[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 34 (Thursday, March 21, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2262-S2288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Burns):
S. 2040. A bill to provide emergency agricultural assistance to
producers of the 2002 crop; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an agricultural
supplemental assistance package for the 2002 crops. I had hoped we
would not be in this position today. Unfortunately, due to delays in
completing the farm bill conference report prior to the Easter recess,
I believe it is necessary to introduce this legislation.
I want to make it very clear that in introducing this legislation, it
does not mean the farm bill is dead. It may need CPR, but it certainly
is not dead. Quite the contrary. The staff of conferees have been
instructed by the distinguished leadership of both parties of the House
and Senate to continue to work over the recess period in the hope that
a bill can be completed shortly after the Easter recess. Having been
involved in numerous farm bills, I know these conferences can often
become quite contentious and bogged down.
Furthermore, it is not going to be easy to implement this bill, not
to mention the wisdom of simply trying to push through a bill so we can
just say it applies to 2002 crops. That may be easy to do this year,
but it may be difficult to live under the problems we could create for
the next 5 or 6 years.
Has anyone really stopped to consider this?
In addition, we already have many farmers in the South who have begun
their spring planting, and producers all throughout the Nation will
begin to pull their drills through the fields in the coming weeks. Many
of these producers and their bankers are desperately trying to run
cashflow charts and figure out exactly what they will be dealing with
for this current crop as they work to determine their operating loans.
They are scratching their heads.
The biggest uncertainty they face is the level and form of
agricultural assistance for this crop-year. Will it be through a new
farm bill, if we can get through a new farm bill--and I certainly hope
we can and people are working in good faith to get that accomplished--
but will it be through a new farm bill in place for the 2002 crops, or
will it be through a supplemental assistance package for 2002 while the
new bill would go into effect for the 2003 crops?
My point in introducing this legislation is to send a clear message
to producers and their bankers, and that message is this: We are going
to do everything in our power in Congress to get a farm bill completed
and out the door, but we should also make sure it is a good bill, and
doing a good bill does take time. If additional time is needed to
complete the bill past the time when it can apply to this year's crops,
we are then ready to come in with a supplemental assistance package.
This is an important line in the sand that our producers and our
lenders can use to gauge cashflow projections as they work on operating
loans for this crop-year. It is an important and necessary signal as we
move toward a planting season that will soon be in full swing in many
parts of the country.
Unlike the 1,400-page farm bill we passed in the Senate, there are no
surprises in this supplemental legislation. The bill is very similar to
the assistance packages we have provided to our producers in recent
years, and it adheres to the budget allocations that were provided for
agriculture in last year's budget resolution.
I have a list of levels of assistance that will be provided to
farmers and ranchers. The levels of assistance are as follows:
$5.047 billion for a Market Loss Assistance, MLA, payment equal to
the 2000 AMTA payment received by our producers. On a crop-by-crop
basis, this is: wheat, 58.8 cents a bushel; corn, 33.4 cents a bushel;
sorghum, 40 cents a bushel; barley, 25.1 cents a bushel; cotton, 7.33
cents a pound; rice, $2.60 per cwt; oats, 2.8 cents a bushel.
All of these figures are above the level of MLAs we provided last
year.
The bill also includes: $466 million for oilseed payments; $55.21
million for payments to peanut producers; $93 million for recourse
loans to honey producers; $186 million for specialty crop commodity
purchases, with at least $55 million used for school lunch program
purchases; $16.94 million for payments to wool and mohair producers;
$93 million for cottonseed assistance; LDP eligibility for crops
produced on non-AMTA acreage; LDP graze-out for wheat, barley, and oats
for the 2002 crop; extension of the dairy price support program through
December 31, 2002; $20 million for payment to producers of pulse crops;
$100 million for tobacco assistance; $44 million for Conservation
Reserve Program Technical Assistance; $200 million for the Wetlands
Reserve Program; $300 million in additional funds for the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, EQIP; $161 million for the Farmland
Protection Program; and $500 million for the livestock feed assistance
program, LAP, to provide assistance to producers for losses suffered in
2001 and 2002.
I will be happy to talk this proposal over with my colleagues, and I
seek bipartisan cosponsors in this effort. These market loss assistance
levels are above the levels provided to program crops last year and
they are similar to the AMTA payment levels we provided in 2000.
In closing, while this package does not represent a new farm bill, it
does send a strong signal to producers and their bankers that even if a
farm bill cannot be completed in time to apply to the 2002 year crop,
we do intend to hold them whole or have a hold harmless bill at a level
of Market Loss Assistance that is somewhat higher than occurred last
year.
Many of us are hearing from producers and lenders for guidance on
what to plan for in terms of assistance this year. This bill makes
clear we stand ready to again support our producers if we cannot
complete the new bill in time for 2002 crops, which I hope we can do. I
urge support for this legislation.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 2042. A bill to expand access to affordable health care and to
strengthen the health care safety net and make health care services
more available in rural and underserved areas; to the Committee on
Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend
and colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, in
introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act. This is a
comprehensive seven-point plan that builds on the strengths of our
current programs, both public and private, to make quality affordable
health care available to millions more Americans.
One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to
affordable health care to all Americans. There are still far too many
people in our country without health insurance or with woefully
inadequate coverage. An estimated 39 million Americans do not have
health care insurance, including more than 150,000 in my home State of
Maine.
The fact is, health insurance matters. The simple fact is that people
with health insurance are healthier than those who lack coverage.
People without health insurance are less likely to seek care when they
need it and tend to forgo services such as periodic checkups and
preventative services. As a consequence, they are far more likely to be
hospitalized or to require costly medical attention for conditions that
could have been prevented or cured if caught at an early stage.
[[Page S2263]]
Not only does this put the health of these individuals at greater
risk, but it also puts additional pressure on our already financially
challenged hospitals and emergency rooms. Compared with people who have
health insurance coverage, uninsured adults are four times and
uninsured children five times more likely to use a hospital emergency
room. The costs of care for these individuals are often absorbed by
providers and then passed on to covered individuals through increased
fees and higher insurance premiums.
Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis. Insurance
premiums are rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-
employed fisherman or the owner of a struggling small business or the
human resources manager of a large corporation, the cost of health
insurance is a common concern.
In 1999, the average family premium for employer-based coverage in
Maine was more than $6,000, the 14th highest in the Nation at that
time. Since then, Maine employers have faced premium increases of as
much as 40 percent a year. In fact, my own brother called me recently
to tell me that his small business is faced with a 40-percent increase
in health insurance premiums on top of a 30-percent increase the year
before.
These premium increases are particularly burdensome for smaller
businesses, the backbone of Maine's economy. Many small business owners
are caught in a real squeeze. They know if they pass on the premium
increase to their employees, then more and more employees will be
forced to decline coverage and, thus, will be completely uninsured, and
yet these small employers simply cannot continue to absorb premium
increases of 20 to 30 to 40 percent year after year.
The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and
families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Anthem Blue
Cross/Blue Shield, the single remaining carrier in Maine's nongroup
market, has increased its rates by 40 percent over the past 2 years.
Monthly insurance premiums often exceed the family's monthly mortgage
payments. It is no wonder that more than 150,000 Mainers are now
uninsured. Clearly, we simply must do more to make health insurance
more affordable and more available.
The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which Senator Landrieu and
I are introducing today, is a 7-point plan that combines a variety of
public and private approaches to make quality health care coverage more
affordable.
The legislation's seven goals are: One, to expand access to
affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health
insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing
coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net
for those who lack coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural
and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term
care; six, to promote healthier lifestyles, and seven, to provide more
equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare
shortfall.
This shortfall, this lack of fair reimbursement for Medicare
services, has forced hospitals, physicians, and other providers to
shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. That
drives up the cost of health insurance, and it is one of the reasons
that Maine's rates are higher than the insurance rates in most other
States.
I will discuss each of these seven points in more detail. First,
expanding access for small businesses, this legislation builds upon a
bill I introduced with Senator Landrieu last year to help small
employers cope with rising health care costs. Since most Americans get
their health insurance through their employers, it is a common
assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed, but
that is not accurate. The fact is most uninsured Americans are members
of families with at least one full-time worker.
As many as 82 percent of Americans without health insurance are in a
family with a full-time worker. Uninsured working Americans are most
often the employees of small businesses. In fact, some 60 percent of
uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally
face higher costs for health insurance than larger companies, which
makes them less likely to offer coverage.
I know from my conversations with small businesses all over Maine
that they want to offer health insurance as a benefit for their
employees. They know it would help them to attract and retain good
workers. The only reason these small businesses are not offering health
insurance is a simple one: They simply cannot afford the premium costs.
The legislation we are introducing today will help small businesses
cope with rising costs by providing new tax credits for them to make
health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small
businesses who are now offering health insurance to continue to do so
in the face of escalating premiums. It will encourage them to make the
decision not to drop coverage, and it will prompt small employers who
want to provide this coverage but have found it financially out of
reach, to now offer this important benefit.
The legislation will also help to increase the clout of small
businesses in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher
for smaller businesses because they do not have as much purchasing
power as large companies. This limits their ability to bargain for
lower rates. They also tend to have higher administrative costs than
larger companies because they have fewer employees among whom to spread
the fixed costs of a health insurance plan.
Moreover, they are not able to spread the risks of medical claims
over as many employees as large firms. The legislation we are
introducing will help address these problems by authorizing Federal
grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them with the
planning, development, and operation of small employer purchasing
cooperatives.
I am not talking about association health plans, which are
controversial for a number of reasons. I am talking about small
employer purchasing cooperatives. They will help to reduce the costs of
health insurance for small employers by allowing them to band together
to purchase insurance jointly.
Group purchasing cooperatives have a number of advantages for smaller
employers. They will, for example, bring an increased number of
participants into the group and that helps to lower the premium costs.
They also decrease the risk of adverse selection. Our legislation would
also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for
States, local governments, and nonprofits to provide information about
the benefits of health insurance to smaller employers, including the
tax benefits, the increased productivity of employees and decreased
turnover. Grants would be used to make employers aware of their current
rights under State and Federal laws.
For example, one survey showed that 57 percent of small employers did
not realize they could deduct 100 percent of the costs of their health
insurance premiums as a business expense.
The legislation that Senator Landrieu and I are introducing would
also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding
demonstration grants in up to 10 States to look at innovative coverage
expansion such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements,
individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or
individuals purchasing coverage.
The States have been the laboratories of reform. For example, some
States have looked at providing assistance to employees to help them
afford their share of an employer-provided insurance plan.
Second, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act will help expand
access to affordable health care for individuals and families who are
purchasing coverage on their own. It would, for example, allow self-
employed Americans to deduct the full amount of their health care
premiums retroactive to January 1 of this year.
Some 25 million Americans are in families headed by a self-employed
individual, and of these 5 million are uninsured. So if we establish
parity in the tax treatment for health insured costs between the self-
employed and those working for large corporations, we will promote
equity, and we will help to reduce the number of uninsured by working
Americans.
Another step this bill would take would build on the success of the
State children's health insurance program,
[[Page S2264]]
one of the very first bills I sponsored as a Senator. This program
provides insurance for children of low-income families who cannot
afford health insurance and yet earn too much money to qualify for
Medicaid.
We are proposing that we allow, as Senator Kennedy's family care bill
would, the option for States to cover the parents of children who are
enrolled in programs like Maine's MaineCare program. States could also
use funds provided through this program to help eligible working
families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In
short, this legislation will help ensure low-income working families
receive the health care they need.
Another provision of the bill would allow States to expand coverage
to eligible legal immigrants through the Medicaid and SCHIP programs.
Maine is one of a number of States that is already covering eligible
legal immigrants, pregnant women, and children under Medicaid using 100
percent State dollars. Giving States the option of covering these
children and families under Medicaid will enable them to receive
Federal matching funds.
Another provision of the bill would give States the option of
extending Medicaid to childless adults below 125 percent of the Federal
poverty level who cannot afford private insurance and who have been
forgotten or overlooked by other public programs. Maine has applied for
a waiver to expand its Medicaid Program in this way, and the State
estimates this will provide health coverage to an estimated 16,000 low-
income uninsured Mainers.
Many people with serious health problems encounter difficulties in
finding a company that is willing to insure them. To address this
problem, the Collins-Landrieu bill authorizes Federal grants to provide
money for States to create high-risk pools through which individuals
who have preexisting health conditions can obtain affordable health
insurance.
Finally, the legislation in this section would provide an
advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals
earning up to $30,000, and up to $3,000 for families earning up to
$60,000.
This provision, which is similar to that proposed by President Bush,
would help to provide coverage for up to 6 million Americans who
otherwise would be uninsured for 1 or more months. It will help many
more working lower income families who currently purchase private
health insurance with little or no government help and finding it
increasingly difficult to do so.
Third, the Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will help to
strengthen our Nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over
the next 5 years for community health centers. We want to make sure we
are reaching individuals who are homeless, individuals who are migrant
workers, individuals who are living in public housing. These centers,
which operate in underserved rural and urban communities, provide
critical primary care services to millions of Americans, regardless of
their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated at
Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage. Many more
have inadequate coverage. These community health centers play a
critical role in providing a health care safety net for some of our
most vulnerable individuals.
The problem of access to affordable health care services is not
limited to the uninsured. It is also shared by many Americans living in
rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of health
care providers. The legislation we are introducing, therefore, includes
a number of provisions to strengthen the National Health Service Corps,
which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in
rural and inner-city areas.
For example, taxing students adversely affects their financial
incentive to participate in the National Health Service Corps and
provide health care services in underserved communities. Last year's
tax bill provided a tax deduction for National Health Service Corps
scholarship recipients to deduct all tuition, fees, and related
educational expenses from their income taxes. The deduction did not
extend to loan repayment recipients however, so loan repayment amounts
are still taxed as income. Participants in the loan repayment program
are actually given extra payment amounts to help them cover their tax
lability which, frankly, is a little ridiculous. It makes much more
sense to simply exempt them from taxation in the first place.
In addition, the legislation will allow National Health Service Corps
participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current
law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve
full time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough
volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some
sites may not need a particular type of provider--for example, a
dentist--on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part-
time service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment
and retention. Our bill will therefore give the program additional
flexibility to meet community needs.
Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by
older American today, and these costs will only increase with the aging
of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or
their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long-
term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment
like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover
that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the
difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-
term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to
cover the costs themselves.
The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit
for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to
those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It
will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term
care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase private
long-term insurance.
Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted
author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of
medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our
most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy
behaviors-- smoking, lack of regular exercise, and poor diet. These
three major risk factors alone have made Maine the State with the
fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable disease:
Cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes.
These four chronic diseases are reponsible for 70 percent of the health
care problems in Maine.
Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to
promoted healthy lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows
that these kinds of investment in health promotiong and prevention
offer returns not only in reduced health care bill, but in longer life
and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to
States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite
wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a
grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,''
such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Franklin County, to promote
healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community
organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or
expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example,
physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity,
healthy food service selections, and programs that promote a healthy
and safe school environment.
And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote
equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system
rewards rather than punishes States like Maine that deliver high-
quality, cost effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled
citizens.
According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, Maine ranks third in the nation when it comes to the
quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are
11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare
spending.
The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize
higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not
fair.
[[Page S2265]]
Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor
urban areas and failed to take the special needs of rural States into
account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of
its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the
early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify
lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only
served to widen the gap between low and high-cost States.
As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians, and other providers
have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to
shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. The
Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the
highest health insurance premiums in the Nation. The provisions in the
Access to Affordable Health Care Act provide a complement to
legislation that I introduced earlier this year with Senator Russ
Feingold to promote greater fairness in Medicare payments to physicians
and other health professionals by eliminating outdated geographic
adjustment factors that discriminate against rural areas.
Mr. President, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a
blueprint for reform based upon principles upon which I believe a
bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant
strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing
million more Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the
health care safety net, and by addressing the inequities in the
Medicare system.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2043. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend by
five years the period for the provision by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs of noninstitutional extended care services and required nursing
home care, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to
improve VA's response to meeting the long-term care needs of an aging
veteran population. Specifically, the bill would extend two long-term
care authorities of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits
Act of 1999.
In November of 1999, Congress passed comprehensive long-term care
legislation for veterans. For the first time, VA was required to
provide extended care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 of
Public Law 106-117, directed the VA to provide nursing home care to any
veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition,
or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled. In addition,
VA was to have provided non-institutional care, such as home-based
care, respite, and adult day health care, to all enrolled veterans.
Within 3 years of the bill's enactment, VA was to evaluate and report
to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on its
experience in providing services under both of these provisions and to
make recommendations on extending or making permanent these provisions.
These programs were given an expiration date of 4 years so that we
could adequately study its effects and, if need be, make appropriate
adjustments.
Unfortunately, it's been more than two years and very little has
happened with these long-term care programs. With both provisions due
to expire next year, there is hardly enough time to sufficiently study
them. The legislation I introduce today will extend the expiration
dates of both long-term care authorities for an additional 5 years,
until December 31, 2008.
I am extremely disappointed that the VA has taken so long to bring
these new extended care authorities into the lives of veterans.
Although there is a sense of urgency about meeting the long-term care
needs of veterans, the VA seems frozen to respond.
In addition to mandating that VA provide nursing home care to any
veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition,
or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled, the Veterans
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act required the VA to maintain the
staffing and level of extended care during any fiscal year at the same
level that was provided in fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, both the
staffing level for nursing home care and the average daily census has
dropped since 1998, and VA readily admits that they are not in
compliance with this mandate, citing a lack of resources.
In addition to providing nursing home care, a key element of the
Millennium bill required VA to furnish non-institutional long-term care
as part of the standard benefits package. While the bill was signed
into law at the end of 1999, it was just last October that VA finally
issued interim guidance on the new benefit. The policy was essentially
meaningless, in that it required facilities to either have these non-
institutional long-term care services available or to develop a plan
for providing such services. As a result, I suspect that many
facilities have not yet made non-institutional services universally
available. In order to confirm this, I have asked that the General
Accounting Office provide me with information as to what inventory of
noninstitutional long-term care programs exists within VA. The GAO's
report should be completed shortly.
We know that there is an expanding need for long-term care in our
country, and in the VA that demand is even more pressing. About 37
percent of the veteran population is 65 years or older, and that number
will grow dramatically in the next few years. By extending the existing
long-term care authorities, we signal to VA that they cannot shirk this
responsibility.
There is no doubt that long-term care is expensive. It is our
responsibility, however, to make sure that the necessary resources are
provided to VA to implement existing long-term care programs. For my
part, I will continue to push VA to move forward, and in the near
future, I will be chairing a Committee hearing to learn more about VA's
inaction.
Long-term care should be seen as a part of the continuum of quality
health care we have promised our veterans. The point of this
legislation is to extend two important VA long-term care authorities,
and I urge all of my Senate colleagues to support it.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2044. A bill to provide for further improvement of the program to
expand and improve the provision of specialized mental health services
to veterans; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
today to ensure that veterans who struggle with post-traumatic stress
and substance use disorders continue to get the care that they need and
deserve. This legislation would increase the funding for an already-
established grant program for specialized mental health services
programs. In addition, the legislation would guarantee that some
funding would go to those facilities which need it the most but, for
whatever reason, have not sought grants.
From its inception, the VA health care system has been challenged to
meet the special needs of veterans, such as spinal cord injuries, the
need for prosthetics, blindness, traumatic brain injury, homelessness,
post-traumatic stress disorders or PTSD, and the substance abuse
disorders that frequently accompany these other afflictions. Over the
years, VA has developed widely commended expertise in providing
specialized services to meet these needs. We can all be rightfully
proud of VA's specialized programs, which provide care that is often
unparalleled in the greater health care community.
Unfortunately, these programs have been endangered by budget
constraints, a shift in focus from inpatient care to outpatient
clinics, and the introduction of a new resource allocation system. In
1996, Congress recognized that VA's constant battle to serve more
veterans with a limited budget made these relatively costly specialized
services programs disproportionately vulnerable to reductions, and took
steps to protect them. The Veteran's Health Care Eligibility Reform Act
of 1966 required the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to maintain VA's
capacity to treat specific special needs of disabled veterans at the
then-current level, and to report to Congress annually on the
maintenance of these specialized services.
