, $1 million
for the implementation of the National Height Modernization, NHM,
system in North Carolina, $300,000 for research on the Charleston bump,
and $150,000 for lobster sampling.
The pork barrel spending adds up. Look at the numbers.
Last spring, Republicans outlined our spending plans calling for
about $600 billion in so-called discretionary spending--that is,
spending on programs other than Social Security, Medicare, and interest
on our $5.7 trillion debt. The President's budget requested about $623
billion in discretionary spending. We'll end up spending in the
neighborhood of $650 billion--some $100 billion over the discretionary
spending caps set by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
According to Robert Reischauer, former head of the Congressional
Budget Office, this will be the third year in a row in which the
budget, excluding Social Security, ``has been in surplus.'' The last
time this happened, Reischauer says, was over 70 years ago. This is why
I believe, Mr. President, we should take advantage of our robust
economy and make significantly paying down our national debt one of our
top priorities.
I must also once again express my disappointment over the narrow
scope of the immigration provisions contained in this bill. I support
the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, LIFA. Negotiations between the
White House and the leadership, which endorsed more limited immigration
reform, have resulted in a compromise that makes progress but falls far
short of the Fairness provisions we never had a chance to vote on.
In particular, this bill makes meaningful but insufficient progress
on amnesty for those wrongly denied it, and does not address legitimate
concerns about Central American refugee parity. Fortunately,
negotiators have agreed to temporarily restore Section 245(i), which
allows immigrants with family or employer sponsors to adjust their
status in the United States, rather than return to their countries of
origin and face the threat of 10 years of separation from family and
work in the United States before returning. This bill also contains
important provisions encouraging family unification through the
creation of several new visa categories. That said, it will fall to
supporters of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act in the 107th
Congress to advance that bill's intent to allow long-term residents who
have developed deep roots in our country and contributed to our economy
for many years to remain legally, and to establish parity for Central
American and other refugees not afforded the same status as refugees
from other, similarly troubled countries. I am sorry we could not have
better addressed these concerns in this bill, but I appreciate the
progress we are making and hope that we can take up these issues during
the 107th Congress.
I remain optimistic, Mr. President, that we will be able to work
together in the 107th Congress to accomplish great things.
We all should be proud of the recent election. Obviously, it wasn't
perfect. Democracy never is. Yet, major issues important to all
Americans were discussed and debated. In fact, a post-election survey
by Pew Charitable Trusts found that a high percentage of voters
believed there was ``more discussion of issues than four years ago.''
And 83 percent of voters said they learned enough ``to make an informed
choice.''
No doubt voters have different opinions on how we should deal with
these issues. But, they did not disagree on which issues need to be
tackled by Congress and our President.
In national pre-election polls, Americans consistently ranked Social
Security, health care, and education among the issues they worry most
about. But they also know that little gets done because too much
special-interest money is infecting our political process, resulting in
the kind of gridlock we have witnessed over the last year. A Newsweek
poll found nearly 60 percent of Americans agreeing with the statement
that political contributions have ``too much influence on elections and
government policy.'' Only ten percent disagreed.
The way we do business must change.
If we have the will, we can begin to repair Americans' cynical
perception of our government by working together, in bipartisan
fashion, on campaign finance reform, a real Patient's Bill of Rights,
Social Security reform, and badly needed reform of the tax system.
We must also do our work in the open with due process and appropriate
discussion.
This is why, I must also object to a provision inserted by Senator
Inouye, who has once again gone to great lengths to provide
protectionist legislation to the lone U.S. operator of large cruise
ships in Hawaii. In the 106th's closing hours, the Senator has had a
legislative provision inserted in the final appropriations measure that
will prohibit any cruise ship operator from allowing gaming on board
any vessel that departs from and returns to Hawaii. This provides
American Classic Voyages with the protection they need to keep other
cruise operators who depend on gaming to attract passengers and provide
an additional revenue stream from entering the Hawaii market and
prohibit other vessels currently departing from other U.S. port cities
from sailing among the Hawaiian islands. In the end, the American
consumer is the loser.
While Hawaii law currently prohibits any gaming within the state,
including its waters, U.S., state, and international law allows gaming
on vessels more than three miles from shore. I have no argument against
Hawaii's gambling prohibition. But the amendment authored by Senator
Inouye is aimed at keeping planed operations by international cruise
operators out of Hawaii and preserving the monopoly
[[Page S11860]]
created for American Classic Voyages as part of special interest
legislation he sponsored and which became law in 1998. The language
will result in fewer large cruise ship operators serving the Hawaiian
Islands and drastically restricting consumer choice for cruise
vacations in Hawaii.
What is most amazing is this measure, like so many others in this
bill, was never discussed publicly, with the administration, or with
any Committee of jurisdiction in Congress. This type of closed door,
special interest legislation should concern every Member. To deny the
American public the freedom of choice in cruising vacations and
restrict international trade without one moment of debate is very
troubling.
In light of this and other such inappropriate legislating, we must
enact institutional reforms to put an end to the rampant abuse of the
budget process.
If we are to hold any hope for reforming the budgetary process in
this body, fundamental changes to the rules governing the
appropriations process must be made. The two Rules of the Senate
designed to impose discipline on the appropriations process are Rule
16, and Rule 28. Rule 16 is designed to block legislative riders on
appropriations bills coming out of Committee, and Rule 28 is designed
to accomplish the same goal on Conference Reports. Unfortunately, due
to the fact that Rule 16 points of order only require a simple majority
to over-rule the Chair, it has proven ineffective in stripping riders.
And, as we all know, Rule 28 is effectively moot at this point.
As such, when the Senate reconvenes next year, it is my intention to
offer an amendment to the Rules of the Senate designed to toughen Rule
16, and to reaffirm and toughen Rule 28. This amendment would do the
following:
Rule 16 would be modified to require a three-fifths vote to over-rule
a point of order against a legislative item inserted into a general
appropriations bill by the appropriations committee. Further, a single
point of order may be raised against each legislative item, and each
point of order would be debatable and subject to a roll call vote.
Rule 28 would be modified, blocking Conferees to a general
appropriations bill from inserting in their Report any matter not
committed to them by either House, or striking from the bill matter
agreed to by both Houses. Conferees to a general appropriations bill
would be prohibited from increasing an appropriation for any item
committed to them by either House to a level exceeding the highest
appropriated level for such item presented to them by either House, and
reducing an appropriated level for any item committed to them below the
lowest appropriated level for such item committed to them by either
House.
Further, Conferees to a general appropriations bill would be
restricted from modifying any item committed to them by either House
where such modification is not germane to the item being modified. In
any case, no matter may be inserted into the Report that is not germane
to the general appropriations bill committed to the Conferees.
The result of these changes would be to impose a strict ``scope of
conference'' rule on appropriations Conferees.
A point of order may be made by any Senator against any general
appropriations bill Conference Report for any violation of the
restrictions set forth by this rule. In such cases where a single
restriction has been violated more than once within a Conference
Report, or where more than one restriction has been violated within a
single Conference Report, each violation may be treated individually,
and may be subject to a specific point of order. In the event that a
single, or multiple points of order, are made against a general
appropriations bill Conference Report for reasons set forth under these
new restrictions, a three-fifths vote of the Senate is required to
over-rule the Chair. Each appeal of the ruling of the Chair of each
respective point of order is debatable and must be voted on separately.
Mr. President, before I end, I want to wish everyone a happy holiday
season and New Year.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to take some time to
discuss the importance of investing in our Nation's high-speed rail
infrastructure.
We have what could fairly be termed a looming transportation crisis
in the United States. Business and personal travelers are
overwhelmingly relying on air travel to get from city to city, and the
system is plagued with delays and congestion which is not only
undermining people's personal plans but also harming the business
community.
Air travel has become so inconvenient and unreliable, the public
needs alternatives. According to the Federal Aviation Administration,
aviation delays increased 58 percent between 1995 and 1999. And to add
to passengers' frustration, the average delay is getting longer each
year--averaging 50 minutes in 1999.
Even worse, flight cancellations increased 68 percent over that same
period--1995--1999. Overall, nearly one in four flights was either
delayed or canceled in 1999.
The summer of 1999 was the most delayed summer in aviation history.
That is until this summer, which blew past last year's delay record.
The number of delays, the number of cancellations, and the length of
delays all have continued to go up so far in 2000. And consumer
complaints more than doubled in 1999 and are up almost another 50
percent so far this year.
With aviation travel expected to increase more than 50 percent over
the next decade, we have a crisis looming.
The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that boardings will
increase to 917 million by 2008. Our current aviation system can't
handle this demand.
Fortunately, we have a solution to this problem right before our
eyes. A solution that we have ignored and neglected for too long--high-
speed passenger rail.
Nineteen of the 20 most-delayed airports in the United States are
located on potential high-speed corridors. And high-speed rail can
provide a competitive travel alternative, particularly over distances
less than 500 miles.
The situation on our roads is almost as dire as the problems in our
skies. One study estimated that $72 billion dollars was lost in 1997 as
a result of traffic congestion through lost productivity and wasted
fuel. And this situation continues to deteriorate. People now spend 50
percent more time stuck in traffic than they did in 1990 and triple the
time they did in 1982.
Critics have complained about Amtrak receiving $23 billion federal
subsidies since 1971. But this is pocket change compared with the
funding we have provided other modes over that same period. Since 1971,
we have spent over $160 billion on aviation programs and over $380
billion on highways.
The High-Speed Rail Investment Act can is the vehicle for giving
Americans more transportation options. This legislation would allow
Amtrak to sell $10 billion in high-speed rail bonds over ten years. The
Federal Government would leverage private sector investment in our rail
infrastructure by providing tax credits to bondholders.
States would be full partners in this effort and would have to put up
a 20 percent match which would go into an escrow account to be used to
repay the bond principal.
These funds would enable high-speed rail projects to go forward in
the Midwest, the Southeast, the Gulf Coast, and along the Pacific
Coast.
And it would allow us to finish the Northeast Corridor high-speed
rail project.
High-speed rail means better, faster, more competitive rail service.
It means a comfortable travel alternative to those who want to avoid
congested highways and cramped and delayed planes.
The High-Speed Rail Investment Act, S. 1900, is supported by a
bipartisan group of 57 Senators representing all regions of the
country. And companion House legislation, H.R. 3700, introduced by
Congressmen Amo Houghton and James Oberstar, now has over 150
cosponsors.
Our Nation's governors, state legislators, and mayors understand our
transportation problems and see high-speed rail as a vital part of the
solution to our transporatation woes. Newspapers from across the Nation
have come out in support of investing in high-speed rail.
Mr. President, the benefits of High Speed Rail Service are clear.
High-speed rail is the future of transportation in America. We cannot
maintain a productive and efficient transportation system without
modernizing our
[[Page S11861]]
rail infrastructure and providing a competitive alternative means of
transportation on our rails.
I am therefore pleased that I have the commitment of my colleagues to
provide resources for high speed rail next year. While I won't be in
the Senate, I know the Senator from Delaware and other colleagues will
work relentlessly toward this goal.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Medicare,
Medicaid and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, I
want to take this opportunity to comment about several of the
provisions included in the bill. This bill contains many important
health care provisions affecting both Medicare providers and Medicare
beneficiaries. Accordingly, I am delighted that a final agreement has
been reached with the White House on these provisions and that the
measure is now ready for passage.
I also want to take this opportunity to commend the distinguished
Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for his leadership and
persistence over the past several months in moving this critically
important legislation. On a personal note, I would be remiss if I did
not say that I will miss my colleague and good friend Bill Roth. I am
very sorry that he will not be returning to the next Congress to
continue the work on which he has labored for so many years.
Bill Roth has made a real difference to Americans--he was one of the
original believers in across-the-board tax cuts. President Reagan
seized on this idea as the way to get our nation out of
``stagflation.'' The tax policy worked and produced one of the longest
periods of prosperity in history. Bill Roth was also a father of the
individual retirement account, which is a simple way that Americans can
help themselves save for retirement. Senator Roth worked tirelessly
over the years to expand IRAs, make them even more available and more
workable. I greatly admire Bill Roth's understanding of the tax code
and tax policy, and we are going to miss his continued contributions to
this complex issue area.
But, Chairman Roth has also been a champion on the Finance Committee
and in the Senate for his commitment in addressing the critical
structural and financing problems facing the Medicare program. Indeed,
his work over the past several years as Chairman of the Finance
Committee has dramatically improved the prospects that meaningful
Medicare reform can be accomplished, in a bipartisan fashion, in the
next Congress. Moreover, because of his efforts, the foundation has
been laid for a workable and much-needed Medicare drug benefit that I
am hopeful Congress will enact with the leadership of President-elect
Bush.
For now, I would like to comment briefly on several provisions which
I authored, or strongly supported, that are included in this
legislation.
First, I am pleased the legislation contains provisions to create a
prospective payment system for federally qualified health centers in
every state of the country. Betty Vierra, who serves as the Executive
Director of the Association for Utah Community Health, advised me that
this is one of the top priorities of community health centers in Utah
and across the nation. Community health centers have been working on
this issue since 1997, and I am pleased they have finally won their
hard-fought battle.
The bill also contains provisions from the Medicare Access to
Technology Act of 2000, legislation that I introduced earlier this
year. Last year, provisions were included in the omnibus budget
legislation for fiscal year 2000 that addressed some of the outstanding
problems concerning access issues for Medicare beneficiaries.
Unfortunately, we were to able to resolve all of the issues last year.
As a result, Medicare beneficiaries continue to have trouble gaining
access to many new medical technologies that are already reimbursed by
private insurance plans.
That is why I introduced the Medicare Patient Access to Technology
Act of 2000. I believe we must eliminate the delays and barriers to
access that have arisen in the way Medicare decides to cover, code and
pay for new medical devices and diagnostics. Last year's legislation,
which was included in the Balanced Budget Relief Act (BBRA),
represented an important first step in modernizing the Medicare program
to provide timely access to needed medical treatments provided in the
hospital outpatient setting.
Briefly, my legislation requires the Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA) to implement the OPPS pass-through payment
program on the basis of categories starting April 1, 2001. The bill
includes a provision which changes the way in which HCFA reimburses for
clinical laboratory services including the establishment of a specific
process for clinical laboratory payments, and to report to Congress on
this issue. Finally, the legislation requires the maintenance of local
codes by Medicare contractors for three years and also requires HCFA by
October 1, 2001 to provide for the inclusion of new technologies and
devices more quickly in the Medicare inpatient hospital payment
program.
On another matter, I have been deeply concerned about the safety of
our nation's blood supply. Patient access to a safe and adequate blood
supply is a national health priority, however, many of us have heard
from the American Red Cross, America's blood centers, and the American
Association of Blood Banks about hospitals having trouble paying for
new blood therapies. Additional funding is needed if we are to remain
committed to the safest blood supply possible.
The blood banking and transfusion medicine communities are constantly
working to assure that safety improvements for blood are implemented as
soon as they are available. Unfortunately, these measures significantly
increase the cost of blood products--over 40 percent for the two latest
technologies--for both the hospital and blood bank.
