[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 78 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5969-S5985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Biden, Mr.
Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bunning,
Mr. Campbell, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr. Cleland, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Feinstein,
Mr. Frist, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain, Mr.
McConnell, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Miller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Shelby, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Stabenow,
Mr. Thomas, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Fitzgerald):
S. 994. A bill to amend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 to
extend authorities under that Act; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction
of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Extension Act, which extends American
sanctions against foreign companies which invest in Iran and Libya's
oil sectors for 5 years.
At a time when many people in Washington are seeking to review
America's sanctions policies, this bill--with its 74 original
cosponsors--says that sanctions against the world's worst rogue states
will remain firmly in place. I hope that President Bush will recognize
the message sent by the overwhelming support for this legislation, and
will put to rest the idea that the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act might
expire or be weakened.
ILSA has been one of America's best weapons in our war against
terrorism, because it is aimed at cutting off the flow of money that
terrorist groups depend on to fund their attacks and operations.
Over the past 5 years, ILSA has effectively deterred foreign
investment in Iran's oil fields: of the 55 projects for which Iran
sought foreign investment, only 6 have been funded, and none have been
completed.
That's what ILSA's all about: it limits the ability of Iran and Libya
to reap oil profits that can be spent funding terrorism and for weapons
of mass destruction.
Even with ILSA in place, Iran continues to supply upwards of $100
million to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas--which claimed
responsibility for the suicide bombing last week in Tel Aviv that
killed 20 Israeli children.
Can you imagine how much more Iran would be spending on terrorism
[[Page S5970]]
and weapons of mass destruction if they had billions more in oil
profits rolling in?
The truth is, ILSA is needed now more than ever.
Despite the election of the so-called ``moderate'' President Mohammad
Khatami in 1997, Iran remains the world's most active state sponsor of
terrorism, and has been feverishly seeking to develop weapons of mass
destruction.
And on the eve of another election in Iran, Khatami continues to
vilify the United States, and in his most recent call for the
destruction of Israel, referred to Israel as ``a parasite in the heart
of the Muslim world.'' These are not the words of a moderate, worthy of
American concessions.
As far as Libya is concerned, we all learned recently that the Libyan
government was directly involved in the bombing of Pan Am 103--one of
the most heinous acts of terrorism in history.
Yet Libya obstinately refuses to abide by U.N. Security Council
resolutions requiring it to formally renounce terrorism, accept
responsibility for the government officials convicted of masterminding
the bombing, and compensate the victims' families.
Some say we should lift sanctions on rogue nations like Iran and
Libya first, and decent, moral, internationally-acceptable behavior
will follow.
I say that is twisted logic.
If these nations are serious about entering the community of nations,
and seeing their economies benefit from global integration, they must
change their behavior first.
They must adapt to the world community, the world community does not
need to adapt to them.
The bottom line is that these sanctions must remain in place until
Iran ends its support of international terrorism, and ends its
dangerous quest for catastrophic weapons.
For Libya, it means full acceptance of responsibility for the Pan Am
103 bombing and full compensation for the families of the victims.
If that day arrives, ILSA will no longer be needed and will be
terminated. Unfortunately, that day is not yet in sight.
Finally, I would urge the Bush Administration, as it reviews American
sanctions policies, to consider that letting ILSA expire would send the
wrong message to Iran and Libya.
This is not the time to weaken sanctions and permit investment that
can be used to fund terrorist acts like the one we saw in Israel last
week.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in support of
renewing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act to protect American interests in
the Middle East. Despite promising changes within Iranian society,
Iran's external behavior remains provocative and destabilizing. Iran
continues to aggressively foment terrorism beyond its borders and
develop weapons of mass destruction as a matter of national policy.
Consistent calls from its leaders for Israel's destruction, and the
Iranian government's bankrolling of murderous behavior by Hezbollah,
Hamas, and other terrorist groups, should make clear to all friends of
peace where Iran stands, and what role it has played, in the
conflagration that threatens to consume an entire region.
Of grave concern are recent revelations that implicate Iran's most
senior leaders in the 1996 terrorist attack on Khobar Towers, which
took the lives of 19 U.S. service men. If true, America's response
should extend far beyond renewing ILSA.
The successful conclusion of the Lockerbie trial, which explicitly
implicated Libya's intelligence services in the attack, does not
absolve Libya of its obligations to meet fully the terms of the U.N.
Security Council resolutions governing the multilateral sanctions
regime against it. Libya has not done so. Libya's support for state
terrorism, as certified again this year by our State Department, and
its aggressive efforts to develop chemical and potentially nuclear
weapons, exclude Libya from the ranks of law-abiding nations.
Lifting sanctions on Iran and Libya at this time would be premature
and would unjustly reward their continuing hostility to basic
international norms of behavior. Overwhelming Congressional support for
renewing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act reflects a clear, majority
consensus on U.S. relations with these rogue regimes. Were the foreign
and national security policies of Iran and Libya truly responsive to
the will of their people, our relationship with their nations would be
far different. But Libya's Qaddafi and Iran's ruling clerics hold their
citizens hostage by their iron grip on power. Supporting their
replacement by leaders elected by and accountable to their people
should be a priority of American policy.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 995. A bill to amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to
clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited
personnel practices, require a statement in non-disclosure policies,
forms, and agreements that such policies, forms and agreements conform
with certain disclosure protections, provide certain authority for the
Special Counsel, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing amendments to the
Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA, that will strengthen protections for
federal employees who disclose waste, fraud, and abuse. I am proud to
be joined by Senators Levin and Grassley, two of the Senate's leaders
in protecting employees from retaliatory actions. The Senators from
Michigan and Iowa were the primary sponsors of the original 1989 Act,
as well as the 1994 amendments, both of which were passed unanimously
by Congress.
One of the basic obligations of public service is to disclose waste,
fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities. The WPA was
intended to protect federal employees, those often closest to
wrongdoing, from workplace retaliation as a result of making such
disclosures. The right of federal employees to be free from workplace
retaliation, however, has been diminished by a pattern of court rulings
that have narrowly defined who qualifies as a whistleblower under the
WPA, and what statements are considered protected disclosures. These
rulings are inconsistent with congressional intent. There is little
incentive for federal employees to come forward because doing so could
put their careers at substantial risk.
The bill we introduce today will restore congressional intent
regarding who is entitled to relief under the WPA, and what disclosures
are protected. In addition, it codifies certain anti-gag rules, extends
independent litigating authority to the Office of Special Counsel, OSC,
and ends the sole jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit over whistleblower cases.
In the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, CSRA, Congress included
statutory whistleblower rights for ``a'' disclosure evidencing a
reasonable belief of specified misconduct, with certain listed
statutory exceptions--classified or other information whose release was
specifically barred by other statutes. Unexpectedly, the court and
administrative agencies created several loopholes that limited employee
protections. With the WPA, Congress closed these loopholes by changing
protection of ``a'' disclosure to ``any'' disclosure meeting the law's
standards. However, in both formal and informal interpretations of the
Act, loopholes continued to proliferate.
Congress strengthened its scope and protections by passing 1994
amendments to the WPA. The Governmental Affairs Committee report on the
1994 amendments refuted prior interpretations by the Federal Circuit
and the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, as well as subsequent
enforcement action by the Office of Special Counsel that there were
exceptions to ``any.'' The Committee report concluded, ``The plain
language of the Whistleblower Protection Act extends to retaliation for
`any disclosure,' regardless of the setting of the disclosure, the form
of the disclosure, or the person to whom the disclosure is made.''
Since the 1994 amendments, both OSC and MSPB generally have honored
congressional boundaries. However, the Federal Circuit continues to
disregard clear statutory language that the Act covers disclosures such
as those made to supervisors, to possible wrongdoers, or as part of an
employee's job duties.
[[Page S5971]]
In order to protect the statute's foundation that ``any'' lawful
disclosure that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is
credible evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or gross mismanagement is
covered by the WPA, our bill codifies the repeated and unconditional
statements of congressional intent and legislative history. It amends
sections 2302(b)(8)(A) and 2302(b)(8)(B) of title 5, U.S.C., to cover
any disclosure of information ``without restriction to time, place,
form, motive or context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an
employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary
course of an employee's duties that the employee or applicant
reasonably believes is credible evidence of'' any violation of any law,
rule, or regulation, or other misconduct specified in section
2302(b)(8).
The bill also codifies an ``anti-gag'' provision that Congress has
passed annually since 1988 as part of the appropriations process. It
bans agencies from implementing or enforcing any nondisclosure policy,
form or agreement that does not contain specified language preserving
open government statutes such as the WPA, the Military Whistleblower
Protection Act, and the Lloyd Lafollette Act, which prohibits
discrimination against government employees who communicate with
Congress. Gag orders imposed as a precondition for employment and
resolution of disputes, as well as general agency policies barring
employees from communicating directly with Congress or the public, are
a prior restraint that not only has a severe chilling effect, but
strikes at the heart of this body's ability to perform its oversight
duties. Congress repeatedly has reaffirmed its intent that employees
should not be forced to sign agreements that supercede an employee's
rights under good government statutes. Moreover, Congress unanimously
has supported the concept that federal employees should not be subject
to prior restraint from disclosing wrongdoing nor suffer retaliation
for speaking out.
The measure also provides the Special Counsel with greater litigating
authority for merit system principles that the office is responsible to
protect. Under current law, the OSC plays a central role as public
prosecutor in cases before the MSPB, but cannot choose to defend the
merit system in court. Our legislation recognizes that providing the
Special Counsel this authority to seek such review, in precedential
cases, is crucial to ensuring the promotion of the public interests
furthered by these statutes.
Lastly, the bill would end the Federal Circuit's monopoly over
whistleblower cases by allowing appeals to be filed in the Federal
Circuit or the circuit in which the petitioner resides. This restores
normal judicial review, and provides employees in states such as my
home state of Hawaii, the option of a more convenient forum, rather
than necessitating a 10,000 mile round trip from Hawaii to Washington,
D.C.
This bill will begin the needed dialogue to guarantee that any
disclosures within the boundaries of the statutory language are
protected. As the Chairman of the Federal Services Subcommittee, I plan
to hold a hearing on the Whistleblower Protection Act and the
amendments we are proposing today.
Protection of Federal whistleblowers is a bipartisan effort.
Enactment of the original bill in 1989 and the 1994 amendments enjoyed
unanimous bicameral support, and I am pleased that Representatives
Morella and Gilman will introduce identical legislation in the House of
Representatives in the near future. I also wish to note that our bill
enjoys the strong support of the Government Accountability Project and
the National Whistleblower Center, and I commend both of these
organizations for their efforts in protecting the public interest and
promoting government accountability by defending whistleblowers.
I urge my colleagues to join in the effort to ensure that the
congressional intent embodied in the Whistleblower Protection Act is
codified and that the law is not weakened further. I ask unanimous
consent that letters in support of our bill from the National
Whistleblower Center and the Government Accountability Project and the
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 995
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN DISCLOSURES OF INFORMATION
BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) Clarification of Disclosures Covered.--Section
2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``which the employee or applicant
reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without
restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior
disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant,
including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an
employee's duties that the employee or applicant reasonably
believes is credible evidence of''; and
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and
inserting ``any violation'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``which the employee or applicant
reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without
restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior
disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant,
including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an
employee's duties to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector
General of an agency or another employee designated by the
head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of
information that the employee or applicant reasonably
believes is credible evidence of''; and
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and
inserting ``any violation''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) a disclosure that--
``(i) is made by an employee or applicant of information
required by law or Executive order to be kept secret in the
interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign
affairs that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is
credible evidence of--
``(I) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
``(II) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety; or
``(III) a false statement to Congress on an issue of
material fact; and
``(ii) is made to--
``(I) a member of a committee of Congress having a primary
responsibility for oversight of a department, agency, or
element of the Federal Government to which the disclosed
information relates;
``(II) any other Member of Congress who is authorized to
receive information of the type disclosed; or
``(III) an employee of the executive branch or Congress who
has the appropriate security clearance for access to the
information disclosed.''.
(b) Covered Disclosures.--Section 2302(b) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter following paragraph (12), by striking
``This subsection'' and inserting the following:
``This subsection''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``In this subsection, the term `disclosure' means a formal
or informal communication or transmission.''.
(c) Nondisclosure Policies, Forms, and Agreements.--
(1) Personnel action.--Section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in clause (x), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
and
(B) by redesignating clause (xi) as clause (xii) and
inserting after clause (x) the following:
``(xi) the implementation or enforcement of any
nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement; and''.