Subsequently, internal VA advisory committees, the GAO, and my own
staff on the Committee on Veterans'
[[Page S2266]]
Affairs reported that these protections did not go far enough. Many
specialized programs--particularly substance abuse and PTSD treatment
programs, were closed, reduced in size, or understaffed, offering
little or no care to veterans suffering from these seriously
debilitating disorders which often result from combat experiences.
VA's own annual capacity reports give evidence that these programs
have failed to provide services to veterans at the needed levels, or to
preserve equal access throughout the system. However, the current law's
reliance on systemwide, rather than local or regional capacity, and
VA's failure to issue these reports on a timely basis as mandated,
prevent us from understanding how well these programs meet veterans'
needs throughout the Nation.
In December 2001, Congress strengthened protection of specialized
services through the VA Health Care Programs Enhancement Act, which
described how VA is to maintain capacity for these services in
considerably more detail. However, I believe that we must continue to
do what we can to foster innovation and to patch some of the holes in
substance abuse and PTSD programs.
In addition to protecting VA's capacity to treat veterans' special
needs, Congress also designated $15 million in VA funding specifically
to help medical families improve care for veterans with substance abuse
disorders and PTSD. The funds for these mental health grant programs,
mandated by the Veterans Millennium Benefits and Health Care Act of
1999, will soon revert to a general fund.
In order to distribute these funds, VA sought proposals from
facilities interested in expanding and improving their substance use
disorder and PTSD programs. VA began to release these funds a little
more than a year ago. As of this month, only 8 of the 16 PTSD treatment
programs awarded funding had become operational, and only a third of
these have hired their full complement of authorized and funded staff.
Of the substance abuse disorder programs funded through this act, 18 of
31 have not yet hired complete staffs.
Despite the slow start, this funding has already increased the PTSD
and substance abuse disorder treatment programs available to veterans.
More than 100 staff have been hired in 18 of VA's 21 service networks
to treat substance abuse disorders. Nine new programs, in Baltimore,
MD; Atlanta, GA; San Francisco, CA; and Dayton, OH, among others, have
initiated or intensified opioid substitution programs for veterans who
have not responded well to drug-free treatment regimens. Other new
programs, such as those in Tampa, FL; Cincinnati, OH, Columbia, MO; and
Loma Linda, CA, put special emphasis on treating veterans with more
complex conditions that include PTSD and substance abuse. The
additional funding has enabled VA to develop better outpatient
substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, outpatient dual-diagnosis
programs, more PTSD community clinical teams, and more residential
substance abuse disorder rehabilitation programs.
Due to these grants, VA has made improvements; however, many VA
medical center directors have been reluctant to hire specialized
substance abuse or PTSD treatment staff when, in FY 2003, the funding
for these programs will be subject to a population-based allocation
system and may disappear from their budgets. The legislation that I
introduce today would ensure that this funding remained ``protected''
for three more years, and would increase the total amount of funding
identified specifically for treatment of substance abuse disorders and
PTSD from $15 million to $25 million.
Of the $25 million authorized for this program, $15 million would be
allocated to individual medical facilities which respond to the call
for proposals. The remaining $10 million would be provided as direct
grants to VA treatment facilities throughout the Nation, based on
veterans' needs as identified by VA's Mental Health Strategic Health
Care Group and the Committee on Care of the Severely Chronically
Mentally Ill.
Although I am disappointed that VA has still been unable to properly
maintain adequate levels of care for those veterans with specialized
health care needs, I am encouraged that our actions to fund specific
PTSD and substance abuse programs have provided a strong start.
Congress has spoken quite clearly in the past: VA does not have the
discretion to decide whether or not to provide adequate care for
veterans with substance abuse and post traumatic stress disorders. I
ask that my colleagues support this bill, which would help ensure that
these specialized services, a critical aspect of the health care VA
provides to veterans, are maintained at the necessary levels for the
men and women who have served this Nation.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 2045. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to take
steps to control the growing international problem of tuberculosis; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, Senator Smith and I are proud to
introduce the International Tuberculosis Control Act of 2002. This bill
will provide $200 million during each of the next three years for U.S.
efforts to combat international TB.
Our bill also sets as a goal the detection of at least 70 percent of
the cases of infectious tuberculosis, and the cure of at least 85
percent of the cases detected by the end of 2005 for those countries
with the highest tuberculosis burden.
Why is this bill important? Consider the facts: Tuberculosis kills 2
million people each year; someone in the world is newly infected with
TB every second; nearly one percent of the world's population is newly
infected with TB each year; TB is the single leading cause of death
among women between the age of 15-44; and half of all people living
with HIV-AIDS will develop TB because of suppressed immune systems.
TB is an airborne disease. You can get it when someone coughs or
sneezes. And with the increased immigration and travel to the United
States, we are seeing it re-emerge in many of our communities. That is
why it is in the national interest here in the United States to fight
TB throughout the world.
This is especially true when you consider that in the year 2000, 46
percent of TB cases detected in the U.S. occurred to foreign-born
persons, up from 22 percent in 1986. In California, of the 3,297 cases
detected in 2000, 72 percent were among foreign born individuals.
Two years ago, Senator Smith and I teamed up to triple TB funding and
get the authorization level up to $60 million. We are teaming up again
so that USAID can work with its international partners like the World
Health Organization to expand the most effective program to stop the
spread of TB--DOTS or Directly Observed Treatment Short-Course.
DOTS is so effective because it reduces the chance of Multi-Drug
Resident TB from developing. In the early 1990s, New York City spent
nearly $1 billion to control an outbreak of drug-resistant TB. However,
a 6-month course of TB drugs under the DOTS programs can cost just $10.
That is why we feel that our bill is a wise investment that will
reduce the cost of treating TB over the long run and, most important,
save lives throughout the world.
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. 2045
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 ``International Tuberculosis
Control Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that:
(1) Tuberculosis is a great health and economic burden to
impoverished nations and a health and security threat to the
United States and other industrialized countries.
(2) Tuberculosis kills 2,000,000 people each year (a person
every 15 seconds) and is second only to HIV/AIDS as the
greatest infectious killer of adults worldwide.
(3) Tuberculosis is today the leading killer of women of
reproductive age and of people who are HIV-positive.
(4) One-third of the world's population is currently
infected with the tuberculosis bacterium, including
10,000,000 through 15,000,000 persons in the United States,
and someone in the world is newly infected with tuberculosis
every second.
[[Page S2267]]
(5) With 46 percent of tuberculosis cases in the United
States in the year 2000 found in foreign-born persons, as
compared to 24 percent in 1990, it is clear that the only way
to control tuberculosis in the United States is to control it
worldwide.
(6) Left untreated, a person with active tuberculosis can
infect an average of 10 through 15 people in one year.
(7) Pakistan and Afghanistan are among the 22 countries
identified by the World Health Organization as having the
highest tuberculosis burden globally.
(8) More than one-quarter of all adult deaths in Pakistan
are due to tuberculosis, and Afghan refugees entering
Pakistan have very high rates of tuberculosis, with refugee
camps, in particular, being areas where tuberculosis runs
rampant.
(9) The tuberculosis and AIDS epidemics are inextricably
linked. Tuberculosis is the first manifestation of AIDS in
more than 50 percent of cases in developing countries and is
responsible for 40 percent or more of deaths of people with
AIDS worldwide.
(10) An effective, low-cost cure exists for tuberculosis:
Directly Observed Treatment Short-course or DOTS. Expansion
of DOTS is an urgent global priority.
(11) DOTS is one of the most cost-effective health
interventions available today. A full course of DOTS drugs
costs as little as US$10 in low-income countries.
(12) Proper DOTS treatment is imperative to prevent the
development of dangerous multidrug resistant tuberculosis
(MDR-TB) that arises through improper or incomplete
tuberculosis treatment.
(13) The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria is an important new global partnership established to
combat these 3 infectious diseases that together kill
6,000,000 people a year. Expansion of effective tuberculosis
treatment programs should constitute a major component of
Global Fund investment.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) DOTS.--The term ``DOTS'' or ``Directly Observed
Treatment Short-course'' means the World Health Organization-
recommended strategy for treating standard tuberculosis.
(2) Global alliance for tuberculosis drug development.--The
term ``Global Alliance for Tuberculosis Drug Development''
means the public-private partnership that brings together
leaders in health, science, philanthropy, and private
industry to devise new approaches to tuberculosis and to
ensure that new medications are available and affordable in
high tuberculosis burden countries and other affected
countries.
(3) Global plan to stop tuberculosis.--The term ``Global
Plan to Stop Tuberculosis'' means the plan developed jointly
by the Stop Tuberculosis Partnership Secretariat and Partners
in Health that lays out what needs to be done to control and
eliminate tuberculosis.
(4) Global tuberculosis drug facility.--The term ``Global
Tuberculosis Drug Facility (GDF)'' means the new initiative
of the Stop Tuberculosis Partnership to increase access to
high-quality tuberculosis drugs to facilitate DOTS expansion.
(5) Stop tuberculosis partnership.--The term ``Stop
Tuberculosis Partnership'' means the partnership of the World
Health Organization, donors including the United States, high
tuberculosis burden countries, multilateral agencies, and
nongovernmental and technical agencies committed to short-
and long-term measures required to control and eventually
eliminate tuberculosis as a public health problem in the
world.
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE FOR TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION, TREATMENT,
CONTROL, AND ELIMINATION.
Section 104(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2151b(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(7)(A) Congress recognizes the growing international
problem of tuberculosis and the impact its continued
existence has on those countries that had previously largely
controlled the disease. Congress further recognizes that the
means exist to control and treat tuberculosis by implementing
the Global Plan to Stop Tuberculosis and by adequately
investing in newly created mechanisms, including the Global
Tuberculosis Drug Facility, and that it is therefore a major
objective of the foreign assistance program to control the
disease. To this end, Congress expects the agency primarily
responsible for administering this part--
``(i) to coordinate with the World Health Organization, the
Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of
Health, and other organizations with respect to the
development and implementation of a comprehensive
tuberculosis control program; and
``(ii) to set as a goal the detection of at least 70
percent of the cases of infectious tuberculosis, and the cure
of at least 85 percent of the cases detected, by December 31,
2005, in those countries classified by the World Health
Organization as among the highest tuberculosis burden, and by
December 31, 2010, in all countries in which the agency has
established development programs.
``(B)(i) There is authorized to be appropriated
$200,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2005
for carrying out this paragraph.
``(ii) Funds appropriated under this paragraph are
authorized to remain available until expended.
``(C) In carrying out subparagraph (A), not less than 75
percent of the amount authorized to be appropriated under
subparagraph (B) shall be expended for antituberculosis
drugs, supplies, patient services, and training in diagnosis
and care, in order to increase directly observed treatment
shortcourse (DOTS) coverage, including funding for the Global
Tuberculosis Drug Facility.
``(D) In carrying out subparagraph (A), of the amount
authorized to be appropriated under subparagraph (B)--
``(i) not less than 10 percent shall be used for funding of
the Global Tuberculosis Drug Facility;
``(ii) not less than 7.5 percent shall be used for funding
of the Stop Tuberculosis Partnership; and
``(iii) not less than 2.5 percent shall be used for funding
of the Global Alliance for Tuberculosis Drug Development.
``(E) The President shall submit a report to Congress
annually specifying the increases in the number of people
treated and the increases in number of tuberculosis patients
cured through each program, project, or activity receiving
United States foreign assistance for tuberculosis control
purposes.''.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased to again join my
colleague Senator Boxer in introducing important tuberculosis control
legislation today on the floor of the Senate. Today we are introducing
The International Tuberculosis Control Act--this important legislation
is designed to address the growing international problem of
tuberculosis, (TB). We are introducing this legislation to coincide
with World Tuberculosis Day, this Sunday, March 24. World TB Day is an
occasion for countries around the world to raise awareness about the
threat to the world's health caused by tuberculosis.
As many of us know TB is a global health crisis. Over two million
people will die from TB this year, and it is the leading killer of
young women and of people with AIDS worldwide. Further, TB anywhere is
a threat everywhere in our highly mobile world. The Center for Disease
Control CDC reports that in the year 2000, nearly 50 percent of all TB
cases in the US occurred in foreign-born persons. We will not be safe
from TB until we control the disease globally.
TB and HIV form a deadly co-epidemic. TB is responsible for more than
40 percent of all AIDS deaths worldwide. An HIV-positive person is 30
times more likely to develop active tuberculosis and become infectious
to others. Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have seen TB rates
increase 4-fold due to the HIV-TB co-epidemic, decimating a whole
generation of adults in many communities. In Eastern Europe and Asia,
TB infection is widespread and HIV rates are rising rapidly. These
areas are poised to see the TB-HIV co-epidemic explode.
TB also flourishes in and causes poverty. About 98 percent of the
annual deaths from TB are in poor countries. Those who fall ill are
often their family's primary breadwinner. When that person cannot work,
children must often leave school to work or care for a sick relative.
The World Health Organization reported in 2000 that 75 percent of TB
patients are men and women between the ages of 15-54, the most
economically productive years of life. Stopping TB will help fight
poverty.
I strongly believe we must act to control TB now or pay later. Rising
drug resistance is a time bomb that could make TB virtually
uncontrollable. Multi-drug resistant TB is far more dangerous and
difficult to treat, can cost up to $1 million per patient to cure, and
kills over half of its victims, even in the U.S.
There is a plan for controlling TB. The new, internationally agreed-
upon ``Global Plan to Stop TB'' provides a much-needed roadmap. It
describes the resources needed, country-by-country, to meet
international TB control targets by 2005. Complementary National TB
control plans exist for nearly all of the 22 high-burden TB countries.
The world must invest less than $1 billion in additional funds per
year to control TB, about what New York City spent to control an
outbreak of drug-resistant TB in the early 1990s! And I believe that
$200 million is a reasonable US share of the $1 billion needed globally
to control this killer.
We have the tools to stop TB. ``The Global Plan to Stop TB'' is built
around expanding access to DOTS treatment worldwide, a proven, and very
cost-effective treatment system that uses just $10 worth of drugs to
cure a patient in 6 months. Currently
[[Page S2268]]
just one in four of those who needs DOTS have access to it. Another
tool for fighting TB is the new Global TB Drug Facility, which can
provide the steady supply of affordable drugs needed to cure patients
and prevent the further spread of drug-resistance.
My colleague, Barbara Boxer, and I have been leading the way (along
with Foreign Operations Chairman Patrick Leahy and Ranking Senator
Mitch McConnell) in increasing US funding for international TB control,
from virtually zero in 1997 to $75 million in 2002. The President's
2003 Budget proposes to cut TB funding by one-third, but I feel that we
must do more in this area, not less. Just $200 million annually from
the U.S. would save tens of thousands of lives around the world and
would protect US citizens from TB and from the growing threat of drug-
resistant TB. Investing in TB control is not only the right thing to
do; it is a wise U.S. investment.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 2046. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize
loan guarantees for rural health facilities to buy new and repair
existing infrastructure and technology; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Health
Care Facility Improvement Act.
Traveling throughout my State of Idaho, I have heard from many people
about the need for additional funding to keep rural health facilities
operational and up-to-date. After doing further research, I have found
that this is true in all States in virtually all rural areas. For this
reason, I am introducing the Rural Health Care facility Improvement
Act.
This bill would allow for $250,000,000 million in guaranteed loans to
be available to rural health care facilities. Individual facilities
could borrow up to $5,000,000 to be used for two purposes. First, to
allow for capital improvements to their facility and equipment and
second, to allow for the purchase of high-technology equipment.
Providing health care services to much of rural America has become
increasingly difficult in recent years. During the 1970s, rural
communities thrived with economic expansion and unprecedented
population growth. Rural health providers represented valuable
institutions offering an array of medical services to their
communities. Now many of these rural communities are struggling to
maintain critical health care facilities.
We all know that rural health care facilities are a vital part of the
infrastructure of rural communities and the collapse of health care
services in many areas often contributes to the further decline of
rural communities. That's why it is so important to make sure that
rural facilities have access to funds to keep them operational.
In the 1990's, rural health care providers have begun to rally in the
face of this challenge. They have developed creative ways to meet the
needs of their communities with their limited resources. This
legislation is one more way to help those who are working to guarantee
health care in rural America.
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. 2046
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 ``Rural Health Care Facility
Improvement Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. GUARANTEED LOANS FOR RURAL HEALTH FACILITIES.
Title VI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 291 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART E--RURAL HEALTH FACILITIES
``SEC. 651. GUARANTEED LOANS FOR RURAL HEALTH FACILITIES.
``(a) Authorization of Loan Guarantees.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to
establish a program under which the Secretary may guarantee
100 percent of the principal and interest on loans made by
non-Federal lenders to rural health facilities to pay for the
costs of--
``(A) buying new or repairing existing infrastructure; and
``(B) buying new or repairing existing technology.
``(2) Total loan amount available.--The Secretary is
authorized to guarantee not more than--
``(A) $250,000,000 in the aggregate of the principal and
interest on loans for rural health facilities under paragraph
(1); and
``(B) $5,000,000 of the principal and interest on loans
under paragraph (1) for each rural health facility.
``(b) Protection of Financial Interests.--The Secretary may
not approve a loan guarantee under this section unless the
Secretary determines that--
``(1) the terms, conditions, security (if any), and
schedule and amount of repayments with respect to the loan
are sufficient to protect the financial interests of the
United States and are otherwise reasonable, including a
determination that the rate of interest does not exceed such
percent per annum on the principal obligation outstanding as
the Secretary determines to be reasonable, taking into
account the range of interest rates prevailing in the private
market for similar loans and the risks assumed by the United
States, except that the Secretary may not require as security
any rural health facility asset that is, or may be, needed by
the rural health facility involved to provide health
services;
``(2) the loan would not be available on reasonable terms
and conditions without the guarantee under this section; and
``(3) amounts appropriated for the program under this
section are sufficient to provide loan guarantees under this
section.
``(c) Recovery of Payments.--
``(1) In general.--The United States shall be entitled to
recover from the applicant for a loan guarantee under this
section the amount of any payment made pursuant to such
guarantee, unless the Secretary for good cause waives such
right of recovery (subject to appropriations remaining
available to permit such a waiver) and, upon making any such
payment, the United States shall be subrogated to all of the
rights of the recipient of the payments with respect to which
the guarantee was made. Amounts recovered under this section
shall be credited as reimbursements to the financing account
of the program established under this section.
``(2) Modification of terms and conditions.--To the extent
permitted by paragraph (3) and subject to the requirements of
section 504(e) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2
U.S.C. 661c(e)), any terms and conditions applicable to a
loan guarantee under this section (including terms and
conditions imposed under paragraph (4)) may be modified or
waived by the Secretary to the extent the Secretary
determines it to be consistent with the financial interest of
the United States.
``(3) Incontestability.--Any loan guarantee made by the
Secretary under this section shall be incontestable--
``(A) in the hands of an applicant on whose behalf such
guarantee is made unless the applicant engaged in fraud or
misrepresentation in securing such guarantee; and
``(B) as to any person (or successor in interest) who makes
or contracts to make a loan to such applicant in reliance
thereon unless such person (or successor in interest) engaged
in fraud or misrepresentation in making or contracting to
make such loan.
``(4) Further terms and conditions.--Guarantees of loans
under this section shall be subject to such further terms and
conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
assure that the purposes of this section will be achieved.
``(d) Defaults.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the requirements of the
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the
Secretary may take such action as may be necessary to prevent
a default on a loan guaranteed under this section, including
the waiver of regulatory conditions, deferral of loan
payments, renegotiation of loans, and the expenditure of
funds for technical and consultative assistance, for the
temporary payment of the interest and principal on such a
loan, and for other purposes. Any such expenditure made under
the preceding sentence on behalf of a rural health facility
shall be made under such terms and conditions as the
Secretary shall prescribe, including the implementation of
such organizational, operational, and financial reforms as
the Secretary determines are appropriate and the disclosure
of such financial or other information as the Secretary may
require to determine the extent of the implementation of such
reforms.
``(2) Foreclosure.--The Secretary may take such action,
consistent with State law respecting foreclosure procedures
and, with respect to reserves required for furnishing
services on a prepaid basis, subject to the consent of the
affected States, as the Secretary determines appropriate to
protect the interest of the United States in the event of a
default on a loan guaranteed under this section, except that
the Secretary may only foreclose on assets offered as
security (if any) in accordance with subsection (b).
``(e) Nonapplication of Part D.--The provisions of part D
shall not apply to this part.