While blood is donated by volunteers, nonprofit blood centers must
recover the costs associated with providing a safe product. Nonprofit
blood centers pass these charges onto hospitals, which in turn, must
get timely and adequate reimbursement for these lifesaving and life-
enhancing products. Unfortunately, the current system by which HCFA
determines inpatient reimbursement rates does not account for these
safety improvements a timely manner.
The bill directs HCFA and MedPAC to review how hospitals are being
reimbursed for blood. It also asks both entities to recommend necessary
changes to provide fair and timely reimbursement. While these
recommendations will not be completed until late next year, I will
continue to work on guaranteeing that patients are receiving the safest
possible blood products as soon as possible.
I am also very pleased that the legislation before the Senate today
contains additional funding for our nation's skilled facilities (SNFs).
In September, I introduced legislation, S. 3030, along with my
colleague Senator Domenici, to increase Medicare reimbursements for
skilled nursing facilities.
Nursing homes across our country continue to struggle under the
enormous demands of complying with the implementation of the
prospective payment system as authorized pursuant to the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). In an effort to address this problem,
Congress passed legislation last year to restore nearly $2.7 billion
for the care of nursing home patients. This action provided much needed
relief to an industry that is facing extraordinarily financial
difficulties as a result of the spending reductions provided under the
BBA as well as implementation by HCFA.
Unfortunately, the problem is not fixed and more needs to be done.
That is why Senator Domenici and I introduced the Skilled Nursing
Facility Care Act of 2000 so that seniors can rest assured that they
will have access to this important Medicare benefit.
In Utah, there are currently 93 nursing homes serving nearly 5,800
residents. I understand that seven of these 93 facilities, which are
operated by Vencor, have filed for Chapter 11 protection. These seven
facilities care for approximately 800 residents. Clearly, we need to be
concerned about the prospect of these nursing homes going out of
business, and the dramatic consequences that such action would have on
all residents--no matter who pays the bill.
I am pleased that the bill before the Senate contains provisions from
the Skilled Nursing Facility Care Act to ensure patient access to
nursing home
[[Page S11862]]
care. Medicare's skilled nursing benefit provides life enhancing care
following a hospitalization to nearly two million seniors annually.
Unless Congress and HCFA take the necessary steps to ensure proper
payments, elderly patients will be at risk, especially in rural,
underserved and economically disadvantaged areas.
Specifically, the bill provides approximately $1.6 billion to SNFs
over the next five years. The legislation repeals the minus one percent
decrease in the SNF market basket for FY 2001 thereby providing the
full market basket update. In FY 2002 and 2003 the updates would be the
market basket index increase minus 0.5 percentage points.
Moreover, temporary increases in the federal per diem rates provided
by last year's increases would be in addition to the increases in this
provision. The bill also increases the nursing component for each
Resource Utilization Group (RUG) by 16.66% over current law for SNF
care furnished after April 1, 2001 and before October 1, 2002. Clearly,
these additional dollars will help ensure the continuity of beneficiary
care in our nation's nursing homes.
Another issue that I worked hard to get into the legislation is the
financial commitment made for the treatment and research on diabetes. I
am extremely pleased that the bill provides a substantial increase in
appropriations for special diabetes programs for children with Type 1
Diabetes as well as for Native Americans with diabetes. As my
colleagues recall, the BBA created two new grant programs under which
the Secretary of Health and Human Services could make grants to support
prevention and treatment services of diabetes for children and for
Native Americans, respectively.
Specifically, Congress committed $30 million each for Native American
diabetes care and for NIH research of Type 1 Diabetes in children. This
program was authorized for five years--FY 1998 through FY 2002. I am
very pleased the legislation increases the appropriated funds available
for these two programs by raising the amount from $30 million to $100
million for FY 2001 and FY 2002, respectively. Moreover, the bill
appropriates $100 million for each program for FY 2003.
These dollars have been extremely helpful in Indian Country where
Native Americans suffer the highest rate of diabetes than any other
segment of our population. I want to commend the Republican leadership
for ensuring that these dollars were included in the bill--this
commitment is truly making positive difference in the lives of millions
of Americans who suffer from this deadly disease.
With respect to home health care, the legislation protects funding
for home health care services by delaying until October 1, 2002 a BBA-
scheduled 15 percent cut in Medicare payments. I sponsored legislation
earlier this year that addresses the issue of the 15 percent cut. And,
while I hoped we could repeal the 15% cut provision altogether, I can
appreciate the difficulty the conferees faced in resolving this
complicated and costly provision. Delaying the cut for another year
will provide Congress additional time to address this controversial
issue.
Moreover, the bill provides for a full medical inflation update for
home health. I am particularly pleased the bill contains a provision
that enhances the use of telehealth medicine in the delivery of home
health care services. This enhancement will be especially helpful to
those individuals who live in the rural and remote parts of Utah where
medical specialists are not readily available. As a result, Utahns who
live in these areas will not have improved access to the best doctors
and medical care specialists regardless of where they live.
The bill also contains a provision on adult day care. This provision
clarifies that the need for adult day care for a patient's plan of
treatment does not preclude appropriate coverage for home health care.
It also clarifies the ability of homebound beneficiaries to attend
religious services without being disqualified from receiving home
health care benefits. As one of the Senate's strongest supporters of
home health care, I believe these provisions will enhance substantially
the home health care benefit.
As far as hospitals are concerned, the legislation provides a
substantial amount of new funding for our nation's hospitals. I have
been particularly concerned about the financial impact of the BBA's
provisions on rural hospitals. As I travel across Utah, I am constantly
reminded by hospital administrators about the serious financial
pressures many of these institutions currently face with increased
demands for care while coping with reduced reimbursements from
Medicare. Clearly, Congress needs to act now to ensure the financial
viability of our nation's hospitals.
The bill also addresses the problem by providing equitable treatment
for rural disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs) which care for a
disproportionate share of poor Medicare patients. The bill extends the
Medicare Dependent Hospital program for rural areas; it updates target
amounts for sole community hospitals; and increases rural patients'
access to emergency and ambulance services.
Moreover, the bill ensures continued access to hospital services
nationwide by providing a full inflation market basket update for
fiscal year 2001. The plan also ensures the financial stability of
teaching hospitals by increasing payments related to physician
training. This provision is especially important to Utah's University
Hospital which has been hard hit in the past year by the BBA
reductions.
With regard to Native Americans, the legislation contains an
extremely important provision regarding Indian health care. The bill
authorizes, for the first time, the Indian Health Service (IHS) and
tribally operated clinics and hospitals to receive Medicare Part B
reimbursement for services provided under the physician fee schedule.
This proposal would enhance the access of Medicare-eligible Native
Americans to affordable, quality health care and improve the ability of
these clinics and hospitals to serve the Native American population.
Another important Medicare issue I want to raise involves providing
appropriate coverage for certain injectable drugs and biologicals that
are critical to many Medicare beneficiaries. To resolve this issue, the
legislation has a provision which addresses this important issue.
The Medicare Carriers Manual specifies that a drug or biological is
covered under this provision if it is ``usually'' not self-
administered. Under this standard, Medicare for many years covered
drugs and biological products administered by physicians in their
offices and other outpatient settings. In August 1997, however, HCFA
issued a memorandum that had the effect of eliminating coverage for
certain products that could be self-administered. This resulted in
patients suddenly losing their Medicare coverage for these products,
thus limiting access to drugs and biologicals for many seniors and
disabled individuals.
The legislation's language clarifies Medicare reimbursement policy to
guarantee that physicians and hospitals will be reimbursed for
injectable drugs and biologicals. The new language requires coverage of
``drugs and biologicals which are not usually self-administered by the
patient,'' thus restoring the coverage policy that was in effect before
the August 1997 HCFA memorandum was issued.
When HCFA considers whether a drug or biological is usually self-
administered, I feel HCFA should determine whether a majority of
Medicare beneficiaries can actually self-administer the drug. HCFA
should assume, as it did for many years, that Medicare patients do not
usually administer injections or infusions to themselves, while oral
medications usually are self-administered.
I believe that it would be appropriate for HCFA to issue guidelines
for its contractors to clarify the intent of the legislation. In
addition, HCFA should instruct its contractors not to exclude a drug or
biological without making an explicit finding supported by evidence
that the product is usually self-administered by most Medicare
patients.
This issue is an important step to provide our seniors and persons
with disabilities with the prescription drugs and biologicals that they
deserve. I look forward to working with HCFA to ensure that our
Medicare beneficiaries receive adequate and appropriate coverage for
these drugs and biologicals.
On another matter Mr. President, I would also like to state that as
the
[[Page S11863]]
Medicare provisions of this legislation are implemented, I urge the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to review policies that affect
the order of services provided to home health beneficiaries to assure
that, under the prospective payment system, home health agencies are
given maximum flexibility to provide services in a clinically
appropriate and efficient order.
In this connection, I believe the Secretary should also review the
role of occupational therapists in conducting the initial Outcome and
Assessment Information Set (OASIS) even when occupational therapy is
not the therapy service that initially qualifies the beneficiary for
covered home health services.
For example, when patients are prescribed home health solely for
rehabilitation, the review should include whether or not it would be
clinically appropriate for occupational therapy to be the first service
provided to the patient. Another factor to be considered is whether or
not it may be appropriate for an occupational therapist to conduct the
initial OASIS. I am hopeful that the prospective payment system
implemented by the Secretary will not restrict the ability of home
health agencies to fully utilize the unique skills of covered
therapists.
Once again, Mr. President, I am pleased the Congress and President
Clinton have come together in reaching agreement on this legislation.
It is vital that these provisions become enacted this year; they will
help many people across our country. I look forward to the President
signing this measure into law at the earliest possible date.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank the numerous
individuals across the great state of Utah who took the time to meet
with me here in Washington and in Utah over the past year regarding
many of the health provisions included in this bill. I value the input
and expertise I received from health care providers and consumers in
may state, and especially from the elderly whose views have been
particularly helpful to me in the development of this legislation.
Seniors in Utah and across our country depend on Medicare. We must
ensure this program provides the highest quality of health care to
beneficiaries. Moreover, I am hopeful that in the next Congress, with
the leadership from President-elect Bush, we will be able to build on
today's work and further improve the quality of services to
beneficiaries and, especially, provide for a new outpatient
prescription drug benefit.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say a few words about the Small
Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 and the process to bring this
legislation to the floor as part of the Fiscal Year 2001 Omnibus
Appropriations bill. First, however, I would like to thank Senate
Committee on Small Business Chairman Kit Bond, House Small Business
Committee Chairman Jim Talent, House Small Business Committee Ranking
Member Nydia Velazquez, our staffs, Laura Ayoud with Senate Legislative
Counsel and John Ratliff with the House Legislative Counsel's office
for their efforts on reauthorizing programs vital to America's small
businesses. We have all worked long and hard to get to this point.
The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, H.R. 5667, as
included in the Fiscal Year 2001 Omnibus Appropriations bill, contains
a good portion of the conference report negotiated by the Senate and
House Committees on Small Business. Despite the rough start, partisan
wrangling over unrelated issues, broken deals and lengthy delays, I am
pleased that we can at last pass this legislation so critical to our
nation's small businesses. Unfortunately, it is our small businesses
that have suffered the most in this climate of uncertainty, waiting,
anticipating and hoping that the Congress would complete its work and
pass this reauthorization package.
While I am pleased that we have reached an agreement that will ensure
continuation of valuable Small Business Administration (SBA) programs,
I am greatly concerned with the breakdown in the legislative process
that has prevented what is normally a bi-partisan reauthorization bill
from passing in a timely manner.
To briefly elaborate on this, when the original agreement between the
Senate and the House was concluded, our bipartisan legislation was
commandeered by the Republican leadership and provisions dealing with
tax cuts, assisted suicide and medicare give-backs to HMOs were added
without my knowledge or consent. The President threatened to veto such
a package.
Additionally, a Wellstone provision agreed to during negotiations was
removed. The Wellstone provision would have created a 3 year $9 million
pilot project to build the capacity of community development venture
capital firms through research, training and management assistance.
Senator Wellstone had already agreed to make this program a three year
pilot project and cut the funding down from $20 million over four
years. But the provision was removed from the Conference Report without
consulting either of us.
I am also disappointed that some provisions included in the Senate
passed version of the Small Business Reauthorization Act, as well as in
the Administration's budget request, were not included in the final
version of this legislation. The original Senate version contained
several provisions important to the Administration, Members of the
Senate Small Business Committee and the Senate in general. In the
spirit of compromise, the Senate agreed to drop several of these
important provisions, with an understanding, in many cases, to revisit
these issues in the 107th Congress.
Chairman Bond agreed to remove his provision regarding the
``Independent Office of Advocacy Act,'' which I cosponsored, and which
passed the Senate as a separate bill. This Committee has heard on more
than one occasion that providing separate funding for the Office of
Advocacy is the best means to ensure its autonomy. I look forward to
working with the Chairman on this issue in the next Congress. A
provision requested by Senator Ted Stevens setting up a HUBZone pilot
program in Alaska and a provision requested by Senator Dianne Feinstein
to allow fruit and vegetable packing houses hit by the 1998 freeze to
participate in the SBA's Disaster Loan program were removed as well. I
have assured Senator Feinstein that the Committee will look further
into this matter in the next Congress in an effort to allow the SBA to
provide relief if it is warranted.
A provision requested by the Administration and strongly supported by
Senator Paul Wellstone and myself was also dropped. This provision
would have created a Native American Small Business Development Center
(SBDC) Network that would have worked together with the traditional
SBDC Network, but would have been separately funded. I have received
assurances from both Chairman Bond and the House Committee on Small
Business that this issue will be addressed in the next Congress, along
with concerns raised by Senator Inouye about the participation of
Native Hawaiian Organizations in the 8(a) program. The Senate and House
Committees on Small Business are in agreement that this is an important
issue for Native Americans, considered a disadvantaged group for the
purposes of SBA programs, and one that needs greater focus.
Provisions regarding the Quadrennial Small Business Summit, the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel Technical Amendments Act, Development
Company Debenture Interest Rates, Fraud and False Statements and
Financial Institution Civil Penalties were also removed.
The final version of this legislation does include some of the
provisions I requested regarding improvements to the Microloan program.
The changes to the Microloan program stemmed from the President's
Fiscal Year 2001 budget request and had broad support in the Senate, as
well the support of several Members of the House Committee on Small
Business. I have long been a firm believer in microloans and their
power to help people gain economic independence while improving the
communities in which they live. With a relatively small investment, the
Microloan program helps turn ideas into small businesses adding up to
sel-sufficiency for many families and big returns for the taxpayers.