(2) Prohibited personnel practice.--Section 2302(b) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
``(13) implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy, form,
or agreement, if such policy, form, or agreement does not
contain the following statement:
`` `These provisions are consistent with and do not
supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee
obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive
Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code
(governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title
10, United States Code (governing disclosure to Congress by
members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of title 5,
United States Code (governing disclosures of illegality,
waste, fraud, abuse, or public health or safety threats); the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421
et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose
confidential Government agents); and the statutes which
protect against disclosures that could compromise national
security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of
title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the
Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)).
The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights,
sanctions, and liabilities created by such Executive order
and such statutory provisions are incorporated into this
agreement and are controlling.' ''.
(d) Authority of Special Counsel Relating to Civil
Actions.--
[[Page S5972]]
(1) Representation of special counsel.--Section 1212 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(h) Except as provided in section 518 of title 28,
relating to litigation before the Supreme Court, attorneys
designated by the Special Counsel may appear for the Special
Counsel and represent the Special Counsel in any civil action
brought in connection with section 2302(b)(8) or subchapter
III of chapter 73, or as otherwise authorized by law.''.
(2) Judicial review of merit systems protection board
decisions.--Section 7703 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) The Special Counsel may obtain review of any final
order or decision of the Board by filing a petition for
judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit if the Special Counsel determines, in the
discretion of the Special Counsel, that the Board erred in
deciding a case arising under section 2302(b)(8) or
subchapter III of chapter 73 and that the Board's decision
will have a substantial impact on the enforcement of section
2302(b)(8) or subchapter III of chapter 73. If the Special
Counsel was not a party or did not intervene in a matter
before the Board, the Special Counsel may not petition for
review of a Board decision under this section unless the
Special Counsel first petitions the Board for reconsideration
of its decision, and such petition is denied. In addition to
the named respondent, the Board and all other parties to the
proceedings before the Board shall have the right to appear
in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals. The granting
of the petition for judicial review shall be at the
discretion of the Court of Appeals.''.
(e) Judicial Review.--Section 7703 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (b)(1) by inserting
before the period ``or the United States court of appeals for
the circuit in which the petitioner resides''; and
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in the first sentence by striking ``the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit'' and inserting
``any appellate court of competent jurisdiction as provided
under subsection (b)(2)''; and
(B) in the third and fourth sentences by striking ``Court
of Appeals'' each place it appears and inserting ``court of
appeals'' in each such place.
____
National Whistleblower Center,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2001.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman, Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The National Whistleblower Center is
pleased to announce its support for your bill to update and
strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). We would
like to commend your leadership in introducing this
significant and important legislation.
The National Whistleblower Center was established because
of the critical role that credible whistleblowers play in the
effective functioning of our system of checks and balances.
Despite this critical role, federal whistleblowers have not
always enjoyed the same rights as other citizens. The Center
has therefore maintained an on-going vigilance and commitment
to preserving the integrity of the whistleblower process.
In recent years, protections for whistleblowers have
eroded. This is mainly due to recent decisions in cases
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
which presently holds a monopoly on appeals under the WPA.
The Center is therefore enthusiastic in its support of the
provision in your bill that offers employees an additional
venue for appeals.
Your bill would also codify so-called ``anti-gag'' language
that has been included each year for the past twelve years in
appropriations bills. The language has been needed to avoid
ambiguity in the government's efforts to prevent improper
disclosures of information. The ambiguity created a chilling
effect for employees who otherwise had the right to make
proper disclosures to Congress and elsewhere. This provision
would clear a major hurdle in protecting the rights of
employees to disclose instances of wrongdoing by government
officials.
The Center is concerned that, in the larger picture,
improvements in the whistleblower protection system require
more fundamental changes. For instance, there should be
tougher provisions to hold accountable those managers who
retaliate against whistleblowers. In addition, those who
bring their cases under laws other than the WPA have had much
greater success. This is in part because of adverse decisions
by the Federal Circuit, but it also suggests that the WPA is
not as whistleblower-friendly in practice as we hoped it
would be when we passed and amended the WPA. These are issues
to be addressed down the road, and the Center would be happy
to provide you the benefit of our experience in these
matters.
Nonetheless, your bill, if passed, would make an important
and necessary contribution toward improvements in the
protection of whistleblowers under the WPA. Again, we commend
your leadership in the introduction of this bill, and we look
forward to working with you and your co-sponsors during the
hearing process and throughout the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Kris J. Kolesnik,
Executive Director.
____
Government Accountability Project,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2001.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman, Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation and Federal Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Government Accountability Project
(GAP) commends your leadership in sponsoring legislation to
revive and strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA).
This is the primary civil service law applying merit system
rights to good government safeguards. Your initiative is
indispensable to restore legitimacy for the law's unanimous
congressional mandate, both in 1989 when it was passed
originally and in 1994 when it was unanimously strengthened.
We similarly appreciate the partnership of original
cosponsors Senators Levin and Grassley. They remain visible
leaders from the pioneer campaigns that earned this
legislative mandate.
GAP is a non-partisan, non-profit public interest
organization whose mission is supporting whistleblowers,
those employees who exercise free speech rights to challenge
betrayals of the public trust about which they learn on the
job. We advocated initial passage of whistleblower rights as
part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and have led
outside campaigns for passage of the WPA, as well as
analogous laws for military service members, state, municipal
and corporate employees in industries ranging from airlines
to nuclear energy. Last year GAP drafted a model
whistleblower law approved by the Organization of American
States (OAS) for implementation of the Inter-American
Convention Against Corruption.
Unfortunately, your leadership is a necessity for the Act
to regain legitimacy. In 1994 on paper it reflected the state
of the art for whistleblower rights. Despite pride in helping
to win its passage, GAP now must warn those seeking help that
the law is more likely to undermine than reinforce their
rights. This is because the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals,
which has a monopoly on appellate judicial review, has
functionally erased basic statutory language and implicitly
added new provisions that threaten those seeking help. Your
legislation both solves the specific problems, and includes
structural reform to prevent their recurrence by restoring
normal judicial review. Congress had to approve both the 1989
and 1994 legislation to cancel previous instances of judicial
activism by this same court. This pattern must end for the
law again to become functional.
Your bill also incorporates an appropriations rider
approved for the last 13 years, known as the ``anti-gag
statute.'' This provision requires agencies to notify
employees that any restrictions on disclosures do not
override their rights under the WPA, or other open government
laws such as the Lloyd Lafollette Act protecting
communications with Congress. The rider has worked. It has
proven effective and practical against agency attempts to
impose secrecy through orders or nondisclosure agreements
that cancel Congress and the public's right to know. It is
time to institutionalize this success story.
Even if implemented as intended, the 1989 and 1994
legislation was a beginning, rather than a panacea. More work
is necessary to disrupt the deeply ingrained tradition of
harassing whistleblowers. Based on our experience, issues
such as the following must be addressed for the law to
fulfill its promise--closing the ``security clearance
loophole'' that permits merit system rights to be
circumvented through removing clearances that are a condition
for employment; providing meaningful relief for those who win
their cases; preventing retaliation by creating personal
accountability for those who violate the merit system; and
giving whistleblowers access to jury trials to enforce their
rights.
Your legislation is a reasonable and essential first step
on the road to recovery for whistleblower rights in the merit
system. It sends a clear message that congress was serious
when it passed this law in 1989 and strengthened it in 1994.
Congressional persistence is a prerequisite for those who
defend the public to have a decent chance of defending
themselves. We look forward to working with you and your co-
sponsors in passing this legislation.
Sincerely,
Tom Devine,
Legal Director.
Doug Hartnett,
National Security Director.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Akaka and
Grassley today in sponsoring amendments to the Whistleblower Protection
Act that will strengthen the law protecting employees who blow the
whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs. I sponsored the
Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 which strengthened and clarified
the intent of whistleblower rights in the merit system. But recent
holdings by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
have corrupted the intent of Congress, with the result that additional
clarifying language is sorely needed. The Federal Circuit has seriously
misinterpreted key provisions of the whistleblower law, and the bill we
are introducing today is intended to correct those misinterpretations.
Congress has long recognized the obligation we have to protect a
Federal
[[Page S5973]]
employee when he or she discloses evidence of wrongdoing in a Federal
program. If an employee reasonably believes that a fraud or
mismanagement is occurring, and that employee has the courage and the
sense of responsibility to make that fraud or mismanagement known, it
is our duty to protect the employee from any reprisal. We want Federal
employees to identify problems in our programs so we can fix them, and
if they fear reprisal for doing so, then we are not only failing to
protect the whistleblower, but we are also failing to protect the
taxpayer. We need to encourage, not discourage, disclosures of fraud,
waste and abuse.
Today, however, the effect of the Federal Circuit decisions is to
discourage the Federal employee whistleblower and overturn
Congressional intent. The Federal Circuit has misinterpreted the plain
language of the law on what constitutes protected disclosure under the
Whistleblower Protection Act. Most notably, in the case of Lachance
versus White, decided on May 14, 1999, the Federal Circuit imposed an
unfounded and virtually unattainable standard on Federal employee
whistleblowers in proving their cases. In that case, John E. White was
an education specialist for the Air Force who spoke out against a new
educational system that purported to mandate quality standards for
schools contracting with the Air Force bases. White criticized the new
system as counterproductive because it was too burdensome and seriously
reduced the education opportunities available on base. After making
these criticisms, local agency officials reassigned White, removing his
duties and allegedly isolating him. However, after an independent
management review supported White's concerns, the Air Force canceled
the program White had criticized. White appealed the reassignment in
1992 and the case has been in litigation ever since.
The administrative judge initially dismissed White's case, finding
that his disclosures were not protected by the Whistleblower Protection
Act. The MSPB, however, reversed the administrative judge's decision
and remanded it back to the administrative judge holding that since
White disclosed information he reasonably believed evidenced gross
mismanagement, this disclosure was protected under the Act. On remand,
the administrative judge found that the Air Force had violated the
Whistleblower Protection Act and ordered the Air Force to return White
to his prior status; the MSPB affirmed the decision of the
administrative judge. OPM petitioned the Federal Circuit for a review
of the board's decision. The Federal Circuit reversed the MSPB's
decision, holding that there was not adequate evidence to support a
violation under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Federal Circuit
held that the evidence that White was a specialist on the subject at
issue and aware of the alleged improper activities and that his belief
was shared by other employees was not sufficient to meet the
``reasonable belief'' test in the law. The court held that ``the board
must look for evidence that it was reasonable to believe that the
disclosures revealed misbehavior [by the Air Force] . . .'' The court
went on to say:
In this case, review of the Air Force's policy and
implementation via the QES standards might well show them to
be entirely appropriate, even if not the best option. Indeed,
this review would start out with a ``presumption that public
officers perform their duties correctly, fairly, in good
faith, and in accordance with the law and governing
regulations. . . . And this presumption stands unless there
is `irrefragable proof to the contrary'.''
The fact that the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the MSPB to
have the MSPB reconsider whether it was reasonable to believe that what
the Air Force did in this case involved gross mismanagement was
appropriate. But, the Federal Circuit went on to impose a clearly
erroneous and excessive standard on the employee in proving
``reasonable belief,'' requiring ``irrefragable'' proof that there was
gross mismanagement. Irrefragable means ``undeniable, incontestable,
incontrovertible, incapable of being overthrown.'' How can a Federal
employee meet a standard of ``irrefragable'' in proving gross
mismanagement? Moreover, there is nothing in the law or the legislative
history that even suggests such a standard with respect to the
Whistleblower Protection Act. The intent of the law is not for the
employee to act as an investigator and compile evidence to have
``irrefragable'' proof that there is fraud, waste or abuse. The
employee, under the clear language of the statue, need only have ``a
reasonable belief'' that there is fraud, waste or abuse occurring
before making a protected disclosure. This bill will clarify the law so
this misinterpretation will not happen again.
The bill addresses a number of other important issues as well. For
example, the bill adds a provision to the Whistleblower Protection Act
that provides specific protection to a whistleblower who discloses
evidence of fraud, waste, and abuse involving classified information if
that disclosure is made to the appropriate committee of Congress or
Federal executive branch employee authorized to receive the classified
information.
In closing, I want to thank Senator Akaka for his leadership in this
area.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise with determination to join
Senators Akaka and Levin introducing legislation on an issue that
should concern us all: the integrity of the Whistleblower Protection
Act of 1989. I enclose editorials and op-ed commentaries, ranging from
the New York Times to the Washington Times highlighting the needs for
this law to be reborn so that it achieves its potential for public
service. Unfortunately, it has become a Trojan horse that may well be
creating more reprisal victims than it protects. The impact for
taxpayers could be to increase silent observers who passively conceal
fraud, waste and abuse. That is unacceptable.