``(f) Definitions.--In this part:
``(1) Non-federal lender.--The term `non-Federal lender'
means any entity other than an agency or instrumentality of
the Federal Government authorized by law to make such loan,
including a federally insured bank, a lending institution
authorized or licensed by the State in which it resides to
make such loans, and a State or municipal bonding authority
or such authority's designee.
[[Page S2269]]
``(2) Rural area.--The term `rural area' has the meaning
given the term in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(2)(D)).
``(3) Rural health facility.--The term `rural health
facility' includes--
``(A) rural health clinics (as defined in section
1861(aa)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(aa)(2)));
``(B) critical access hospitals (as defined in section
1861(mm)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(mm)(1))) that are located in rural areas;
``(C) hospitals (as defined in section 1861(e) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(e))) that are located in
rural areas;
``(D) skilled nursing facilities (as defined in section
1819(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(a)))
that are located in rural areas;
``(E) health centers (as defined in section 330) that are
located in rural areas;
``(F) federally qualified health centers (as defined in
section 1861(aa)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(aa)(3))); and
``(G) nursing homes (as defined in section 1908(e) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396g(e))) that are located in
rural areas.''.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2048. A bill to regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by
providing for private sector development of technological protection
measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to
protect digital content and promote broadband as well as the transition
to digital television, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Stevens,
Inouye, Breaux, Nelson, and Feinstein to introduce the Consumer
Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act of 2002, legislation
that will promote broadband and the digital television transition by
securing content on the Internet and over the Nation's airwaves.
For several years the private sector has attempted to secure a safe
haven for copyrighted digital products, unfortunately with little to
show for its efforts. The result has been an absence of robust,
ubiquitous protections of digital media which has lead to a lack of
content on the Internet and over the airwaves. And who has suffered the
most? Consumers, as they are denied access to high quality digital
content in the home.
The reality is that a lack of security has enabled significant
copyright privacy which drains America's content industries to the tune
of billions of dollars every year. For example, the movie studios
estimate that they lose over $3 billion annually by way of analog
piracy. In order to pirate copyrighted movies via analog formats, an
individual makes an illegal copy of the movie, sometimes by taping it
in a movie theater with a personal video recorder, and then distributes
it, in analog form, at discount. However, because subsequent copies of
analog movies degrade over time, there is a limit to the success of
this type of piracy.
In a digital age, however, the privacy threat is exponentially
magnified. So on the Internet, copyright content, be it a movie, a
book, music, or software, travels in a digital language of 1s and 0s,
and every copy of that content, from the 1st to the 1000th is as
pristine as the original. Also, unlike an analog pirated movie, which
must be physically packaged and transported, a digital copy can be sent
around the world on the Internet with a single click of a mouse. The
copyright industries are justifiably worried about distributing their
content on the Internet absent strong copyright protection measures. As
Internet access becomes increasingly available over high-speed,
broadband connections, these worries will only heighten.
It should be noted, however, that the Internet is not the only threat
to unprotected digital content. Digital video programming is also
subject to a large privacy threat. Rapid advances in consumer
electronics make it easier to steal copyright content. Newly developed
digital compression and memory technologies make it possible to store
two complete movies on a device the size of a postage stamp. Today,
digital media can be transmitted over wired or wireless channels and
played and stored on a host of consumer electronics devices. By and
large, these are positive developments for consumers.
But any device that can legitimately play, copy, or electronically
transmit one or more categories of media also can be misused for
illegal copyright infringement, unless special protection technologies
are incorporated into such a device. Unfortunately, as technology has
advanced, copy protection schemes have not kept pace, fostering a set
of consumer expectations that at times actually promote illegal
activity on the Internet. For example, according to a Jupiter
Media Matrix report, over 7 million Americans use technology on the
Internet to swap music and other digital media files. More recent news
reports place this number at over 11 million. While some of this
activity is legal, much of it is not.
Every week a major magazine or newspaper reports on the thousands of
illegal pirated works that are available for copying and redistribution
online. Academy award winning motion pictures, platinum records, and
Emmy award winning television shows--all for free, all illegal. Piracy
is growing exponentially on college campuses and among tech savvy
consumers. Such lawlessness contributes to the studios and record
labels' reluctance to place their digital content on the Internet or
over the airwaves.
At the same time, millions of law abiding consumers find little
reason to spend discretionary dollars on consumer electronics products
whose value depends on their ability to receive, display and copy high
quality digital content like popular movies, music, and video games.
Accordingly, only early adopters have purchased high definition
television sets or broadband Internet access, as these products remain
priced too high for the average consumer. The facts are clear in this
regard. Only two million Americans have purchased HDTV sets. As for
broadband, rural and underserved areas aside, there is not an
availability problem. There is a demand problem. Roughly 85 percent of
Americans are offered broadband in the marketplace but only 10-12
percent have signed up. The fact is that most Americans are averse to
paying $50 a month for faster access to email, or $2,000 for a fancy
HDTV set that plays analog movies. But if more high-quality content
were available, consumers might come.
By unleashing an avalanche of digital content on broadband Internet
connections as well as over the digital broadcast airwaves, we can
change this dynamic and give consumers a reason to buy new consumer
electronics and information technology products. To do so requires the
development of a secure, protected environment to foster the widespread
dissemination of digital content in these exciting new mediums.
Although, it is technologically feasible to provide such a protected
environment, the solution has not been forthcoming through voluntary
private sector negotiations involving the industries with stakes in
this matter. This is not to say, however, that those industries do not
recognize the tremendous economic potential to be derived from a
proliferation of top notch digital content to consumers in the home.
The movie studios, and the rest of the copyright industries, for
example, are tremendously excited about the possibility of providing
their products to consumers over the Internet and the digital airwaves,
provided they can be assured that those products' copyrights are not
infringed in the process.
Although marketplace negotiations have not provided such an
assurance, a solution is at hand. Leaders in the consumer electronics,
information technology, and content industries are America's best and
brightest. They can solve this problem. The consumer electronics and
high tech industries claim they are ready to do just that. America's
top high-tech executives sent me a letter three weeks ago to that
effect. While, I want to believe them, industry negotiations have been
lagging. Both sides share some blame in this area. But the blame games
need to end. It's time for results, not recriminations.
I believe the private sector is capable, through marketplace
negotiations--of adopting standards that will ensure the secure
transmission of copyrighted content on the Internet and over the
airwaves. But given the pace of private talks so far, the private
sector needs a nudge. The government can provide that nudge, and in
doing so continue the government's longstanding role in promoting, and
sometimes requiring, the implementation of
[[Page S2270]]
technological standards in electronics equipment to benefit consumers.
We debated the merits of such an approach in the Commerce Committee on
February 28, 2002 when the leaders of the copyright, consumer
electronics, and information technology industries testified as to
their distinct views on this issue. At that hearing, every Senator and
every witness agreed that the problem of digital piracy requires
resolution.
Specifically, our hearing demonstrated that there are three discrete
problem areas that merit government intervention. First, is the piracy
threat presented toward unprotected digital broadcast television. Over
the air broadcast digital signals cannot be encrypted because the
millions of Americans who receive their signal via antennas cannot
decrypt the signal. As a result, digital broadcast signals are
delivered in unprotected format and are subject to illegal copying or
redistribution over the Internet upon transmission. The technology
exists today to solve this problem. It has been referred to as a
``broadcast flag'' which would instruct digital devices to prevent
illegal copying and Internet retransmission of digital broadcast
television. Consumer electronic devices would respond to the technology
and prevent copyright infringement. However, because not every device
would be required to respond to the technology, ubiquitous response
requires a mandate by government.
The second problem is commonly referred to as the ``Analog hole.'' As
protected digital programming, usually delivered over satellite or
cable, but also available on the Internet, is decrypted for viewing by
consumers, most frequently on television sets, the programming is
temporarily ``in the clear.'' At this point, pirates may have the
opportunity to take advantage of an ``Analog hole'' by copying the
content into a digital format, i.e. re-digitizing it, and then
illegally copying and/or retransmitting the content. The technology to
solve this problem either exists today, or will be available shortly.
Regardless, the solution is technologically feasible. As with the
``broadcast flag'' the solution to the ``Analog hole'' will require a
government mandate to ensure its ubiquitous adoption across consumer
devices.
The final problem poses the greatest threat. Literally millions of
digital files of music and videos are illegally copied, downloaded, and
transmitted over the Internet on a regular basis. Current digital
rights management solutions are insufficient to rectify this problem.
Some consumers resorting to illegal behavior do so unknowingly. Many
others do so willingly. Regardless, consumers desire high-quality
digital content on the Internet and it is not being provided in any
widespread, legal fashion. Fortunately, a solution to this problem is
also technologically feasible. It too will require government action,
including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
While industries are at odds as to how to solve these critical
content protection problems, the legislation we introduce today
provides us with the tools to break the logjam. Specifically, the
legislation requires the content, consumer electronics, and information
technology industries to come together with representatives of consumer
groups to develop standards, technologies, and encoding rules to
safeguard digital content so that it will be made more readily
available to consumers without being subject to piracy. The affected
parties would have one year to reach agreement. The technologies would
then be incorporated into all digital media devices to ensure universal
protection for digital content and universal access to such content for
consumers. The deadline on industry would work in the following
fashion: if they come together to solve these problems in private
sector talks, we will empower government enforcement so that all
consumer devices comply. If they don't, the government, in consultation
with the private sector, will have to step in.
America's creative artists deserve our protection. Our copyright
industries are among our greatest economic and creative assets. The
framers recognized that innovation and creativity was instrumental to
our country's economic health when they empowered Congress in the
Constitution to protect copyrighted products. Now, however, copyrighted
media products are delivered digitally, and copyright infringement is
more difficult to detect and prevent. That is why strong technological
protections need to be layered on top of the copyright laws, to
complement the law as it exists today. Along those lines, I want to
emphasize that this legislation does not alter existing copyright law.
Copyright law rests squarely within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Judiciary Committee. I hope to work closely with Chairman Leahy and
Ranking Member Hatch to stop copyright piracy in a digital age.
Some have said that legislation is unwieldy in this area. But our
legislation would not be the first time Congress imposed technological
requirements to benefit consumers. And it won't be the last. We have
been here before. In 1962, under the All Channel Receiver Act, Congress
mandated that all television receivers include the capability to tune
all channels, UHF and VHF, allocated to the television broadcast
service. More recently, in 1998, Congress required that all analog VCRs
recognize a standard copy control technology, know as ``Macrovision''.
In the former case, the Federal Government and the Federal
Communications Commission took the lead. In the latter case, industry
first agreed to the `Macrovision' standard which Congress later
codified by legislation. So, whether Congress or industry has led the
way, the results have benefitted consumers and industry, by providing
Americans with wider access to programming and content.
Pursuant to the bill we introduce today, the standards, technologies,
and encoding rule would work in the following manner. Digital content
delivered over the Internet and over the broadcast airwaves would
include instructions as to consumers' ability to copy available content
and would prevent the illegal retransmission of that content over the
Internet. Digital media devices such as televisions sets, cable boxes,
and personal computers, would be manufactured to recognize and respond
to those instructions to prevent illegal copying or redistribution.
I want to stress, however, in the strongest terms possible, that the
standards agreed to by industry would not be permitted to thwart
legitimate consumer copying of programming in the home, for time
shifting purposes, for example. Similarly, the technologies and
encoding rules would be required to take into account the need to
preserve fair use of otherwise protected content, for educational and
research purposes for example. Specifically, our bill requires that
encoding rules ``take into account limitations on exclusive rights of
copyright holders, including the fair use doctrine.'' In addition, the
legislation specifies that no copy protection technology may prevent
consumers from ``making a personal copy for lawful use in the home'' of
non pay-per-view television programming. I want to be clear on this
point, no legislation can or should pass Congress in this area that
does not seek to protect legitimate consumer copying and fair use
practices.
Critics of earlier drafts of our legislation painted it as heavy
handed and awkward government selection of technologies. I want to
respond. We have listened to their arguments delivered in dozens of
meetings with my staff, and the bill we introduce today does nothing of
the sort. Under the new legislation, if the required private sector
negotiations fail, the FCC will begin a process, in consultation with
those same private sector representatives, to implement technologically
feasible solutions. So, in practice, the private sector, even in the
event of a government initiated approach, will have every incentive and
opportunity to guide a solution largely on its own.
Critics of earlier discussion drafts of our legislation also claimed
that it would freeze innovation and that any solutions would invariably
be out of date shortly after they are selected due to the rapid and
accelerated development of technology in the high tech sector. But here
too we have listened and responded. Pursuant to our legislation, if the
private sector determines that the selected technological solution
needs to be updated or modified, they may do so. Its as simple as that.
Such a change might be warranted because the technologies or encoding
rules in use have been compromised by hackers or pirates. Or,
technological improvements may be developed that
[[Page S2271]]
ensure greater security for content, or more readily take into account
consumers or researchers' fair use expectations.
Regardless, in any of these instances, at any time, the legislation
would allow the representatives of the content, consumer electronics,
and information technology industries to implement any necessary
modification of the agreed upon technologies. They could simply do so
on their own, and then notify the FCC of their actions.
At every stage in the process, the private sector, not the
government, has the opportunity and the incentive to grab the reins. To
date, however, this has not happened. The legislation we introduce
today seeks to change that.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, the
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2048
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF SECTIONS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer
Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act''.
(b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of sections.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Adoption of security system standards and encoding rules.
Sec. 4. Preservation of the integrity of security.
Sec. 5. Prohibition on shipment in interstate commerce of nonconforming
digital media devices.
Sec. 6. Prohibition on removal or alteration of security technology;
violation of encoding rules.
Sec. 7. Enforcement.
Sec. 8. Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption.
Sec. 9. Definitions.
Sec. 10. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to
hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and
digital television products.
(2) Owners of digital programming and content are
increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless
digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize
and respond to content security measures designed to prevent
theft.
(3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily,
and without degradation, digital programmers and content
owners face an exponentially increasing piracy threat in a
digital age.
(4) Current agreements reached in the marketplace to
include security technologies in certain digital media
devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because
those agreements do not prevent the continued use and
manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate
such security technologies.
(5) Other existing digital rights management schemes
represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather
than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of
digital content possible.
(6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect
digital content on digital broadcast television and over the
Internet.
(7) Competing business interests have frustrated agreement
on the deployment of existing technology in digital media
devices to protect digital content on the Internet or on
digital broadcast television.
(8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary
precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability,
of high quality digital content, which will benefit consumers
and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks.
(9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary
precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to
high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
(10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive
advantage over digital television because the closed nature
of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which
provides some protection for digital content.
(11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not
encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack those
protections afforded to programming delivered via cable or
satellite.
(12) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible
but will require government action, including a mandate to
ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming
in analog form.
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog
for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to
conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be
copied or redistributed illegally.
(15) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible
but will require government action, including a mandate to
ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject
to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing,
downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading
television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by
using ``file-sharing'' technology. Much of this activity is
illegal, but demonstrates consumers' desire to access digital
content.
(18) This piracy poses a substantial economic threat to
America's content industries.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible
but will require government action, including a mandate to
ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital
content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate
consumer expectations regarding use of digital content in the
home.
(21) Secure technological protections should enable content
owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet
without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use
that content in a legal manner.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should
facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
(23) Technologies used to protect digital content should
facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use
of digital content for educational or research purposes.
SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS AND ENCODING
RULES.
(a) Private Sector Efforts.--
(1) In general.--The Federal Communications Commission, in
consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall make a
determination, not more than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, as to whether--
(A) representatives of digital media device manufacturers,
consumer groups, and copyright owners have reached agreement
on security system standards for use in digital media devices
and encoding rules; and
(B) the standards and encoding rules conform to the
requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
(2) Report to the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.--
Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Commission shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, the House of Representatives Committee on
Commerce, and the House of Representatives Committee on the
Judiciary as to whether--
(A) substantial progress has been made toward the
development of security system standards and encoding rules
that will conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and
(e);
(B) private sector negotiations are continuing in good
faith;
(C) there is a reasonable expectation that final agreement
will be reached within 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(D) if it is unlikely that such a final agreement will be
reached by the end of that year, the deadline should be
extended.
(b) Affirmative Determination.--If the Commission makes a
determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on
security system standards and encoding rules that conform to
the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has been reached,
then the Commission shall--
(1) initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on
which the determination is made, to adopt those standards and
encoding rules; and
(2) publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not
later than 180 days after initiating the rulemaking, that
will take effect 1 year after its publication.
(c) Negative Determination.--If the Commission makes a
determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on
security system standards and encoding rules that conform to
the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has not been
reached, then the Commission--
(1) in consultation with representatives described in
subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Register of Copyrights, shall
initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which
the determination is made, to adopt security system standards
and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of
subsections (d) and (e); and
(2) shall publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking,
not later than 1 year after initiating the rulemaking, that
will take effect 1 year after its publication.
(d) Security System Standards.--In achieving the goals of
setting open security system standards that will provide
effective security for copyrighted works, the security system
standards shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that--
(1) the standard security technologies are--
(A) reliable;
(B) renewable;
(C) resistant to attack;
(D) readily implemented;
(E) modular;
(F) applicable to multiple technology platforms;
(G) extensible;
(H) upgradable;
(I) not cost prohibitive; and
(2) any software portion of such standards is based on open
source code.
(e) Encoding Rules.--
(1) Limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright
owners.--In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful
uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing
[[Page S2272]]
as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall
take into account the limitations on the exclusive rights of
copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine.
(2) Personal use copies.--No person may apply a security
measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a
lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use
in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully
performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-
premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite
channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in
section 122(j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a
cable system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or
a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such
title).
(f) Means of Implementing Standards.--The security system
standards adopted under subsection (b), (c), or (g) shall
provide for secure technical means of implementing directions
of copyright owners for copyrighted works.
(g) Commission May Revise Standards and Rules Through
Rulemaking.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may conduct subsequent
rulemakings to modify any security system standards or
encoding rules established under subsection (b) or (c) or to
adopt new security system standards that conform to the
requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
(2) Consultation required.--The Commission shall conduct
any such subsequent rulemaking in consultation with
representatives of digital media device manufacturers,
consumer groups, and copyright owners described in subsection
(a)(1)(A) and with the Register of Copyrights.
(3) Implementation.--Any final rule published in such a
subsequent rulemaking shall--
(A) apply prospectively only; and
(B) take into consideration the effect of adoption of the
modified or new security system standards and encoding rules
on consumers' ability to utilize digital media devices
manufactured before the modified or new standards take
effect.
(h) Modification of Technology by Private Sector.--
(1) In general.--After security system standards have been
established under subsection (b), (c), or (g) of this
section, representatives of digital media device
manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners
described in subsection (a)(1)(A) may modify the standard
security technology that adheres to the security system
standards rules established under this section if those
representatives determine that a change in the technology is
necessary because--
(A) the technology in use has been compromised; or
(B) technological improvements warrant upgrading the
technology in use.
(2) Implementation notification.--The representatives
described in paragraph (1) shall notify the Commission of any
such modification before it is implemented or, if immediate
implementation is determined by the representatives to be
necessary, as soon thereafter as possible.
(3) Compliance with subsection (d) requirements.--The
Commission shall ensure that any modification of standard
security technology under this subsection conforms to the
requirements of subsection (d).
SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF SECURITY.
An interactive computer service shall store and transmit
with integrity any security measure associated with standard
security technologies that is used in connection with
copyrighted material such service transmits or stores.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF
NONCONFORMING DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES.
(a) In General.--A manufacturer, importer, or seller of
digital media devices may not--
(1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or
(2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting,
interstate commerce,
a digital media device unless the device includes and
utilizes standard security technologies that adhere to the
security system standards adopted under section 3.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the sale,
offer for sale, or transportation of a digital media device
that was legally manufactured or imported, and sold to the
consumer, prior to the effective date of regulations adopted
under section 3 and not subsequently modified in violation of
section 6(a).
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY
TECHNOLOGY; VIOLATION OF ENCODING RULES.
(a) Removal or Alteration of Security Technology.--No
person may--
(1) knowingly remove or alter any standard security
technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in
interstate commerce; or
(2) knowingly transmit or make available to the public any
copyrighted material where the security measure associated
with a standard security technology has been removed or
altered, without the authority of the copyright owner.