Changes to the program, which resulted from a roundtable Committee
meeting in the Senate and discussions with the Administration and users
of the Microloan program, will be a great
[[Page S11864]]
boon to the effectiveness and availability of Microloans. Specifically,
provisions increasing the maximum loan amount from $25,000 to $35,000
and increasing the average loan size to $15,000 were included. However,
changes to make the program more effective, such as increasing the
number of intermediaries or authorizing reimbursement for peer-to-peer
mentoring, were weakened or removed because the House did not have time
to hold hearings and study them thoroughly.
I believe all of the changes in the Senate bill make sense, have
broad bipartisan and bicameral support, and would go a long way toward
providing increased access to capital, especially for minority
entrepreneurs. I want to make it clear to my colleagues who support the
Microloan program that I will continue my efforts to strengthen this
program and will work with Chairman Bond and our House counterparts to
make these remaining improvements in the next Congress. I also intend
to revisit the Microloan funding issue before the end of the three-year
reauthorization period if the level authorized is inadequate to meet
program needs.
While I am disappointed that some of the Senate changes were not
included in the final compromise, this legislation is crucial for our
nation's small businesses. It reauthorizes all of the SBA's programs,
setting the funding levels for the credit and business development
programs, and making selected improvements. Without this legislation,
the 504 loan program and the Small Business Innovation Research program
would shut down; the venture capital debenture program would shut down;
and funding to the states for their small business development centers
would be in jeopardy.
The SBA's contribution is significant. In the past eight years, the
SBA has helped almost 375,000 small businesses get more than $80
billion in loans. That's double what small businesses had received in
the preceding 40 years since the agency's creation. The SBA is better
run than ever before, with four straight years of clean financial
audits; it has a quarter less staff, but guarantees twice as many
loans; and its credit and finance programs are a bargain. For a
relatively small investment, taxpayers are leveraging their money to
help thousands of small businesses every year and fuel the economy.
Let me just give you one example. In the 7(a) program, taxpayers
spend only $1.24 for every $100 loaned to small business owners. Well
known successes like Winnebago and Ben & Jerry's are clear examples of
the program's effectiveness.
Overall, I agree with the program levels in the three-year
reauthorization bill. As I said during the Small Business Committee's
hearing on SBA's budget earlier in the year, I believe the program
levels are realistic and appropriate based on the growing demand for
the programs and the prosperity of the country. I also think they are
adequate should the economy slow down and lenders have less cash to
invest. Consistent with SBA's mission, in good times or bad, we need to
make sure that small businesses have access to credit and capital so
that our economy benefits from the services, products and jobs they
provide. As First Lady and Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton says,
we don't want good ideas dying in the parking lot of banks. We also
want a safety net when our states are hit hard by a natural disaster.
There are many members of this Chamber, and their constituents, who
know all too well the value of SBA disaster loans after floods, fires
and tornadoes.
Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that we included legislation to
extend the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program for 8 more
years as part of this comprehensive SBA reauthorization bill. While I
am very sorry the process has taken this long, in no way should that
imply that there is not strong support for the SBIR program, the Small
Business Administration, or our nation's innovative small businesses.
The SBIR program is of vital importance to the high-technology sector
throughout the country. For the past decade, growth in the high-
technology field has been a major source of the resurgence of the
American economy we now enjoy. While many Americans know of the success
of Microsoft, Oracle, and many of the dot.com companies, few realize
that it is America's small businesses, working in industries like
software, hardware, medical research, aerospace technologies, and bio-
technology, that are helping to fuel this resurgence--and that it is
the SBIR program that makes much of this possible. By setting aside
Federal research and development dollars specifically for small high-
tech businesses, the SBIR program is making important contributions to
our economy.
These companies have helped launch the space shuttle; conducted
research on Hepatitis C; and made B-2 Bomber missions safer and more
effective.
Since the start of the SBIR program in 1983, more than 17,600 firms
have received over $9.8 billion in SBIR funding agreements. In 1999
alone, nearly $1.1 billion was awarded to small high-tech firms through
the SBIR program, assisting more than 4,500 firms.
The SBIR program has been, and remains, an excellent example of how
government and small business can work together to advance the cause of
both science and our economy. Access to risk capital is vital to the
growth of small high technology companies, which accounted for more
then 40 percent of all jobs in the high technology sector of our
economy in 1998. The SBIR program gives these companies access to
Federal research and development money and encourages those who do the
research to commercialize their results. Because research is crucial to
ensuring that our nation is the leader in knowledge-based industries,
which will generate the largest job growth in the next century, the
SBIR program is a good investment for the future.
I am proud of the many SBIR successes that have come from my state of
Massachusetts. Companies like Advanced Magnetics of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, illustrate that success. Advanced Magnetics used SBIR
funding to develop a drug making it easier for hospitals to find tumors
in patients. The development of this drug increased company sales and
allowed Advanced Magnetics to hire additional employees. This is
exactly the kind of economic growth we need in this nation, because
jobs in the high-technology field pay well and raise everyone's
standard of living. That is why I am such a strong supporter and
proponent of the SBIR program and fully support its reauthorization.
This legislation also includes my legislation establishing a New
Markets Venture Capital program at SBA. This small business legislation
is designed to promote economic development, business investment,
productive wealth and stable jobs in ``new markets,'' low- and
moderate-income communities where there is little to no sustainable
economic activity but many overlooked business opportunities. The
venture capital program is modeled after the Small Business
Administration's successful Small Business Investment Company program.
The SBIC program has been so successful that it has generated more than
$19 billion in investments in more than 13,000 businesses since 1992.
With the passage of the ``New Markets'' legislation, low- and
moderate-income areas will have increased opportunities to join the
economic boom in America and this targeted venture capital will make a
powerful difference in places like the inner-city areas of Boston's
Roxbury or New York's East Harlem, and rural areas like Kentucky's
Appalachia or the Mississippi's Delta region.
This legislation also contains H.R. 2614, which reauthorizes SBA's
504 loan program, which passed the Senate on June 14, 2000. The bill
and our improvements make common-sense changes to this critical
economic development tool. These changes will greatly increase the
opportunity for small business owners to build a facility, buy more
equipment, or acquire a new building. In turn, small business owners
will be able to expand their companies and hire new workers, ultimately
resulting in an improved local economy.
Since 1980, over 25,000 businesses have received more than $20
billion in fixed-asset financing through the 504 program. In my home
state of Massachusetts, over the last decade small businesses have
received $318 million in 504 loans that created more than 10,000 jobs.
The stories behind those numbers say a lot about how SBA's 504 loans
[[Page S11865]]
help business owners and communities. For instance, in Fall River,
Massachusetts, owners Patricia Ladino and Russell Young developed a
custom packing plant for scallops and shrimp that has grown from ten to
30 employees in just two short years and is in the process of another
expansion that will add as many as 25 new jobs.
Under this reauthorization bill, the maximum debenture size for
Section 504 loans has been increased from $750,000 to $1 million. For
loans that meet special public policy goals, the maximum debenture size
has been increased from $1 million to $1.3 million. It has been a
decade since we increased the maximum guarantee amount. If we were to
change it to keep pace with inflation, the maximum guarantee would be
approximately $1.25 million instead of $1 million. By not implementing
such a sharp increase, we are striking a balance between rising costs
and increasing the government's exposure.
I am pleased to say that this legislation also includes a provision
assisting women-owned businesses, which I first introduced in 1998 as
part of S. 2448, the Small Business Loan Enhancement Act. This
provision adds women-owned businesses to the current list of businesses
eligible for the larger public policy loans. As the role of women-owned
businesses in our economy continues to increase, we would be remiss if
we did not encourage their growth and success by adding them to this
list.
Mr. President, the 504 loan program gets results. It expands the
opportunities of small businesses, creates jobs and improves
communities. It is crucial that it be reauthorized, I am pleased this
legislation has been included in this package.
Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) are also reauthorized under
this legislation. SBDCs serve tens of thousands of small business
owners and prospective owners every year. This bill takes a giant step
to retool the formula that determines how much funding each state
receives. This is an important program for all of our states and we
want no confusion about its funding. Without this change, some states
would have suffered sharp decreases in funding, disproportionate to
their needs. I appreciate and am glad that the SBA and the Association
of Small Business Development Centers worked with me to develop an
acceptable formula so that small businesses continue to be adequately
served. As I said previously, I plan to revisit the Native American
SBDC Network issue next Congress.
This legislation also reauthorized the National Women's Business
Council. For such a tiny office, with minimal funding and staff, it has
managed to make a significant contribution to our understanding of the
impact of women-owned businesses in our economy. It has also done
pioneer work in raising awareness of business practices that work
against women-owned business, such as some in the area of Federal
procurement. Recently, the Council completed two studies that
documented the world of Federal procurement and its impact on women-
owned businesses.
According to the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, over
the past decade, the number of women-owned businesses in this country
has grown by 103 percent to an estimated 9.1 million firms. These firms
generate almost $3.6 trillion in sales annually and employ more than
27.5 million workers. With the impact of women-owned businesses on our
economy increasing at an unprecedented rate, Congress relies on the
National Women's Business Council to serve as its eyes and ears as it
anticipates the needs of this burgeoning entrepreneurial sector. Since
it was established in 1988, the bipartisan Council has provided
important unbiased advice and counsel to Congress.
This Act recognizes the Council's work and re-authorizes it for three
years, from FY 2001 to 2003. It also increases the annual appropriation
from $600,000 to $1 million, which will allow the council to support
new and ongoing research, and produce and distribute reports and
recommendations prepared by the Council.
The Historically Underutilized Business Zone, or ``HUBZone'' program,
which passed this Committee in 1997, has tremendous potential to create
economic prosperity and development in those areas of our Nation that
have not seen great rewards, even in this time of unprecedented
economic health and stability. This program is similar to my New
Markets legislation in that it creates an incentive to hire from, and
perform work in, areas of this country that need assistance the most.
This bill would authorize the HUBZone program at $10 million for the
next 3 years, which is $5 million above the Administration's request.
Additionally, this legislation includes very important provisions to
allow those groups which were inadvertently missed when this
legislation was crafted--namely Indian tribal governments and Alaska
Native Corporations--to participate in the program. I appreciate the
willingness of the Committee on Indian Affairs to work with our
Committee to create increased HUBZone opportunities for Native
Americans.
As I stated, the HUBZone section does not contain any provision
addressing the interaction of the HUBZone and 8(a) minority contracting
programs. I believe that the 8(a) program is an important and necessary
tool to help minority small businesses receive access to government
contracts. The Chairman and I agree that there is a need to enhance the
participation of both 8(a) and HUBZone companies in Federal
procurement. It is my intention that the Senate Committee on Small
Business consider the issue of enhancing small business procurement in
the next Congress.
This legislation also includes a provision relating to SBA's
cosponsorship authority. This authority allows SBA and its programs to
cosponsor events and activities with private sector entities, thus
leveraging the Agency's limited resources. The legislation extends this
authority for three additional years.
Mr. President, let me conclude by reminding my colleagues that all of
our states benefit from the success and abundance of small businesses.
This legislation makes their jobs a little easier. I ask my colleagues
for their support of this important legislation.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we draw the 106th Congress to a
close, I wish only to take a moment to express my appreciation to
Senator Stevens and others who concluded the negotiations on this final
appropriations bill. They have worked under difficult circumstances,
and I commend them for their accomplishment. I particularly acknowledge
the effort of the Senator Stevens. He is an outstanding chairman. He
has devoted months of effort to this bill at great personal sacrifice.
He is extremely capable and is always courteous and I express my
personal thanks to him for his good work.
I am particularly gratified that the Appropriations Committee found a
way to fund a leadership development program for the Boys and Girls
Clubs of America. I have a long held interest in and concern for the
young people of our Nation. The funding contained in this bill for a
National Training Center will assist this worldwide organization in its
mission of serving youth. The Center will offer a full array of
programs, training, and research for participants from across the
entire Nation. As a result, significant progress will be make toward
the goals of promoting citizenship, leadership, and character
development; the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse; and similar
initiatives. On behalf of the youth of this Nation, I again express my
appreciation for the Congress supporting this measure.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak to
the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations legislation that is contained
in this bill. Unfortunately, I've got some good news and some bad news.
The good news is that this bill recognizes the need to dedicate more
resources to foreign policy needs; the bad news is that the bill fails
to contain funding for three important programs in the Justice portion
of this legislation.
The State Department does important work--protecting our citizens and
pursuing our foreign policy objectives--in some of the most dangerous
and difficult places in the world. Unlike the U.S. military, State
Department employees go into areas of conflict unarmed, and generally
unprotected. We have State Department officials in Sierra Leone, in
Syria, in Lebanon and Liberia, and throughout the war-torn corners of
the former Yugoslavia.
[[Page S11866]]
That is why I am particularly pleased to see that funding for embassy
security in the Commerce-Justice-State bill is at the levels requested
by the Administration. I strongly support full funding of two critical
accounts--embassy security and maintenance, and embassy security
equipment and personnel--in the legislation to authorize State
Department activities which was initiated by the Committee on Foreign
Relations last year.
Failure to fully fund the State Department's security account would
have had a devastating effect on the safety of the Americans who serve
us overseas, both in the number of security agents who protect them
against terrorist threats and construction of new, safe embassies.
Fortunately both these security programs will be well-funded. I regret,
however, that agreement was not reached to fund a new Center for Anti-
terrorism and Security Training. I hope we can give this careful
consideration next year.
In addition, after many years of decline, funding for the State
Department's most basic needs--including salaries and administrative
expenses--has been increased. The final funding for this account
exceeds the Administration's original request by $65 million, which
should help offset the many reductions in the State Department budget
during the 1990s.
As the Secretary of State has said numerous times, diplomats are our
first line of defense. Just as we are concerned about military
readiness, so we must be attentive to diplomatic readiness overseas. We
need to do as much as we can--and in my opinion, this funding goes only
part way--to ensure that we retain the best and the brightest in our
Foreign Service.
I am pleased that the amount of money dedicated to United Nations
Peacekeeping operations exceeds the Administration's original request.
The final figure is based on more recent calculations of the U.S. dues
to the United Nations and will allow us to help fund these important
missions, thereby alleviating suffering and improving stability around
the world.
I understand the frustration that many of my colleagues feel toward
the United Nations. Earlier this week, I visited the UN. I want to
assure my colleagues that reform is happening. Ambassador Holbrooke has
kept his commitment, made to the Committee on Foreign Relations during
his confirmation hearings, that reform will be his ``highest sustained
priority.'' He and his team in New York continue to push effectively
for needed reforms in the areas of peacekeeping and general operations.
The recommendations made by the Brahimi panel, in particular, will
result in better focused, trained and equipped peacekeeping missions--
changes I believe that we all agree are needed.
I wish that I could be as positive about the Justice Department
portion of the bill, but I cannot. I am disheartened that the
legislation does not contain three crucial provisions--reauthorization
of the COPS program, the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, and full
funding for the Violence Against Women Act.
Although we have 49 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle and
letters of support from every major law enforcement organization, a few
powerful members on the other side have refused to allow a vote on the
continuation of the COPS program.