I was proud to be an original co-sponsor of this law when it was
passed unanimously by Congress in 1989, and when it was unanimously
strengthened in 1994. Both were largely passed to overturn a series of
hostile decisions by administrative agencies and an activist court with
a monopoly on the statute's judicial review, the Federal Circuit Court
of Appeals. The administrative agencies, the U.S. Office of Special
Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board, appear to have gotten
the point. They have been operating largely within statutory
boundaries. Despite the repeated unanimous congressional mandates,
however, the Federal Circuit has stepped up its attacks on the
Whistleblower Protection Act. Enough is enough.
The legislation we are introducing today has four cornerstones,
closing loopholes in the scope of WPA protection; restoring a realistic
test for when reprisal protection is warranted; restoring the normal
structure for judicial review; and codifying the anti-gag statute
passed as an appropriations rider for the last 13 years. Each is
summarized below.
As part of 1994 amendments unanimously passed by Congress to
strengthen the Act, the legislative history emphasized, ``[I]t also is
not possible to further clarify the clear language in section
2302(b)(8) that protection for `any' whistleblowing disclosure truly
means `any.' A protected disclosure may be made as part of an
employee's job duties, may concern policy or individual misconduct, and
may be oral or written and to any audience inside or outside the
agency, without restriction to time, place, motive or content.''
Somehow the Federal Circuit did not hear our unanimous voice. Without
commenting on numerous committee reports and floor statements
emphasizing this cornerstone, it has been creating new loopholes at an
accelerated pace. Its precedents have shrunk the scope of protected
whistleblowing to exclude disclosures made as part of an employee's job
duties, to a co-worker, boss, others up the chain of command, or even
the suspected wrongdoer to check facts. Under these judicial loopholes,
the law does not cover agency misconduct with the largest impact,
policies that institutionalize illegality or waste and mismanagement.
Last December it renewed a pre-WPA loophole that Congress has
specifically outlawed. The court decreed that the law only covers the
first person to place evidence of given misconduct on the record,
excluding those who challenge long term abuses, witnesses whose
testimony supports pioneer whistleblowers, or anyone who is not the
Christopher Columbus for any given scandal.
There is no legal basis for any of these loopholes. None of these
loopholes came from Congress. In fact, all
[[Page S5974]]
contradict express congressional intent. Since 1978, the point of
Federal whistleblower protection has been to give agencies the first
crack at cleaning their own houses. These loopholes force them to
either remain silent, sacrifice their rights, or go behind the back of
institutions and individuals if they want to preserve their rights when
challenging perceived misconduct. They proceed at their own risk if
they exercise their professional expertise to challenge problems on the
job. They can only challenge anecdotal misconduct on a personal level,
rather than institutionalized.
Our legislation addresses the problem by codifying the congressional
``no exceptions'' definition for lawful, significant disclosures. The
legislation also reaffirms the right of whistleblowers to disclose
classified information about wrongdoing to Congress. National security
secrecy must not cancel Congress' right to know about betrayals of the
public trust.
In a 1999 decision, the Federal Circuit functionally overturned the
standard by which whistleblowers demonstrate their disclosures deserve
protection: lawful disclosures which evidence a ``reasonable belief''
of specific misconduct. Congress did not change this standard in 1989
or 1994 for a simple reason: it has worked by setting a fair balance to
protect responsible exercises of free speech. Ultimate proof of
misconduct has never been a prerequisite for protection. Summarized in
lay terms, ``reasonable belief'' has meant that if information would be
accepted for the record of related litigation, government
investigations or enforcement actions, it is illegal to fire the
employee who bears witness by contributing that evidence.
That realistic test no longer exists. In Lachance v. White, the
Federal Circuit overturned the victory of an Air Force education
specialist challenging a pork barrel program whose concerns were so
valid that after an independent management review, the Air Force agreed
and canceled the program. Unfortunately, local base officials held a
grudge, reassigning Mr. White and stripping him of his duties. He
appealed under the WPA and won before the Merit Systems Protection
Board. The Federal Circuit, however, held that he did not demonstrated
a ``reasonable belief'' and sent the case back. That raises questions
on its face, since agencies seldom agree with whistleblowers.
The court accomplished this result disingenuously. While endorsing
the existing standard, it added another hurdle. It held that to have a
reasonable belief, an employee must overcome the presumption that the
government acts fairly, lawfully, properly and in good faith. They must
do so by ``irrefragable'' proof. The dictionary defines
``irrefragable'' as ``uncontestable, incontrovertible, undeniable, or
incapable of being overthrown.'' The bottom line is that, in the
absence of a confession, there is no such thing as a reasonable belief.
If there is no disagreement about alleged misconduct, there is no need
for whistleblowers.
The court even added a routine threat for employees asserting their
rights. Although Congress has repeatedly warned that motives are
irrelevant to assess protected speech, the court ordered the MSPB to
conduct factfinding for anyone filing a whistleblower reprisal claim,
to check if the employee had a conflict of interest for disclosing
alleged misconduct in the first place. This means that while
whistleblowers have almost no chance of prevailing, they are guaranteed
to be placed under investigation for challenging harassment.
Ironically, in 1994 Congress outlawed retaliatory investigations, which
have now been institutionalized by the court.
In the aftermath, whistleblower support groups like the Government
Accountability Project must warn those seeking guidance that if they
assert rights, they will be placed under investigation and any eventual
legal ruling on the merits inevitably will conclude they deserve
punishment and formally endorse the retaliation they suffered. The
White case is a decisive reason for those who witness fraud, waste and
abuse to remain silent, instead of speaking out. Profiles in Courage
are the exception, rather than the rule. Our legislation ends the
presumptions of ``irrefragable proof'' and protects any reasonable
belief as demonstrated by credible evidence.
This is the third time Congress has had to reenact a unanimous good
government mandate thrown out by the Federal Circuit. This is also
three strikes for the Federal Circuit's monopoly authority to
interpret, and repeatedly veto, this law. It is time to end the broken
record syndrome.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 contained normal ``all
circuits'' court of appeals judicial review under the Administrative
Procedures Act. This was the same structure as all other employment
anti-reprisal or anti-discrimination statutes. In 1982, the Federal
Circuit was created, with a unique monopoly on appellate review of
civil service, patent and copyright, and International Trade Commission
decisions. Unfortunately, this experiment has failed. Our amendment
restores the normal process of balanced review. Hopefully, that will
restore normal respect for the legislative process.
In 1988, I was proud to introduce an appropriations rider to the
Treasury, Postal and General Government bill which has been referred to
as the ``anti-gag statute.'' It has survived constitutional challenge
through the Supreme Court, and been unanimously approved in each of the
last 13 appropriations bills. This provision makes it illegal to
enforce agency nondisclosure policies or agreements unless there is a
specific, express addendum informing employees that the disclosure
restrictions do not override their right to communicate with Congress
under the Lloyd Lafollette Act or other good government laws such as
the Whistleblower Protection Act.
The provision originally was in response to a new, open-ended concept
called ``classifiable.'' That term was defined as any information that
``could or should have been classified,'' or ``virtually anything,''
even if it were not market secret. This effectively ended anonymous
whistleblowing disclosures, imposed blanket prior restraint, and
legalized after-the-fact classification as a device to cover up fraud
or misconduct. Since employees no longer were entitled to prior notice
that information was secret, the only way they could act safely was a
prior inquiry to the agency whether information was classified. That
was a neat structure to lock in secrecy when its only purpose is to
thwart congressional or public oversight. I am proud that the anti-gag
statute has worked, and the strange concept of ``classifiable'' is
history. After 13 years and over 6,000 individual congressional votes
without dissent, it is time to institutionalize this merit system
principle.
It should be beyond debate that the price of liberty is eternal
vigilance. I want to recognize the efforts of those whose stamina
defending freedom of speech has applied that principle in practice.
Senator Levin has been my Senate partner from the beginning of
legislative initiatives on this issue. His leadership has proved that
whistleblower protection is not an issue reserved for conservatives or
liberals, Democrats or Republicans. Like the First Amendment,
whistleblower protection is a cornerstone right for Americans.
Nongovernmental organizations have made significant contributions as
well. The Government Accountability Project, a non-profit, non-partisan
whistleblower support group, has been a relentless watchdog of merit
system whistleblower rights since they were created by statute in 1978.
Thanks to GAP, my staff has not been taken by surprise as judicial
activism threatened this good government law. Kris Kolesnick, formerly
with my staff and now with the National Whistleblower Center, worked on
the original legislation while on my staff and continues to work in
partnership with me.
In the decade since Congress unanimously passed this law, it has been
a Taxpayer Protection Act. My office has been privileged to work with
public servants who exposed indefensible waste and mismanagement at the
Pentagon, as well as indefensible abuses of power at the Department of
Justice. I keep learning that whistleblowers proceed at their own risk
when defending the public. In case after case I have seen the proof of
Admiral Rickover's insight that unlike God, the bureaucracy does not
forgive. Nor does it forget.
It also has been confirmed repeatedly that whistleblowers must prove
their commitment to stamina and persistence in order to make a
difference
[[Page S5975]]
against ingrained fraud, waste and abuse. There should be no question
about Congress', or this Senator's commitment. Congress was serious
when it passed the Whistleblower Protection Act unanimously. It is not
mere window dressing. As long as whistleblowers are defending the
public, we must defend credible free speech rights for genuine
whistleblowers. Those who have something to hide, the champions of
secrecy, cannot outlast or defeat the right to know both for Congress,
law enforcement agencies and the taxpayers. Every time judicial or
bureaucratic activists attempt to kill this law, we must revive it in
stronger terms. Congress can not watch passively as this law is gutted,
or tolerate gaping holes in the shield protecting public servants. The
taxpayers are on the other side of the shield, with the whistleblowers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the October 13, 1999
article from The Washington Times and the May 1, 1999 article from The
New York Times be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Times, Oct. 13, 1999]
Silent Whistleblowers
worker protections are under attack
(By Tom Devine and Martin Edwin Anderson)
Judicial activism is always suspect, but when it overturns
laws protecting the public's interest in order to shield
bureaucratic secrecy, it makes a mockery of the legal system
itself.
The issue has become a front-burner in Congress as it takes
a new look at a significant good-government law that twice
won unanimous passage. In the aftermath of extremist judicial
activism that functionally overturned the statute, a crucial
campaign has been launched this week on the Hill to enlist
members as friends of the court in a brief seeking Supreme
Court review of the circuit court decision.
At issue is a ruling made final in July by the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals, which disingenuously overturned two
laws unanimously passed by Congress--the code of Ethics for
Government Service and the Whistleblower Protection Act. The
decision, White vs. Lachance, was the handiwork of a chief
judge whose previous job involved swinging the ax against
federal workers who dared to commit the truth.
At issue is the fate of Air Force whistleblower John White,
who lost his job in 1991 after successfully challenging a
pork-barrel ``quality management'' training program as
mismanagement. Government and private sector experts
concurred with Mr. White, and universities affected by it
began heading for the door. Even the Air Force agreed,
canceling it after outside experts agreed with Mr. White.
Thrice the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an
independent federal agency, ruled in Mr. White's favor. Each
time the Justice Department appealed on technicalities. Now
the federal court went further than asked while speculating
that Mr. White's disclosures may not have evidenced a
``reasonable belief''--the test for disclosures to be
protected.
The court camouflaged its death-knell for the whistleblower
law in banal legalese, defining ``reasonable belief'' as,
``Could a disinterested observer with knowledge of the
essential facts reasonably conclude gross mismanagement?''
But the bland explanatory guidance exposed a feudalistic duty
of loyalty to shield misconduct by bureaucratic bosses:
``Policymakers have every right to expect loyal, professional
service from subordinates.'' So much for the Code of Ethics
for Government Service, which establishes the fundamental
duty of federal employees to ``put loyalty to the highest
moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons,
party or Government department.''
The court also disarmed the whistleblower law, claiming it
``is not a weapon in arguments over policy.'' Yet when it
unanimously approved 1994 amendments, Congress explicitly
instructed, ``A protected disclosure may concern policy or
individual misconduct.''
Worse was a court-ordered ``review'' as a prerequisite to
find a ``reasonable belief'' of wrongdoing. It must begin
with the ``presumption that public officers perform their
duties correctly, fairly, in good faith and in accordance
with the law. . . . [T]his presumption stands unless there is
`irrefragable' proof to the contrary.''
``Irrefragable,'' according to Webster's Dictionary, means
``incapable of being overthrown, incontestable, undeniable,
incontrovertible.'' The court's decision kills freedom of
speech if there are two rational sides to a dispute--leaving
it easier to convict a criminal than for a whistleblower to
be eligible for protection. The irrefragable presumption of
government perfection creates a thick shield protecting big
government abuses--precisely the opposite of why the law was
passed.