(b) Compliance with Encoding Rules.--No person may
knowingly apply to a copyrighted work, that has been
distributed to the public, a security measure that uses a
standard security technology in violation of the encoding
rules adopted under section 3.
SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--The provisions of section 1203 and 1204 of
title 17, United States Code, shall apply to any violation of
this Act as if--
(1) a violation of section 5 or 6(a)(1) of this Act were a
violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code;
and
(2) a violation of section 4 or section 6(a)(2) of this Act
were a violation of section 1202 of that title.
(b) Statutory Damages.--A court may award damages for each
violation of section 6(b) of not less than $200 and not more
than $2,500, as the court considers just.
SEC. 8. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT EXEMPTION.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not
apply to any committee, board, commission, council,
conference, panel, task force, or other similar group of
representatives of digital media devices and representatives
of copyright owners convened for the purpose of developing
the security system standards and encoding rules described in
section 3.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Standard security technology.--The term ``standard
security technology'' means a security technology that
adheres to the security system standards adopted under
section 3.
(2) Interactive computer service.--The term ``interactive
computer service'' has the meaning given that term in section
230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)).
(3) Digital media device.--The term ``digital media
device'' means any hardware or software that--
(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form
whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or
(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form
and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to
hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
(4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act, except that sections 4, 5, and 6 shall take effect on
the day on which the final rule published under section 3(b)
or (c) takes effect.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
S. 2050. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat
nominally foreign corporations created through inversion transactions
as domestic corporations; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that
would bar multinational corporations from avoiding millions of dollars
in taxes through the use of shell corporations in foreign tax havens.
On February 18 the New York Times in an article entitled ``U.S.
Corporations Are Using Bermuda to Slash Tax Bills,'' reported that a
number of prominent U.S. corporations, using creative paperwork, have
transformed themselves into Bermuda corporations purely to avoid paying
their share of U.S. taxes. These new Bermuda entities are shell
corporations. They have no staff, no offices and no real business
activity in Bermuda. They exist for the purpose of shielding income
from the IRS.
How does the ``Bermuda Triangle'' tax loophole work? U.S. companies,
referred to as ``domestic corporations,'' pay U.S. taxes on their
worldwide income, whether that income is earned in the United States or
abroad. Foreign corporations pay U.S. taxes only on income earned in
the United States.
Through the use of a process called corporate inversion, a domestic
company can be ``acquired'' by a shell corporation chartered in a
foreign county with low or no corporate taxes, Bermuda for example.
Under such an arrangement, the shareholders of the new foreign parent
are the same as the shareholders of the old U.S. company. This maneuver
requires little more than filing of the proper paperwork in the new
``home'' country and payment of a registration fee. The new foreign
parent corporation need not have any offices or any staff, and they
usually don't.
United States tax law contains many provisions designed to expose
such creative accounting and to require U.S. companies that are foreign
in name only to pay the same taxes as other domestic corporations.
Corporate inversions are designed to exploit a specific loophole in
current law so that the company is treated as foreign for tax purposes,
and therefore pays no U.S. taxes on its foreign income.
My bill closes this loophole in a way that is narrowly tailored to
capture
[[Page S2273]]
corporate inversion transactions. In the case of inversion ``stock
swaps'' the bill directs the IRS to look at the ownership of the new
company to assess whether it is a domestic firm.
The loophole gives tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks to major
multinational companies with significant non-U.S. business. It also
puts other U.S. companies unwilling or unable to use this loophole at a
competitive disadvantage. No American company should be penalized
staying put while others renounce U.S. ``citizenship'' for a tax break.
Of course when some companies don't pay their fair share, the rest of
American taxpayers and businesses are stuck with the bill. I think I
can safely say that very few of the small businesses that I visit in
Detroit Lakes, MN, or Mankato, in Minneapolis, or Duluth can avail
themselves of the Bermuda Triangle.
When we have our debate over budget priorities here in the Senate, we
need to decide whether we are going to go after tax scofflaws or
instead put these resources into fair tax relief, public investment, or
saving social security. That's what this legislation is all about. I
hope colleagues will take a close look and be able to support it.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin,
Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lott, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Thurmond, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Reed, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Allard, Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Carnahan, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dayton,
Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2051. A bill to remove a condition preventing authority for
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans' disability
compensation from taking affect, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last Session I, along with 79 cosponsors,
introduced S. 170, ``The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001.'' Our
bill addressed a 110-year old injustice against over 500 thousand of
our Nation's veterans. Congress has repeatedly forced the bravest men
and women in our Nation, retired career veterans, to essentially forgo
receipt of a portion of their retired pay if they received a disability
injury in the line of service.
In October, I introduced an amendment identical to S. 170 for the
Senate Defense Authorization Bill. The Senate adopted my amendment by
unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House choose not to appropriate
funds for this important measure.
I rise today to again introduce a bill along with my colleagues Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lott, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Reed, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Allard, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Carnahan, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Bunning, and
Mr. Bingaman that will correct this inequity for veterans who have
retired from our Armed Forces with a service-connected disability.
Our bill will repeal the contingency language enacted in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and thus remove a
condition preventing authority for concurrent receipt of military
retired pay and veterans' disability compensation from taking effect.
It will permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service
connected disability to receive military retirement pay while also
receiving veterans' disability compensation.
Congress approved inequitable legislation prohibiting the concurrent
receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation shortly
after the Civil War, when the standing army of the United States was
extremely limited. At that time, only a small portion of our armed
forces consisted of career soldiers.
Today, nearly one and a half million Americans dedicate their lives
to the defense of our Nation. The United States' military force is
unmatched in terms of power, training and ability. Our nation's status
as the world's only superpower is largely due to the sacrifices our
veterans made during the last century. Rather than honoring their
commitment and bravery by fulfilling our obligations, the federal
government has chosen instead to perpetuate a longstanding injustice.
Quite simply, this is disgraceful, and we must correct it.
Once again our Nation is calling upon the members of the Armed Forces
to defend democracy and freedom. We must send a signal to the men and
women currently in uniform that our government takes care of those that
make sacrifices for our Nation. We must demonstrate to veterans that we
are thankful for their dedicated service.
Military retirement pay and disability compensation were earned and
awarded for entirely different purposes. Current law ignores the
distinction between these two entitlements. Military retired pay is
earned compensation for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices
inherent in a military career. It is a reward promised for serving two
decades or more under conditions that most Americans find intolerable.
Veterans' disability compensation, on the other hand, is recompense for
pain, suffering, and lost future earning power caused by a service-
connected illness or injury. Few retirees can afford to live on their
retired pay alone, and a severe disability only makes the problem worse
by limiting or denying any post-service working life.
Career military retired veterans are the only group of Federal
retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to
receive VA disability. All other federal employees receive both their
civil service retirement and VA disability with no offset. Simply put,
the law discriminates against career military men and women. It
assumes, in effect, that disabled military retirees neither need nor
deserve the full compensation they earned for their 20 or more years
served in uniform.
This inequity is absurd. How do we explain it to the men and women
who sacrificed their own safety to protect this great Nation? How do we
explain this inequity to those members currently risking their lives to
defeat terror?
We are currently losing over one thousand World War II veterans each
day. Every day we delay acting on this legislation means continuing to
deny fundamental fairness to thousands of men and women. They will
never have the ability to enjoy their two well-deserved entitlements.
This bill represents an honest attempt to correct an injustice that
has existed for far too long. Allowing disabled veterans to receive
military retired pay and veterans disability compensation concurrently
will restore fairness to Federal retirement policy.
This legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service
organizations, including the Military Coalition, the National Military/
Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans,
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the
Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees.
Passing this bill will finally eliminate a grossly inequitable 19th
century law and ensure fairness within the Federal retirement policy.
Our veterans have heard enough excuses. Now it is time for them to hear
our gratitude. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation to finally end this disservice to our retired military men
and women.
Our veterans have earned this and now is our chance to honor their
service to our nation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2051
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AUTHORITY FOR CONCURRENT RECEIPT
OF MILITARY RETIRED PAY AMD VETERANS'
DISABILITY COMPENSATION.
(a) Repeal of Contingent Effective Date.--Section 1414 of
title 10, United States Code, as added by section 641(a) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(Public Law 107-107), is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``, subject to the
enactment of qualifying offsetting
[[Page S2274]]
legislation as specified in subsection (f)''; and
(2) by striking subsections (e) and (f).
(b) Substitution of Effective Date.--Section 1414 of title
10, United States Code, shall apply with respect to months
beginning on or after on October 1, 2002.
(c) Prohibition of Retroactive Benefits.--(1) No benefit
may be paid to any person by reason of section 1414 of title
10, United States Code, for any period before the date
specified in subsection (b).
(2) Section 641 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1149) is
amended by striking subsection (d).
(d) Conforming Termination of Special Compensation
Program.--(1) Effective on the date specified in subsection
(b), section 1413 of title 10, United States Code, is
repealed.
(2) Section 1413 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking the second sentence; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) For payments'' and
all that follows through ``December 2002, the following:'';
(ii) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D)
as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), respectively, and
realigning such paragraphs (as so redesignated) two ems from
the left margin.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Reid and
Senator Warner in introducing a bill that will eliminate, once and for
all, the inequity that our Nation's veterans have been burdened with
for 110 years. Across this great Nation there are over 400,000
disabled, military retirees that must give up their retired pay in
order to receive their VA disability compensation. Military retirees
are the only group of Federal retirees who are forced to fund their own
disability benefits.
Men and women who served our country, who dedicated their lives to
the defense of freedom, have earned fair compensation. The issue has
been before the Senate for years. Concurrent receipt legislation
introduced earlier this year by Senator Reid and myself had 79
cosponsors. The Congress needs to act this year on this issue.
This bill will honor Americans who answered our Nation's call for 20
years or more. They are veterans who stood the line, defending our
Nation, during times of peace and times of war. Military retirement pay
and disability compensation are earned and awarded for entirely
different purposes. Current law ignores the distinction between these
entitlements. Military retirees have dedicated 20 or more years to our
national defense in earning their retirement, whereas disability
compensation is awarded to compensate a veteran for injury incurred in
service to our Nation. Our veterans have earned and deserve fair
compensation. I have been a longstanding supporter of efforts to repeal
the century-old law that prohibits military retirees from collecting
the retired pay that they earned as well as VA disability compensation.
Since September 11, the American people have gained a greater
appreciation of our military. The men and women in uniform have
performed admirably in the war against terrorism. I recently visited
our troops in Afghanistan. Their professionalism, their dedication, and
their patriotism was an inspiration. As we all know, Afghanistan is
still a very dangerous place. We need to send a message to those
soldiers that are putting their lives on the line every day that our
government provides just and fair compensation for those that will have
gone before them.
The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act included authority for
concurrent receipt, but made it subject to offsetting funding. The bill
we are introducing today moves forward in requiring full concurrent
receipt, with no restrictions.
I pledge to continue the fight on this important issue. I look
forward to joining with Senator Reid in ensuring that the Senate Budget
Resolution includes full funding for concurrent receipt. I will work
with Senator Warner and my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services
Committee to see that the bill we are introducing today is incorporated
into the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization bill.
In closing, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this important legislation. Is is simply the right and fair
thing to do for American veterans.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in introducing
legislation to allow our disabled military retirees to receive all of
the compensation they have earned through their service to our Nation.
With this legislation, we are taking the next critical step in
eliminating a tremendous injustice that impacts disabled military
retirees. Many of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, have
joined in cosponsoring this important legislation.
What is our common goal? To ensure that an important class of
disabled veterans, military retirees who have suffered disability
during their years of military service, are fairly and appropriately
compensated by the Nation they served so well. We cannot and should not
wait any longer for this to happen.
Last year, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the Congress
overturned the 110-year-old prohibition against ``concurrent receipt''
as part of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. In
other words, we repealed the prohibition in law that prevents military
retirees from receiving both their regular retired pay and veterans
disability compensation, without a dollar for dollar offset.
Unfortunately, we did not have the necessary funding to pay for this
repeal. The resulting compromise in conference was a confidential
repeal.
On its face this legislation before us is a somewhat technical
proposal. By its terms, it simply repeals language enacted in law last
December that requires the President to propose offsetting legislation
funding concurrent receipt and requires Congress to pass ``qualifying
offsetting legislation'' before concurrent receipt of military retired
pay and veterans' disability compensation can begin. The underlying
authorization to receive both concurrently, as provided for in the
Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, stands. The
condition which has delayed implementation would be removed by the
legislation we are introducing today.
Both Senator Levin as chairman, and I as ranking member of the
Committee on Armed Services, have requested that the Senate Budget
Committee include funding in the budget resolution to fund this hard-
earned benefit. I have requested that this funding be included ``above
the line''--that is, in addition to the President's requested amount
for defense. In my view, Congress should not be forced to cut the
President's requested initiatives and programs--which are critical to
the ongoing war on terrorism, to fund this benefit.
The House Budget Committee has already included a portion of the
funds required for ``concurrent receipt'' in their budget resolution,
``above the line.''
It is time to move forward on this important issue. The legislation
we are introducing will permit implementation of the law the Congress
has already passed, and I am confident that, working with the Budget
Committee, we can find the money to pay for it.
Our Nation has no more valuable assets than our men and women in
uniform. They are called upon to leave their families, deploy to areas
around the world, and face threats on a daily basis. They are on the
front lines, defending our freedom. Our Nation must meet its commitment
to those dedicated Service members. How can we ask the men and women
who have so faithfully served to sacrifice a portion of their
retirement because they are also receiving compensation for an injury
suffered while serving their country?
Our career military service members were promised health care for
life for themselves and their families. Two years ago, we the Congress
acted to make that promise a reality. Yes, there was a significant cost
associated with providing that care. But there is no cost too high to
provide for those who ensure our freedom.
Today we are considering a similar situation. Is the cost too high of
providing our disabled military retirees both the military retired pay
they have earned and compensation they are due for a disability they
received while serving their Nation? I think not.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2052. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act to reauthorize and improve the temporary assistance to needy
families program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
[[Page S2275]]
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr President, I am proud to introduce a bill that
reauthorizes the landmark welfare reform legislation passed 1996. It
will allow States to continue their excellent work on behalf of
families on welfare. This reauthorization bill is designed to allow
states to continue to provide the flexible initiatives that have
reduced national welfare caseloads by over 50 percent and moved
millions of Americans from welfare to work.
Welfare reform was a bold experiment to dramatically change a major
social program. In 1996, Congress ended the entitlement of eligible
families with children to cash aid. The results five years later are
impressive. Over two-thirds of the people who are leaving the welfare
rolls have left for work.
Six years ago, we said the goal of welfare reform should be to
promote work and to protect children. We stood here together, on
unchartered ground, and endorsed significant policy changes that we
believed would help families gain independence and economic self-
sufficiency, while protecting the children. States began to revise
welfare service delivery with guidance based on the new reforms. Each
state designed and implemented programs that were unique and specific
to their populations.
While there are still many challenges facing families who are
struggling to make the transition from welfare to work, as well as
challenges facing States in administering the program, I believe that
we are on the right course. It is essential to keep on course and
support the fundamental principles adopted in 1996, as well as maintain
new State flexibility in order to reward and continue the innovations
made by the States.
In West Virginia, welfare reform has brought bold changes. Parents on
welfare get extra support as they face new responsibilities and
obligations to make the transition from welfare to jobs. Last summer, I
hosted a roundtable discussion to meet with individual West Virginians
who were undergoing major life transitions. They told me that they were
proud to be working, but that it was often still a struggle to make
ends meet and do the best for their children. The goal of this
legislation is to help those parents, and millions more, to promote the
well-being of their children even as they work.
Today, I am introducing the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2002. States are making
measurable progress. We should continue to build on this foundation,
and not reduce State flexibility. It is essential we continue welfare
reform, not unravel it, or restructure it.
This bill acknowledges that we must keep the focus on work, by both
requiring and rewarding work. To ensure a real focus on helping parents
leave welfare rolls for a job, this legislation gradually replaces the
caseload reduction credit with a new employment credit. States will
only get a bonus toward their work participation requirement if parents
move from welfare to a job. This credit will acknowledge the dignity of
all work by providing a bonus for parents who get jobs, both full and
part-time. A mother who has never worked in her life and then gets a
part-time job has had a true accomplishment, and that deserves
recognition. It is also the first step toward independence.
I am especially grateful to Senator Lincoln and Congressman Levin for
their leadership and vision in designing this new incentive. It is an
empowering approach to promoting work and sends the proper message to
families who are striving to become self sufficient. I am pleased to
incorporate their proposal into my bill.
At this point, with a soft economy, it would be unwise to
significantly change State TANF programs to impose drastically higher
work participation rates requiring 40 hours per job placement
activities would be, plain and simple, an unfunded mandate.
State officials have testified before the Finance Committee that such
changes would force States to restructure existing programs that are
working and turn their focus away from those who need some assistance
with child care or transportation, but are no longer dependent on a
welfare check. We should not turn away from helping our working
families while spending limited resources to meet new, and arbitrary,
work rates and hours.
To promote work, it is essential to help working parents. We
obviously must invest more in child care funding to help parents stay
on the job. My proposal seeks to increase guaranteed child care funding
for this provision by $1 billion each year. This increase is designed
to address existing needs of the current TANF program.
This bill would continue the transitional Medicaid program so
families can keep health care coverage for a year as they move from
welfare to work. In 1996, I was proud to work with Senator Breaux and
the late Senator John Chafee to protect access to health care for such
vulnerable families. I have incorporated Senator Breaux's bipartisan
bill to continue transitional Medicaid coverage and I appreciate his
leadership on this and other key issues. Our bill also gives states
more flexibility and options to place parents in vocational training
and English as a Second Language programs so parents can get jobs. In
recognition of Maine's success with the Parents as Scholar program,
states have the option to follow the Maine model for 5 percent of their
caseload to combine work and education.
Because States are investing more in the existing welfare program
than the current $16.5 billion grant, this legislation would provide a
modest increase of $2.5 billion in the basic TANF block grant over the
next five years. The new TANF funding would be allocated based on
the number of poor children. In 1996, Congress promised States that it
would fully fund the Social Services Block Grant at $2.8 billion
dollars. The block grant is a flexible resource to states to help
families, and many States use it for child care. Unfortunately, its
funding was slashed to $1.7 billion in recent years. I believe that
since the States kept their promise on welfare reform, Congress should
keep our promise to fund the Social Services Block Grant.
The bill also invests $200 million to create BusinessLink Grants,
competitive grants to support public and private partnerships to help
parents get jobs. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is just one example
of how nonprofits working with business leaders can make a real
difference. The Partnership includes over 20,000 businesses that have
provided more than 1 million jobs to parents moving from welfare to
work. I have met with the board members of this group, and we should
encourage such partnerships. I know that other groups, like the
Salvation Army and Good Will, are doing important work on providing
transitional job opportunities, and these organizations would be
eligible for grants as well.
A job is the first step, but for welfare parents to make a successful
transition to independence, they need a range of supports. To achieve
this goal, the bill will create Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Grants to
improve this support network for parents. These grants are intended to
provide incentives and support to TANF caseworkers and nonprofit
organizations to help improve the comprehensive network of supports for
working families, including Medicaid, CHIP, child care, EITC, and a
range of services. Working mothers deserve to know what type of support
will be available so that they do not slip back into welfare.
Work is fundamental, but we also need to be concerned about important
aspects of the lives of children and children. This legislation creates
a Family Formation Fund to encourage health families, reduce teenage
pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in
children's lives. The bill authorizes Second Chance homes, an
innovative program to help teenage parents get the support and
education they need. The bill seeks to end certain discrimination and
harsh rules for two-parent families in the current system. If our goal
is to support marriage, we should not penalize married couples.
Our legislation also makes a simple, but important change. Under the
current TANF program, each welfare parent has an Individual
Responsibility Plan that serves as an assessment and work plan. In
addition to having a responsibility to work, parents have a
responsibility to protect their children's well-being. To emphasize
this fundamental point, this bill adds language directing states to
incorporate the concept of a child's well-being into each
[[Page S2276]]
parent's Individual Responsibility Plan. States have great flexibility,
but it is important to send a clear message that one of a parent's
responsibilities is the well-being of their children.
This legislation builds on the foundation of the 1996 Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. My hope is that
this framework will help promote bipartisan discussion about how we can
make even more improvements in our welfare system, while maintaining
our partnership with the States. We all must work together, the
Administration, the Congress and the States, to improve our partnership
to help families move from welfare to work.