In 1994, we set a goal of funding 100,000 police officers by the year
2000. We met that goal months ahead of schedule. As of today, there
have been 109,000 officers funded and 68,100 officers deployed to the
streets.
Because of COPS, the concept of community policing has become law
enforcement's principal weapon in fighting crime. Community policing
has redefined the relationship between law enforcement and the public.
But, more importantly, it has reduced crime. And that is what we
attempted to do.
All across the country, from Wilmington to Washington--from
Connecticut to California, we are seeing a dramatic decline in crime.
Just a few weeks ago, the FBI released its annual crime statistics
which showed that once again, for the eighth year in a row, crime is
down. In fact, crime was down 7 percent from last year and 16 percent
since 1995. But we can't become complacent. We have to continue to help
state and local law enforcement by putting more cops on the street.
Mark my words, the day we become complacent is the day that crime rates
go up again. And refusing to even allow a vote on this bill is even
worse than complacency--it is irresponsible.
And I will say again that I firmly believe that reauthorization of
the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund is the single most significant
thing that we can do to continue the war on crime.
Since the Fund was established in the 1994 Crime Act, Congress has
appropriated monies from the fund for programs including the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant Program and numerous programs contained in the
Violence Against Women Act. The money has gone to hire more cops and it
has brought unprecedented resources to defending our southwest border.
It has funded runaway youth prevention programs and numerous innovative
crime prevention programs. And there are many more.
The results of these efforts have taken hold. Crime is down--way
down. And we didn't add 1 cent to the deficit or the debt.
This was the single most important paragraph in the 1994 Crime bill
because no one can touch this money for any other purpose. It can't be
spent on anything else but crime reduction. It is the one place where
no one can compete. It is set aside. It is a savings account to fight
crime.
This fund works. It ensures that the crime reduction programs that we
pass will be funded. It ensures that the crime rate will continue to go
down instead of up. It ensures that our kids will have a place to go
after school instead of hanging out on the street corners. It ensures
that violent crimes against women get the individualized attention that
they need and deserve. It gives States money to hire more cops and get
better technology.
This bill also is unsatisfactory because it leaves the landmark
Violence Against Women Act underfunded, seriously jeopardizing the
tremendous strides we have made in every State across this country to
reduce domestic violence and sexual assault against women. Congress
originally approved this legislation in 1994 and then reauthorized it
unanimously this past October. In the bill before us, however, Congress
fails to live up to its commitment to women and children who are the
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault by not appropriating
the necessary funds authorized in the Violence Against Women Act of
2000.
Reauthorization of the COPS program, the Trust Fund, and full funding
for the Violence Against Women Act should have been a part of this
package, and I'm disappointed that some on the other side have decided
to put politics ahead of the people.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I am proud to add my voice in support
of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This legislation
represents the end product of work that began in S. 2697, which Senator
Lugar and I introduced on June 8. The Commodity Futures Modernization
Act of 2000 completes the work of last year's financial services
modernization law, bringing our financial regulation in line with the
rapid pace of developments in the global marketplace. The Commodity
Futures Modernization Act of 2000 will now allow new and important
financial products--single stock futures--to be sold in America. It
protects financial institutions from over-regulation, and provides
legal certainty for the $60 trillion market in swaps.
Significant portions of this legislation, particularly in Titles II,
III and IV of the Act, concern issues within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Title II establishes the authority and framework for the offering of
single stock futures, removing the ban embodied in the so-called Shad-
Johnson Accord. I would like to take this opportunity to echo the views
expressed by my colleague, Congressman Bliley, Chairman of the
Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, at the time of
House adoption of this bill. It is my understanding that nothing in
Title II of H.R. 5660 would (i) authorize any bank or similar
institution to engage in any activity or transaction, or hold any
asset, that the institution is not authorized to engage in or hold
under its chartering or authorizing statute; (ii) authorize depository
[[Page S11867]]
institutions either to take delivery of equity securities under a
single stock future or under any other circumstance, or otherwise to
invest in any equity security otherwise prohibited for depository
institutions; or (iii) allow a depository institution to use single
stock futures to circumvent restrictions in the law on ownership of
equity securities under its chartering or authorizing statute.
Under Title III of the bill, the SEC is granted new authority to
undertake certain enforcement actions in connection with security-based
swap agreements. It is important to emphasize that nothing in the title
should be read to imply that swap agreements are either securities or
futures contracts. To emphasize that point, the definition of a ``swap
agreement'' is placed in a neutral statute, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,
that is, legislation that is not specifically part of a banking,
securities, or commodities law. However, drawing upon the SEC's
enforcement experience, the SEC is permitted, on a case-by-case basis,
with respect to security-based swap agreements (as defined in the
legislation) to take action against fraud, manipulation, and insider
trading abuses.
Title III makes it clear that the SEC is not to impose regulations on
such instruments as prophylactic measures. Banks are already heavily
regulated institutions. Further regulatory burden, rather than
discouraging wrongdoing, would be more likely to discourage development
and innovation, during business overseas instead. The SEC is directed
to focus on the wrong doers rather than provide new paperwork burden
and regulatory costs on the law abiding investors and financial
services providers. For example, the SEC is directed not to require the
registration of security-based swap agreements. If a registration
statement is submitted to the SEC and accepted by the SEC, the agency
is required promptly to notify the registrant of the error, and the
registration statement will be null and void.
Insider trading provisions of the Securities Exchange Act will be
applied to single stock futures transactions as well.
Title IV of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 contains
the Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000. This title is a free
standing provision of law, part of neither the banking statutes not the
commodities statutes. The provisions of this title clarify the
jurisdictional line between the regulation of banking products and
futures products.
Under section 403 of Title IV, no provision of the Commodity Exchange
Act (CEA) may apply to, and the CFTC is prohibited from exercising
regulatory authority with respect to, an ``identified banking product''
if: (1) an appropriate banking agency certifies that the product has
been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the United States
by any bank on or before December 5, 2000, and (2) the product was not
prohibited by the CEA and was not in fact regulated by the CFTC as a
contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery (or an option on
such a contract or on a commodity) on or before December 5, 2000. This
provision is intended to provide legal certainty for existing banking
products so that they can continue to be offered, entered into, or
provided by banks without being subject to CFTC regulation.
An existing banking product is one that is certified by the
appropriate banking regulator as being a product is ``commonly''
offered, entered into, or provided, on or before December 5, 2000, in
the U.S. by any bank. To rely upon that test a particular bank would
not need to have certified that the particular bank had offered the
product. The certification would apply if it or any other bank had
offered such a product on or before December 5, 2000. The term
``commonly offered'' means, in effect, that the product was not
obscure, or offered only briefly. It is not to be construed to mean
that the product must be of a type that is appropriate or suitable for
any and all users, since many common bank products are tailored for
specific customers, small business loans or low cost checking accounts
for seniors being two such examples.
New banking products not excluded from the CFTC's jurisdiction under
Title IV will be, if indexed to a commodity, subject to a test to
determine whether they are predominantly banking products, in which
case, the CFTC is precluded from exercising regulatory authority over
them. The predominance test is a self test. Banks themselves may apply
the factors of the predominance test with respect to the development of
new products, without making prior application to any regulator. The
predominance test as contained in the law is intended to replace
regulatory provisions under the Commodity Exchange Act concerning the
application of a predominance test with respect to hybrid instruments.
Under the predominance test, a hybrid instrument will be considered
to be predominantly a banking product if (1) the issuer of the
instrument receives payment in full of the purchase price of the
instrument substantially contemporaneously with its delivery, (2) the
purchaser or holder of the hybrid is not required to make any payment
to the issuer in addition to the purchase price during the life of the
instrument or at maturity, (3) the issuer is not subject to mark-to-
market margining requirements, and (4) the hybrid is not marketed as a
contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery or an option
subject to the CEA.
If a bank, having applied the predominance test to a new product,
determines that the product is predominantly a banking product not
subject to CFTC regulation, and the CFTC later challenges the bank's
conclusion, the CFTC is still prohibited from exercising regulatory
authority over the product unless the Commission obtains the
concurrence of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board
(Board). If the Board does not concur in the CFTC's decision, the Board
may submit the controversy for determination by the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The CFTC is expected to be circumspect in applying the predominance
test. For example, it does not necessarily follow that a hybrid
instrument not satisfying the predominance test is inevitably a futures
contract subject to CFTC regulation. The CFTC must not interpret normal
or traditional banking practices and activities, or prudent actions
taken by a bank to maintain safety and soundness, to be hybrid
instruments that the CFTC may regulate. For example, a loan made by a
bank is an identified banking product under section 206(a)(3) of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Some may argue that a new loan product offered
after December 5, 2000, may be interpreted to be covered by the
definition of a hybrid instrument if it has one or payments indexed to
the value of, or provides for the delivery of, one or more commodities.
However, there would be little justification for the CFTC to construe
the pledging of a commodity as collateral for a loan, or that providing
that a commodity may be offered as part or full satisfaction of a loan,
to be representative of a futures contract over which the CFTC may
exert jurisdiction. No such result is contemplated under this
legislation.
Moreover, the fact that a loan may be renegotiated or sold, or that a
loan or other identified banking product may not be held until
maturity, is not a violation of the predominance test. These are merely
examples of the reasonable interpretations that the CFTC must adhere to
when it applies the predominance test for purposes of the statute.
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 excludes from its
coverage agreements, contracts or transactions in an excluded commodity
entered into on an electronic trading facility provided that such
agreements, contracts or transactions are entered into only by eligible
contract participants on a principal-to-principal basis trading for
their own accounts. In some cases, a party may enter into an agreement,
contact or transaction on an electronic trading facility that mirrors
another agreement, contract or transaction entered into at about the
same time with a customer. The risk of one transaction may be largely
or completely offset by the other; and that may be the purpose for
entering into both transactions. But the party entering into both
transactions remains liable to each of its counterparties throughout
the life of the transaction. That party is similarly exposed to the
credit risk of each of its counterparties. The fact that a party
[[Page S11868]]
has entered into back-to-back transactions as described above does not
alter the principal-to-principal nature of each of the transactions and
must not be construed to affect the eligibility of either transaction
for the electronic trading facility exclusion.
Mr. President, enactment of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act
of 2000 will be noted as a major achievement by the 106th Congress.
Taken together with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the work of this
Congress will be seen as a watershed, where we turned away from the
outmoded, Depression-era approach to financial regulation and adopted a
framework that will position our financial services industries to be
world leaders into the new century.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in commending the Democratic and
Republican leaders for reaching this bipartisan agreement to give
early, full and fair consideration to the Amtrak bond proposal in the
next Congress.
The legislation is needed to ensure that Amtrak has the resources to
maintain passenger rail service across the country.
This funding will undoubtedly strengthen train service in the
Northeast Corridor. But this financing package can do much more to
provide similar service to communities throughout the country. It will
provide the financial stability that Amtrak needs to plan adequately
for the future.
With the increasing congestion and delays we're seeing at major
airports across the country, we need other options for transportation
in the 21st century.
I look forward to the enactment of this important legislation early
in the next Congress, so that passenger rail service will continue to
be a key component of our transportation network.
Amtrak helps states meet clean air requirements by giving people a
viable alternative to driving and flying. It's more energy efficient,
which is particularly important for the New England region.
For many business commuters and vacationers, it's a more appealing
way to travel. And for many workers, it's their chosen profession to
which they've devoted years of their lives, and their families depend
on it to pay the bills.
As a nation, we need a firm commitment to support passenger rail
service, just as we do for highways and airports.
So again, I commend the leaders for the commitments made today for a
financing plan to strengthen passenger rail service in the United
States.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate-House
conferees have adopted an amendment I sponsored to inform Congress and
our citizens about potential violations of their privacy on Federal
agency Web sites. The public has a right to know whether the Federal
Government is respecting personal privacy. This amendment would require
all Inspectors General to report to Congress within 60 days on how each
department or agency collects and reviews personal information on its
web site. The amendment is based on similar language offered by
Congressman Jay Inslee in the House that would have applied exclusively
to the agencies funded by the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. Our
final language was adopted by the Senate-House conferees in the bill
providing appropriations for the Legislative Branch and Treasury-Postal
Appropriations Act, and it was included in the Omnibus Appropriations
Act.
The Internet has brought great benefits to our society, but
understandably, the public is becoming more and more concerned about
the way personal information is collected and handled on the Internet.
The Federal Government should set an example for how personal privacy
is handled in cyberspace. But unfortunately, concerns have been raised
that some Federal agencies may be engaging in information-gathering
practices that could only further deepen the public's distrust of
government. We need to find out whether these concerns are real, and if
they are, we need to decide what do about it.
Although the Clinton Administration established a privacy policy in
June 1999 to guide the agencies, it is not clear whether the policy did
much to protect privacy. In particular, the policy seemed to condone
agencies' use of ``cookies''--small bits of software placed on web
users' hard drives to collect personal information. The policy stated,
``In the course of operating a web site, certain information may be
collected automatically in logs or by cookies.'' It also stated that
``some agencies may be able to collect a great deal of information,''
but went on to state that some agencies might make a policy decision to
limit the information collected. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB
is supposed to direct the agencies on privacy policy, but OMB's
original privacy guidance seemed to give the agencies free rein to
decide their own privacy policy for themselves. But OMB's original
guidance did require the agencies to post privacy policies making clear
whether they were collecting information.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy had contracted with a private company to
use cookies to track users of the ONDCP web site. ONDCP failed to warn
the public about this practice in its privacy policy.
When the press reported ONDCP's practices, there was a swift and
sharp public outcry. The White House's Office of Management and Budget
quickly shifted into damaged control mode and issued a June 22
memorandum reversing its previous guidance and creating a presumption
against the use of cookies on Federal web sites. However, more recently
GAO reported to me that a number of agencies continued to use cookies,
and it was not clear how these cookies were being used. This whole
episode raises questions about the Federal Government's commitment to
citizens' privacy. It also could undermine citizens' trust in
government Web site.
I am not suggesting that cookies are inherently bad devices under all
circumstances. Cookies can perform beneficial tasks on the Internet,
such as counting the number of visitors to a site, assessing the
popularity of certain Web pages, and briefly storing information
already entered into to a form so that users don't have to enter the
same information multiple times. At the same time, cookies can be used
to identify specific computers and track a user's actions all over the
Internet. The real questions I have are, ``What are cookies on Federal
agency web sites being used for, and what are the information-gathering
practices of the agencies?'' Right now, I don't know. And the American
people don't know.
I have asked GAO to investigate which agencies are using cookies, how
they are using them, and whether the practice violates the law and
Administration policy. The amendment I have sponsored will provide
further information from the Inspectors General on how agencies collect
and use personal information. The language is based on a similar
amendment that was offered to the House Treasury-Postal bill by
Democratic Congressman Jay Inslee. I want to thank Congressman Inslee
for working in a bipartisan way to protect citizens' personal privacy.