Finally, the court ordered the MSPB to facilitate routine
illegality by seeking evidence of a whistleblower's conflict
of interest during every review. Retaliatory investigations--
those taken ``because of'' whistleblowing activities--are
tantamount to witch-hunts and were outlawed by Congress in
1994. For federal employees, the Big Brother of George
Orwell's ``1984'' has arrived 15 years late.
Key to understanding the decision is the role played by
Chief Judge Robert Mayer. Previously, Judge Mayer served as
deputy special counsel in an era when MSPB's Office of
Special Counsel (under its Chief Alex Kozinski, now a 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals judge) tutored managers and taught
courses on how to fire whistleblowers without leaving
fingerprints. Congress passed the WPA in part to deal with
these abuses.
Now Judge Mayer's judicial revenge is a near-perfect
gambit, as his court has a virtual monopoly on judicial
review of MSPB whistleblower decisions.
Congress must act quickly to pass a legislative definition
of ``reasonable belief'' that eliminates the certainty of
professional suicide for whistleblowers and restores the
law's good-government mandate. It also needs to provide
federal workers the same legal access enjoyed by private
citizens; jury trials and all circuits judicial review in the
appeals courts.
It is unrealistic to expect federal workers with second-
class rights to provide first-class public service. Returning
federal workers to the Dark Ages is an inauspicious way to
usher in a new millennium.
____
[From the New York Times, May 1, 1999]
Helping Whistle-Blowers Survive
Jennifer Long, the Internal Revenue Service agent who
nearly lost her job two weeks ago after publicly blowing the
whistle on abuses at the agency, was rescued at the last
minute by the intervention of an influential United States
Senator. But the fact that her employers had no inhibitions
about harassing her is clear evidence that the laws
protecting whistle-blowers need to be strengthened. As they
stand, these laws merely invite the kind of retaliation that
Mrs. Long endured.
A career tax auditor, Mrs. Long was the star witness at
Senate Finance Committee hearings convened in 1997 by William
Roth of Delaware to investigate complaints against the I.R.S.
She was the only I.R.S. witness who did not sit behind a
curtain and use a voice distortion device to hide her
identity. She accused the agency of preying on weaker
taxpayers and ignoring cheating by those with the resources
to fight back. She has since said that she was subject to
petty harassments from the moment she arrived back at her
district office in Houston. Then, on April 15 of this year,
she was given what amounted to a termination notice, at which
point Mr. Roth intervened with the I.R.S. commissioner and
saved her job--at least for now.
Had he not intervened, Mrs. Long's only hope of vindication
would have been the remedies provided by the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978 and the Whistle-Blower Protection Act of
1989. These two statutes prescribe a tortuous and uncertain
appeals process that in theory guarantees a whistle-blower
free speech without fear of retaliation, but in practice is
an exercise in frustration. Despite recent improvements, only
a handful of Federal employees, out of some 1,500 who
appealed in the last four years, have prevailed in rulings
issued by the Government's administrative tribunal, the Merit
System Protection Board. Overwhelmingly, the rest of the
cases were screened out on technical grounds or were settled
informally with token relief.
A few prominent whistle-blowers have won redemption outside
the system. Frederic Whitehurst, the chemist who was
dismissed after disclosing sloppiness and possible dishonesty
in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's crime laboratory,
won a sizable cash settlement because he had a first-class
attorney who mounted an artful public relations campaign.
Ernest Fitzgerald, the Pentagon employee who disclosed
massive cost overruns, survived because he was almost
inhumanly persistent and because his cause, like Mrs. Long's,
attracted allies in high places. But the prominence of an
issue does not guarantee survival for the employee who
discloses it. Notra Trulock, the senior intelligence official
at the Energy Department who tried to alert his superiors to
Chinese espionage at a Government weapons laboratory, has
since been demoted.
Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has been
seeking ways to strengthen the 1989 law with the help of the
Government Accountability Project, a Washington advocacy
group that assists whistle-blowers. One obvious improvement
would be to give whistle-blowers the option to press their
claims in the Federal courts, where their cases could be
decided by a jury. To guard against clogging the system with
frivolous litigation, the cases would first be reviewed by a
nongovernment administrative panel. But the point is to give
whistle-blowers an avenue of appeal outside the closed loop
in which they are now trapped.
A reform bill along these lines passed the House in 1994
but died in the Senate. With Mrs. Long's case fresh in mind,
the time has come for both Houses to re-examine the issue.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 996. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
establish a national cemetery for veterans in the
[[Page S5976]]
Colorado Springs, Colorado, metropolitan area; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Colorado Springs, Colorado
metropolitan area is the home of the United States Air Force Academy,
the North American Aerospace Defense Command, United States Space
Command, Ft. Carson Army Base, Peterson Air Force Base, and Shriever
Air Force Base. There are over 30,000 active duty and reserve military
personnel in the city. There are nearly 23,000 retired personnel in the
5th Congressional District, which is based around Colorado Springs, the
third largest DoD retired community in any Congressional District in
the country. There is, however, no National Military Cemetery.
The bill I am introducing today is a companion piece to legislation
introduced in the House by my friend and colleague, Joel Hefley. At my
annual town meeting in El Paso County on June 1, I discussed this
matter with my constituents. There are many of them who feel strongly
that a cemetery is needed and I agree. This bill will allow the
thousands of eligible Colorado Springs military personnel, both active
duty and retired, to have a chance to find their final resting place in
the city so many of them love.
I am aware that the Veterans Administration is not known for prompt
and easy cemetery construction. I am aware that there are some areas of
the country deemed to have cemetery needs more critical than Colorado
Springs. But I do not think that should mean that the people of
Colorado Springs are denied the ability to chose a cemetery for
themselves and their loved ones that properly honors their
contributions to the nation.
I look forward to working on this bill and seeing its eventual
passage.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 997. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct
research, monitoring, management, treatment, and outreach activities
relating to sudden oak death syndrome and to establish a Sudden Oak
Death Syndrome Advisory Committee; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill that
addresses an emerging ecological crisis in California that quite
literally threatens to change the face of my State, and perhaps others.
California's beloved oak trees are in grave peril. Thousands of black
oak, coastal live oak, tan and Shreve's oak trees, among the most
familiar and best loved features of California's landscape are dying
from a newly discovered disease known as Sudden Oak Death Syndrome,
SODS.
Caused by an exotic species of the Phytophthora fungus, the fungus
responsible for the Irish potato famine, SODS first struck a small
number of tan oaks in Marin County in 1995. Now the disease has spread
to other oak species from Big Sur in the south to Humboldt County in
the north. In Marin, Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, desperate local
officials are predicting oak mortality rates of 70 to 90 percent unless
the deadly fungus is eradicated or its spread is arrested.
The loss of trees is fast approaching epidemic proportions, with tens
of thousands of dead trees appearing in thousands of acres of forests,
parks, and gardens. As the trees die, enormous expanses of forest, some
adjacent to residential areas, are subject to extreme fire hazards.
Residents who built their homes around or among oak trees are in
particular danger.
Sudden Oak Death Syndrome is already having serious economic and
environmental impacts. Both Oregon and Canada have imposed quarantines
on the importation of oak products and some nursery stock from
California. According to the U.S. Forest Service, removal of dead trees
can cost $2,000 or more apiece, and loss of oaks can reduce property
values by 3 percent or more. In Marin County alone, tree removal and
additional fire fighting needs are expected to cost over $6 million.
Nor is the spread of the Phytophthora fungus limited to oak trees.
The fungus has also been found on rhododendron plants in California
nurseries, on bay and madrone trees, and on wild huckleberry plants.
Due to genetic similarities, this fungus potentially endangers Red and
Pin oak trees on the East coast as well as the Northeast's lucrative
commercial blueberry and cranberry industries.
If left unchecked, SODS could also cause a broad and severe
ecological crisis, with major damage to biodiversity, wildlife habitat,
water supplies, forest productivity, and hillside stability.
California's oak woodlands provide shelter, habitat and food to over
300 wildlife species. They reduce soil erosion. They help moderate
extremes in temperature. And, they aid with nutrient cycling, which
ensures that organic matter is broken down and made available for use
by other living organisms.
Very little is known about this new species of Phytophthora fungus.
Scientists are struggling to better understand Sudden Oak Death
Syndrome, how the disease is transmitted, and what the best treatment
options might be. The U.S. Forest Service, the University of
California, the State Departments of Forestry and Fire Protection, and
County Agricultural Commissioners have created an Oak Mortality Task
Force in an attempt to half SODS's frightening march across California
and into adjoining states.
The Task Force has established a series of objectives leading to the
elimination of SODS, but very little can be accomplished without
adequate support for ongoing research, monitoring, treatment and
education.
In September of last year, I called on the Department of Agriculture,
USDA, to provide financial assistance and to create its own task force
to work with California's Oak Mortality Task Force. Outgoing
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman answered the call by releasing $2.1
million in emergency funding and establishing a top-flight task force
under the direction of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, APHIS. This was a good first step, but it was just that.
That is why I am introducing today the Sudden Oak Death Syndrome
Control Act of 2001. This legislation would authorize over $14 million
each year for the next five years in critically needed funding to fight
the SODS epidemic. Combined with the efforts of state and local
officials, this legislation will help to prevent the dire predictions
from becoming a terrible reality.
This bill is endorsed by the California Oak Mortality Task Force, the
Marin County Board of Supervisors, the Trust for Public Land,
California Releaf, and the International Society of Arboriculturists,
Western Chapter.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 997
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Sudden Oak Death Syndrome
Control Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) tan oak, coast live oak, Shreve's oak, and black oak
trees are among the most beloved features of the topography
of California and the Pacific Northwest and efforts should be
made to protect those trees from disease;
(2) the die-off of those trees, as a result of the exotic
Phytophthora fungus, is approaching epidemic proportions;
(3) very little is known about the new species of
Phytophthora, and scientists are struggling to understand the
causes of sudden oak death syndrome, the methods of
transmittal, and how sudden oak death syndrome can best be
treated;
(4) the Phytophthora fungus has been found on--
(A) Rhododendron plants in nurseries in California; and
(B) wild huckleberry plants, potentially endangering the
commercial blueberry and cranberry industries;
(5) sudden oak death syndrome threatens to create major
economic and environmental problems in California, the
Pacific Northwest, and other regions, including--
(A) the increased threat of fire and fallen trees;
(B) the cost of tree removal and a reduction in property
values; and
(C) loss of revenue due to--
(i) restrictions on imports of oak products and nursery
stock; and
(ii) the impact on the commercial rhododendron, blueberry,
and cranberry industries; and
(6) Oregon and Canada have imposed an emergency quarantine
on the importation of oak trees, oak products, and certain
nursery plants from California.
[[Page S5977]]
SEC. 3. RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND TREATMENT OF SUDDEN OAK
DEATH SYNDROME.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to
in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall carry out a sudden
oak death syndrome research, monitoring, and treatment
program to develop methods to control, manage, or eradicate
sudden oak death syndrome from oak trees on both public and
private land.
(b) Research, Monitoring, and Treatment Activities.--In
carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary
may--
(1) conduct open space, roadside, and aerial surveys;
(2) provide monitoring technique workshops;
(3) develop baseline information on the distribution,
condition, and mortality rates of oaks in California and the
Pacific Northwest;
(4) maintain a geographic information system database;
(5) conduct research activities, including research on
forest pathology, Phytophthora ecology, forest insects
associated with oak decline, urban forestry, arboriculture,
forest ecology, fire management, silviculture, landscape
ecology, and epidemiology;
(6) evaluate the susceptibility of oaks and other
vulnerable species throughout the United States; and
(7) develop and apply treatments.
SEC. 4. MANAGEMENT, REGULATION, AND FIRE PREVENTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct sudden oak
death syndrome management, regulation, and fire prevention
activities to reduce the threat of fire and fallen trees
killed by sudden oak death syndrome.
(b) Management, Regulation, and Fire Prevention
Activities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary
may--
(1) conduct hazard tree assessments;
(2) provide grants to local units of government for hazard
tree removal, disposal and recycling, assessment and
management of restoration and mitigation projects, green
waste treatment facilities, reforestation, resistant tree
breeding, and exotic weed control;
(3) increase and improve firefighting and emergency
response capabilities in areas where fire hazard has
increased due to oak die-off;
(4) treat vegetation to prevent fire, and assessment of
fire risk, in areas heavily infected with sudden oak death
syndrome;
(5) conduct national surveys and inspections of--
(A) commercial rhododendron and blueberry nurseries; and
(B) native rhododendron and huckleberry plants;
(6) provide for monitoring of oaks and other vulnerable
species throughout the United States to ensure early
detection; and
(7) provide diagnostic services.