I ask unanimous consent to print the section-by-section summary of my
bill in the Record.
There being no objection, the section by section analysis was ordered
to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Section by Section Analysis
TITLE I--TANF Funding
Increase the main TANF grant of $16.5 by adding $2.5
billion over 5 years, based on the number of poor children
per state. It will gradually increase the TANF block grant
from $16.5 billion in 2003 to $17.4 billion in 2007.
The Supplemental Grants are renewed, in an expanded manner,
and ``built into'' the main TANF funding stream. Under
expansion, 34 States will qualify, compared to 17 States in
the past. The new Supplemental Grant is $472,749,000 per
year.
The Contingency Fund is reinstated in a more effective
form.
A $300 million bonus fund is created to reward States which
reduce poverty, along the lines of the ``high performance''
bonus. In addition, States which show an increase in child
poverty are required to include ``measurable milestones'' in
their corrective action plans.
Reauthorization of other grants, such as bonus grants to
high performance states and grants for Indian Tribes, and
continuation of penalties for failure of any State to
maintain certain level of historic effort.
Funding for the Social Services Block Grant, SSBG, which
funds an array of needed programs including day care,
education and training programs, and services for victims of
domestic violence, is restored to $2.8 billion per year, as
is the 10 percent TANF transfer authority, as promised in the
original 1996 welfare reform law.
TITLE II--Supporting Work
Replace caseload reduction credit with employment credit
beginning with fiscal year 2005. Employment credit will
reward States in which families leave welfare for work;
additional credit will be awarded for families leaving
welfare with higher earnings.
Guaranteed funding for the mandatory component of the Child
Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, is increased from $2.7
billion to $3.7 billion per year. The TANF transfer authority
continues.
States which adopt a ``Parents as Scholars'' program, which
combines work and post-secondary education, may count
participants in such a program as meeting the work
participation requirements, up to a maximum of 5 percent of a
State's caseload. Vocational training and education are
permitted to count toward the work participation requirements
for up to 24 months, not 12, and teenage mothers completing
high school are exempt from the 30 percent cap. States can
count up to 10 hours of ESL, with assessment, toward work
participation.
Provide $200 million over five years for new Business Link
grants to create public/private partnerships to encourage
employers to design innovative ways, including transitional
jobs, to help individuals moving from welfare to work.
TITLE III--Supporting Families
Eliminate the stricter work participation requirement for
two-parent families.
States are prohibited from imposing stricter eligibility
criteria for two-parent families, such as continuing the AFDC
``100 hour'' rule. In addition, the work participation rate
for two-parent families is conformed to that for one-parent
families.
Create a Family Formation Fund to provide $100 million for
research, technical assistance, and best practices in three
areas, including; 1. formation of two-parent families, 2.
reducing teen pregnancy, and 3. increasing the ability of
non-custodial parents to support and be involved in their
children's lives.
Since a child's well-being is part of a parent's
responsibility, states are directed to include child well-
being as part of the Individual Responsibility Pan for all
parents in the program.
TITLE IV--State Flexibility
New Pathway to Self-Sufficiency Grants, $150 million over 5
years, are made available to improve coordination of benefit
systems and to conduct outreach to low-income families,
working families in particular, to promote enrollment of
eligible families in assistance programs. States, local
governments, and non-profit organizations are eligible to
receive the grants, with a preference for applications which
involve collaborations.
States deserve flexibility and the option to offer wage
subsidies to parents who meet the existing work requirements
but need modest income support. Such subsidies would be
considered ``work supports'' and as such would be treated as
work supports, and not count toward the federal 60-month time
limit.
Retain the 20 percent hardship waivers for State
flexibility, but allow States that select the Domestic
Violence Option to serve the victims of domestic violence as
a separate and distinct category, since this option has
specific rules, including a 6-month review.
States operating under 1996 waivers are permitted to
continued doing so.
Provide States with the option to align foster care and
adoption assistance eligibility with TANF eligibility. States
must retain the income and assets standards for foster care
established in the 1996 welfare reform law as the minimum
standard, but States would have the option of updating the
standards to align them with TANF eligibility. This is
designed to streamline administrative work, and is similar to
State flexibility to align food stamp vehicle rules to TANF
vehicle rules.
Allow States to cover eligible legal immigrants under TANF,
regardless of date of entry.
Give States more flexibility to transfer TANF funds to
carry out existing transportation-for-jobs programs or
reverse commute projects.
TITLE V--Healthy Children
Provide transitional Medicaid to parents and children
making the transition from welfare to work. Provide States
with the option of automatically enrolling families who leave
TANF for a job in Medicaid for a full year, without the
necessity of reapplying.
States will have an option to provide Medicaid and CHIP
services to legal immigrant children and pregnant women,
regardless of date of entry.
Authorize $32 million for Second Chance Homes for teenage
expectant mothers. These facilities allow these girls to live
in a safe environment and receive formal and parenting
education and prenatal care.
TITLE VI--Public Accountability
To improve accountability, States are required to make
public the financial and program data submitted to the
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, when the data
is transmitted, including posting the information on the
State's web site.
Under current law, four antidiscrimination statutes apply
to activities funded by TANF: the Age Discrimination Act of
1975; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. GAO is required to conduct a review
of how States have complied with the requirements of these
laws and make recommendations for improving compliance. HHS
is also required to issue a ``best practices'' guide for
States in complying with these laws in TANF.
Ensure that an adult in a family receiving TANF and engaged
in a work activity shall not displace any public employee or
position.
Conduct longitudinal studies in 10 States of TANF
applicants and recipients to determine the factors that
contribute to positive employment and family outcomes.
A GAO study to determine the impact of the prohibition on
SSI benefits for legal immigrants.
Grant to improve States' policies and procedures for
assisting individuals with barriers to work.
GAO survey and evaluation of State activities on workforce
development for professional staff delivery in TANF and TANF-
related services. The report should assess the range of
caseloads and effects of caseload on family outcomes and
satisfaction. The survey should provide information on the
qualifications, education and training for staff, and the
amount of staff turnover.
______
By Mr. FRIST:
S. 2053. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve
immunization rates by increasing the distribution of vaccines and
improving and clarifying the vaccine injury compensation program, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Vaccine
Affordability and Availability Act.'' The United States has succeeded
in dramatically reducing the incidence of disease through the use of
vaccines. In some cases, we've even been able to eradicate specific
diseases, including smallpox. Smallpox, which has killed more people
than any other disease or war in history, has been eradicated by the
research, development and deployment of vaccines.
Still, our success should not and must not dampen our resolve for
combating disease with vaccines. Many vaccine-preventable diseases are
still increasing morbidity and mortality due to a lack of public
awareness about the existence and effectiveness of vaccines, and, in
some cases, due to a shortage of certain vaccines.
The goal of this bill is to improve how we vaccinate people in
America today. It would reduce the cost of vaccines, make vaccines more
accessible,
[[Page S2277]]
enhance vaccine education, and streamline the vaccine compensation
program. I urge all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to
support this bill and, in so doing, support the prevention of disease
and the saving of lives.
We must strengthen our immunization system. We need only look at the
experiences of three developed countries, Great Britain, Sweden and
Japan, when they allowed their immunization rates to drop due to fear
associated with the pertussis, whooping cough, vaccine. In Great
Britain, a decrease in pertussis immunizations in 1974 resulted in an
epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978.
In Japan between 1974 and 1979, pertussis vaccination rates fell from
70 percent, with 393 cases and no deaths, to around 20 to 40 percent,
with 13,000 cases and 41 deaths. In Sweden between 1981 and 1985, the
annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of
age increased from 700 cases to 3,200 cases. Low diphtheria
immunization rates in the former Soviet Union for children and the lack
of booster immunizations for adults have increased diphtheria from 839
cases in 1989 to nearly 50,000 cases and 1,700 deaths in 1994.
As the General Accounting Office, GAO, described in a March 2000
report, infectious diseases are responsible for nearly half of all
deaths worldwide for people under the age of 44. The report further
states that immunizing children against infectious diseases is
``considered to be one of the most effective public health initiatives
ever undertaken'' in the United States and the number of people in the
United States contracting vaccine-preventable diseases has been reduced
by more than 95 percent. Every year, millions of children are safely
vaccinated, preventing thousands of childhood deaths and even more
debilitating illnesses. While vaccines save lives and save the nation
from lifelong medical costs associated with contracting vaccine-
preventable diseases, no product is risk-free.
When Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in
1986, it recognized that ``[v]accination of children against deadly,
disabling, but preventable infectious diseases has been one of the most
spectacularly effective public health initiatives this country has ever
undertaken.'' Congress further noted that the ``[u]se of vaccines has
prevented thousands of children's deaths each year and has
substantially reduced the effects resulting from disease.'' Congress
further recognized that the cost of litigation initiated on behalf of
children claiming vaccine-related injuries has resulted in an enormous
increase in the price of vaccines and a significant reduction in the
number of vaccine manufacturers in the U.S. market.
The Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, ACCV, was established
pursuant to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to advise
the Secretary of HHS on ways to improve the Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, which was also established in the same law. Meeting minutes
from a September 2001 ACCV meeting best sum up the integral connection
between vaccine supply, production, and liability concerns that our
bill seeks to address: ``The vaccine supply in the United States is
becoming quite fragile. Over the last 20 to 30 years, there has been a
significant decrease in the number of vaccine manufacturers. As a
result, there is a relatively small group of manufacturers with limited
manufacturing capability. This fragility compromises the ability to
meet current vaccine needs and limits capacity to respond to
emergencies.''
In the early 1980s, lawsuits alleging vaccine-related injury or death
threatened vaccine production, availability, cost and even the
development of new vaccines. Coupled with already low profit margins,
the vaccine market became unstable. Gross sales of the DTP vaccine in
1980 for all manufacturers fell to about $3 million. If even a few of
the vaccinated children experienced adverse reactions to the DTP
vaccine and recovered $1 million each, for a lifetime of mental
impairment, then damages would easily exceed total sales. Costs
associated with researching new vaccines and the uncertainty created by
liability once the vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug
Administration and marketed, further jeopardized future vaccine
development.
In an attempt to address liability projections, manufacturers either
raised their prices, the DTP vaccine rose from $.19 in 1980 to more
than $12.00 by 1986, or left the vaccine market entirely. By the mid-
1980's, the number of manufacturers of DTP vaccine declined from seven
to one and the Nation experienced a critical shortage of vaccine. As a
result, we stopped immunizing 2 year olds, leaving them vulnerable to
whooping cough, diphtheria, and tetanus.
In 1986, Congress established the Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, VICP, as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
The VICP was created to address two major goals: To provide
compensation to those who suffered rare but serious side effects from
vaccines and to stabilize the vaccine production and supply market. The
VICP was established as a Federal ``no-fault'' compensation system to
compensate individuals who have been injured by certain covered
childhood vaccines. While vaccine-injured parties are required to file
claims under the VICP before filing lawsuits, proof requirements are
much lower than in court and procedures are simplified for injuries
that are listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The balance that was
struck was that the burden of proving causation was significantly
reduced for VICP claimants, while the litigation burden on
manufacturers and administrators of covered vaccines is decreased.
The Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act seeks to ensure the
VICP balance between fairness to claimants seeking compensation for
vaccine-related injury or death and stability for continued vaccine
production is strengthened. It further addresses the concerns of
claimants who file for compensation under VICP, in large part based on
recommendations made by the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines,
ACCV. Because family plays such an important role in the rehabilitation
and treatment of a child injured by a vaccine, the legislation allows
VICP awards to cover family counseling and guardianship costs.
Additionally, the bill raises the payment ceiling on two capped
payments that have not been raised since the VICP was implemented in
1988. The legislation also lengthens the filing deadline so that
petitioners may have more time to adequately assess the life care and
medical needs of a vaccine-injured child before filing and adjudicating
a VICP claim. It also allows claimants to recover interim costs before
final judgment is reached, to ease the financial strain on petitioners
for costs associated with filing a VICP claim. The bill also broadened
the membership criteria so that an adult who has been injured by a
vaccine may participate on the ACCV. Finally, the legislation makes
clear that all of these changes apply to pending and future VICP
claims.
Today, only two American companies and two European companies sell
vaccines in the United States. The United States is currently
experiencing shortages in 5 of the 9 recommended childhood vaccines,
for which there are only four manufacturers licensed to sell in the
United States. Once again, the threat of liability and the cost of
litigation pose challenges to the stability of our vaccine supply.
According to the March 18, 2002 edition of Forbes magazine, the profit
margin for vaccines is very slim. Just one of the pending class action
lawsuits seeks $30 billion in damages. The entire global value of the
vaccine market, all around the world, is only $5 billion.
The ``Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act'' simply ensures
that the VICP's goal of stabilizing the vaccine market is not
jeopardized. In establishing the VICP in 1986, Congress sought to
ensure that individuals claiming injury from covered vaccines must
first file for compensation under the VICP. Some individuals, however,
have attempted to evade this requirement by arguing, for example, that
a preservative used in a vaccine, and included in the vaccine's product
license application and product label, is not itself a ``vaccine'' so
the VICP restrictions do not apply to claims for injuries caused by
preservatives. This bill restates the original intent of the law, that
a vaccine is all the ingredients and components which are approved by
FDA to be in the product.
[[Page S2278]]
The bill makes necessary clarifications to the VICP to ensure that
unwarranted litigation does not again destabilize the vaccine market
causing the few manufacturers licensed to sell vaccines in the United
States to leave the market resulting in even more serious shortages of
essential vaccines. It clarifies that a vaccine-injured person must
timely file a petition and complete the VICP process before third
parties may bring a civil action in connection with that person's
injuries. The bill adopts the ACCV recommendation that clarifies that
certain well-defined medical conditions such as structural lesions and
genetic disorders may be considered to be ``factors unrelated,'' and
therefore non-compensable under VICP, to a vaccine, even if the exact
defect in the gene, for example, is unknown. The legislation also
clarifies that vaccine manufacturers and administrators cannot be sued
unless there is evidence that a vaccine has caused present physical
harm, they cannot be sued for medical monitoring to look for some
theoretical future harm. The bill clarifies the definition of
manufacturer to specify that a vaccine includes all components or
ingredients of the vaccine and clarifies the existing law to ensure
that any component or ingredient listed in a vaccine's product license
application or label will not be considered to be an adulterant or
contaminant. As with the changes we are making for VICP claimants,
these changes would apply to pending and future VICP claims.
This bill also requires that the Secretary of HHS prioritize, acquire
and maintain a 6-month supply of vaccines to address future vaccine
shortages and delays in production and authorizes new funds for this
purpose. By authorizing additional funding for grants to State and
local governments to increase influenza immunization rates for high
risk populations and by authorizing funding to increase immunization
rates for adolescents and adults who are medically underserved and at-
risk for vaccine-preventable diseases, this bill seeks to meet the
challenge of improving adolescent and adult immunization rates.
Finally, it ensures that colleges, universities and prisons are given
information about the availability of a vaccine for bacterial
meningitis and that health care clinics and providers are given
information about the availability of hepatitis A and B vaccines.
In summary, the ``Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act''
clarifies, updates, and streamlines the existing Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program to address concerns of petitioners to the program,
to ensure that we are better prepared for normal market shortages and
delays in production and that unwarranted litigation does not further
destabilize our vaccine supply. I urge my colleagues to support this
much needed legislation to improve the way the VICP operates for
claimants seeking compensation and for manufacturers and administrators
of vaccines seeking greater certainty in liability exposure, which, in
turn, will stabilize vaccine production.
This bill will help to ensure that the balance between the two very
important goals of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is
maintained: To provide for fair and expeditious compensation for
persons injured by covered vaccines; and to ensure a stable supply of
vaccines by avoiding unwarranted litigation relating to vaccine-related
injuries and deaths. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this much
needed legislation at a time when liability concerns once again
threaten our vaccine supply.
I ask unanimous consent 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. 2053
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Improved
Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--STATE VACCINE GRANTS
Sec. 101. Availability of influenza vaccine.
Sec. 102. Program for increasing immunization rates for adults and
adolescents; collection of additional immunization data.
Sec. 103. Immunization awareness.
Sec. 104. Supply of vaccines.
TITLE II--VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Sec. 201. Administrative revision of vaccine injury table.
Sec. 202. Equitable relief.
Sec. 203. Parent petitions for compensation.
Sec. 204. Jurisdiction to dismiss actions improperly brought.
Sec. 205. Application.
Sec. 206. Clarification of when injury is caused by factor unrelated to
administration of vaccine.
Sec. 207. Increase in award in the case of a vaccine-related death and
for pain and suffering.
Sec. 208. Basis for calculating projected lost earnings.
Sec. 209. Allowing compensation for family counseling expenses and
expenses of establishing guardianship.
Sec. 210. Allowing payment of interim costs.
Sec. 211. Procedure for paying attorneys' fees.
Sec. 212. Extension of statute of limitations.
Sec. 213. Advisory commission on childhood vaccines.
Sec. 214. Clarification of standards of responsibility.
Sec. 215. Clarification of definition of manufacturer.
Sec. 216. Clarification of definition of vaccine-related injury or
death.
Sec. 217. Clarification of definition of vaccine.
Sec. 218. Conforming amendment to trust fund provision.
Sec. 219. Ongoing review of childhood vaccine data.
Sec. 220. Pending actions.
Sec. 221. Report.
TITLE I--STATE VACCINE GRANTS
SEC. 101. AVAILABILITY OF INFLUENZA VACCINE.
Section 317(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
247b(j)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3)(A) For the purpose of carrying out activities
relating to influenza vaccine under the immunization program
under this subsection, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 2003 and 2004. Such authorization shall be in addition
to amounts available under paragraphs (1) and (2) for such
purpose.
``(B) The authorization of appropriations established in
subparagraph (A) shall not be effective for a fiscal year
unless the total amount appropriated under paragraphs (1) and
(2) for the fiscal year is not less than such total for
fiscal year 2000.
``(C) The purposes for which amounts appropriated under
subparagraph (A) are available to the Secretary include
providing for improved State and local infrastructure for
influenza immunizations under this subsection in accordance
with the following:
``(i) Increasing influenza immunization rates in
populations considered by the Secretary to be at high risk
for influenza-related complications and in their contacts.
``(ii) Recommending that health care providers actively
target influenza vaccine that is available in September,
October, and November to individuals who are at increased
risk for influenza-related complications and to their
contacts.
``(iii) Providing for the continued availability of
influenza immunizations through December of such year, and
for additional periods to the extent that influenza vaccine
remains available.
``(iv) Encouraging States, as appropriate, to develop
contingency plans (including plans for public and
professional educational activities) for maximizing influenza
immunizations for high-risk populations in the event of a
delay or shortage of influenza vaccine.
``(D) The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate, periodic reports describing the activities of the
Secretary under this subsection regarding influenza vaccine.
The first such report shall be submitted not later than June
6, 2003, the second report shall be submitted not later than
June 6, 2004, and subsequent reports shall be submitted
biennially thereafter.''.
SEC. 102. PROGRAM FOR INCREASING IMMUNIZATION RATES FOR
ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS; COLLECTION OF
ADDITIONAL IMMUNIZATION DATA.
(a) Activities of Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.--Section 317(j) of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 247b(j)), as amended by section 101, is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4)(A) For the purpose of carrying out activities to
increase immunization rates for adults and adolescents
through the immunization program under this subsection, and
for the purpose of carrying out subsection (k)(2), there are
authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year
2003, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2004 through 2006. Such authorization is in
addition to amounts available under paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) for such purposes.
``(B) In expending amounts appropriated under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall give priority to adults and
adolescents who are medically underserved and are at risk for
vaccine-preventable diseases, including as appropriate
populations identified through projects under subsection
(k)(2)(E).
[[Page S2279]]
``(C) The purposes for which amounts appropriated under
subparagraph (A) are available include (with respect to
immunizations for adults and adolescents) the payment of the
costs of storing vaccines, outreach activities to inform
individuals of the availability of the immunizations, and
other program expenses necessary for the establishment or
operation of immunization programs carried out or supported
by States or other public entities pursuant to this
subsection.
``(5) The Secretary shall annually submit to Congress a
report that--
``(A) evaluates the extent to which the immunization system
in the United States has been effective in providing for
adequate immunization rates for adults and adolescents,
taking into account the applicable year 2010 health
objectives established by the Secretary regarding the health
status of the people of the United States; and
``(B) describes any issues identified by the Secretary that
may affect such rates.