Mr. President, the American people have a right to know what
information is being collected about them on Federal Web sites. This
amendment would ensure that we know agencies' data collection practices
so that we in Congress can make sure that privacy rights of citizens
are not being violated.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are finally at the finish line at the
end of a legislative triathalon. It's been a long, difficult road, but
we've finally come up with a health and education appropriations bill
for this fiscal year. It truly was a test of endurance. Not only can we
take pride in having survived the experience, but, even more
importantly, we've produced a bipartisan agreement that is a victory
for the health and education of our nation.
This agreement is not only a model for giving our nation the building
blocks we need for a strong and secure future. It is a model of how
Democrats and Republicans can work together across party lines to do
what is the best interest of the American people.
Believe me, it hasn't been easy. Before the election, Senator
Stevens, Senate Byrd, Senator Specter, and I, along with Congressmen
Bill Young, Dave Obey, and John Porter worked for months to craft a
solid bipartisan agreement. At times the negotiations got heated, but
both sides hung in there, and in the end we came up with a good
compromise.
[[Page S11869]]
That bipartisan agreement would have passed overwhelmingly in both
the House and the Senate--which is why we were all just baffled when,
less than 12 hours after we had signed our names to the bill, a tiny
faction of the House Republican leadership decided to kill it.
As a result, some reductions had to be made, some of which were very
disappointing. I hope that in the next Congress, a spirit of
cooperation and civility will prevail and prevent these sort of last-
minute, partisan maneuvers.
That being said, I believe that the version of our bill that we have
here today is a very, very good one. It maintains most of our hard
fought gains and provides critical investments to improve health care,
education, and labor conditions for all Americans.
I want to extend my sincere thanks and commendation to my long-time
partner, Senator Arlen Specter and his staff. We have had a great
bipartisan partnership on this bill for a decade. Year after year,
Senator Specter has done yeoman's work, and it is a pleasure to work
with him. This is always a difficult bill to maneuver and this year may
have been our toughest.
I also want thank and commend our chairman, Senator Stevens, and
ranking member Senator Byrd for their great work. This bill would not
be possible without their outstanding and steadfast efforts.
Finally, I want to thank our colleagues on the House side,
Congressman Obey, Congressman Porter, and Chairman Bill Young. I
especially want to commend Congressman Porter who is retiring this
year.
Here are some of the reasons why I urge all of my colleagues to
support this important bipartisan agreement.
Education funding: $1.6 billion to lower class sizes, up from $1.3
billion last year; $900 million to repair and modernize crumbling
schools: should result in over $5 billion in school repairs, based on
successful Iowa model; and increase to $3,750 for the maximum Pell
grant--that's a record increase in the grants to make college more
affordable; and $6.2 billion for Head Start: that's a $933 million
increase from last year which will allow thousands of additional
children to be served.
Afterschool care: $850 million for after school care: nearly 50
percent increase.
Home heating: $1.4 billion for LIHEAP to help low-income Americans
heat their homes this winter: a $300 million increase.
Health care: $20.3 billion for NIH funding: $2.5 billion increase,
the largest increase ever; thousands of new research projects on
Alzheimer's, cancer, childhood diabetes, HIV, Parkinson's disease,
cerebral palsy, and others; $125 million for new program to assist
family caregivers struggling to keep elderly loved ones in their
homes--provide respite and other needed services.
I am also especially excited about the funding in this bill for the
Medical Errors Reduction Act of 2000 which Senator Specter and I
introduced. Medical errors are estimated to be the 5th leading cause of
death in this country. In fact, more people die from medical errors
each year than from motor vehicles accidents (43,458), breast cancer
(42,297), or AIDS (16,516). Our bill gives grants to states to
establish reporting systems designed to reduce medical errors. It also
calls for better research, training and public information on the issue
of medical errors.
I'm also very proud of the funding in this bill for numerous programs
that will give people with disabilities a real choice to live in their
own communities near their families and friends. Most notably, this
bill includes $50 million for systems change grants to help states
reform their long-term care systems and make it easier for people with
disabilities and the elderly to live at home.
This is just the beginning of our work to help states meet their so-
called Olmstead obligation to provide services and supports to people
with disabilities in the most integrated settings appropriate and
feasible. This year is the 10th anniversary of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and these provisions are a great way to implement the
ADA's ideals of independence and justice for all.
Finally, I would like to mention how pleased I am with the FAIR Act--
the Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act--that is attached to the
LHHS Appropriations Bill, I, Senator Thomas, and several other Members
of Congress introduced this bipartisan bill to provide Medicare
providers relief from the excessive payment reductions resulting from
the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. This bill will allow approximately 30
states, including Iowa, to benefit from fairer Medicare payments to
states below the national average.
This bill allots approximately $35 billion over 5 years for
reimbursement improvements to hospitals, home health agencies, nursing
facilities, rural health providers and Medicare managed care. It will
help our struggling rural hospitals, nursing facilities and home health
agencies continue to provide quality care to seniors in Iowa and across
the nation.
The bill will also help to improve enrollment rates for families and
children in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
While I'm disappointed that our original LHHS Appropriations
compromise was derailed, this bill is still a major step forward. It
provides important investments in the health, education and
productivity of all Americans.
This bill would not have been possible without the tireless, often
heroic work of my staff. They's worked late nights and long weekends,
and I am incredibly grateful for their expertise and excellent advice.
I would especially like to thank Ellen Murray, Lisa Bernhardt, Peter
Reinecke, Katie Corrigan, Sabrina Corlette, and Bev Schroeder for their
outstanding work.
In passing this bill, I am hopeful that we will move beyond the
partisan bickering that stalled our negotiations for so long.
With this year's elections, the American people sent us a strong
message. They gave us one of the closest Presidential elections in
history along with an evenly divided Senate and a closely divided
House.
Clearly, they are tired of the bickering and bitterness that have
characterized our politics, and they want us to bridge our differences
and work together for their best interests. It is now time for us to
come together and heed their call.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the passage of the
FY 2001 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Had I been given the opportunity
to cast a recorded vote on this legislation, I would have voted ``no.''
There were a lot of things slipped in without prior authorization for
the spending. I hope in the next Congress we can work with a new
administration to clean up the process. Projects should go through a
separate authorization process. All Members should have the same
opportunity to review the projects in the bill and the public should
know what is being funded. There are a number of us who would also like
to see biennial budgeting so we have a chance to really evaluate how
taxpayer money is being used.
We didn't even have a final funding total available to us before the
vote. I know funding for labor and health and other related areas
increased dramatically in this deal to nearly $13 billion more than
last year's levels. These significant funding levels are not a one-time
activity in the Congress--it has become an annual ritual. It's just too
much. This is money that should be going to pay off the national debt.
We must break the pattern of spending our children's future.
Some increases in the overall spending package were needed, including
more support for education and nearly $36 billion in Medicare payments
to healthcare providers. Wyoming rural hospitals and nursing homes will
benefit from this effort. There are some very good things in this bill,
but looking at the whole picture, the bad outweighed the good.
I am also very displeased that budget negotiators left out of the
package a previously passed amendment which would have prevented the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from going forward
with a massive new repetitive stress injury rule. The ergonomics rule
could leave injured workers' compensation systems in ruin, close
nursing homes and overshadow existing safety needs. The Senate and
House agreed by a bipartisan vote on identical language that would
require OSHA to slow its furious rush.
[[Page S11870]]
The amendment would give the agency time to go back and fix the
terrible flaws with this rule that have been brought to light. This new
regulation will affect the whole of workplaces in America. It carries
serious consequences. I am most displeased that this rule will be
finalized and I will work with my colleagues to overturn it.
Mr. BAUCUS. Although I am unable to vote for or against the omnibus
legislation before the Senate today, I would like to comment on the
process that brought us here. In an effort to improve the economy of my
state and to facilitate trade between America and its East Asian
trading partners, I have led a trade mission of Montanans to East Asia
for the last several days, meeting with trade officials in Japan, China
and Korea.
Mr. President, I am extremely concerned about the process that has
brought about this omnibus bill's passage. It is unfortunate that the
Senate finds itself in virtually the same position as it did the last
two years with appropriations matters. As my colleagues will recall, in
1998 we voted on a giant omnibus appropriations bill which contained
eight appropriations bills, plus numerous other authorizing
legislation. It ran on for nearly 4,000 pages and was called a
``gargantuan monstrosity'' by the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia, Senator Byrd.
Unfortunately, we did not learn our lesson in 1998. Last year
Congress wrapped Medicare provider payments into appropriations for
Commerce-State-Justice, Foreign Operations Appropriations, Interior and
Labor-HHS, again passing it in omnibus fashion without time for
senators to read through the bill and raise concerns about its
contents.
I voted against the 1998 and 1999 omnibus bills, not because they did
not contain good provisions for the country and my State of Montana.
They did. I opposed these bills because I believed--as I do now--that
writing such legislation behind closed doors among a small group of
people dangerously disenfranchises most senators, House members, and
the American people.
And here we are again, passing Labor-HHS along with Treasury-Postal
and Legislative Appropriations--all in one bill, with the input of very
few members of Congress. Despite statements in 1998 and 1999 that such
a process would not happen again, we find ourselves in the same
position as the last two years. Mr. President, we already face a
population that is increasingly cynical of government and those who
serve it, and the wrangling over the presidential election that just
ended has not helped matters. People believe more and more that
government does not look after their interests, but only after special
interests. And the more we operate behind closed doors, without an
open, public process, the more we feed that cynicism. That is not
healthy for our democracy or our people, and it's why I cannot support
this omnibus bill.
That said, Mr. President, there is good news for Montana health care
in this bill, provisions that I have fought for all year. In
particular, I want to reiterate my support for year-long efforts to
restore funding to health care providers negatively impacted by the
Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997.
When the BBA was passed in 1997, it was heralded as landmark
legislation to extend the life of Medicare's trust fund and impose some
much-needed fiscal discipline on the program. Indeed, just eight years
ago, estimates indicated that Medicare's hospital trust fund would run
dry in 1999. But a strong economy and reductions in payments to
Medicare providers through the BBA have extended the life of the Part A
Trust Fund for probably a couple of decades. Unfortunately, access to
quality health care may have been compromised in the process.
For example, the BBA included new prospective payment systems for
Medicare providers of hospital, skilled nursing and home health care.
While these payment systems are intended to introduce efficiency to
Medicare and ultimately increase the quality and availability of
patient care, in some cases they may not make sense. I am concerned
that PPSs may be ill-applied in the case of small, rural facilities,
which do not have the patient volume to survive under a system of flat-
rate payments.
Consider home health care, for example. As costs for this important
benefit spiraled out of control, and as reports circulated of fly-by-
night home care agencies defrauding the government and harming
patients, Congress passed a home health prospective payment system as
part of the BBA. Payments were reduced drastically. While these cuts
were justified in regions of the US with too many home care providers,
they also took effect where there was not a redundancy of agencies. Now
there are some Montana counties lacking home care providers altogether.
Montana has lost seven home health agencies, and there are currently
three counties in my state with no home care provider at all. Together
these three counties--Rosebud, Treasure and Big Horn--have an area over
23,000 square miles, an area nearly the size of West Virginia.
I believe BBA changes have gone too far in the area of hospital care
as well. Last year I pushed legislation to spare small rural hospitals
drastic cuts in Medicare reimbursement to their outpatient departments
by exempting them from the negative impacts of the outpatient
prospective payment system. Based on estimates from the Health Care
Financing Administration, the effects of the outpatient PPS would have
been devastating on small Montana hospitals. Madison Valley Hospital in
Ennis, Montana, for example, would have lost an estimated 62 percent of
its outpatient Medicare payments without an exemption from the
outpatient PPS; Liberty County Hospital in Chester would have lost over
50 percent.
I was pleased that Congress acted to prevent cuts to these outpatient
facilities last year, through passage of the Balanced Budget Refinement
Act of 1999, BBRA, legislation restoring $16 billion in Medicare and
Medicaid payments over a five-year period.
This year's budget bill has significant BBA relief as well. Although
I believe too much of the funding is directed toward Medicare+Choice
plans, there is significant help in the package for the well-being of
Montana health care and Medicare in general. These provisions include
increased reimbursement for telemedicine; special payments for rural
home care agencies and rural disproportionate hospitals; correction of
a mistake affecting Critical Access Hospitals' outpatient lab
facilities; relief for community health centers and rural health
clinics; and redistribution of unspent funding from the State
Children's Health Program, SCHIP. In short, I am pleased that BBA
relief is set for passage, and I commend the Administration and my
colleagues for setting aside politics to get this bill done.
I would also like to make a couple of comments about the tax
legislation in this omnibus bill. In this area too, I object not so
much to what is in this bill as I do to what is not. The tax title of
the bill includes a number of provisions to encourage economic
development in distressed communities, the so-called Community Renewal
and New Markets provisions. I support these provisions because I
believe they can help spur economic development in many areas in the
country, including in my own home State of Montana. I also support the
language that allows Indian tribes to be treated like state and local
governments in their payment of Federal unemployment taxes.
However, in this closed process of negotiation by the few, several
good ideas that were in the Senate version of the Community Renewal
bill somehow never made it into this conference report. There is not
one single dollar in this bill to help Americans save for their
retirement, which is a high priority of mine because I believe our
country needs to begin preparing for the wave of baby boom retirements.
The Senate bill included a wide-ranging farm package that is very
important for rural areas that you won't see in this bill. It also
included environmental and energy incentives that were designed to help
us plan for the future. The loss of these provisions will become much
more noticeable as our land and energy needs keep growing.
The bottom line is that there is a reason that tax items should not
be included in an appropriations omnibus bill at the last minute,
particularly when the tax-writing committees are left out of the
process of writing the
[[Page S11871]]
bill. That is exactly what has happened again this year, and I again
voice my objections to the process.
Ms. COLLINS. I rise in support of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act which we are considering as
part of this omnibus package and which provides over $30 billion in
much needed financial relief to our nation's beleaguered hospitals,
home health agencies, hospices and other Medicare providers over the
next five years.
In 1997, Congress and the White House faced a large and seemingly
intractable federal budget deficit and projection that the Medicare
Trust Fund would be bankrupt by 2002 unless Congress acted. The rapid
growth in Medicare spending and pending insolvency of the trust fund
understandably prompted the Congress and the Administration, as part of
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, to initiate changes that were intended
to allow the spending growth and make Medicare more cost-effective and
efficient.
These measures, however, have inadvertently produced cuts in Medicare
spending far beyond what Congress intended. In 1997, the Congressional
Budget Office estimated that the BBA would cut Medicare spending by
$116 billion from 1998 to 2002. It now appears that the five-year
impact of the BBA for hospitals, home health agencies and other
Medicare providers is closer to $227 billion--almost twice the original
estimates.
These deeper than expected cuts in Medicare spending, coupled with
onerous regulatory requirements imposed by the Clinton Administration,
are inhibiting the ability of hospitals, home health agencies, and
other providers to deliver much-needed care, particularly to
chronically-ill patients with complex care needs. While the Balanced
Budget Refinement Act of 1999 did provide some relief, I believe that
it is imperative that we do more. As we approach the end of the 106th
Congress, we should have no higher priority.