SEC. 5. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct education and
outreach activities to make information available to the
public on sudden death oak syndrome.
(b) Education and Outreach Activities.--In carrying out
subsection (a), the Secretary may--
(1) develop and distribute educational materials for
homeowners, arborists, urban foresters, park managers, public
works personnel, recreationists, nursery workers,
landscapers, naturists, firefighting personnel, and other
individuals, as the Secretary determines appropriate;
(2) design and maintain a website to provide information on
sudden oak death syndrome; and
(3) provide financial and technical support to States,
local governments, and nonprofit organizations providing
information on sudden oak death syndrome.
SEC. 6. SUDDEN OAK DEATH SYNDROME ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Sudden Oak
Death Syndrome Advisory Committee (referred to in this
section as the ``Committee'') to assist the Secretary in
carrying out this Act.
(2) Membership.--
(A) Composition.--The Committee shall consist of--
(i) 1 representative of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, to be appointed by the Administrator of
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service;
(ii) 1 representative of the Forest Service, to be
appointed by the Chief of the Forest Service;
(iii) 2 individuals appointed by the Secretary from each of
the States affected by sudden oak death syndrome; and
(iv) any individual, to be appointed by the Secretary, in
consultation with the Governors of the affected States, that
the Secretary determines--
(I) has an interest or expertise in sudden oak death
syndrome; and
(II) would contribute to the Committee.
(B) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of
the Committee shall be made not later than 90 days after the
enactment of this Act.
(3) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Committee have been appointed,
the Committee shall hold the initial meeting of the
Committee.
(b) Duties.--
(1) Implementation plan.--The Committee shall prepare a
comprehensive implementation plan to address the management,
control, and eradication of sudden oak death syndrome.
(2) Reports.--
(A) Interim report.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Committee shall submit to
Congress the implementation plan prepared under paragraph
(1).
(B) Final report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Committee shall submit to Congress
a report that contains--
(i) a summary of the activities of the Committee;
(ii) an accounting of funds received and expended by the
Committee; and
(iii) findings and recommendations of the Committee.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2007--
(1) to carry out section 3, $7,500,000, of which up to
$1,500,000 shall be used for treatment;
(2) to carry out section 4, $6,000,000;
(3) to carry out section 5, $500,000; and
(4) to carry out section 6, $250,000.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 998. A bill to expand the availability of oral health services by
strengthening the dental workforce in designated underserved areas; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and
colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold, in introducing
legislation to improve access to oral health care by strengthening the
dental workforce in our Nation's rural and underserved communities.
Oral and general health are inseparable, and good dental care is
critical to our overall physical health and well-being. Dental health
encompasses far more than cavities and gum disease. The recent U.S.
Surgeon General report Oral Health in America states that ``the mouth
acts as a mirror of health and disease'' that can help diagnose
disorders such as diabetes, leukemia, heart disease, or anemia.
While oral health in America has improved dramatically over the last
50 years, these improvements have not occurred evenly across all
sectors of our population, particularly among low-income individuals
and families. Too many Americans today lack access to dental care.
While there are clinically proven techniques to prevent or delay the
progression of dental health problems, an estimated 25 million
Americans live in areas lacking adequate dental services. As a
consequence, these effective treatment and prevention programs are not
being implemented in many of our communities. Astoundingly, as many as
eleven percent of our Nation's rural population has never been to the
dentist.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that our dental workforce
is graying and the overall ratio of dentists to population is
declining. In Maine, there currently are 393 active dentists, 241 of
whom are 45 or older. More than 20 percent of dentists nationwide will
retire in the next ten years and the number of dental graduates by 2015
may not be enough to replace these retirees.
As a consequence, Maine, like many States, is currently facing a
serious shortage of dentists, particularly in rural areas. While there
is one general practice dentist for every 2,286 people in the Portland
area, the numbers drop off dramatically in western and northern Maine.
In Aroostook County, where I'm from, there's only one dentist for every
5,507 people. Moreover, at a time when tooth decay is the most
prevalent childhood disease in America, Maine has fewer than ten
specialists in pediatric dentistry, and most of these are located in
the southern part of the State.
This dental workforce shortage is exacerbated by the fact that Maine
currently does not have a dental school or even a dental residency
program. Dental schools can provide a critical safety net for the oral
health needs of a state, and dental education clinics can provide the
surrounding communities with care that otherwise would be unavailable
to disadvantaged and underinsured populations. Maine is just one of a
number of predominantly rural States that lacks this important
component of a dental safety net.
Maine, like many States, is exploring a number of innovative ideas
for increasing access to dental care in underserved areas. In an effort
to supplement and encourage these efforts, we
[[Page S5978]]
are introducing legislation today to establish a new State grant
program designed to improve access to oral health services in rural and
underserved areas. The legislation authorizes $50 million over five
years for grants to States to help them develop innovative dental
workforce development programs specific to their individual needs.
States could use these grants to fund a wide variety of programs. For
example, they could use the funds for loan forgiveness and repayment
programs for dentists practicing in underserved ares. They could also
use them to provide grants and low- or no-interest loans to help
practitioners to establish or expand practices in these underserved
areas. States, like Maine, that do not have a dental school could use
the funds to establish a dental residency program. Other States might
want to use the grant funding to establish or expand community or
school-based dental facilities or to set up mobile or portable dental
clinics.
To assist in their recruitment and retention efforts, States could
also use the funds for placement and support of dental students,
residents, and advanced dentistry trainees. Or, they could use the
grant funds for continuing dental education, including distance-based
education, and practice support through teledentistry.
Other programs that could be funded through the grants include:
community-based prevention services such as water fluoridation and
dental sealant programs; school programs to encourage children to go
into oral health or science professions; the establishment or expansion
of a State dental office to coordinate oral health and access issues;
and any other activities that are determined to be appropriate by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The National Health Service Corps is helping to meet the oral health
needs of underserved communities by placing dentists and dental
hygienists in some of America's most difficult-to-place inner city,
rural, and frontier areas. Unfortunately, however, the number of
dentists and dental hygienists with obligations to serve in the
National Health Service Corps falls far short of meeting the total
identified need. According to the Surgeon General, only about 6 percent
of the dental need in America's rural and underserved communities is
currently being met by the National Health Service Corps.
In my state, approximately 173,000 Mainers live in designated dental
health professional shortage areas. While the National Health Service
Corps estimates that it will take 33 dental clinicians to meet this
need, it currently has only three serving in my State.
The bill we are introducing today would make some needed improvements
in this critically important program so that it can better respond to
our nation's oral health needs.
First, it would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
develop and implement a plan for increasing the participation of
dentists and dental hygienists in the National Health Service Corps
scholarship and loan repayment programs.
It would also allow National Health Service Corps scholarship and
loan repayment program recipients to fulfill their commitment on a
part-time basis. Many small rural communities may not have sufficient
populations to support a full-time dentist or dental hygienist. This
would give the National Health Service Corps additional flexibility to
meet the needs of these communities. Moreover, some practitioners may
find part-time service more attractive, which in turn could improve
both recruitment and retention in these communities.
Last year, after a six-year hiatus, the National Health Service Corps
began a two-year pilot program to award scholarships to dental
students. While this is a step in the right direction, these
scholarships are only being awarded to students attending certain
dental schools, none of which are in New England. Moreover, the pilot
project requires the participating dental schools to encourage Corps
dental scholars to practice in communities near their educational
institutions. As a consequence, this program will do nothing to help
relieve the dental shortage in Maine and other areas of New England.
The bill we are introducing today would address this problem by
expanding the National Health Service Corps Pilot Scholarship Program
so that dental students attending any of the 55 U.S. dental schools can
apply and require that placements for these scholars be based strictly
on community need.
It would also improve the process for designating dental health
professional shortage areas and ensure that the criteria for making
such designations provides a more accurate reflection of oral health
need, particularly in rural areas.
Mr. President, the Dental Health Improvement Act will make critically
important oral health care services more accessible in our Nation's
rural and underserved communities, and I urge all of my colleagues to
sign on as cosponsors. I also ask unanimous consent that letters
endorsing the bill from the American Dental Association and the
American Dental Education Association be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Dental Association,
Washington, DC, May 25, 2001.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washingtion, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the American Dental
Association and our 144,000 member dentists, I am delighted
to endorse the ``Dental Health Improvement Act,'' which you
introduced today. The Association is proud that the oral
health of Americans continues to improve, and that Americans
have access to the best oral health care in the world.
Having said that, we agree that dental care has not reached
every corner of American society to the extent it has reached
the majority of Americans. For those Americans who are unable
to pay for care, and those with special needs, such as
disabled individuals, those with congenital conditions, and
non-ambulatory patients, obtaining dental care can be
difficult.
Your legislation recognizes several of these problems and
goes a long way towards addressing them in a targeted and
meaningful way. The section on grant proposals offers states
the opportunity to be innovative in their approaches to
address specific geographical dental workforce issues. You
recognize the need to provide incentives to increase faculty
recruitment in accredited dental training institutions, and
your support for increasing loan repayment and scholarship
programs will provide the appropriate incentives to increase
the dental workforce in ``safety net'' organizations.
The ADA is very grateful for your leadership on these
issues. Thank you for introducing this legislation. We want
to continue to work with you on dental access issues in
general and on this legislation as it moves through the
Congress.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Anderton,
President.
____
American Dental
Education Association,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2001.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins, I am writing on behalf of the dental
education community to commend you for developing and
introducing the Dental Health Improvement Act. This
legislation, when enacted into law, will expand the
availability of oral health care services for the nation's
underserved populations, strengthen the dental workforce, as
well as maintain the ability of dental schools to produce the
necessary manpower to provide oral health care to all
Americans.
The American Dental Education Association (ADEA) represents
the nation's 55 dental schools, as well as hospital-based
dental and advanced dental education programs, allied dental
programs and schools, dental research institutions, and the
faculty and students at these institutions. ADEA's member
schools are dedicated to providing the highest quality
education to their students, conducting research and
providing oral health care services to Americans from
medically unserved and underserved areas, the majority of
whom are uninsured or who are from low-income families.
Recent downward trends in student enrollment and a growing
shortage in dental faculty have caused ADEA serious concern
about our ability to fully and competently address these
responsibilities.
Therefore, I was delighted to see that the Dental Health
Improvement Act directly responds to many of these concerns.
If implemented, the Act would expand access to oral health
care to thousands of Americans for the first time. When
enacted, the provisions of the bill can be instrumental in
helping the more than 31 million Americans living in areas
that lack access to adequate oral health care services. It
can provide much needed help to dental education institutions
as we seek to address faculty shortages.
As you know, dental education institutions face a major
crisis in the graying of its faculty which threatens the
quality of dental education, oral, dental and craniofacial
research, and ultimately will adversely impact the health of
all Americans. Currently, there are approximately 400 faculty
vacancies. Retirements are expected to accelerate in both
[[Page S5979]]
private practice as well as teaching faculties in the
nation's 55 dental schools. There is a significant decrease
in the number of men and women choosing careers in dentistry,
teaching and research. Your personal experience in Maine is a
perfect example.
Educational debt has increased, affecting both career
choices and practice location. Your bill will provide funds
to help with recruitment and retention efforts and helps
expand dental residency training programs to the 27 states
that do not currently have dental schools.
Also important are the incentives you have proposed to
expand or establish community-based dental facilities linked
with dental education institutions. The need for this is
obvious. More than two-thirds of patients visiting dental
school clinics are members of families whose annual income is
estimated to be $15,000 or below. About half of these
patients are on Medicare or Medicaid, while more than a third
have no insurance coverage or government assistance program
to help them pay for their dental care.
Dental academic institutions are committed to their patient
care mission, not only by improving the management and
efficiency of patient centered care delivery at the dental
school, but through increasing affiliations with and use of
satellite clinics. All dental schools maintain at least one
dental clinic on-site, and approximately 70% of U.S. dental
schools have school sponsored satellite clinics. Delivering
patient care in diverse settings demonstrates professional
responsibility to the oral health of the public.
Dental schools and other academic dental institutions
provide oral health care to underserved and disadvantaged
populations. Yet more than 11 percent of the nation's rural
population has never been to see a dentist. This bill can
have a positive impact on the population by establishing
access to oral health care at community based dental
facilities and consolidated health center that are linked to
dental schools. 100 million Americans presently do not have
access to fluoridated water. The bill provides for community-
based prevention services such as fluoride and sealants that
can cause a dramatic change for nearly a third of the
nations's population.