``(6) In carrying out this subsection and paragraphs (1)
and (2) of subsection (k), the Secretary shall consider
recommendations regarding immunizations that are made in
reports issued by the Institute of Medicine.''.
(b) Research, Demonstrations, and Education.--Section
317(k) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b(k))
is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as
paragraphs (3) through (5), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) The Secretary, directly and through grants under
paragraph (1), shall provide for a program of research,
demonstration projects, and education in accordance with the
following:
``(A) The Secretary shall coordinate with public and
private entities (including nonprofit private entities), and
develop and disseminate guidelines, toward the goal of
ensuring that immunizations are routinely offered to adults
and adolescents by public and private health care providers.
``(B) The Secretary shall cooperate with public and private
entities to obtain information for the annual evaluations
required in subsection (j)(5)(A).
``(C) The Secretary shall (relative to fiscal year 2001)
increase the extent to which the Secretary collects data on
the incidence, prevalence, and circumstances of diseases and
adverse events that are experienced by adults and adolescents
and may be associated with immunizations, including
collecting data in cooperation with commercial laboratories.
``(D) The Secretary shall ensure that the entities with
which the Secretary cooperates for purposes of subparagraphs
(A) through (C) include managed care organizations,
community-based organizations that provide health services,
and other health care providers.
``(E) The Secretary shall provide for projects to identify
racial and ethnic minority groups and other health disparity
populations for which immunization rates for adults and
adolescents are below such rates for the general population,
and to determine the factors underlying such disparities.''.
SEC. 103. IMMUNIZATION AWARENESS.
(a) Development of Information Concerning Meningitis.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in consultation with the Director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, shall develop and make
available to entities described in paragraph (2) information
concerning bacterial meningitis and the availability and
effectiveness of vaccinations for populations targeted by the
Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (an advisory
committee established by the Secretary Health and Human
Services, acting through the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention).
(2) Entities.--An entity is described in this paragraph if
the entity--
(A) is--
(i) a college or university; or
(ii) a prison or other detention facility; and
(B) is determined appropriate by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
(b) Development of Information Concerning Hepatitis.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in consultation with the Director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, shall develop and make
available to entities described in paragraph (2) information
concerning hepatitis A and B and the availability and
effectiveness of vaccinations with respect to such diseases.
(2) Entities.--An entity is described in this paragraph if
the entity--
(A) is--
(i) a health care clinic that serves individuals diagnosed
as being infected with HIV or as having other sexually
transmitted diseases;
(ii) an organization or business that counsels individuals
about international travel or who arranges for such travel;
(iii) a police, fire or emergency medical services
organization that responds to natural or man-made disasters
or emergencies;
(iv) a prison or other detention facility;
(v) a college or university; or
(vi) a public health authority or children's health service
provider in areas of intermediate or high endemnicity for
hepatitis A as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; and
(B) is determined appropriate by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
SEC. 104. SUPPLY OF VACCINES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, shall prioritize, acquire,
and maintain a supply of such prioritized vaccines sufficient
to provide vaccinations throughout a 6-month period.
(b) Proceeds.--Any proceeds received by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services from the sale of vaccines contained
in the supply described in subsection (a), shall be available
to the Secretary for the purpose of purchasing additional
vaccines for the supply. Such proceeds shall remain available
until expended.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for the purpose of carrying out subsection
(a) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2008.
TITLE II--VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM
SEC. 201. ADMINISTRATIVE REVISION OF VACCINE INJURY TABLE.
The second sentence of section 2114(c)(1) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(c)(1)) is amended to
read as follows: ``In promulgating such regulations, the
Secretary shall provide for notice and for at least 90 days
opportunity for public comment.''.
SEC. 202. EQUITABLE RELIEF.
Section 2111(a)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300aa-11(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``No
person'' and all that follows through ``and--'' and inserting
the following: ``No person may bring or maintain a civil
action against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer in a
State or Federal court for damages arising from, or equitable
relief relating to, a vaccine-related injury or death
associated with the administration of a vaccine after October
1, 1988 and no such court may award damages or equitable
relief for any such vaccine-related injury or death, unless
the person proves present physical injury and a timely
petition has been filed, in accordance with section 2116 for
compensation under the Program for such injury or death and--
''.
SEC. 203. PARENT PETITIONS FOR COMPENSATION.
Section 2111(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300aa-(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or (B)'' after
``subparagraph (A)'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) No parent or other third party may bring or maintain
a civil action against a vaccine administrator or
manufacturer in a Federal or State court for damages or
equitable relief relating to a vaccine-related injury or
death, including but not limited to damages for loss of
consortium, society, companionship or services, loss of
earnings, medical or other expenses, and emotional distress,
and no court may award damages or equitable relief in such an
action unless the action is joined with a civil action
brought by the person whose vaccine-related injury is the
basis for the parent's or other third party's action and that
person has satisfied the conditions of subparagraph (A).''.
SEC. 204. JURISDICTION TO DISMISS ACTIONS IMPROPERLY BROUGHT.
Section 2111(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300aa-11(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``If any civil action which is barred under
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) is filed or
maintained in a State court, or any vaccine administrator or
manufacturer is made a party to any civil action brought in
State court (other than a civil action which may be brought
under paragraph (2)) for damages or equitable relief for a
vaccine-related injury or death associated with the
administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, the civil
action may be removed by the defendant or defendants to the
United States Court of Federal Claims, which shall have
jurisdiction over such civil action, and which shall dismiss
such action. The notice required by section 1446 of title 28,
United States Code, shall be filed with the United States
Court of Federal Claims, and that court shall proceed in
accordance with sections 1446 through 1451 of title 28,
United States Code.''.
SEC. 205. APPLICATION.
Section 2111(a)(9) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300aa-11(a)(9)) is amended by striking ``This'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in subsection(a)(2), this''.
SEC. 206. CLARIFICATION OF WHEN INJURY IS CAUSED BY FACTOR
UNRELATED TO ADMINISTRATION OF VACCINE.
Section 2113(a)(2)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300aa-13(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``structural lesions, genetic disorders,''
after ``and related anoxia)'';
(2) by inserting ``(without regard to whether the cause of
the infection, toxin, trauma, structural lesion, genetic
disorder, or metabolic disturbance is known)'' after
``metabolic disturbances''; and
(3) by striking ``but'' and inserting ``and''.
SEC. 207. INCREASE IN AWARD IN THE CASE OF A VACCINE-RELATED
DEATH AND FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING.
Section 2115(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-15(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$250,000'' and
inserting ``$350,000''; and
[[Page S2280]]
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``$250,000'' and
inserting ``$350,000''.
SEC. 208. BASIS FOR CALCULATING PROJECTED LOST EARNINGS.
Section 2115(a)(3)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300aa-15(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``loss of
earnings'' and all that follows and inserting the following:
``loss of earnings determined on the basis of the annual
estimate of the average (mean) gross weekly earnings of wage
and salary workers age 18 and over (excluding the
incorporated self-employed) in the private non-farm sector
(which includes all industries other than agricultural
production crops and livestock), as calculated annually by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the quarter sample data
of the Current Population Survey, or as calculated by such
similar method as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation,
less appropriate taxes and the average cost of a health
insurance policy, as determined by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 209. ALLOWING COMPENSATION FOR FAMILY COUNSELING
EXPENSES AND EXPENSES OF ESTABLISHING
GUARDIANSHIP.
(a) Family Counseling Expenses in Post-1988 Cases.--Section
2115(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-
15(a)) is amended by adding at the end to following:
``(5) Actual unreimbursable expenses that have been or will
be incurred for family counseling as is determined to be
reasonably necessary and that result from the vaccine-related
injury from which the petitioner seeks compensation.''.
(b) Expenses of Establishing Guardianships in Post-1988
Cases.--Section 2115(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300aa-15(a)), as amended by subsection (a), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Actual unreimbursable expenses that have been, or
will be reasonably incurred to establish and maintain a
guardianship or conservatorship for an individual who has
suffered a vaccine-related injury, including attorney fees
and other costs incurred in a proceeding to establish and
maintain such guardianship or conservatorship.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment for Cases From 1988 and Earlier.--
Section 2115(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-15(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting a closed parenthesis
before the period in that paragraph;
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5); and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (2), the following:
``(3) family counseling expenses (as provided for in
paragraph (5) of subsection (a));
``(4) expenses of establishing guardianships (as provided
for in paragraph (6) of subsection (a)); and''.
SEC. 210. ALLOWING PAYMENT OF INTERIM COSTS.
Section 2115(e) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-15(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) A special master or court may make an interim award
of costs if--
``(A) the case involves a vaccine administered on or after
October 1, 1988;
``(B) the award is limited to other costs (within the
meaning of paragraph (1)(B)) incurred in the proceeding; and
``(C) the petitioner provides documentation verifying the
expenditure of the amount for which compensation is
sought.''.
SEC. 211. PROCEDURE FOR PAYING ATTORNEYS' FEES.
Section 2115(e) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-15(e)), as amended by section 205, is further amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(5) When a special master or court awards attorney fees
or costs under paragraph (1) or (4), it may order that such
fees or costs be payable solely to the petitioner's attorney
if--
``(A) the petitioner expressly consents; or
``(B) the special master or court determines, after
affording to the Secretary and to all interested persons the
opportunity to submit relevant information, that--
``(i) the petitioner cannot be located or refuses to
respond to a request by the special master or court for
information, and there is no practical alternative means to
ensure that the attorney will be reimbursed for such fees or
costs expeditiously; or
``(ii) there are otherwise exceptional circumstances and
good cause for paying such fees or costs solely to the
petitioner's attorney.''.
SEC. 212. EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
(a) General Rule.--Section 2116(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-16(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``36 months'' and
inserting ``6 years''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``48 months'' and
inserting ``6 years''.
(b) Claims Based on Revisions to Table.--Strike all of
section 2116(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-16(b)) and insert the following:
``(b) Effect of Revised Table.--If at any time the Vaccine
Injury Table is revised and the effect of such revision is to
make an individual eligible for compensation under the
program, where, before such revision, such individual was not
eligible for compensation under the program, or to
significantly increase the likelihood that an individual will
be able to obtain compensation under the program, such person
may, and must before filing a civil action for equitable
relief or monetary damages, notwithstanding section
2111(b)(2), file a petition for such compensation if--
``(1) the vaccine-related death or injury with respect to
which the petition is filed occurred not more than 8 years
before the effective date of the revision of the table; and
``(2) either--
``(A) the petition satisfies the conditions described in
subsection (a); or
``(B) the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or
manifestation of onset of the injury occurred more than 4
years before the petition is filed, and the petition is filed
not more than 2 years after the effective date of the
revision of the table.''.
SEC. 213. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CHILDHOOD VACCINES.
(a) Selection of Persons Injured by Vaccines as Public
Members.--Section 2119(a)(1)(B) of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-19(a)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``of
whom'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``of
whom 1 shall be the legal representative of a child who has
suffered a vaccine-related injury or death, and at least 1
other shall be either the legal representative of a child who
has suffered a vaccine-related injury or death or an
individual who has personally suffered a vaccine-related
injury.''.
(b) Mandatory Meeting Schedule Eliminated.--Section 2119(c)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-19(c)) is
amended by striking ``not less often than four times per year
and''.
SEC. 214. CLARIFICATION OF STANDARDS OF RESPONSIBILITY.
(a) General Rule.--Section 2122(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-22(a)) is amended by striking
``and (e) State law shall apply to a civil action brought for
damages'' and inserting ``(d), and (f) State law shall apply
to a civil action brought for damages or equitable relief'';
and
(b) Unavoidable Adverse Side Effects.--Section 2122(b)(1)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-22(b)(1))
is amended by inserting ``or equitable relief'' after ``for
damages''.
(c) Direct Warnings.--Section 2122(c) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-22(c)) is amended by inserting
``or equitable relief'' after ``for damages''.
(d) Construction.--Section 2122(d) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-22(d)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or equitable relief'' after ``for
damages''; and
(2) by inserting ``or relief'' after ``which damages''.
(e) Present Physical Injury.--Section 2122 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-22) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Present Physical Injury.--No vaccine manufacturer or
vaccine administrator shall be liable in a civil action
brought after October 1, 1988, for equitable or monetary
relief absent proof of present physical injury from the
administration of a vaccine, nor shall any vaccine
manufacturer or vaccine administrator be liable in any such
civil action for claims of medical monitoring, or increased
risk of harm.''.
SEC. 215. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURER.
Section 2133(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-33(3)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``under its label
any vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table'' and
inserting ``any vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury
table, including any component or ingredient of any such
vaccine''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``including any
component or ingredient of any such vaccine'' before the
period.
SEC. 216. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF VACCINE-RELATED
INJURY OR DEATH.
Section 2133(5) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-33(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``For purposes of the preceding sentence, an adulterant or
contaminant shall not include any component or ingredient
listed in a vaccine's product license application or product
label.''.
SEC. 217. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF VACCINE.
Section 2133 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-33) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) The term `vaccine' means any preparation or
suspension, including but not limited to a preparation or
suspension containing an attenuated or inactive microorganism
or subunit thereof or toxin, developed or administered to
produce or enhance the body's immune response to a disease or
diseases and includes all components and ingredients listed
in the vaccines's product license application and product
label.''.
SEC. 218. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO TRUST FUND PROVISION.
Section 9510(c)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by striking ``October 18, 2000'' and inserting
``the effective date of the Improved Vaccine Affordability
and Availability Act''.
SEC. 219. ONGOING REVIEW OF CHILDHOOD VACCINE DATA.
Part C of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300a-25 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
[[Page S2281]]
``SEC. 2129. ONGOING REVIEW OF CHILDHOOD VACCINE DATA.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall enter into
a contract with the Institute of Medicine of the National
Academy of Science under which the Institute shall conduct an
ongoing, comprehensive review of new scientific data on
childhood vaccines (according to priorities agreed upon from
time to time by the Secretary and the Institute of Medicine).
``(b) Reports.--Not later than 3 years after the date on
which the contract is entered into under paragraph (1), the
Institute of Medicine shall submit to the Secretary a report
on the findings of studies conducted, including findings as
to any adverse events associated with childhood vaccines,
including conclusions concerning causation of adverse events
by such vaccines, together with recommendations for changes
in the Vaccine Injury Table, and other appropriate
recommendations, based on such findings and conclusions.
``(c) Failure To Enter Into Contract.--If the Secretary and
the Institute of Medicine are unable to enter into the
contract described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
enter into a contract with another qualified nongovernmental
scientific organization for the purposes described in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this
section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005
and 2006.''.
SEC. 220. PENDING ACTIONS.
The amendments made by this title shall apply to all
actions or proceedings pending on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 221. REPORT.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit
recommendations regarding how to address the growing surplus
in the Vaccine Trust Fund, and the rationale for such
recommendations to--
(1) the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee of
the Senate;
(2) the Finance Committee of the Senate;
(3) the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of
Representatives; and
(4) the Ways and Means Committee of the House of
Representatives.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. 2055. A bill to make grants to train sexual assault nurse
examiners, law enforcement personnel, and first responders in the
handling of sexual assault cases, to establish minimum standards for
forensic evidence collection kits, to carry out DNA analyses of samples
from crime scenes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Debbie
Smith Act, a bill to provide law enforcement the tools to track and
convict sexual assailants, and to help ensure that rape survivors are
provided prompt treatment that also provides the dignity and respect
they deserve. This bill addresses a serious problem in this country,
the huge DNA backlog and uneven processing of DNA evidence in rape
cases.
According to the Department of Justice, somewhere in America, a woman
is raped every two minutes. One in three women will be raped in her
lifetime. In my home State of Washington the number of sexual assaults
is even higher. According to the Washington State Office of Crime
Victims Advocacy 38 percent of women in my State have been sexually
assaulted. This is unacceptable.
Debbie Smith, is a native of Roanoke, VA, who was brutally raped in
the woods behind her house in March 1989. Six years later, because
evidence had been properly preserved, her assailant's DNA profile was
cross-referenced with the Virginia DNA Databank and was found to match
the DNA of a current prison inmate. He was convicted of the rape and
was sentenced to two life terms plus 25 years. Debbie Smith has since
become a national spokesperson on the importance of collecting and
analyzing DNA samples.
As Debbie Smith and women in my State have come to know collecting,
analyzing, and entering this critical DNA information evidence into the
Combined DNA System, CODIS, database is often the key to finding and
convicting a sexual assailant and stopping him from attacking again.
Unfortunately, many jurisdictions throughout the country do not have
the funding for this simple, yet vital process. Consequently, crime
scene kits go unanalyzed and valuable DNA information is lost forever.
Today, over 20,000 DNA samples are sitting useless in storage. These
samples could be holding the clues needed to solve crimes, or even to
track a serial rapist. This means 20,000 women who had the courage to
report their rape may never find the peace of mind of someone knowing
their assailant has been caught.
By authorizing funding to carry out analyses on crime scenes samples
and cross-reference DNA evidence with crime databanks, this bill
provides law enforcement with the tools necessary for an effective and
successful criminal investigation.
The bill also provides grants to broaden the use of the Sexual
Assault Nurse Examiners program. The SANE program provides nurses and
first responders with specific training so that critical forensic
evidence is thoroughly collected and documented and that sexual assault
survivors are treated with professional care in a confidential and
sensitive environment. SANE nurses can make the difference to women
facing one of the most difficult events of their lives. And, SANE
nurses can make the difference in sending valuable information to crime
laboratories rather than improperly collected evidence that is
impossible to analyze.
In 1995, a young woman at home in Olympia, WA, was raped at gunpoint.
At St. Peter Hospital later that night, she said the SANE nurses who
collected DNA evidence after the assault ``made [her] feel at ease,
more confident, and more comfortable.'' The SANE nurses' training in
proper evidence collection proved equally valuable. The DNA evidence
collected, when cross-referenced with the CODIS was databank matched
that of a convicted serial rapist Jeffrey Paul McKechnie, the ``I-5
Rapist.,'' resulting in his conviction for the crime.
This bill is a reasonable and necessary step that needs to be taken
to address the backlog of DNA samples from rape cases across the
country, and to broaden the use of the SANE program to improve and
standardize the collection of forensic evidence while also addressing
the physical and psychological needs of the victim. This bill makes
sure that we can catch the next Jeffrey Paul McKechnie and make our
streets safer. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass
this bill and get the necessary funding to address the DNA backlog in
this critical area once and for all.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mrs. Carnahan):
S. 2056. A bill to ensure the independence of accounting firms that
provide auditing services to publicly traded companies and of
executives, audit committees, and financial compensation committees of
such companies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Integrity in Auditing Act. I am introducing this bill with my colleague
from the Commerce Committee, Senator Jean Carnahan of Missouri. This
legislation presents a comprehensive approach to securities reform as a
key element in protecting America's shareholders and consumers in our
capitalist system. We look forward to the Commerce Committee's
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism hearings
in April on these issues.
I am focusing my review of the Enron collapse on institutional
investors, like State pension funds representing the guaranteed
retirement plans of our police officers, firefighters, teachers, and
other State and local workers. The Florida Pension Fund took a bath
from investing in Enron, and it cost my State plenty. I want to protect
the taxpayers and prevent large losses in our public pension systems in
the future.
The legislation I am introducing today addresses the safety nets
intended to protect investors like State pension funds against abuses.
The Integrity in Auditing Act prohibits auditors from providing any
nonaudit services to their audit clients. The bill allows auditors to
perform tax-consulting services with the approval of a company's Audit
Committee. Additionally, the bill prohibits outside accountants from
working in a management job for a client company for 1 year. These key
provisions, essential to any reform effort, are similar to those found
in other bills including a bill introduced by my colleagues, Senators
Corzine and Dodd.
[[Page S2282]]
The legislation adds additional safeguards for the investing public,
including State pension funds. The bill requires that companies rotate
their outside auditors every 7 years. The company can continue its
relationship with the auditing firm through nonaudit client services.
The Enron collapse poses a challenge to us in designing a system of
corporate governance that secures better financial disclosure for the
future. In my view the best response to Arthur Andersen's precarious
state is to make sure our efforts to reform the profession enables the
auditing profession to continue their needed work in our capital
markets with the potential loss of one big player. The legislation I
introduce today strives to meet that objective.