I am particularly pleased that the package we are considering today
provides overdue relief for our nation's rural hospitals. Small, rural
hospitals in Maine and elsehwere face unique challenges in the delivery
of health care services. Shortages of physicians, nurses and other
health professionals make it difficult to ensure that rural residents
have access to all of the care that they need. Moreover, Medicare
reimbursement policies tend to favor urban areas and often fail to take
the special needs of rural providers into account.
One relatively simple, but nevertheless important step we can take is
to enable more small, rural hospitals in Maine and elsewhere to qualify
for enhanced Medicare payments under the Medicare Dependent, Small
Rural Hospital Program. I am therefore pleased that this bill includes
legislation that I introduced, the Small Rural Hospital Program
Improvement Act, to update the antiquated and arbitrary classification
requirements that prevent otherwise-qualified hospitals from receiving
assistance under this program.
Despite the fact that most of the small rural hospitals in Maine
treat a disproportionate share of Medicare beneficiaries, none of them
currently qualifies for this program. Not a single one. If updated in
the way that this bill proposes, as many as nine Maine hospitals will
be eligible for the program, which will qualify them to receive over $9
million in additional Medicare dollars each year.
The bill also includes legislation introduced by the senior Senator
from Maine, Senator Snowe, to correct a drafting error that precluded
some of Maine's sole community hospitals from benefiting from the
rebasing provisions in the Balancing Budget Refinement Act. This
provision will bring an additional $2.8 million in Medicare
reimbursements to Maine's hospitals each year.
In addition, the legislation corrects the current inequity in the
Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital program that discriminates
against rural hospitals that care for proportionately greater numbers
of low-income patients. By treating rural hospitals the same as urban
hospitals, as this bill would do, we will increase Medicare
disproportionate share payments to at least 18 of Maine's hospitals by
more than $8 million a year.
And finally, the legislation will provide increased Medicare payments
to all Maine hospitals by providing them with a full 3.4 percent
inflation increase in FY 2001, up from the 2.3 percent they would
receive under current law.
Increasing Medicare payments rates is critically important to the
hospitals in Maine. For the past several years, Maine has ranked 49th
or 50th in the nation in terms of Medicare reimbursement-to-cost
ratios. While hospitals in some states receive more than it costs them
to provide care to older and disabled patients, Maine's hospitals are
only reimbursed about 80 cents for every $1.00 they actually spend
caring for Medicare beneficiaries.
As a consequence, Maine's hospitals have experienced a serious
Medicare shortfall in recent years. The Maine Hospital Association
anticipates a $174 million Medicare shortfall in 2002, which will force
Maine's hospitals to shift costs on to other payers in the form of
higher hospital charges. This Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons
that Maine has among the highest insurance premiums in the nation.
These provisions will not solve all of Maine's Medicare shortfall
problems, but they will help to close the gap.
I am also pleased that this bill extends and increases funding for
two diabetes research programs created by the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, one focused on juvenile diabetes and the other focused on
diabetes in Native Americans. These two programs are currently only
funded through 2002. The Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act would extend funding for these two
programs for one year and increase their funding levels from $30
million a year to $100 million a year.
As the founder and Co-Chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have
learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties
and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families
as they await a cure. We were all encouraged by the news earlier this
year that twelve individuals from Canada appear to have been cured of
their diabetes through an experimental treatment involving the
transplantation of islet cells, and I believe that it is becoming
increasingly clear that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and
will be cured in the near future, if sufficient funding is made
available.
Last year, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which
I chair, held an oversight hearing to determine if the funding levels
for diabetes research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are
sufficient. At the hearing, the Committee heard testimony from the
Diabetes Research Working Group (DRWG), an expert panel that studied
the status of diabetes research at the NIH and across the country. The
study revealed that diabetes research has been seriously underfunded.
According to the DRWG, diabetes research represents only about 3
percent of the NIH research budget, which is clearly too small an
investment for a disease that affects 16 million Americans and accounts
for more than 10 percent of all health care dollars and nearly a
quarter of all Medicare expenditures. Moreover, the DRWG report found
that ``many scientific opportunities are not being pursued due to
insufficient funding,'' and that the current ``funding level is far
short of what is required to make progress on this complex and
difficult problem.'' According to the DRWG, the funding levels for
diabetes at the NIH are roughly $300 million short of what is necessary
to ensure that the promising scientific opportunities in diabetes
research are realized.
The legislation we are considering today will help to close that gap
and will make an enormous difference to the millions of Americans whose
lives are affected every day by diabetes. By extending and increasing
the funding for these two important research programs, we are providing
the additional resources necessary to take advantage of the
unprecedented opportunities for medical advances that should lead to
better treatments, a means of prevention, and eventually a cure for
this devastating disease.
Finally, I am pleased that the bill we are considering today does
provide a small measure of relief to our nation's struggling home
health agencies, and in particular to those agencies that serve
patients in rural areas. I am,
[[Page S11872]]
however, disappointed that it does not do more. I will therefore
continue to push not just for a delay--as this measure proposes--but
for a full repeal of the automatic 15 percent reduction in home health
payments that is currently scheduled to go into effect on October 1,
2001.
The Medicare home health benefit has already been cut far more deeply
and abruptly than any other benefit in the history of the Medicare
program. An additional 15 percent cut in Medicare home health payments
would ring the death knell for those low-cost agencies that are
struggling to hang on and would further reduce our senior's access to
critical home health services.
Moreover, the savings goals set for home health in the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 have not only been met, but far surpassed. The CBO
projects that the post-BBA reductions in home health will be about $69
billion between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. This is over four times the
$16 billion that Congress expected to save when it passed the 1997 law.
Further cuts clearly are not necessary and the 15 percent cut should be
repealed. To simply delay the cut for an additional year is to leave
this ``sword of Damocles'' hanging over the head of our nation's home
health agencies.
I have also been disappointed that the process under which we are
considering this critical piece of legislation has not allowed for any
amendments. The Home Health Payment Fairness Act, which I introduced
with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, to repeal the 15 percent
cut currently has 55 Senate cosponsors. If I had been allowed to offer
my bill as an amendment, as I had planned, it almost certainly would
have passed.
Thank you, Mr. President, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting for this important legislation.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hart-Scott-
Rodino Act reform included in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations
bill. Our provision updates the law, which hadn't been adjusted for
inflation since it was enacted in 1976, and makes several improvements
to the merger review process undertaken by the Antitrust Division of
the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. It is a
bipartisan measure, authored by Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, and
myself and Representatives Hyde and Conyers, and it deserves our
support.
The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act is crucial to the enforcement of
competition policy in today's economy--it ensures that the antitrust
agencies have sufficient time to review mergers and acquisitions prior
to their completion. The statute requires that, prior to consummating a
merger or acquisition of a certain minimum size, the companies involved
must formally notify the antitrust agencies and must provide certain
information regarding the proposed transaction. For those transactions
covered by the Act, the parties to a merger or acquisition may not
close their transaction until the expiration of a waiting period after
making their Hart-Scott-Rodino Act filing. It also authorizes the
government to subpoena additional information from merging parties so
that the government has sufficient information to complete its merger
analysis.
While this statute has a very laudable purpose, especially with the
tremendous numbers of mergers and acquisitions taking place in recent
years, some of its provisions are in need of revision. Most
importantly, while inflation has caused the value of a dollar to drop
by more than a half in the past 25 years, the monetary test that
subjects a transaction to the provisions of the statute has not been
revised since the law's enactment in 1976. As a result, many
transactions that are of a relatively small size and pose little
antitrust concerns are nevertheless swept into the ambit of the Hart-
Scott-Rodino review process. This legislation updates this statute to
better fit into today's economy by raising the minimum size of
transaction covered by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act from $15 million to
$50 million. This will both lessen the agencies' burden of reviewing
small transactions unlikely to seriously affect competition and enable
the agencies to allocate their resources to properly focus on those
transactions most worthy of scrutiny.
Further, exempting small transactions from the Hart-Scott-Rodino
process will significantly lessen regulatory burdens and expenses
imposed on small businesses. The parties to these smaller transactions
will no longer need to pay the $45,000 filing fee--or face the often
even more onerous legal fees and other expenses typically incurred in
preparing a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing--for mergers and acquisitions that
usually don't pose any competitive concerns.
In exempting this class of transactions from Hart-Scott-Rodino
review, however, it is important that we not cause the antitrust
agencies to lose the funding they need to carry out their increasingly
demanding mission of enforcing the nation's antitrust laws. This bill
will reduce the number of Hart-Scott-Rodino filings and therefore
reduce the revenues generated by these filings if the filing fees were
kept at their present level. Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't
finance the Antitrust Division and the FTC on the backs of these filing
fees. But because they are a fact of life, the antitrust agencies
should not be penalized by these reforms by suffering such a reduction
in revenues. As a result, in order to assure that this reform is
revenue neutral, we have worked with the Appropriations Committee to
ensure that this bill raises the filing fees for the largest
transactions. Consequently, filing fees are to be increased for
transactions valued at over $100,000,000, which makes sense because
these transactions require more scrutiny.
This legislation makes other changes designed to enhance the
efficiency of the pre-merger review process. The waiting period has
been extended from twenty to thirty days after the parties' compliance
with the government's request for additional information, a more
realistic waiting period in this era of increasingly complex mergers
generating enormous amounts of relevant information and documents. And,
as in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a deadline for
governmental action occurs on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is
extended to the next business day. This simple provision will eliminate
gamesmanship by parties who currently may time their compliance so that
the waiting period ends on a weekend or holiday, effectively shortening
the waiting period to the previous business day.
Finally, in recent years may have expressed concerns regarding the
difficulties and expense imposed on business in complying with
allegedly overly burdensome or duplicative government request for
additional information. So our legislation also contains carefully
crafted provisions to ensure that business is not faced with unduly
burdensome or overbroad requests for information, while assuring that
the antitrust agencies' ability to obtain the information necessary to
carry out a merger investigation is not hampered. Specifically, our
legislation mandates that the FTC and Antitrust Division designate a
senior official who does not have direct authority for the review of
any enforcement recommendation to be designated to hear appeals to the
appropriateness of the government's information request (the so called
``Second Requests''). The bill also sets forth the specific standards
that this senior official is to utilize when considering such an appeal
and mandates that these appeals be heard in an expedited manner.
In sum, I believe this legislation to be a reasonable and well
balanced reform of our government's vital merger review procedures. It
will make long overdue adjustments in the filing thresholds--ensuring
review of those mergers in most need of governmental scrutiny while
reducing the burden and expense on government and private parties by
exempting smaller transactions from often expensive and time consuming
pre-merger filings. It will also significantly reform the merger review
process to ensure that the government has sufficient time to analyze
increasing complex merger transactions, while also adding protections
so that private parties do not face unduly burdensome or duplicative
information request. I urge swift passage of this measure.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about
the lack of commitment for forward funding for the Low Income Heating
Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2002. Mr. President, as you
know, LIHEAP is a block grant program to
[[Page S11873]]
the states to assist needy households with energy assistance. Since
FY1999, the program has been funded at $1.1 billion, plus $300 million
for weather emergencies. I am pleased to note that, through our
efforts, the Labor-HHS Conference Report provides $1.4 billion for
FY2001, with a contingency fund of $300 million for emergencies. To my
great dismay, however, the $1.4 million provided to help the States
budget for next winter--the winter of 2001-2002--was cut from the final
package.
We need to face the fact that our nation is budgeting by emergency
when it comes to making sure that our low-income citizens, particularly
the elderly, can keep warm in the winter. This past year, there were
four different releases of the FY2000 emergency funds, most of which
were released by mid-February, 2000. Currently, there is only
$155,650,000 remaining in the FY2000 emergency funds and I am aware
that the White House is coming to a decision soon as to how to dispense
these much-needed funds. I have joined many of my colleagues at
different times over the past year urging these releases along with the
currently needed release.
I have also urged an increase in the regular funding for the States
programs, along with forward funding for the next fiscal year so that
the States can appropriately budget for each successive year so as to
extend the benefits to as many eligible people in need as possible.
Currently, Mr. President, Maine's LIHEAP program has borrowed from
the State's ``rainy day fund'' in the hopes that the State would
ultimately get paid back. Today is December 15--two and a half months
into the fiscal year--and they are still waiting. Because the
Legislature had the foresight to lend out this money, the Community
Action Agencies were able to get funding to LIHEAP beneficiaries last
July so they could buy home heating oil when it was cheaper.
Like last winter, Maine's LIHEAP program is currently receiving an
extraordinary amount of applications for help. Anticipating a colder
winter and higher prices this winter, the State has budgeted to
accommodate more applications--they have already processed over
26,000--but to do this, they have had to reduce the benefit from $488
last year down to $350 currently. They are hearing that, because of the
high prices--as high as $1.63 per gallon--the $350 does not allow
LIHEAP recipients to fill their oil tank even once as we move into the
colder New England winter months ahead.
We have a critical problem facing the country in the upcoming winter
months, Mr. President. It is said that misery loves company, and it is
my sense that, given the skyrocketing natural gas prices being
experienced by all parts of the country, the Northeast will have lots
of company this winter as more and more constituents with low incomes,
particularly the fixed-income elderly, worry about where the money will
come from to pay their heating bills to keep warm. This is a very
unhealthy situation.
I have spent this entire year appealing for more LIHEAP funding to
protect the most vulnerable members of our society so they will have
energy assistance when they need it most. I will continue to do so in
the next Congress in the hopes that we will all step up to the plate
and not only increase the overall LIHEAP funding but to forward fund
the program so the states an be fiscally responsible and accommodate as
many people as possible with this vital benefit.
The ongoing problem continues to be one of supply and demand as
natural gas and heating oil inventories remain historically low, and
the increased costs caused by this imbalance will not right itself in
time for the cold winter weather when demand will rise sharply. This
situation prices the low-income households right out of the market and
they find themselves making ``Solomon choices'' for heating or eating,
or by cutting down on necessary and costly prescription drugs.
It is logical that when costs are doubled, those served by the LIHEAP
program are decreased by the same amount. And, we should keep in mind
that only around 13 percent of households that are eligible for the
LIHEAP program actually even receive Federal assistance. Colder
weather, higher costs and tighter budgets could have the effect of
raising this percentage upward.
Because Maine received over $5.3 million in emergency LIHEAP funds
this past winter, my State was able to increase the income limits to
serve more eligible residents with their high energy costs. Maine was
able to increase the income guidelines to 170 percent of the Federal
Poverty Guidelines and assist over 50,400 households with a fuel
assistance benefit averaging $488, almost twice last year's $261.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with you on increased long-
range funding that will allow the Community Action Agencies in Maine
and other States' LIHEAP programs to plan and budget in advance, so
that as many energy needs are addressed as possible. I hope my
colleagues will join me next year in efforts for increasing funds so
that our States can budget for a safety net that can be extended to as
many low-income citizens as possible--and to make sure they do not find
themselves literally out in the cold.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of provisions in
the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 that would
transfer a Coast Guard lighthouse on Plum Island to the city of
Newburyport, Massachusetts and land on Nantucket Island from the Coast
Guard Loran station to the town of Nantucket, Massachusetts. I wish to
thank the conferees for including these provisions in this bill.