Thank you again for taking such a leadership role in the
area of oral health. Please be assured that ADEA looks
forward to working closely with you to bring the far-reaching
potential of the Dental Health improvement Act to fruition.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Valachovic,
Executive Director.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
S. 999. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for
a Korea Defense Service Medal to be issued to members of the Armed
Forces who participated in operations in Korea after the end of the
Korean War; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my esteemed colleague,
Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, to introduce a bill that would award the
Korean Defense Service Medal to all members of the Armed Forces who
participated in operations in Korea after the end of the Korean War.
Fifty years ago, American men and women were fighting a very tough war
in Korea. We commemorate their heroism in many ways half a century
later, and pause at the beautiful memorial to those who served in that
conflict located here in Washington. That war and those heroes,
however, are only the first part of the story. The rest of the story is
about the more than 40,000 members of the United States armed forces
who have served in Korea since the signing of the cease-fire agreement
in July 1953.
Technically speaking, North and South Korea remain at war to this
day, and during the intervening cease fire, the uncertain ``peace'' has
been challenged many many times. According to statistics I have read,
the North Koreans have breached the cease-fire agreement more than
40,000 times since 1954 using virtually every method of limited attacks
you could think of. Some 1,239 U.S. service personnel have been killed
in Korea during the past 47 years; 87 have been captured, held
prisoner, and in many cases, tortured.
During the past five decades, our service men and women in Korea have
performed their duties in a virtual tinderbox waiting for a match.
There is no question about the danger of their assignment. Some 70
percent of North Korea's active military force, including about 700,000
troops, more than 8,000 artillery systems, and 2000 tanks are within 90
miles of the Demilitarized Zone, DMZ. Military experts estimate that a
massive North Korean attack could overrun South Korea's capital at
Seoul in a matter of hours or days. A potential frontal assault by
North Korean troops would have the backing of more than 500 short range
ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction in
addition to conventional warheads.
It is amazing to me to have discovered that despite all of these
facts, the Department of Defense has not awarded service awards to
those who served in Korea during the Cold War. It should be noted that
there have been more casualties in Korea since 1954 that in Sinai,
Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Kuwait, and yet
service awards have been presented to participants in each of those
operations, but not to those who have served in Korea. General Thomas
Schwartz, current Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Forces Korea has
recognized this injustice and supports the award I am proposing today.
Representative Elton Gallegly from California introduced this bill in
the House recently, and I am honored to do so here in the Senate. I
urge my colleagues to join with me to attain swift passage of this
measure which is a long overdue expression of recognition and gratitude
to the thousands of American men and women in uniform who have put
their lives literally on the front line for peace and freedom.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Kerry, and Mr. Corzine).
S. 1000. A bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 to provide incentive grants to improve the quality of child
care; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care
Quality Incentive Act of 2001, which seeks to provide incentive grants
to improve the quality of child care in this country.
The child care system in this country is in crisis; the need for
affordable and accessible high quality child care far exceeds the
supply.
As long as an estimated 14 million children under age six, including
six million infants and toddlers, spend some part of every day in child
care, the availability of quality programs and settings will continue
to be a serious issue facing this Nation.
With full-day child care costing as much as $4,000 to $10,000 per
year, per child, and with Federal assistance severely limited, many
working families cannot afford quality child care. For low-income
families with young children, the cost of child care can consume
anywhere from 25 to 45 percent of their monthly income.
And the demand for all types of child care is likely to increase, as
maternal employment continues to rise, as well as the need to meet the
requirements of welfare reform. At the same time the need for care is
growing, we must focus on the quality of care provided for our
children.
Many studies, including research findings from the National Institute
for Child Health and Development, show that quality early care and
education leads to increased cognitive abilities, positive classroom
learning behavior, an increased likelihood of long-term school success,
and consequently, a greater likelihood of long-term and social self-
sufficiency.
High quality child care not only prepares children for school, it
helps them succeed in life. We must therefore be more diligent in our
efforts to improve the quality of child care in this country.
Quality of care means providing a safe, healthy environment for our
children; well-trained providers; good staff-to-child ratios so staff
can interact with the children in a developmental setting; low staff
turnover that fosters a sense of security for the children; and age-
appropriate activities that enhance learning.
When we look at the quality of our current system, the findings are
appalling. A study of Federal, nonprofit, for-profit, and in-home child
care settings conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
found that two-thirds of these child care settings had at least one
major safety hazard. The study documented at least 56 deaths among
children in child care settings since 1990, and reported that in 1997,
31,000 children ages four and younger received emergency room treatment
for injuries in child care centers or schools.
[[Page S5980]]
Another study in four States found that only 1 in 7 child care
centers provide care that promotes healthy development, while 1 in 8
child care centers provide care that actually threatens the safety and
health of children.
The results of a very recent study conducted by the Center for the
Child Care Workforce are also startling. It finds that the child care
industry is losing well-educated teaching staff and administrators at
an alarming rate and hiring replacement teachers with less training and
education.
This study, conducted over a six-year period from 1994 to 2000, found
that 76 percent of the teaching staff employed in the centers surveyed
in 1996, and 82 percent of those working in the centers in 1994 were no
longer on the job in 2000. And of those teaching staff who left, nearly
half had completed a bachelor's degree, compared to only one-third of
the new teachers who replaced them.
Furthermore, the study found that director turnover rates were
exceedingly high, contributing to staff instability. Teaching staff and
directors reported that high turnover among their colleagues negatively
affected their ability to do their jobs.
We frequently hear of the critical shortage of qualified elementary
and secondary school teachers. In contrast, the staffing crisis in
early care barely registers in the public awareness, but is equally
important and worthy of our attention.
The inability of many child care centers to offer competitive
salaries is a serious obstacle to attracting and retaining qualified
staff. Despite recognition that higher wages contribute to greater
staff stability, compensation for the majority of teaching positions
has not kept pace with the cost of living over the last six years.
Wages, when adjusted for inflation, have actually decreased six
percent for day care teaching staff, and K-12 teachers earn up to twice
as much as child care providers with equivalent education and
experience. At present, there is little economic incentive to begin or
continue a career in child care.
Researchers have consistently found that the cornerstone of quality
child care is the presence of sensitive, consistent, well-trained and
well-compensated caregivers. Yet many centers are unable to provide
children with even this most essential component of early care.
This high rate of safety hazards and unstable workforce results
significantly from low payment or reimbursement rates for the provision
of child care. Prior to October 1996, states were required to make
payments to (or subsidize) child care providers based on the 75th
percentile of the market rate, or the level at which parents can afford
75 out of 100 local providers.
However, with the passage of welfare reform legislation, this
requirement, which had not been effectively enforced in the first
place, completely vanished. Currently, federal Child Care Development
Fund regulations require states to conduct market rate surveys every
other year, but there is no requirement for States to actually use the
market rate surveys to set payment rates.
Indeed, according to a February 1998 report by the Department of
Health and Human Services, 29 out of the 50 States and the District of
Columbia did not make payment rates that were based on the 75th
percentile of the current market rate, often asserting that budget
constraints prevented them from doing so.
Furthermore, a January 1998 General Accounting Office report noted
that while states conduct biennial market surveys, some set
reimbursement rates based on older surveys. And when States set
reimbursement rates significantly lower than actual costs, child care
choices for families become severely limited.
When States set low rates or fail to update rates, they force working
families into a difficult dilemma, they must either place their
children into lower cost, lower quality child care programs that will
accept the State subsidy or come up with extra dollars to supplement
the State subsidy and buy better quality child care.
The Children's Defense Fund, in a March 1998 report entitled,
``Locked Doors: States Struggling to Meet the Child Care Needs of Low-
Income Working Families,'' noted that when rates are set below the
market rate, child care providers are forced to cut corners ``in ways
that lower the quality of care for children.''
And when rates fall below the real cost of providing care, child care
providers who do not choose to reduce staff or lower salaries and
benefits, allow physical conditions to deteriorate, forgo educational
book, toy, and equipment purchases, may simply not accept children with
subsidies, or may go out of business. These dilemmas can be avoided if
we help States set payment rates that keep up with the market.
Recently, Rhode Island and many other States celebrated the sixth
annual national Provider Appreciation Day, which presented us with an
opportunity to honor one of the most under-recognized and under-
compensated professions. I am therefore pleased to be joined by Senator
Chris Dodd, a leader in improving child care, along with Senators
Kennedy, Murray, Kerry, and Corzine in introducing the Child Care
Quality Incentive Act, which seeks to redouble our child care efforts
and renew the child care partnership with the states by providing
incentive funding for States to increase payment rates.
Our legislation establishes a new, mandatory pool of funding under
the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG. This new funding,
coupled with mandatory, current market rate surveys, will form the
foundation for significant increases in state payment rates for the
provision of quality child care.
Increasing payment rates for the provision of child care is the key
to quality. Better payment rates lead to higher quality child care as
child care providers are able to attract and retain qualified staff,
maintain a safe and healthy environment, and purchase age-appropriate
educational materials.
At the same time, increased payment rates expand the number of
choices parents have in finding quality child care, as providers are
able to accept children whose parents had previously been unable to
afford the cost of care.
While there is currently money available through the CCDBG that may
be spent for quality initiatives, most states opt to expand
availability of care rather than focus on quality. This bill allows
funding to be used only for quality initiatives.
We have received overwhelming support for this bill from the child
care community, including endorsements from USA Child Care, the
Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities of USA, YMCA of USA, the
National Child Care Association, and a host of organizations and
agencies across the country.
Children are the hope of America, and they need the best of America.
We cannot ask working families to choose between paying the rent,
buying food, and being able to afford the quality care their children
need. We've made a lot of progress in improving the health, safety, and
well-being of children in this country. But as we approach the 21st
century, we need to do more. If we are serious about putting parents to
work and protecting children, we must invest more in child care help
for families.
Our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, our children, deserve
better from us. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Dodd, Kennedy,
Murray, Kerry, Corzine, and me in this endeavor to improve the quality
of child care by cosponsoring the Child Care Quality Incentive Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1000
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Child Care Quality Incentive
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Recent research on early brain development reveals that
much of a child's growth is determined by early learning and
nurturing care. Research also shows that quality early care
and education leads to increased cognitive abilities,
positive classroom learning behavior, increased likelihood of
long-term school success, and greater
[[Page S5981]]
likelihood of long-term economic and social self-sufficiency.
(2) Each day an estimated 13,000,000 children, including
6,000,000 infants and toddlers, spend some part of their day
in child care. However, a study in 4 States found that only 1
in 7 child care centers provide care that promotes healthy
development, while 1 in 8 child care centers provide care
that threatens the safety and health of children.
(3) Full-day child care can cost $4,000 to $10,000 per
year.
(4) Although Federal assistance is available for child
care, funding is severely limited. Even with Federal
subsidies, many families cannot afford child care. For
families with young children and a monthly income under
$1,200, the cost of child care typically consumes 25 percent
of their income.
(5) Payment (or reimbursement) rates, which determine the
maximum the State will reimburse a child care provider for
the care of a child who receives a subsidy, are too low to
ensure that quality care is accessible to all families.
(6) Low payment rates directly affect the kind of care
children get and whether families can find quality child care
in their communities. In many instances, low payment rates
force child care providers to cut corners in ways that lower
the quality of care for children, including reducing number
of staff, eliminating staff training opportunities, and
cutting enriching educational activities and services.
(7) Children in low quality child care are more likely to
have delayed reading and language skills, and display more
aggression toward other children and adults.
(8) Increased payment rates lead to higher quality child
care as child care providers are able to attract and retain
qualified staff, provide salary increases and professional
training, maintain a safe and healthy environment, and
purchase basic supplies and developmentally appropriate
educational materials.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to improve the
quality of, and access to, child care by increasing child
care payment rates.
SEC. 3. INCENTIVE GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CHILD
CARE.
(a) Funding.--Section 658B of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``There'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There'';
(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(other than section
658H)'' after ``this subchapter''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Appropriation of Funds for Grants To Improve the
Quality of Child Care.--Out of any funds in the Treasury that
are not otherwise appropriated, there are authorized to be
appropriated and there are appropriated, $500,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each
subsequent fiscal year, for the purpose of making grants
under section 658H.''.
(b) Use of Block Grant Funds.--Section 658E(c)(3) of the
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``under this
subchapter'' and inserting ``from funds appropriated under
section 658B(a)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``(other than section
658H)'' after ``under this subchapter''.
(c) Establishment of Program.--Section 658G(a) of the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858e(a)) is amended by inserting ``(other than section
658H)'' after ``this subchapter''.
(d) Grants To Improve the Quality of Child Care.--The Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858
et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 658G the
following:
``SEC. 658H. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE.
``(a) Authority.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use the amount
appropriated under section 658B(b) for a fiscal year to make
grants to eligible States in accordance with this section.
``(2) Annual payments.--The Secretary shall make an annual
payment for such a grant to each eligible State out of the
allotment for that State determined under subsection (c).