In addition to protecting the integrity of the auditing process, this
legislation recognizes that independent directors should effectively
monitor management behavior and represent the interests of the
shareholder. The Council of Institutional Investors and others have
called for auditor and board independence. Accordingly, the Integrity
in Auditing Act requires enhanced disclosure of director links to
companies.
The bill requires that a company disclose, with every filing, any
board of director relationship, familial, professional, financial, to
the company. This legislation also requires that all Audit and
Compensation Committee members must be independent directors.
We should be clear that the Securities and Exchange Commission impose
a swift and serious approach to improving our corporate governance
systems. This bill includes a sense of the Senate that the SEC should
take a tough enforcement approach, including criminal prosecutions, if
warranted.
One of the biggest casualties of Enron's bankruptcy filing is the
growing lack of confidence and trust by consumers, employees, and
investors in the financial statements of companies. Willful blindness
of companies leads to fuzzy disclosures. Cozy relationships among
company executives, its auditors and board of directors, money
managers, Wall Street analysts, lawyers, and others, cry out for
reform. Our public institutional investors like state pension funds
deserve no less.
Mr. President, I recently read Teddy Roosevelt's 1902 annual message
to Congress. Our 26th President was known as a Trust Buster. He told
the truth about our free enterprise system. He said ``We can do nothing
of good in the way of regulating corporations until we fix clearly in
our minds that we are not attacking corporations; we are merely
determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good.
We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.''
We can all learn from history as we proceed to find thoughtful and
appropriate ways to reform our securities laws on behalf of the public.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, today my friend, Senator Nelson of
Florida, and I are introducing important legislation to restore
accountability to the accounting industry. The Integrity in Auditing
Act will help renew Americans' confidence in our financial markets.
Investors rely on the financial information that is provided by
companies and certified by independent auditors. This legislation is
designed to make sure that these auditors are truly independent.
Over the course of the last few months, I have been looking into the
devastating events related to the collapse of the Enron Corporation. As
a member of both the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Commerce
Committee, I have participated in numerous hearings on this matter. We
have heard testimony from many experts about the different things that
went wrong at Enron. The shareholders were failed by many parties who
were supposed to be looking out for their interests: the company
executives, the board of directors, the Government watchdogs, and
certainly, the accountants who certified that Enron's financial
statements were accurate.
But, this is not just about Enron. This is about the disturbing
number of restatements that firms have filed in recent years. It is no
longer uncommon for a company to say that profits they previously
touted were actually fictitious. This is absolutely unacceptable. And
to the extent that inaccurate accounting can be eliminated by removing
any conflicts of interest that are preventing better audits, Congress
must act quickly to do so.
Let me be clear, that I have the deepest respect for the many
accountants in this country who are extremely hard working and honest.
This legislation is not meant to impugn individual accountants or the
accounting industry. Rather, it will improve this industry. The
Integrity in Auditing Act will ensure that accountants can do their
jobs with the highest professionalism, free from any pressures to
overlook suspicious bookkeeping by their clients.
The reforms we propose today are urgent and in the interest of all
Americans. Auditors who simply rubber stamp questionable financial
reports for their clients do a tremendous disservice to all investors.
If they prevent true and accurate information from coming to light,
auditors endanger the hard earned savings of working Americans. Many
parents are investing money every year to pay for the college expenses
of their children. Many workers are saving for their golden years in
401(k) plans or other retirement accounts. Young couples, saving to buy
their first homes, often put money into mutual funds or money market
accounts. All of these investors are entitled to accurate information
so that they can make wise decisions about their savings.
This legislation is an important step toward ensuring that investors
can trust the financial information provided by companies. Let me
briefly summarize how this legislation establishes the independence of
auditors. First, it prohibits audit firms from providing non-audit
services to their clients. An exception is made if the client's Audit
Committee believes it is in the best interest of the shareholders to
also receive tax services consulting from the audit firm. But it will
prevent companies from engaging in extremely lucrative management
consulting or technology consulting contracts with the auditors who
ought to be providing unbiased assessments of the companies' financial
health.
Second, this legislation requires that every seven years a company
rotate the firm that performs its independent audit. Arthur Levitt, the
former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission made it very
clear why such rotation is important. In his testimony before the
Senate Banking Committee he proposed that audit firms ought to be
rotated in order ``to ensure that fresh and skeptical eyes are always
looking at the numbers.''
This legislation will also close the revolving door that could
compromise independent auditors. It prohibits outside accountants from
working, in a management capacity, for a client company for a period of
1 year. This simple restriction will ensure that shareholders, and not
company management, remain an auditor's primary concern.
In the interest of providing full information to investors, our
legislation also requires that any connections between the company and
a member of the board of directors be fully disclosed, whether those
connections are familial, financial, or professional. It also prohibits
any directors who have such potential conflicts of interest from
serving on the board's audit or compensation committees.
Lastly, this legislation would express the sense of the Senate that
the Securities and Exchange Commission ought to take a tough approach
to the enforcement of securities laws.
America has the most vibrant and dynamic economy in the world. The
foundation of our economy is our capital markets, which are robust and
resilient. But the success of these markets depends on the free flow of
accurate, reliable information. Our markets are the envy of the world
because of the confidence investors have in the private and public
institutions that produce, verify, and analyze this information.
The legislation we are introducing today will improve our markets. It
will restore public confidence in auditors. And it frees accountants
from any inappropriate conflicts of interest. I encourage my colleagues
to support this bill.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Rockefeller):
[[Page S2283]]
S. 2058. A bill to replace the caseload reduction credit with an
employment credit under the program of block grants to States for
temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Making
Work Pay Act of 2002.'' A companion bill is being introduced in the
House by Representative Sandy Levin of Michigan. I worked with Mr.
Levin to reform the welfare program in 1996, and I am proud and honored
to work with him again in this next phase of welfare reform.
I am also proud to be joined today by Senator Breaux of Louisana and
Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia. As members of the Finance
Committee and representatives of rural States with similar challenges,
we all share the goal of ensuring that States have the resources and
the flexibility they need to continue moving people from welfare to
work.
The welfare reform bill President Clinton signed into law in 1996 has
been a success. Nationally, welfare rolls have dropped by 52 percent.
Over the last 5 years, enrollment in Arkansas' welfare program has
dropped by 43 percent.
In 1996, we fundamentally changed welfare from an entitlement program
to temporary assistance, a move which has allowed many needy families
to achieve a liberating measure of self-sufficiency. Our message then
was ``work first.'' Today, people are working. Now our message should
be ``make work pay.'' To do this, we need to help people get good
paying jobs by providing the support services like child care and
transportation that are absolutely essential to keeping those jobs.
We have rewarded States for moving people off welfare. Unfortunately,
that tends to ignore the important question of what happens after they
leave welfare. What we need to do now is find ways to reward States for
placing people into good jobs and helping them with vital work support
services such as child care and transportation. These services are
particularly vital in States like Arkansas, where good child care is
scarce and public transportation barely exists.
The legislation we introduce today measures State performance along
the entire continuum from welfare to work. It gives credit to States
for providing work-support services and short-term emergency
assistance, which prevent people from ever needing welfare benefits in
the first place. Current law and President Bush's welfare re-
authorization proposal give no credit to States for these efforts, thus
discouraging the use of these highly effective welfare-to-work methods.
My legislation revises how work participation rates are calculated to
better fit post-reform welfare programs and more accurately measure the
level of work activity among those served. Specifically, States receive
half credit for people who work part time and pro-rate to full time,
and they receive full credit for people that they are able to move into
work by supplying child care and transportation assistance. In
addition, people who are deemed severely and permanently disabled
during the year are excluded from the State's work participation
requirement, so that states aren't penalized for failing to engage
these disabled people in work.
The ``Making Work Pay Act of 2002'' is supported by the American
Public Human Services Association, which played a fundamental role in
helping us develop this bill. I thank them for their support and urge
my colleagues to use them as a resource in assessing the needs of their
states. I also urge my colleagues to support this legislation as a
necessary first step into the next phase of welfare reform, to move
beyond ``work first'' to ``making work pay.''
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hutchinson, and
Mr. Dodd):
S. 2059. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
Alzheimer's disease research and demonstration grants; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Alzheimer's
Disease Research, Prevention, and Care Act of 2002. I am pleased that
Senator Kennedy and Senator Hutchinson are joining me as original
cosponsors of this legislation. This bill expands and directs
Alzheimer's disease research at the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), and expands and reauthorizes the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant
Program. This important legislation gets behind our Nation's families,
both in the lab and in the community.
Alzheimer's disease is a devastating illness. Four million Americans
including one in 10 people over age 65 and nearly half of those over
85, have Alzheimer's disease. The total annual Cost of Alzheimer's care
in the United States today is at least $100 billion.
As our population ages and baby-boomers become seniors, Alzheimer's
disease will take an even greater toll. Unless science finds a way to
prevent or cure Alzheimer's disease, 14 million people in the United
States will have Alzheimer's disease by the year 2050. The race to find
a cure is more urgent than ever.
But these statistics do not begin to tell the story of what
Alzheimer's means to families. My dear father suffered from Alzheimer's
disease. My family and I watched him die one brain cell at a time. I
know the pain that patients and families go through when Alzheimer's
disease strikes.
I believe that honor thy mother and father is not only a good
commandment to live by, it is also a good policy to govern by. That's
why I have introduced this legislation that meets the day-to-day needs
of seniors and the long-range needs of our Nation.
The Alzheimer's Disease Research, Prevention, and Care meets seniors'
day-to-day needs by reauthorizing the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant
Program. The purpose of the program is to develop and replicate
innovative ways to provide care to Alzheimer's patients that are
traditionally hard to reach or undeserved. These grants enable States
to provide support services like home care, respite care, and day care
to Alzheimer's patients and their families. This legislation expands
the Alzheimer's Demonstration Program by authorizing the funding needed
to support these outstanding programs in every State.
In my own State of Maryland, Alzheimer's Demonstration grants have
been used to train workers at nursing homes and assisted living
facilities to care for people with dementia. This training means that
Alzheimer's patients will get high quality care when they leave their
homes and enter a nursing home. And it means that families can rest
assured that their mom or dad is safe and in good hands.
This legislation also meets the long term needs of our aging Nation
by expanding and directing Alzheimer's disease research at the National
Institute on Aging.
Our best shot at curbing the number of families who suffer from
Alzheimer's disease is to find ways to prevent it before it starts.
This bill authorizes the Alzheimer's Disease Prevention Initiative. The
National Institute on Aging is currently conducting seven prevention
trials. The Alzheimer's Disease Research, Prevention, and Care Act
supports the National Institute on Aging's Prevention Initiative and
directs the Institute to focus its efforts on identifying possible ways
to prevent Alzheimer's and conducting clinical trials to test their
effectiveness.
Clinical trials can involve millions of dollars, tens of thousands of
participants, and years or even decades. This bill establishes an
Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Group to improve and enhance the
National Institute on Aging's ability to conduct several large scale,
complex clinical trials simultaneously. Promising therapies should not
have to wait to be tested until current trials are complete and
resources are made available. This legislation authorizes a national
consortium for cooperative clinical research at the National Institute
on Aging to improve the existing clinical trial infrastructure, develop
novel approaches to design these clinical trials, and make it easier to
enroll patients.
This bill directs the National Institute on Aging, in consultation
with other relevant institutes, to conduct research on the early
diagnosis and detection of Alzheimer's disease. As promising therapies
become available that can delay the progression of Alzheimer's, new
technologies are needed
[[Page S2284]]
to detect and diagnose the disease before its symptoms strike.
There is still much that is not known about the causes of Alzheimer's
disease. In the last few years, for example, scientists have found that
in stroke patients who later develop Alzheimer's disease, their
dementia will worsen much more quickly than in Alzheimer's patients who
have never had a stroke. This bill directs the National Institute on
Aging to study this connection between vascular disease and Alzheimer's
disease. Finding answers to questions about this connection will open
new doors for researchers to explore promising ways to prevent and
treat Alzheimer's disease.
This legislation establishes a research program at the National
Institute on Aging on ways to help caregivers of patients with
Alzheimer's disease. Family caregiving comes at enormous physical,
emotional, and financial sacrifice, which puts the whole system at
risk. Three of four caregivers are women. One in eight Alzheimer
caregivers becomes ill or injured as a direct result of caregiving, and
older caregivers are three times more likely to become clinically
depressed than others in their age group. Research is needed to find
better ways to help caregivers bear this tremendous, at times
overwhelming responsibility.
Finally, this legislation increases the funding authorized for the
National Institute on Aging to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2003.
Investments we make now in Alzheimer's Disease and aging research mean
longer, healthier lives for all of us. If science can help us delay the
onset of Alzheimer's by even 5 years, it would save this country
billions of dollars--and would improve the lives of millions of
families.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important
legislation that gets behind our nation's families. I ask unanimous
consent that a letter of support from the Alzheimer's Association be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
March 21, 2002.
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the Alzheimer's
Association, I am writing to strongly support your
legislation, the Alzheimer's Disease Research, Prevention and
Care Act of 2002. I congratulate you on your continued
leadership on issues important to older Americans as well as
issues important to individuals with Alzheimer's disease.
Right now, 14 million Americans--most of them babyboomers--
are living with a death sentence of Alzheimer's disease. For
most of them, the process that will destroy their brain cells
has already started. We have to act now, or it will be too
late to save them. Your legislation will support ongoing
efforts at the National Institute on Aging to find a way to
prevent and cure this disease. We are particularly pleased
that your bill places an emphasis on promising areas of
research, including the connection between Alzheimer's and
vascular disease and the development of new diagnostic
technologies.
Your legislation will also reauthorize a highly successful
Alzheimer demonstration program at the Administration on
Aging (AoA). These state grant projects demonstrate how
existing public and private resources within states may be
more effectively coordinated and utilized to enhance
educational needs and service delivery systems for persons
with Alzheimer's, their families and caregivers. In addition,
AoA has also identified ``best practices'' among the projects
and disseminated information on successful innovative
approaches. The demonstration program has fostered
collaborations between Alzheimer's Association chapters and
state aging and mental health agencies, public health
departments, private foundations, universities, physicians
and managed care organizations, as well as more than 300
local community agencies.
On behalf the 4 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease,
I thank you for your efforts to support research and programs
for these individuals and the family members who care for
them. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your
staff on this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Stephen McConnell,
Interim President and CEO.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Graham):
S. 2060 A bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional
Office in St. Petersburg, Florida, after Franklin D. Miller; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am honored to introduce
legislation to name the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, Regional
Office in St. Petersburg, FL, after Command Sergeant Major Franklin D.
Miller, United States Army, Retired.
Frank Miller faithfully served our country as a soldier for thirty
years from 1962 until his retirement in 1992. During much of that time,
Frank Miller served in Army Special Forces units, including four tours
in the Republic of Vietnam. Frank Miller's combat decorations include
the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars,
the Air Medal, and six Purple Hearts. He received the Medal of Honor
for his bravery in battle in 1971, when, despite his own severe wounds,
he single-handedly overcame four enemy attacks and safely evacuated the
surviving members of his patrol.
Upon Frank Miller's retirement from the Army in 1992, with the U.S.
Army's highest enlisted rank of Command Sergeant Major, he continued to
serve his community, country and fellow veterans as a benefits
counselor for the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St.
Petersburg, FL. Frank Miller remained very active in support of our
veterans, the Armed Forces, and America's interest around the world. He
was frequently invited to speak to groups around the country, sharing
his experiences with others and serving as an example of honor, self-
sacrifice, and dedication. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry
H. Shelton, who knew Frank Miller personally, has described him as,
``an icon to what service in the armed forces is all about.''
Sadly, in July of 2000, Frank Miller passed away in Florida. He is
survived by his three children, Joshua, Melia, and Danielle, and his
brother, Walter, who also is a retired Command Sergeant Major of the
Army's Special Forces.
Frank Miller dedicated his life to serving our country. He cared
deeply for the soldiers he led in combat, even to the very risk of his
own life above and beyond the call of duty. He put his fellow veterans
above all else in his efforts to keep our nation's promise to care for
those who put America above self and bore the pain of battle. He was a
loving father and brother, a true soldier's soldier, and a fellow
American whose life impacted many people. Frank Miller's life should be
remembered and appropriately commemorated. I hope to help honor his
life by introducing legislation to name the Florida Veterans Affairs
Regional Office in honor of Command Sergeant Major, Retired, Franklin
D. Miller. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2060
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
REGIONAL OFFICE IN ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In recognition of conspicuous and meritorious duty in
the Army, Franklin D. Miller was awarded the Medal of Honor,
the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, the Air Medal, and six
Purple Hearts.
(2) Upon retiring from the Army, Franklin D. Miller worked
for the Department of Veterans Affairs at the Department of
Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida,
thereby continuing to serve his country and his fellow
veterans.
(3) Franklin D. Miller remained active in support of the
Armed Forces and the foreign policy of the United States by
making speeches, participating in the activities of civic
organizations and schools, and supporting special forces
units, and by being both a role model for all Americans and a
true American hero.
(b) Designation of Building.--The building housing the
Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St.
Petersburg, Florida, is hereby designated as the ``Franklin
D. Miller Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office
Building''. Any reference to that building in any law,
regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the
United States shall be considered to be a reference to the
Franklin D. Miller Department of Veterans Affairs Regional
Office Building.
(c) Memorial Activities.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall, on the date of the first celebration of
Memorial Day that occurs after the date of the enactment of
this Act, provide for an appropriate ceremony at the building
designated by subsection (b) to honor Franklin D. Miller and
to commemorate the designation of the building after Franklin
D. Miller.
[[Page S2285]]
(2) The Secretary shall provide for the permanent display
of an appropriate copy of the Medal of Honor citation of
Franklin D. Miller in the lobby of the building designated by
subsection (b).
______
By Mr. BOND:
S. 2061. A bill to establish a national response to terrorism, a
national urban search and rescue task force program to ensure local
capability to respond to the threat and aftermath of terrorist
activities and other emergencies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National
Response to Terrorism and Consequence Management Act of 2002. This bill
is designed to take a few of the very important steps necessary to put
in place a national policy and plan for responding to the consequences
and aftermath of acts of terrorism, including acts involving weapons of
mass destruction.
The cowardly terrorist attacks on September 11 on the Pentagon, the
World Trade Center and Pennsylvania is one of the saddest days in the
history of our Nation. However, I can personally attest that the spirit
of the American people has never been stronger or more caring. Last
month, I visited ground zero, I talked with survivors as well as many
of the heroic men and women who continue to rebuild from our losses in
the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. I have never been more touched
or more proud of our Nation's ability to stand tall, and to stand
unbowed.
While the President has advanced a plan since September 11 which the
Congress has begun to fund, there is still much work to be accomplished
before we have in place the necessary protection and capacities to
respond to both the threat of acts of terrorism and the consequences of
such acts. In particular, we need a statutory structure that will
enable the various agencies of both the states and the Federal
Government to coordinate and build a Federal, State and local capacity
to fully respond to acts of terrorism, including acts involving weapons
of mass destruction.
We must do more to ensure that states and localities have the needed
resources, training and equipment to respond to threats and acts of
terrorism and the consequences of such acts. In response, the President
is proposing to fund FEMA at an unprecedented $3.5 billion for FY 2003
as a further downpayment to ensure that the Nation will not be caught
unaware again by a cowardly act of terrorism and is fully capable of
responding to both the threat and consequence of any act of terrorism.
These FEMA funds are targeted to states and localities and are
intended to create a safety net of First Responders with firefighters,
law enforcement officers and emergency medical personnel at its heart.
Despite the response to September 11, the current capacity of our
communities and our First Responders vary widely across the United
States, with even the best prepared States and localities lacking
crucial resources and expertise. Many areas have little or no ability
to cope or respond to the consequences and aftermath of a terrorist
attack, especially ones that use weapons of mass destruction, including
biological or chemical toxins or nuclear radioactive weapons.
The recommended commitment of funding in the President's Budget is
only the first step. There also needs to be a comprehensive approach
that identifies and meets state and local First Responder needs, both
rural and urban, pursuant to federal leadership, benchmarks and
guidelines.