Mr. President, the Plum Island lighthouse is a national treasure.
This conveyance ensures that this historic treasure will be preserved
and protected for generations to come. This was included at the request
of my constituents in the area. The Coast Guard has always been a good
friend and neighbor in Massachusetts. I am pleased that this historic
landmark will transferred to Newburyport so that it can be preserved
and protected for the citizens and visitors of the City to enjoy for
years to come.
Mr. President, the town of Nantucket needs a small amount of property
from the Coast Guard Loran Station to build a sewage treatment plant.
The Coast Guard has been working with local government officials on the
Island to find a solution to this problem. Initially the Coast Guard
considered leasing this property to Nantucket, however the Coast Guard
later determined that a conveyance was the better solution. I applaud
the Coast Guard for working with Nantucket to develop this workable
solution.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate
passed regulatory accounting legislation in the Treasury-Postal title
of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, section 624, also known as the
Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. I want to thank Chairman Ted Stevens and
Senator John Breaux for helping me pass this important legislation. We
have worked together over the last several years to further some basic
important goals: to promote the public's right to know about the costs
and benefits of regulatory programs; to increase the accountability of
government to the people it serves; and ultimately, to improve the
quality of our regulatory programs. This legislation will help us
assess what regulatory programs cost, what benefits we are getting in
return, and what we need to do to improve agency performance.
By any measure, the burdens of Federal regulation are enormous. By
some estimates, Federal rules and paperwork cost about $700 billion per
year, or $7,000 for the average American household. I hear concerns
about unnecessary regulatory burdens and red tape from people all
across the country and from all walks of life--small business owners,
governors, state legislators, local officials, farmers, corporate
leaders, government reformers, school officials, and parents.
There is strong public support for sensible regulations that can help
ensure cleaner water, quality products, safer workplaces, reliable
economic markets, and the like. But there is substantial evidence that
the current regulatory system is missing important opportunities to
achieve these goals in a more cost-effective manner. The depth of this
problem is not appreciated fully because the costs of regulation are
not as apparent as other costs of government, such as taxes, and the
benefits of regulation often are diffuse. The bottom line is that the
American people deserve better results from
[[Page S11874]]
the vast resources and time spent on regulation. We've got to be
smarter.
We often debate the costs and benefits of on-budget programs, but we
are just breaking ground on creating a system to scrutinize Federal
regulation. This legislation will provide better information to help us
answer some important questions: How much do regulatory programs cost
each year? Are we spending the right amount, particularly compared to
on-budget spending and private initiatives? Are we setting sensible
priorities among different regulatory programs? As the Office of
Management and Budget stated in its first ``Report to Congress on the
Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations'':
[R]egulations (like other instruments of government policy)
have enormous potential for both good and harm....The only
way we know how to distinguish between the regulations that
do good and those that cause harm is through careful
assessment and evaluation of their benefits and costs. Such
analysis can also often be used to redesign harmful
regulations so they produce more good than harm and redesign
good regulations so they produce even more net benefits.
This legislation continues the efforts of my precedessors. Senator
Bill Roth proposed a regulatory accounting provision in a broader
reform measure that he worked on when he chaired the Governmental
Affairs Committee in 1995. In 1996, when Ted Stevens became our
chairman, he passed a one-time regulatory accounting amendment on the
Omnibus Appropriations Act. After I became the chairman of Governmental
Affairs, I supported Senator Stevens' amendment when it passed again in
1997. In 1998, I sponsored an amendment to strengthen the Stevens
provision with the support of Senators Lott, Breaux, Shelby, and Robb,
as well as a bipartisan coalition in the House. This year, I worked
with Senators Stevens and Breaux to make this legislation permanent.
This legislation continues the requirement that OMB shall report to
Congress on the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, which began
with the Stevens amendment. This legislation also adds to previous
initiatives in several respects. First, it will finally make regulatory
accounting a permanent statutory requirement. Regulatory accounting
will become a regular exercise to help ensure that regulatory programs
are cost-effective, sensible, and fair. The costs and benefits of
regulation can become a regular part of the annual debate between the
Congress and the executive branch on the Federal budget. Second, this
legislation will require OMB to provide a more complete picture of the
regulatory system, including the incremental costs and benefits of
particular programs and regulations, as well as an analysis of
regulatory impacts on State, local, and tribal government, small
business, wages, and economic growth. Finally, this legislation will
help ensure that OMB will provide better information as time goes on.
Requirements for OMB guidelines and independent peer review should
continually improve future regulatory accounting reports.
The government has an obligation to think carefully and be
accountable for requirements that impose costs on people and limit
their freedom. We should pull together to contribute to the success of
responsible government programs that the public values, while enhancing
the economic security and well-being of our families and communities.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Regulatory
Right-to-Know Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Sec. 624. (a) In General.--For calendar year 2002 and each
year thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall prepare and submit to Congress, with the budget
submitted under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code,
an accounting statement and associated report containing--
(1) an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits
(including quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects) of
Federal rules and paperwork, to the extent feasible--
(A) in the aggregate;
(B) by agency and agency program; and
(C) by major rule;
(2) an analysis of impacts of Federal regulation on State,
local, and tribal government, small business, wages, and
economic growth; and
(3) recommendations for reform.
(b) Notice.--The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall provide public notice and an opportunity to
comment on the statement and report under subsection (a)
before the statement and report are submitted to Congress.
(c) Guidelines.--To implement this section, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget shall issue guidelines to
agencies to standardize--
(1) measures of costs and benefits; and
(2) the format of accounting statements.
(d) Peer Review.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall provide for independent and external peer
review of the guidelines and each accounting statement and
associated report under this section. Such peer review shall
not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.).
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a provision in
the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 that would
transfer Coast Guard Station Scituate to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. NOAA will use the facility to serve
as the headquarters for the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary. Since the mid-90s the Coast Guard has shared the
facility with both NOAA and the Massachusetts Environmental Police,
MEP. Once the Coast Guard has relocated to a new facility NOAA and the
MEP will jointly use the facility to both manage and study the marine
sanctuary and to perform cooperative enforcement on the water. I am
happy to report that NOAA is teaming with the MEP to share resources
and facilities to improve fisheries and sanctuary enforcement. It is my
understanding that NOAA will be offering the same working and living
spaces to the MEP that have been provided in the past by the U.S. Coast
Guard. In addition the MEP will have the same berthing and dock space
for their vessels. Furthermore it is my understanding that this
agreement between the two agencies will mirror the current U.S. Coast
Guard agreement with the MEP with respect to terms and conditions.
The Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary is located at the mouth of
Massachusetts Bay. It was first described in the diary of Captain Henry
Stellwagen, a hydrographer for the U.S. Navy, as ``an important
discovery in the location of a fifteen fathom bank lying in a line
between Cape Cod and Cape Ann.'' The wealth of sea life that moved
below the surface of Captain Stellwagen's vessel has drawn commercial
fishing fleets for centuries. The continued use for maritime commerce,
whether shipping, fishing or whale watching excursions, presents a
major challenge in the enforcement of sanctuary rules.
Today the sanctuary draws as many as one million visitors a year,
many of them whale watchers, intent on experiencing a close encounter
with a whale--particularly the gregarious and acrobatic humpback. While
its numbers at Stellwagen Bank are relatively strong, the species is
nevertheless listed as endangered based on its worldwide numbers. The
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act have been
enacted to help protect this and other species; but the oceans are
large and enforcement is difficult. I applaud the cooperation shown by
NOAA and the MEP to address this critical issue in the sanctuary. This
conveyance of property form the Coast Guard to NOAA will solidify this
relationship between the MEP and NOAA and will at the same time provide
office space and research facilities for teams of scientists to study
one of the true treasures of New England, the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in the final days of the 106th Congress, I
wanted to take this opportunity to speak about the issue of debt relief
and reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
A great deal of attention has been paid recently to a complicated
issue that has faced Congress--the international lending practices of
the World Bank group and the IMF. The complexity increases when you
factor in calls for the United States to contribute to efforts to write
off debt owed by the world's heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs).
As vice chairman of the Senate Banking Subcommittee on International
Trade and Finance, I have conducted a series of oversight hearings on
the functioning of the IMF and World Bank. These hearings have only
strengthened my belief that the evidence is clear--we should not grant
[[Page S11875]]
debt relief without demanding that the international lending
institutions such as the World Bank and IMF change their current
practices.
I supported Senate passage of the fiscal year 2001 foreign operations
appropriations conference report with much reservation.
The bill collectively provides about $435 million toward debt
forgiveness for the HIPCs. Of this money, $210 million comes disguised
as ``emergency'' spending.
Regrettably, this all goes without any link between relief and
reform. The legislation calls for a couple of reports to Congress and a
few policy suggestions that the U.S. ought to urge these institutions
to adopt, but it has no teeth to force change. The lending institutions
pay no consequences for failing to mend their ways . . . this means the
consequences of inaction will be borne by, among others, American
taxpayers and people in need.
Essentially, the IMF, World Bank, and other international lending
institutions are supposed to improve economies of impoverished
countries and the health and well-being of people throughout the world.
In the U.S., we are a compassionate people; we share our bounty with
many other countries. But many question the effectiveness of how the
World Bank and the IMF perform their missions.
The World Bank and IMF lend money to certain countries to use for
various purposes--improving infrastructure needs, feeding and
immunizing children, and stabilizing the economy, to name a few. But
these noble goals have been stymied by corruption, greed, and poor
management. What has developed is sadly lacking in results and in much
need of reform.
Some advocates of debt relief have tried to delink the issue of debt
relief from the issue of reform. I agree with recent remarks that these
lending institutions are at the ``root'' of the debt problem. And if we
are to weed out the problem, we must pull it up by its roots. We all
know that, if you don't pull up weeds by their roots, they merely
sprout up again. This serves nobody's interest--least of all the people
currently suffering.
We need transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. We need to
know where the money is being spent, who is spending it, and how it is
benefiting that country and achieving the goals of the World Bank and
the IMF.
A General Accounting Office (GAO) report on the World Bank concluded
``[management] controls are not yet strong enough to provide reasonable
assurance that project funds are spent according to the Bank's
guidelines.''
Simply put, the World Bank can't tell us with any reasonable level of
certainty that funds are being spent efficiently and as they are
intended to be spent. Other reports have questioned the IMF's
practices.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm spoke eloquently about
this issue recently on the Senate floor. I know he talked about the
Uganda situation at some length. And keep in mind that Uganda has been
used as the ``poster child'' of success. It has qualified for debt
relief under the original and enhanced HIPC initiatives.
Let me echo the chairman. In May, I wrote Treasury Secretary Lawrence
Summers about the Ugandan Government's multi-million dollar expenditure
on a presidential Gulfstream jet. As I noted in my letter, Idahoans and
others throughout this country sympathize with the plight facing
impoverished Ugandans whose annual per capita income is roughly $330.
People throughout the world deserve the chance to succeed and thrive.
What troubled me was the Ugandan Government's failure to place a high
priority on reducing poverty and choosing to expend millions on a
luxury aircraft, then essentially asking for and receiving millions in
debt relief.
This situation has deeply troubled me. I was even more troubled by
Secretary Summers' reply. Secretary Summers basically said the purchase
of the plane was not out of the ordinary and he was satisfied that
Uganda didn't take money from poverty relief programs to pay for it. As
he stated, ``The Ugandan authorities have committed to offset the cost
of the aircraft against defense and other non-priority, non-wage
expenditures.'' But to me, money is money; if Uganda can find money in
its budget to pay for an extravagant jet, it should be able to find
money to help its own people in poverty. I imagine $37 million would go
a long way toward helping people in a country where the average per
capita income is less than $350 a year.
As I have repeatedly noted, when the U.S. Federal Government helped
bail out Chrysler, former chairman Lee Iacocca was required to sell the
company jets.
And there is another problem--``moral hazard.'' In simple terms,
people must be made to bear the consequences of their decisions. If
not, they have less incentive to act prudently. If a country knows the
IMF will come in and bail them out after making bad decisions, there is
little incentive for the country to change its decisionmaking process.
Or, if the country knows it will receive IMF funding, perhaps it uses
other monies to prop up companies that should be allowed to fail. The
moral hazard problem pervades this system. We might all like someone to
step in and alleviate the negative impact of bad decisions we make, but
this would not encourage us to act wisely. Furthermore, someone else
bears those consequences. In the case of troubled countries and the
international lending institutions, it is contributors such as U.S.
taxpayers who bear the burden. And, honestly, the citizens of the
country in question whose situation fails to improve.
So, while we are and should continue to be a compassionate nation, I
also recognize the duty of Congress to set good public policy and
represent the interests of hard-working Americans.
Chairman Gramm and I, along with others, only asked that we adopt a
proposal that recognizes all of these goals. This was achievable if
everyone had been willing to work together.
Unfortunately, the Treasury Department refused to engage in
meaningful dialog and compromise with Congress on this issue.
What is even more amazing is that the Treasury Department fought for
this spending when estimates suggest that the maximum amount that would
be necessary for the U.S. to fund its obligations to the HIPC Trust for
this year and next is less than $100 million.
We should not be granting relief without reform.
I assure you that follow-up will be done during the next Congress to
illustrate the continued need for Congress and the next administration
to alter current U.S. policies and practices.
I completely agree with an editorial in the October 12 Wall Street
Journal which stated that ``Any debt write-off that doesn't include
radical reform of the international financial institutions . . . will
renew the cycle of non-performance.''
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want the Record to reflect my strong
support for the final appropriations measure that we are completing
today.
Since the first day I walked into this distinguished Chamber, I have
been fighting to bring the priorities of our budget closer to the
priorities of America's families. As I talk to parents and students in
my State about what would improve their lives, over and over, I hear
that a quality education for our students is a top priority for
families across this country.
Today is a victory for families. The Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill shows this Congress is listening to people across
this country. It provides a $6.5 billion increase in education
spending. This is a 17 percent increase. It makes an investment in the
things that matter--reducing class size, improving teacher quality, and
repairing and constructing schools. This bill gives the Congress a
benchmark to work with the new President who has made education a
personal priority.
I have come to the Senate floor numerous times over the years to ask
for an investment in reducing class size. This is something that
matters to parents, teachers and students across this country. After a
year long battle against efforts to eliminate class size reduction
funds, this bill provides $1.62 billion final appropriations bill for
the purpose of reducing class size.
By making this investment, we are sending an important message to
every community in this Nation. Class size reduction is important
because it makes a tangible difference in real-world public schools.