``(b) Eligible States.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `eligible
State' means a State that--
``(A) has conducted a survey of the market rates for child
care services in the State within the 2 years preceding the
date of the submission of an application under paragraph (2);
and
``(B) submits an application in accordance with paragraph
(2).
``(2) Application.--
``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information, in addition to the information required
under subparagraph (B), as the Secretary may require.
``(B) Information required.--Each application submitted for
a grant under this section shall--
``(i) detail the methodology and results of the State
market rates survey conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)(A);
``(ii) describe the State's plan to increase payment rates
from the initial baseline determined under clause (i); and
``(iii) describe how the State will increase payment rates
in accordance with the market survey results.
``(3) Continuing eligibility requirement.--The Secretary
may make an annual payment under this section to an eligible
State only if--
``(A) the Secretary determines that the State has made
progress, through the activities assisted under this
subchapter, in maintaining increased payment rates; and
``(B) at least once every 2 years, the State conducts an
update of the survey described in paragraph (1)(A).
``(4) Requirement of matching funds.--
``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, the State shall agree to make available State
contributions from State sources toward the costs of the
activities to be carried out by a State pursuant to
subsection (d) in an amount that is not less than 25 percent
of such costs.
``(B) Determination of state contributions.--State
contributions shall be in cash. Amounts provided by the
Federal Government may not be included in determining the
amount of such State contributions.
``(c) Allotments to Eligible States.--The amount
appropriated under section 658B(b) for a fiscal year shall be
allotted among the eligible States in the same manner as
amounts are allotted under section 658O(b).
``(d) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Priority use.--An eligible State that receives a
grant under this section shall use the funds received to
significantly increase the payment rate for the provision of
child care assistance in accordance with this subchapter up
to the 100th percentile of the market rate survey described
in subsection (b)(1)(A).
``(2) Additional uses.--An eligible State that demonstrates
to the Secretary that the State has achieved a payment rate
of the 100th percentile of the market rate survey described
in subsection (b)(1)(A) may use funds received under a grant
made under this section for any other activity that the State
demonstrates to the Secretary will enhance the quality of
child care services provided in the State.
``(3) Supplement not supplant.--Amounts paid to a State
under this section shall be used to supplement and not
supplant other Federal, State, or local funds provided to the
State under this subchapter or any other provision of law.
``(e) Evaluations and Reports.--
``(1) State evaluations.--Each eligible State shall submit
to the Secretary, at such time and in such form and manner as
the Secretary may require, information regarding the State's
efforts to increase payment rates and the impact increased
rates are having on the quality of, and accessibility to,
child care in the State.
``(2) Reports to congress.--The Secretary shall submit
biennial reports to Congress on the information described in
paragraph (1). Such reports shall include data from the
applications submitted under subsection (b)(2) as a baseline
for determining the progress of each eligible State in
maintaining increased payment rates.
``(f) Payment Rate.--In this section, the term `payment
rate' means the rate of reimbursement to providers for
subsidized child care.''.
(e) Payments.--Section 658J(a) of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858h(a)) is
amended by inserting ``from funds appropriated under section
658B(a)'' after ``section 658O''.
(f) Allotment.--Section 658O of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858m) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``this subchapter'' and
inserting ``section 658B(a)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 658B'' and
inserting ``section 658B(a)'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by inserting ``each subsection of'' before
``section 658B''; and
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the allotment under
subsection (b)'' and inserting ``an allotment made under
subsection (b)''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``corresponding'' before
``allotment''.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Murkowski, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Miller, Mr. Craig, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Ms. Collins):
S. 1002. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
certain provisions relating to the treatment of forestry activities; to
the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reforestation
Tax Credit Incentives Act of 2001, and I am pleased to be joined by
Senators Lincoln, Murkowski, Breaux, Hutchinson, Miller, Craig,
Landrieu, Gordon Smith, and Collins.
The U.S. forest products industry is essential to the health of the
U.S. economy. It employs approximately 1.5 million people, supports an
annual payroll of $40.8 billion, and ranks among the top ten
manufacturing employers in 46 States. This includes the State of Maine
where 89.2 percent of the land is forested. Without fair tax laws,
future
[[Page S5982]]
growth in the industry will occur overseas and more and more landowners
will be forced to sell their land for some other higher economic value
such as development. The loss of a healthy and strong forest products
industry will have a long-term negative impact on both the economy and
the environment.
The legislation I am introducing today partially restores the balance
between corporate and private landowners in terms of capital gains tax
treatment, reducing the capital gains paid on timber for individuals
and corporations. The bill is also intended to encourage the
reforestation of timberland, whether it has been harvested or
previously cleared for other uses, such as agriculture.
Trees take a long time to grow, anywhere from 15 years to, more
typically in Maine, 40 to 50 years. During these years, the grower
faces huge risks from fire, pests, weather and inflation, all of which
are uninsurable. This legislation helps to mitigate these risks by
providing a sliding scale reduction in the amount of taxable gain based
on the number of years the asset is held.
The bill would change the way that capital gains are calculated for
timber by taking the amount of the gain and subtracting three percent
for each year the timber was held. The reduction would be capped at 50
percent bringing the effective capital gains tax rate to 10 percent for
non-corporate holdings and 17.5 percent for corporations.
Since 1944, the tax code has treated timber as a capital asset,
making it eligible for the capital gains tax rate rather than the
ordinary income tax rate. This recognized the long-term risk and
inflationary gain in timber. In 1986, the capital gains tax was
repealed for all taxpayers. The 1997 tax bill reinstituted the lower
capital gains rate for individuals, but not for businesses. As a
result, individuals face a maximum capital gains rate of 20 percent,
while businesses face a maximum rate of 35 percent for the identical
asset.
As this difference in rates implies, private timberland owners
receive far more favorable capital gains tax treatment than corporate
owners. In addition, pension funds and other tax-exempt entities are
also investing in timberland, which only further highlights the
disparity that companies face.
Secondly, reforestation expenses are currently taxed at a higher rate
in the U.S. than in any other major competitor country. The U.S.
domestic forest products industry is already struggling to survive
intense competition from the Southern Hemisphere where labor and fiber
costs are extremely low, and recent investments from wealthier nations
who have built state of the art pulp and papermaking facilities. While
there is little Congress can do to change labor and fiber costs,
Congress does have the ability to level the playing field when it comes
to taxation.
This legislation encourages both individuals and companies to engage
in increased reforestation by allowing all growers of timber to receive
a tax credit. The legislation removes the current dollar limitation of
the $10,000 amount of reforestation expenses that are eligible for the
ten percent tax credit and that are allowed to be deducted, and
decreases from 7 to 5 years the amortization period over which these
expenses can be deducted.
Eligible reforestation expenses would be the initial expenses to
establish a new stand of trees, such as site preparation, the cost of
the seedlings, the labor costs required to plant the seedlings and to
care for the trees in the first few years, as well as the cost of
equipment used in reforestation.
The planting of trees should be encouraged rather than discouraged by
our tax system as trees provide a tremendous benefit to the
environment, preventing soil erosion, cleansing streams and waterways,
providing habitat for numerous species, and absorbing carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere, the major greenhouse gas causing climate change
according to the majority of renowned international scientists.
Tax incentives for planting on private lands will also decrease
pressure to obtain timber from ecologically sensitive public lands,
allowing these public lands to be protected.
I ask my colleagues for their support for private landowners and for
the U.S. forest products industry that is so important to the health of
our economy.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 1003. A bill to ensure the safety of children placed in child care
centers in Federal facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 1004. A bill to provide for the construction and renovation of
child care facilities; and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is a great need to improve child
care in this country. America lags far behind all other industrialized
nations in caring for and educating our pre-school aged children. We
have the opportunity to make improvements, and we need to act now. I
rise today, to introduce two small, but vitally important child care
bills: the Child Care Construction and Renovation Act and the Federal
Employees Child Care Act.
The Child Care Construction and Renovation Act is as much a small
business assistance bill as it is a child care bill. Child care
providers are small business owners. Almost every child care provider
that I have talked with over the past few years wants the opportunity
to expand their services, increase their skills, and improve their
facilities. But the child care business is a financially unstable
endeavor. Child care centers and home-based providers are finding it
increasingly difficult to recruit and retain staff, to buy the supplies
and equipment that will promote healthy child development, and even to
keep their doors open.
The Shelburne Children's Center in Vermont closed a couple of years
ago because it could not afford to stay open. Nearly forty percent of
all family-based child care and ten percent of the center-based care
close each year. Parents can only pay what they can afford, and far too
often that is barely enough to keep a child care provider in business.
This legislation also creates financing mechanisms to support the
renovation and construction of child care facilities. First, it amends
the National Housing Act to provide mortgage insurance on new and
rehabilitated child care facilities. It creates a revolving fund to
help with the purchase or refinancing of existing child care
facilities. Second, it provides funds for local, non-profit community
development organizations to provide technical assistance and small
grants to child care providers to help them improve and expand their
center- or home-based child care facilities.
Without some government help, child care providers cannot expand
their services to provide care for many families seeking affordable,
quality care for their children. They cannot upgrade their equipment or
make improvements to better ensure the safety of children in their
care. Just as the government provides funds and services to encourage
the building and renovation of low-income housing, child care, with its
low-profit potential needs a similar helping hand.
The second bill which I am introducing today is the Federal Employees
Child Care Act. The Federal Government is the largest American provider
or employer-sponsored, on-site child care. Congress has acted
affirmatively with an extensive commitment to on-site child care for
its employees. The General Services Administration, (GSA), has
developed considerable expertise in helping agencies start and maintain
quality child care services for the children of Federal employees.
However, there are some problems which we, as an employer, need to
address. As you know, federal property is exempt from state and local
laws, regulations, and oversight. What this means for child care
centers located on that property is that state and local health and
safety standards do not and cannot apply. This might not be a problem
if federally-owned or leased child care centers met enforceable health
and safety standards. I think most parents who place their children in
federal child care would assume that this would be the case. However, I
think Federal employees will find it very surprising to learn, as I
did, that, at many centers, no such health and safety apply.
I find this very troubling, and I think we sell our Federal employees
a bill of
[[Page S5983]]
goods when federally-owed leased child care cannot guarantee that their
children are in safe facilities. The Federal Government should set the
example when it comes to providing safe child care. It should not turn
an apathetic shoulder from meeting such standards simply because state
and local regulations do not apply to them.
In 1987, Congress passed the ``Trible amendment'' which permitted
executive, legislative, and judicial branch agencies to utilize a
portion of federally-owned or leased space for the provision of child
care services for federal employees. The General Services
Administration, (GSA), was given the authority to provide guidance,
assistance, and oversight to Federal agencies for the development of
child care centers. In the decade since the Trible amendment was
passed, hundreds of Federal facilities throughout the nation have
established on-site child care centers which are a tremendous help to
our employees.
The General Services Administration has done an excellent job of
helping agencies develop child care centers and have adopted strong
standards for those centers located in GSA leased or owned space.
However, there are over 100 child care centers located in Federal
facilities that are not subject to the GSA standards or any other laws,
rules, or regulations to ensure that the facilities are safe places for
our children. Most parents, placing their children in a federal child
care center, assume that some standards are in place, assume that the
centers must minimally meet state and local child care licensing rules
and regulations. They assume that the centers are subject to
independent oversight and monitoring to continually ensure the safety
of the premises.
Yet, that is not the case. In a case where a Federal employee had
strong reason to suspect the sexual abuse of her child by an employee
of a child care center located in a Federal facility, local child
protective services and law enforcement personnel were denied access to
the premises and were prohibited from investigating the incident.
Another employee's child was repeatedly injured because the child care
providers under contract with a Federal agency to provide on-site child
care services failed to ensure that age-appropriate health and safety
measures were taken, current law says they were not required to do so,
even after the problems were identified and injuries had occurred.
It is time to get our own house in order. We must safeguard and
protect the children receiving services in child care centers housed in
Federal facilities. Our employees should not be denied some assurance
that the centers in which they place their children are accountable for
meeting basic health and safety standards.
The Federal Employees Child Care Act will require all child care
services located in Federal facilities to meet, at the very least, the
same level of health and safety standards required of other child care
centers in the same geographical area. That sounds like common sense,
but as we all know too well, common sense is not always reflected in
the law. This bill will make that clear.
Further, this legislation demands that Federal child care centers
begin working to meet these standards now. Not next year, not in two
years, but now. Under this bill, after six months we will look at the
Federal child care centers again, and if a center is not meeting
minimal state and local health and safety regulations at that time,
that child care facility will be closed until it does. I can think of
no stronger incentive to get centers to comply.