This legislation is intended to move the Federal Government forward
in developing that comprehensive approach with regard to the
consequence management of acts of terrorism. The bill establishes in
FEMA an office for coordinating the federal, state and local capacity
to respond to the aftermath and consequences of acts of terrorism. This
essentially represents a beginning statutory structure for the existing
Office of National Preparedness within FEMA as the responsibilities in
this legislation are consistent with many of the actions of that office
currently. This bill also provides FEMA with the authority to make
grants of technical assistance to states to develop the capacity and
coordination of resources to respond to acts of terrorism. In addition,
the bill authorizes $100 million for states to operate fire and safety
programs as a step to further build the capacity of fire departments to
respond to local emergencies as well as the often larger problems posed
by acts of terrorism. America's firefighters are, with the police and
emergency medical technicians, the backbone of our Nation and the first
line of defense in responding to the consequences of acts of terrorism.
The legislation also formally recognizes and funds the urban search
and rescue task force response system at $160 million in fiscal year
2002. The Nation currently is served by 28 urban search and rescue task
forces which proved to be a key resource in our Nation's ability to
quickly respond to the tragedy of September 11. In addition, Missouri
is the proud home of one of these urban search and rescue task forces,
Missouri Task Force 1. Missouri Task Force 1 made a tremendous
difference in helping the victims of the horrific tragedy at the World
Trade Center as well as assisting to minimize the aftermath of this
tragedy. These task forces are underfunded and underequipped, but,
nontheless, are committed to be the front-line soldiers for our local
governments in responding to the worst consequences of terrorism at the
local level. I believe we have an obligation to realize fully the
capacity of these 28 search and rescue task forces to meet First
Responder events and this legislation authorizes the needed funding.
Finally, the bill removes the risk of litigation that currently
discourages the donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire
departments. As we have discovered in the last several years, volunteer
fire departments are underfunded, leaving the firefighters with the
desire and will to assist their communities to fight fires and respond
to local emergencies but without the necessary equipment or training
that is so critical to the success of their profession. We have started
providing needed funding for these departments though the Fire Act
Grant program at FEMA. However, more needs to be done and this
legislation is intended to facilitate the donation of used, but useful,
equipment to these volunteer fire departments.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Response to Terrorism and Consequence Management Act of 2002--
Summary of Legislation
TITLE I. CAPACITY BUILDING FOR URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE TASK FORCES
This title may be cited as the ``National Urban Search and
Rescue Task Force Assistance Act of 2002.''
Sec. 102. Statement of Findings and Purpose. The purpose of
this act is to provide the needed funds, equipment and
training to ensure that all urban search and rescue task
forces have the full capability to respond to all emergency
search and rescue needs arising from any disaster, including
acts of terrorism involving a weapon of mass destruction.
Sec. 104. Assistance. Requires no less than $1.5 million
annually for the operational costs of each urban search and
rescue task forces. Authorizes additional grants for (1)
operational costs in excess of the $1.5 million; (2) the cost
of equipment; (3) the cost of equipment needed to allow a
task force to operate in an environment contaminated by
weapons of mass of destruction, including chemical,
biological, and nuclear/radioactive contaminants; (4) the
cost of training; (5) the cost of transportation; (6) the
cost of task force expansion; (7) the cost of Incident
Support Teams, including the cost to conduct appropriate task
force readiness evaluations; and (8) the cost of making task
forces capable of responding to international disasters,
including acts of terrorism.
Requires FEMA to prioritize all funding to ensure that all
urban search and rescue task forces have the capacity,
including all needed equipment and training, to deploy two
separate task forces simultaneously from each sponsoring
agency.
Sec. 106. Technical Assistance for Coordination. Allows
FEMA to award no more than four percent of the funds for
technical assistance to allow urban search and rescue task
forces to coordinate with other agencies and organizations,
including career and volunteer fire departments, to meet
state and local disasters, including acts of terrorism
involving the use of a weapon of mass destruction including
chemical, biological, and nuclear/radioactive weapons.
Sec. 107. Additional Task Forces. Allows FEMA to establish
additional urban search and rescue teams pursuant to a
finding of
[[Page S2286]]
need. No additional urban search and rescue teams may be
designated or funded until the first 28 teams are fully
funded and able to deploy simultaneously two task forces
from each sponsoring agency with all necessary equipment,
training and transportation.
Sec. 108. Performance of Services. Incorporates section 306
of the Stafford Act to allow FEMA to incur any additional
obligations as determined necessary by FEMA, such as the cost
of temporary employment, workmen compensation, insurance, and
other compensation for work-related injuries consistent with
memorandums of understanding agreed to between FEMA and the
task forces.
Sec. 109. Authorization of Appropriations. Authorizes $160
million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
TITLE II. PROMOTE THE CONTRIBUTION OF EQUIPMENT TO VOLUNTEER
FIREFIGHTING DEPARTMENTS
This title may be cited as the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer
Firefighter Assistance Act of 2002.''
Sec. 202. Removal of Civil Liability Barriers that
Discourage the Donation of Fire Equipment to Volunteer Fire
Companies. Removes liability for civil damages under any
state or federal law for any entity or person who donates
equipment to a volunteer fire department, except where (1)
the person's act or omission proximately causing the injury,
damage, loss, or death constitutes gross negligence or
intentional misconduct; or (2) the person is the manufacturer
of the fire control or fire rescue equipment. Requires the
State to designate its State Fire Marshall or equivalent
person to certify the safety and usefulness of the fire
control or fire rescue equipment that is being donated.
TITLE III. ESTABLISHMENT OF COORDINATION OFFICE WITHIN FEMA
Sec. 301. Establishment of Coordination Office for
Responding to Acts of Terrorism. Requires FEMA to establish
or designate an office within FEMA to coordinate the response
of State and local agencies, including fire departments,
hospitals, and emergency medical facilities, to acts of
terrorism, including the capacity to provide assistance in an
environment with chemical, biological, or nuclear/
radiological contamination.
Authorizes FEMA to make grants to provide technical
assistance and coordinating funding to States to ensure that
localities, fire departments, hospitals and other appropriate
entities have the capacity to respond to the consequences of
possible acts of terrorism, including the capacity to provide
assistance in an environment with chemical, biological, or
nuclear/radiological contamination.
Authorizes FEMA to award grants to states to operate new
and existing state fire and safety training programs for
firefighting personnel.
Requires FEMA to establish a task force among Federal
agencies for the coordination of Federal, State and local
resources to develop a national response plan for responding
to acts of terrorism, including the capacity to provide
assistance in an environment with chemical, biological, or
nuclear/radiological contamination.
Limits administrative costs for states to 5 percent.
Authorizes FEMA to use such sums as necessary from the
Disaster Relief Fund to meet the requirements of this title,
including no less than $100 million for grants to support
State fire and safety training programs. Requires at least 20
percent of the funds awarded State fire and safety training
programs to be used to assist fire departments with an annual
budget of no more than $25,000.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr.
Jeffords, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 2064. A bill to reauthorize the United States Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution, and for other purposes: to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to
continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues,
Senators Bob Smith, Jim Jeffords, and Daniel K. Inouye.
The Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution in 1998, with the purpose of offering
an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over environmental
conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often result in
lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to resolve. In
cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for court
proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is still
a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need for
alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to
address the rising number of environmental conflicts that have clogged
Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress.
The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in
recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and
his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to
build a consensus among fractious and even hostile interests. The
Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden
within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many
agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability.
The success of the Institute is far greater than we could have
imagined. The Institute began operations in 1999 and has already
provided assistance to parties in more than 100 environmental conflicts
across 30 States.
Agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of
Interior and Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers,
the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, and others have all called upon the Institute for
assistance. Even the Federal courts are referring cases to the
Institute for mediation, including such high profile cases as the
management of endangered salmon throughout the Columbia River Basin in
the Northwest.
The Institute also assisted in facilitating interagency teamwork for
the Everglades Task Force which oversees the South Everglades
Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest Service requested assistance to
bring ranchers and environmental advocates in the southwest to work on
grazing and environmental compliance issues. Even Members of Congress
have sought the Institute's assistance to review implementation of the
Nation's fundamental environmental law, the National Environmental
Policy Act, to assess how it can be improved using collaborative
processes.
Currently, the Institute is involved in more than 20 cases and many
more are pending consideration. The Institute accomplishes its work by
maintaining a national roster of 180 environmental mediators and
facilitators located in 39 States. We believe that mediators should be
involved in the geographic area of the dispute whenever possible and
that system is working.
The demand on the Institute's assistance has been much greater than
anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not
anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal
Government. The Institute has served as a mediator between agencies and
as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving
overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long-
term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and
designing internal systems for preventing or resolving disputes.
Unfortunately, experience has also taught us that most Federal
agencies are limited from participating because of inadequate funds to
pay for mediation services. This legislation will authorize a
participation fund to be used to support meaningful participation of
parties to Federal environmental disputes. The participation fund will
provide matching funds to stakeholders who cannot otherwise afford
mediation fees or costs of providing technical assistance.
In addition to creating this new participation fund, this legislation
simply extends the authorization for the Institute for an additional 5
years with a modest increase in its operation budget. The proposed
increase is in response to the overwhelming demand on the Institute's
services, an investment that will ultimately benefit taxpayers by
preventing costly litigation.
On February 11, 2002, the Arizona Daily Star included an editorial
that recognizes the benefits of this Institute to resolving
environmental conflicts faced by various parties, including Federal and
non-Federal parties, and recommends continuing support for the
Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Arizona Daily Star, Feb. 11, 2002]
An Effective Agency
One of the little-known gems in Tucson is one of the few
federal agencies, if not the only one, with headquarters
outside of the Washington, D.C. area--the Institute for
Environmental conflict Resolution.
With a name like that, the institute clearly is not a
tourist attraction. What makes it a gem is that it is proving
to be remarkably successful at finding solutions to
environmental conflicts that otherwise likely would end in
lawsuits.
[[Page S2287]]
The institute is an arm of the Morris K. Duall Foundation.
It was proposed by Senator John McCain and created by
Congress in 1998. Very few people then realized what McCain
apparently did--there was a great need for such an agency.
Terrence Bracy, chair of the Board of Trustees for the
foundation, says the institute expected to handle perhaps 20
to 25 cases per year. The institute handled 60 last year and
expects to handle even more this year.
Says Bracy: ``We didn't know how big the market was. We
didn't know whether it would work.'' But work it has.
Now, the institute's original funding will expire their
McCain is expected to introduce a bill to reauthorizing the
funding probably at the current level.
It's a good idea, and it would help if Arizona's other
congressional delegates, especially Jim Kolbe and Ed Paster,
who both represent Southern Arizona, and Senator John Kyl,
joined McCain in seeking the funding.
Bracy knows that the federal government has an immediate
stake in mediation. That is because many of the cases being
mediated involved governmental agencies, either as agencies
potentially being used or as agencies suing others.
A Unique aspect of the institute's work is that because it
is a federal agency, it has status and credibility with other
government agencies and with the courts. That makes its
medication efforts even more effective.
The institute has had contracts with the Navy, Fish and
Wildlife, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Parks
Service, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental
Protection Agency and others, according to Barcy.
``What happens over time,'' Bracy says, ``is we see this
thing this tremendous need.'' He is right.
Tucsonans should recognize what a gem they have in their
midst. And Arizonas congressional delegation should get
firmly behind McCain's efforts to reauthorize the funding for
the Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
It is a government program that even the most anti-
government conservatives should love.
Mr. McCAIN. Nothing is more indicative of the support for the
Institute than the cosponsorship of my two colleagues, Senator Smith
and Senator Jeffords, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over
most environmental matters before the Congress. I thank Senator Smith
and Senator Jeffords for their critical support, and I look forward to
working with them to enact this important, bipartisan legislation.
This is a matter of some urgency as the existing authorization will
expire in this fiscal year. I look forward to working with the
cosponsors of this legislation and the rest of my colleagues to move
this bill forward expeditiously to ensure continuing support for the
valuable services of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution to our Nation.
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. 2064
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 ``Environmental Policy and
Conflict Resolution Advancement Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND.
Section 13 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental and Native American
Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5609) is amended by
striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Dispute
Resolution Fund established by section 10 $4,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, of which--
``(1) $3,000,000 shall be used to pay operations costs
(including not more than $1,000 for official reception and
representation expenses); and
``(2) $1,000,000 shall be used for grants or other
appropriate arrangements to pay the costs of services
provided in a neutral manner relating to, and to support the
participation of non-Federal entities (such as State and
local governments, tribal governments, nongovernmental
organizations, and individuals) in, environmental conflict
resolution proceedings involving Federal agencies.''.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Allard):
S. 2065. A bill to provide for the implementation of air quality
programs developed pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement between
the Southern Ute Indian Tribes and the State of Colorado concerning Air
Quality Control on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Southern
Ute and Colorado Intergovernmental Agreement Implementation Act of
2002.
As my colleagues know, successful environmental laws recognize that
local implementation is almost always better than a ``one size fits
all'' program run from Washington, DC. For example, the Federal Clean
Air Act authorizes States and Indian tribes to become responsible for
establishing implementation plans, designating air quality standards,
and implementing many of the regulatory programs needed to maintain or
improve air quality.
With respect to the Southern Ute Indian Reservation in my State of
Colorado, however, there is some question about whether the
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, can delegate Clean Air Act
jurisdiction to the Southern Ute Tribe in the same manner that it would
delegate authority to any other Indian tribe.
In 1984 Congress ratified a jurisdiction and boundary agreement
between the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State of Colorado.
Approving this agreement spared both sides the exorbitant costs of
going to court to fight over the jurisdictional status of each square
inch on the Reservation.
In addition, the 1994 arrangement allows the tribe and the State to
work out any questions about jurisdiction within their agreed-upon
framework. With respect to Federal officials dealing with the tribe and
the State, however, this arrangement could create some uncertainty.
Because it could be argued that it prevents the tribe from exercising
authority that may be delegated to any Indian tribe under the Clean Air
Act.
Instead of placing the Environmental Protection Agency in the middle
of a controversy about whether it is authorized to delegate Clean Air
Act programs within the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, the tribe and
the State signed a historic ``Intergovernmental Agreement'' to resolve
any controversy between the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State of
Colorado.
In this way, the State and the tribe have once again agreed that it
is better for them to control their own destiny by reaching an accord
they can both live with rather than putting their fate in the hands of
bureaucrats and judges. I applaud the proactive spirit which led the
tribe and the State to resolve a potential controversy before a problem
or conflict even arose.
The program established by the agreement reflects the unique issues
and context that brought the tribe and the State to the negotiating
table. First, consistent with Congress' mandate in the Clean Air Act,
the Tribe will be the entity responsible for administering Clean Air
Act programs within the reservation boundaries. The tribal program
administrators have complete access to the State's technical resources
and personnel. Second, an equal number of tribal and State
representatives will sit on the Commission established by the
agreement.
The Commission is authorized to hear and decide any appealable
decisions. The Commission will also set the pace for tribal
applications for delegations of authority. Finally, the agreement seeks
to make the Federal courts available to hear any challenges to
decisions by the Commission.
I am aware of the number of complex issues raised by this historic
agreement, and efforts are already underway to address and resolve some
of these issues. I believe it is the right time to introduce a bill to
allow the appropriate committee to begin to formally consider this
proposal. I know the parties will continue to direct their efforts at
bringing this important matter to a successful conclusion.
In closing, let me again commend the efforts of both the tribe and
the State in negotiating and signing this historic agreement. I would
ask unanimous consent that a letter from Colorado Governor Bill Owens
be printed in the Record. Finally, I am pleased that Senator Wayne
Allard joins with me in the views expressed in this statement and in
cosponsoring this bill.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S2288]]
State of Colorado,
Denver, CO, May 22, 2000.
Re: Intergovernmental Agreement between the State of Colorado
and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe Regarding Air Quality
regulation.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: On December 13, 1999 I signed an
historic agreement between the State of Colorado and the
Southern Ute Indian Tribe in which the State and the Tribe
agreed to establish a single, cooperative air quality
authority for all lands within the Southern Ute Reservation.
This cooperative arrangement, negotiated by Attorney General
Salazar, my office and the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (``CDPHE''), is the first of its kind
in the United States between a state and a tribe to regulate
air quality. Because the arrangement is unique, statutory
authority or clarification is needed at both the State and
federal levels to accommodate the agreement. The General
Assembly sent to me a bill to accomplish the changes
necessary at the State level that I signed into law on March
15, 2000. I am writing today to ask you to sponsor
legislation achieving a clarification to existing federal law
assuring that the agreement in its contemplated framework can
move forward. I have attached a draft of the legislation we
believe is needed to clarify that the agreement can work as
well as a copy of the intergovernmental agreement signed in
December.
Background
As you know, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe's Reservation
consists of approximately 681,000 acres, located mainly in La
Plata County. The Reservation is a checkerboard of land
ownership. About 308,000 surface acres are held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of the Tribe (``trust
lands.'') The remaining 3780,000 surface acres are owned in
fee by non-Indians or individual Tribal members (``fee
lands''), or consist of national forest land. In 1984,
Congress enacted Public Law 98-290, which confirmed the
exterior boundaries of the Reservation. P.L. 98-290 also
clarified that the Tribe has jurisdiction over the trust
lands and Indians anywhere in the Reservation, and the State
has jurisdiction over non-Indians on the fee lands.
Oil and natural gas production takes place throughout the
Reservation. These facilities are stationary air pollution
sources. Historically CDPHE's Air Pollution Control Division
has issued permits to non-Indian owned sources located on fee
lands. Recently, the Tribe petitioned EPA for the right to
issue all permits within the exterior boundaries of the
Reservation including the facilities historically regulated
by the State of Colorado. In 1998, the EPA issued regulations
implementing provisions of the Clean Air Act allowing Indian
tribes to be treated in the same manner as States to
administer certain air quality programs. In July 1998, the
Southern Ute Tribe applied to the EPA for treatment as a
state for all lands within the Reservation. On the basis of
PL 98-290, the State objected, arguing that it had
jurisdiction over the non-Indian sources on the fee lands.
To avoid a potentially long and costly fight in the federal
courts about which governmental entity has jurisdiction over
the fee lands, the Tribe and the State have now agreed to
establish a single, cooperative air quality authority for all
lands within the Reservation. On December 13, 1999, the Tribe
and the State entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement
(copy attached) which provides that a joint Tribal/State
Commission will establish air quality standards. The Tribe
will receive a delegation of authority from EPA to administer
the air quality programs, but the delegation is contingent
upon and shall last only so long as the Agreement and
Commission are in place.
Tribal and State Legislation
The Agreement provided for legislation by both the Tribe
and the State approving the Agreement and enacting
substantive law necessary to carry out the Agreement's
provisions. On January 18, 2000, the Tribe adopted its
legislation. On March 15, 2000, I signed HB 1324, which
adopted and codified the Agreement and HB 1325, which
established the State's authority to establish the Commission
and otherwise implement the Agreement.
Federal Legislation
The Agreement envisions a delegation by the EPA to the
Tribe to administer Clean Air Act programs, contingent upon
the existence of the Joint State/Tribal Commission. This is a
unique arrangement and is not clearly specified within the
Clean Air Act. Parties have argued to me that clarifying
legislation by Congress is necessary to resolve any
uncertainty about the EPA's power to delegate authority to
run an air pollution program to the Tribe and for the
Commission to act under such a delegation. The Commission
also will set the standards and rules of the air quality
program that the Tribe will administer. The Commission will
serve as the administrative appellate review body for
enforcement and other administrative actions. The Agreement
provides that the Commission's final review is final agency
action, and further judicial review would be in the federal
courts. The existence of such federal jurisdiction should
also be clarified by Congress.
Enclosed is a draft of the proposed federal legislation and
a legislative history for your review. These draft documents
would accomplish the limited but necessary changes to make
the Agreement fully operational. The bill is set up to add a
section to P.L. 98-290 to narrow the application of the
revisions only to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State
of Colorado, so that other states or tribes would not be
affected.
Next Steps
The full operation of the Agreement is conditioned upon
passage of federal legislation no later than December 13,
2001. I recognize that this may be difficult but from the
State's perspective the sooner the Agreement could be
operational the better since EPA will be regulating the
affected entities until the Joint Commission and Tribe take
over. We would like to be helpful and I offer a meeting
between you and your staff and representatives of the
Governor's Office, the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment and the Colorado Attorney General's Office at
your earliest convenience discuss this issue.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this request.
Please feel free to contact Britt Weygandt in my office for
any assistance you may need. Her extension is (303) 866-6392.
Sincerely,
Bill Owens,
Governor.
____________________