I've talked to teachers in my State about class size reduction. These
teachers told me the benefits of smaller
[[Page S11876]]
class size. They say that when class sizes are smaller, they see better
student achievement, fewer discipline problems, more individual
attention, better parent-teacher communication, and dramatic results
for poor and minority students.
These are the kinds of things we need in our public schools. Our kids
deserve this investment.
In Washington State, the funds included in this bill will provide
over $25 million to the State for the purpose of reducing class size.
Currently, over 600 teachers have been hired with Federal class size
reduction funds across the State to reduce class size. With the funds
secured this year, Washington State will be able to hire approximately
additional 130 new teachers to reduce class size.
This appropriations agreement also makes an important investment in
school construction. Students across this country are going to school
in inadequate facilities. The majority of students in this country
attend schools that are over 40 years old. These have leaky roofs,
inadequate heating and cooling, and are not the type of learning
environment that goes hand in hand with expecting our students to
achieve high standards. This bill makes an investment in school
construction, providing $1.2 billion for this purpose.
In addition, it makes an investment in teacher quality. Our districts
need help in the area of teacher quality. The districts need to be able
to provide teachers the support they need, and make efforts to reach
out and bring more highly qualified people into the teaching
profession. This appropriations bill provides a $150 million increase
over last year in our investment to improve teacher quality.
This bill provides more than a 30-percent increase for IDEA, the
biggest increase in the program history. I'm sure there is not a member
of this Senate who has not visited a school district and heard the
struggles the district faces in funding special education services.
This bill provides $1.35 billion more for IDEA than last year. We
should not back down from this commitment to our schools.
The bill provides close to a 50-percent increase for after school
programs. The funding is raised from $435 million to $851 million.
There is a much needed investment in child care. There is a 70-
percent increase in child care funding, bringing the funding up to $2
billion. With these additional funds, nearly 150,000 children will
receive child care subsidies.
An increase of over $1 billion in Head Start: These funds would allow
an additional 70,000 children to participate in Head Start.
The bill invests in college opportunities for students. The $450
increase in the Pell Grant Program and the substantial increase for
SEOG, LEAP, and Federal work-study will give more families the ability
to send their children to college.
While I am extremely disappointed that this Congress failed to finish
consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I am glad
we were able to make a commitment to kids through this appropriations
bill. Investing in reducing class size, teacher quality, college
affordability, and things to help our young children like Head Start
and child care are the kind of investments we need in this country.
While these investments are not quite as high as the ones agreed to
in October, I still believe we are moving the right direction in this
bill by investing in the things that we know work. Kids, teachers and
parents across this country deserve these investments.
And while I have focused my remarks on education, I should note that
this bill contains vital investments in many key areas like health
care. I am immensely proud of the increased investments we are making
in health care research at the National Institutes of Health and the
Centers for Disease Control. These investments represent our strong
commitment to finding cures to life threatening ailments like breast
and prostrate cancer, Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis. This
bill funds key health projects in Washington State like Children's
Hospital and others.
This bill makes an essential investment in health care with $35
billion for BBRA relief. These improvements are imperative for access
to quality health care for people everywhere. I cannot emphasize enough
the importance of these changes to hospitals, home health, skilled
nursing facilities which serve the elderly. Ensuring this population
has high quality health care is high priority, and I commend my
colleagues for recognizing this pressing need.
As a member of the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, I urge my
colleagues to join in support for this bill.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to lodge my objection to H.R.
4577. I understand that there will not be a rollcall vote but if there
were to be a rollcall vote I would vote ``no.''
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President I want to voice my strong objection to
the process by which this legislation is being passed by the Senate.
The Omnibus Appropriations conference report--containing numerous other
pieces of unrelated legislation--is being passed by the Senate tonight
under a consent agreement that was entered suddenly by the Majority
Leader without the normal notification process. We should have had a
recorded vote. Since I first came to the Senate 9 years ago I have felt
that it does the Senate no credit to pass such significant budgetary
legislation--literally hundreds of billions of dollars--without a
recorded vote. We cannot be held accountable as Senators to our
constituents when such bills are passed in this manner. I want to make
it clear; I oppose this legislation and I would like the Record to show
that I would have voted no had there been a recorded vote.
Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today we consider legislation that
addresses crucial areas of our Nation's tax and health care policy. I
applaud the hard work of appropriators and President Clinton in coming
to a hard-won agreement on this year's final spending bill. And, I am
pleased that we can finally wrap up the business of the 106th Congress
and clear the deck for our new President and the 107th Congress.
This bill includes many of my legislative priorities, which I believe
will benefit Rhode Islanders, and all Americans.
First: let's focus on those in the area of health care. The health
care portion of this measure includes two legislative proposals I
authored, and for which I worked hard to build bipartisan support this
year: a version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program
Preservation Act, and the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital
Preservation Act.
The SCHIP provision allows 40 states--including Rhode Island--to
retain for two more years $1.2 billion in children's health insurance
funds. In extending the deadline for states to spend these federal
dollars, we give eligible children in 40 states the opportunity to
receive health insurance. In Rhode Island, our state's low-income
health care program--known as RIte Care--may be able to retain as much
a $8 million in federal funds. That amount would go a long way to cover
uninsured children between the ages of eight and 18 in my home state.
My second priority--The Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital
Preservation Act--would benefit hospitals that serve a disproportionate
share of America's 43 million uninsured. It would increase Medicaid DSH
payments to these hospitals to defray their costs of treating Medicaid
patients--particularly indigent patients with complex medical needs. In
all, it would strengthen the safety net for Rhode Island's hospitals--
that are struggling as a result of the budget cuts instituted by the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Indeed, this proposal could save Rhode
Island hospitals $10 million over the next two years.
What's more, the initiative before us increases Medicare
reimbursements for teaching hospitals, and scales back deep cuts to the
home health care industry. And, it bolsters the ability of nursing
homes and community health clinics to provide high quality service to
those in need. Together, these provisions will go a long way to improve
the health care received by the children, the elderly, and the
uninsured of our nation.
Turning to the tax provisions, I am heartened that this bill contains
many incentives to rebuild distressed communities, both in urban and
rural areas. I've cosponsored legislation to foster urban renewal, and
I am pleased that this package contains a version of
[[Page S11877]]
it. Specifically, this measure would establish 40 renewal communities
and designate 9 new empowerment zones that would be eligible for tax
breaks.
I am particularly heartened that this measure increases the low-
income housing tax credit caps over the next two years. Along with the
Rhode Island Housing Authority, I am an ardent supporter of this
increase because it will help many low-income families gain access to
affordable housing.
What's more, the initiative we consider today accelerates a scheduled
increase in the state volume limits on tax-exempt private activity
bonds. This provision has broad, bipartisan support, and I am glad we
are moving forward with it.
Finally, many of you know that, as a member of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, I have worked to win passage of legislation to
spur cleanup of lightly contaminated industrial sites--so-called
brownfields sites. This bill contains a brownfields expensing provision
that promotes the clean-up of environmental contaminants. This is a
modest step in the direction of the wholesale reform I've been
pressing, but it is an important step towards that eventual goal.
I am pleased that we have finally reached agreement with our
counterparts on the other side of the aisle here in the Senate; with
our colleagues in the House of Representatives; and most importantly,
with the Clinton administration on this broad spending package.
In that spirit of constructive compromise, I will vote in favor of
this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I thank the Chair.
the cultural property procedural reform act
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in 1972, the Senate gave its advice and
consent to ratification of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of
Ownership of Cultural Property, but subject to the passage of
implementing legislation by Congress. The implementing legislation--the
Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA)--became law
in 1983. I wrote this legislation in the Senate in cooperation with
Senators Robert J. Dole and Spark M. Matsunaga. It is technically a
revenue measure and came under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance
Committee of which I was then a senior member, later chairman. Earlier
I had been Ambassador to India and to the United Nations and was much
aware of the issues surrounding cultural property. As Ambassador in
Delhi I was responsible for negotiating the return of the Shiva
Nataraja. I also was serving at the time as chairman of the board of
trustees of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, and in that
capacity I dealt at length with similar issues.
The CCPIA sets forth our national policy concerning the importation
of cultural property. As part of the statute, we created the Cultural
Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), an 11-member body appointed by the
President to advise him concerning foreign government requests that
import restrictions be placed on certain archaeological and
ethnological material. The statute specified that each member should
represent one of four categories: museums (two members),
archaeologists/anthropologists (three members), dealers (three
members), and the public (three members). There are different interests
here, and my purpose was to see that these were represented in any
recommendation the CPAC would make. In addition, the CCPIA explicitly
states that the CPAC is subject generally to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act provisions relating to open meetings, public notice, and
public participation in its proceedings. As the last of the authors of
the CCPIA remaining in the Senate, it fell to me to keep an eye on its
implementation.
Earlier this session I introduced S. 1696, the Cultural Property
Procedural Reform Act. Joining me as cosponsors on the bill are
Chairman Roth, and Senators Schumer, Gramm, and Breaux. Congressman
Rangel introduced companion legislation on the House side. I have
pressed this legislation because I feel it provides an essential
clarification of the CCPIA.
Unfortunately, time has run out in this session of Congress to pass
S. 1696. Although some halting progress has been made by the executive
branch in responding to the problems that S. 1696 sought to address, it
is clear that the fundamental issues of procedural reform raised by S.
1696 have not been resolved. Therefore, it is imperative that
congressional oversight continue in an effort to ensure that the
implementation of the Act is faithful to the terms Congress
promulgated.
We have seen a number of serious shortcomings in the administration
of the CCPIA which led to the introduction of S. 1696. A central
concern has been that the procedures of the CPAC remain essentially
closed to nonmembers of the committee despite the provisions of the
1983 Act, such as 19 U.S.C. section 2605(h), that generally require
open meetings and transparent procedures. I remain concerned that past
proceedings before the CPAC and the administering agency have been
conducted in almost total secrecy, thus denying interested parties a
meaningful opportunity to respond to evidence presented by foreign
nations concerning alleged pillage and with respect to the statutory
requirements that must be satisfied. The result is that the CPAC is
denied a full, unbiased record upon which to make its decisions. A
central goal of S. 1696 is to open those proceedings.
The initial step in a CPAC proceeding is the publication of a notice
in the Federal Register informing the public of the filing of an
application by a foreign government. However, that notice of the
request is often so cursory as to effectively deny interested persons
an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to CPAC proceedings. An
adequate notice should provide descriptive information from the foreign
nation about the archaeological or ethnological materials, the pillage
of which the requesting country claims is placing its cultural
patrimony in jeopardy. This information is particularly important
because the 1983 act explicitly authorizes the President to impose
import restrictions only on particular archaeological and ethnological
materials that are the subject of pillage, which, in turn, is
jeopardizing the cultural patrimony of a requesting state.
Any notice of a foreign government's request should, at a minimum,
put on the public record the approximate dates during which the
cultural material at issue was produced, the approximate dates during
which that material is alleged to have been pillaged, the cultural
group with respect to which the material is associated (if available),
the medium, and representative categories or types of cultural material
that the foreign nation asked by barred from import into this country.
This information will permit interested parties to prepare themselves
to participate in an informed fashion in proceedings before the CPAC.
Requiring the approximate dates of the alleged pillage is essential
to carry out the purposes of the statute. Evidence of contemporary
pillage is central to the goals of the 1983 act, which is based on the
concept that a U.S. import restriction is justified only if it will
have a meaningful effect on an ongoing situation of pillage. It is
quite obvious that an import restriction in the year 2000 cannot deter
pillage that took place decades or even centuries ago. Thus, the
approximate dates of the pillage, which a fair notice would provide, is
imperative to ensure that the administrative process is faithful to the
goals of the CCPIA.
A second concern that led to the introduction of S. 1696 was the
absence of meaningful art dealer participation in the proceedings of
the CPAC. This year, in fact, art dealers have not been represented at
all on the CPAC--all three dealer slots have been and continue to be
vacant. This state of affairs is inconsistent with the CCPIA, which
established an elaborate process to ensure that the views of
archaeologists, art dealers, museums, and the public were taken fully
into account when a foreign government asked us to prohibit the
importation of archaeological and ethnological materials.
It is reported that the White House is now moving forward to fill all
these are dealer vacancies and perhaps the introduction of S. 1696
helped move that process along. To ensure that in the future all
interested constituencies are represented on the CPAC, it would be
desirable to modify the CPAC quorum provisions to require the presence
of at least one member from each statutory category. Moreover, the
language describing the CPAC members should be
[[Page S11878]]
made consistent across all four categories and consistent with Senate
report language stating that the members are to be ``knowledgeable
representatives of the private sector.''
Further, discussions on the bill have revealed that the process
whereby the Executive Branch reports to the Congress on its actions
under the 1983 act needs to be strengthened. Under current law, the
CPAC and the State Department are to provide copies of their reports to
Congress. These reports have not been transmitted to the Senate Finance
Committee, the committee of jurisdiction in the Senate. Significantly,
consultations have not occurred routinely on these matters since the
original statute was enacted in 1983.
To implement the goals of the 1983 Act for open proceedings, the
reporting requirements in the CCPIA should be made more consistent with
the traditional consultation and layover provisions used by Congress to
ensure adequate consultation. Thus, reports of the CPAC and State
Department action should be sent to appropriate jurisdictional
committees with a traditional layover period to permit consultation, as
appropriate, between Congress and the executive branch. Consultation
provisions can be developed that will not impair the executive branch's
ability to proceed with import restrictions, after there is an
opportunity for consultation with Congress. Such consultation would
help ensure that executive branch procedures and actions do not stray
from Congress' intent in passing the 1983 act, and would thus help
allay concerns of interested persons that the statutory criteria are
not being met.
One concern that I have heard repeatedly is that the CPAC and the
agencies to which it reports have simply disregarded the multinational
response requirement in recent actions imposing far-reaching
restrictions on cultural property. Central to our intention in drafting
the CCPIA was the principle that the United States will act to bar the
import of particular antiquities, but only as part of a concerted
international response to a specific, severe problem of pillage. The
rationale for this requirement is that one cannot effectively deter a
serious situation of pillage of cultural properties if the United
States unilaterally closes its borders to the import of those
properties, and they find their way to markets in London, Munich,
Tokyo, or other art importing centers. Congress intended that the
multinational response requirement be taken seriously--indeed its
inclusion ensured the passage of the 1983 Act. I am concerned that the
executive branch may not be giving serious weight to this requirement.
I am distressed that the procedural changes proposed in S. 1696
cannot be made in this Congress. A fair administration of the 1983 act
is vitally important to our citizens and our cultural life. The United
States has long encouraged free trade in artistic and cultural objects
which has helped create a museum community in our Nation that has no
equal. That policy of free interchange of cultural objects was narrowly
modified in the 1983 act to respond to specific, severe problems of
pillage. A diversion from this posture, which the current
administration of the law suggests, can deny the American public the
opportunity to view, study, and appreciate cultural antiquities that
reflect the multicultural heritage that is the essence of our nation.
I trust, and urge, that the next Congress will address these issues
vigorously.
____________________