The legislation makes it clear that State and local standards should
be a floor for basic health and safety, and not a ceiling. The role of
the Federal Government, and, I like to think, of the United States
Congress in particular--is to constantly strive to do better and to
lead by example. Federal facilities should always try to meet the
highest possible standards. In fact, the GSA has required national
accreditation in GSA-owned and leased facilities, and has stated that
almost all of its centers are either in compliance or are strenuously
working to get there. This is the kind of tough standard we should
strive for in all of our Federal child care facilities.
Federal child care should mean something more than simply location on
a Federal facility. The Federal Government has an obligation to provide
safe care for its employees, and it has a responsibility for making
sure that those standards are monitored and enforced. Some Federal
employees receive this guarantee. Many do not. We can do better.
I urge swift passage of these important child care bills and hope
that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in this
effort.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Cleland, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 1005. A bill to provide assistance to mobilize and support United
States communities in carrying out community-based youth development
programs that assure that all youth have access to programs and
services that build the competencies and character development needed
to fully prepare the youth to become adults and effective citizens, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Stevens,
Kennedy, Cleland, and Dodd to introduce the Younger American's Act. We
launched this effort at the end of the last Congress, with the help of
General Colin Powell. This legislation embraces the belief that youth
are our Nation's most important responsibility and that their needs
must be moved to a higher priority on our Nation's agenda.
It is not enough that government responds to youth when they get into
trouble with drugs, teen pregnancy, and violence. We need to strengthen
the positive rather than simply respond to the negative. Positive youth
development, the framework for the Younger American's Act, is not just
about preventing bad things from happening, but giving a nudge to help
good things happen. And we know that it works.
Evaluations of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs,
mentoring, and other youth development programs have consistently
demonstrated how well these programs work. These programs lead to
significant increases in parental involvement, youth participation in
constructive education, social and recreation activities, enrollment in
post-secondary education, and community involvement. Just as important,
youth actively participating in youth development programs show
decreased rates of school failure and absenteeism, teen pregnancy,
delinquency, substance abuse, and violent behavior.
We also know that risk taking behavior increases with age. One-third
of the high school juniors and seniors participate in two or more
health risk behaviors. That is why it is important to build a youth
development infrastructure that engages youth as they enter pre-
adolescence and keeps them engaged throughout their teen years. The
Younger American's Act is targeted to youth aged 10 to 19. This
encompasses both the critical middle-school years, as well as the
increasingly risky high school years.
The Younger American's Act is about creating a national policy on
youth. Up until now, government has responded to kids after they have
gotten into trouble. We must take a new tack. Instead of just treating
problems, we have to promote healthy development. We have to remember
that just because a kid stays out of trouble, it doesn't mean that he
or she is ready to handle the responsibilities of adulthood. Kids want
direction, they want close bonds with parents and other adult mentors.
And I believe we owe them that. Ideally, this comes from strong
families, but communities and government can help.
In order to keep kids engaged in positive activities, youth must be
viewed as resources; as active participants in finding solutions to
their own problems. Parents also must be part of those solutions. This
legislation requires that youth and parents be part of the decision-
making process.
The United States does not have a cohesive federal policy on youth.
Creating an Office on National Youth Policy within the White House not
only raises the priority of youth on the Federal agenda, but provides
an opportunity to more effectively coordinate existing Federal youth
programs to increase their impact on the lives of
[[Page S5984]]
young Americans. The efforts of the Office of National Youth Policy in
advocating for the needs of youth, and the Department of Health and
Human Services in implementing the Younger American's Act will be
helped by the Council on National Youth Policy. This Council, comprised
of youth, parents, experts in youth development, and representatives
from the business community, will help ensure that this initiative
continually responds to the changing needs of youth and their
communities. It will bring a ``real world'' perspective to the Federal
efforts.
The Younger American's Act provides communities with the funding
necessary to adequately ensure that youth have access to five core
resources: ongoing relationships with caring adults; safe places with
structured activities in which to grow and learn; services that promote
healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and
mental health; opportunities to acquire marketable skills and
competencies; and opportunities for community service and civic
participation.
Block grant funds will be used to expand existing resources, create
new ones where none existed before, overcome barriers to accessing
those resources, and fill gaps to create a cohesive network for youth.
The funds will be funneled through States, based on an allocation
formula that equally weighs population and poverty measures, to
communities where the primary decisions regarding the use of the funds
will take place. Thirty percent of the local funds are set aside to
address the needs of youth who are particularly vulnerable, such as
those who are in out-of-home placements, abused or neglected, living in
high poverty areas, or living in rural areas where there are usually
fewer resources. Dividing the State into regions, or ``planning and
mobilization areas,'' ensures that funds will be equitably distributed
throughout a State. Empowering community boards, comprised of youth,
parents, and other members of the community, to supervise decisions
regarding the use of the block grant funds ensures that the programs,
services, and activities supported by the Act will be responsive to
local needs.
Accountability is integral to any effective Federal program. The
Younger American's Act provides the Department of Health and Human
Services with the responsibility and funding to conduct research and
evaluate the effectiveness of funded initiatives. States and the
Department are charged with monitoring the use of funds by grantees,
and empowered to withhold or reduce funds if problems arise.
The Younger American's Act will help kids gain the skills and
experience they need to successfully navigate the rough waters of
adolescence. My twenty-first century community learning centers
initiative supports the efforts of schools to operate after school
programs that emphasize academic enrichment. It's time to get the rest
of the community involved. It's time to give the same level of support
to the thousands of youth development and youth-serving organizations
that struggle to keep their doors open every day.
I remember a young man, Brad Luck, who testified before the H.E.L.P.
Committee several years ago. As a 14-year-old, Brad embarked on a two-
year mission to open a teen center in his home town of Essex Junction,
Vermont. He formed a student board of directors, sought 501(c)(3)
status and gave over 25 community presentations to convince the town to
back the program. Demonstrating the tenacity of youth, he then spear-
headed a successful drive to raise $30,000 in 30 days to fund the
start-up of the center. Today, the center is thriving in its town-
donated space. This is an example of the type of community asset
building supported by the Younger American's Act.
The Younger American's Act is about an investment in our youth, our
communities, and our future. I want to thank America's Promise, the
United Way, and the National Collaboration for Youth for their work in
providing the original framework for the legislation. I am proud and
excited to be part of this important initiative.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Jeffords for his
leadership on this important legislation and it is a privilege to join
him as a cosponsor on this legislation. I also commend the thirty-four
youth organizations that comprise the National Collaboration for Youth
and the more than 200 young people who have worked on this bill. They
have been skillful and tireless in their efforts to focus on the need
for a positive national strategy for youth.
Our goal in introducing the The Younger Americans Act is to establish
a national policy for youth which focuses on young people, not as
problems, but as problem solvers. The Younger Americans Act is intended
to create a local and nation-wide collaborative movement to provide
programs that offer greater support for youth in the years of
adolescence. This bill, modeled on the very successful Older Americans
Act of 1965, will help youths between the ages of 10 and 19. It will
provide assistance to communities for youths development programs that
assure that all youth have access to the skills and character
development needed to become good citizens.
In other successful bipartisan measures over the years, such as Head
Start, child care, and the 21st century learning communities, we have
created a support system for parents of preschool and younger school-
age children. These programs reduce the risk that children will grow up
to become juvenile delinquents by giving them a healthy and safe start.
It's time to do the same thing for adolescents.
Americans overwhelmingly believe that government should invest in
initiatives like this. Many studies detail the effectiveness of youth
development programs. Beginning with the Carnegie Corporation Report in
1992, ``A Matter of Time--Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool
Hours,'' a series of studies have shown repeatedly that youth
development programs at the community level produce powerful and
positive results.
In his report this last March, ``Community Counts: How Youth
Organizations Matter for Youth Development,'' Milbrey McLaughlin,
professor of education at Stanford University, calls for communities to
rethink how they design and deliver services for youths, particularly
during non-school hours. The report confirms that community involvement
is essential in creating and supporting effective programs that meet
the needs of today's youth.
Effective community-based youth development programs build on five
core resources that all youths need to be successful. These same core
resources are the basis for the Younger Americans Act. Youths need
ongoing relationships with caring adults, safe places with structured
activities, access to services that promote healthy lifestyles,
opportunities to acquire marketable skills, and opportunities for
community service and community participation.
The Younger Americans Act will establish a way for communities to
give thought and planning on the issues at the local level, and to
involve both youths and parents in the process. The Act will provide
$5.75 billion over the next five years for communities to conduct youth
development programs that recognize the primary role of the family,
promote the involvement of youth, coordinate services in the community,
and eliminate barriers which prevent youth from obtaining the guidance
and support they need to become successful adults. The Act also creates
an Office on National Youth Policy and a Council on National Youth
Policy which includes youth and ensures their participation in finding
solutions to their own problems.
Too often, the focus on youth has emphasized their problems, not
their successes and their potential. This emphasis has sent a negative
message to youth that needs to be reversed. We need to deal with
negative behaviors, but we also need a broader strategy that provides a
positive approach to youth. The Younger Americans Act will accomplish
this goal in three ways, by focusing national attention on the
strengths and contributions of youths, by providing funds to develop
positive and cooperative youth development programs at the state and
community levels, and by promoting the involvement of parents and
youths in developing positive programs that strengthen families.
The time of adolescence is a complex transitional period of growth
and change. We know what works. The challenge we face is to provide the
resources to implement positive and
[[Page S5985]]
practical programs effectively without creating duplicate programs. It
is important that we tie together all publicly funded existing youth
development programs and build on their success. This bill complements
other existing programs, like the Work Force Investment Program, in
helping young people become productive members of society. Investing in
youth in ways like that will pay enormous dividends for communities and
our country. I urge all Members of Congress to join in supporting this
important legislation.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to once again join
Senator Jeffords as a cosponsor of the Younger Americans Act. The
Senator from Vermont has done yeoman's work on this legislation, which
seeks to offer the same kind of comprehensive and coordinated support
to America's young people that the landmark 1965 Older Americans Act
provides to our nation's seniors. By creating an Office of National
Youth Policy in the White House, by authorizing over $5 billion over
the next five years to help local community organizations provide
needed services and supports to their youth, the Younger Americans Act
forges a national youth policy which prioritizes the needs of our young
people and helps to provide them with the critical resources they need
to achieve their full potential and become contributing members of
their communities.
The recently released 2001 KIDS COUNT Data Book, a State-by-State
report on the conditions facing America's children, found that the
well-being of our youth improved over the past decade on seven of ten
key KIDS COUNT measures. The national rate of teen deaths by accident,
homicide and suicide fell by a substantial 24 percent. The number of
teens ages 16-19 who dropped out of high school declined from 10
percent in 1990 to 9 percent in 1998. And there has been a steady
decline in the rate of teenage births, which fell by a significant 19
percent between 1990 and 1998.
On the other hand, the 2001 KIDS COUNT Data Book also reports that
more than 16 million children have parents who, despite being employed
full time, struggle from paycheck to paycheck. In addition, the report
finds that the number of single parent households in this country is on
the rise. In 1998, 27 percent of families with children were headed by
a single parent, up from 24 percent in 1990--and every State but three
experienced an increase.
According to the 2000 Census, there was a 14 percent increase in the
number of children in America in the last decade--the largest increase
in the number of children living in this country since the decade of
the 1950s. This significant increase in the under-18 population will
undoubtedly mean new challenges and new demands on ``our already
struggling public education, child care, and family support systems,''
as Douglas Nelson, president of the Annie E. Casey Foundation which
publishes the KIDS COUNT report, points out. The Younger Americans Act
will help this nation meet these new demands by providing a framework
which fosters the positive development of all our nation's youth. This
is a strategy in marked contrast to previous government policies which
respond to youngsters only after they have gotten into trouble. It is a
significant fact that more than 200 young people took part in drafting
the original legislation. As some of my colleagues have pointed out,
these youngsters were telling us that it is time to redirect our focus
on what is right with our young people, not what is wrong.
The Younger Americans Act will support community-based efforts that
provide young people access to five core resources: ongoing
relationships with caring adults; safe places with structured
activities; services that promote healthy lifestyles; opportunities to
acquire marketable skills; and opportunities for community service and
civic participation. Such a positive support system ideally comes from
strong families, but communities and government can play a part. The
successful Head Start and 21st Century Community Leaning Centers
programs have provided support systems for parents of America's younger
children. The Younger Americans Act will provide support structure for
our adolescents during the vulnerable years between ages 10 and 19. It
stresses the pivotal role of the family and emphasizes the critical
importance of parental involvement.
James Agee once said: ``As in every child who is born, under no
matter what circumstances and of no matter what parents, the
potentiality of the human race is born again.'' The Younger Americans
Act recognizes and affirms that an investment in our children is an
investment in America's future.
____________________