[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 108 (Thursday, August 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7903-S7964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 2835. A bill to promote the development of health care
cooperatives that will help businesses to pool the health care
purchasing power of employers, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
Maine to introduce legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing
cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates,
and to improve quality for their employees' health care.
High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across
the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access
to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the
system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than
by what they need.
This year has been the third year in a row of double-digit increases
in health care costs. Companies will likely face average increases of
12 to 15 percent in 2003, on top of the 12.7 percent increase this
year.
For some employers in Wisconsin, costs will rise much more sharply. A
recent study found health care cost for businesses in southeastern
Wisconsin were 55 percent higher than the Midwest average. While
nationwide, the average health care premium for a family currently
costs about $588 per month, in Wisconsin an average family pays $812
per month.
We must curb these rapidly-increasing health care premiums. I
strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to
health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives
to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees;
health care.
By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers
have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their
employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health,
there are more than 90 employer-led coalitions across the United States
that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses
are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery
of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions
represent over 7,000 employers and approximately 34 million employees
nation-wide.
Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of
care. By investing in the delivery of quality health car, we will be
able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as
quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care
expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services
and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health
care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with
health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.
Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and
access to healthcare are felt most intensely in the local markets.
Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and
implemented locally.
Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care
coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and
safety, and encourage group purchasing.
In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that
have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of
care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance
Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit
cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane
County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 170 member
employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain
affordable, high-quality health care for their 110,000 employees and
dependents.
This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such
as The Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase
access to affordable and high-quality health care.
The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize
grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group-
purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care
rates, and improve quality.
This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different
types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both
programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program
would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while
the second program would help small businesses that purchase their
health insurance.
My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective
cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways.
First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from
physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and
[[Page S7904]]
others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved
in a coalition could better attack the essential issues, such as rising
health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality
data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of
these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet
the needs of their employees.
For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the
formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at
lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within
these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with
better information about the health care options that are available to
them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements
by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care
providers.
By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance
plans and negotiate better rates.
Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and
have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an
incentive to join the pool by giving grants to a group of similar
businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pool are also
given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as
enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving
quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which
creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they
will be invested in the organization.
We must reform health care in America and give employers and
employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the
formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the
quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge
my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal to improve the
quality and ease the costs of health care.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 2837. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
businesses to qualify as renewal community businesses if such
businesses employ residents of certain other renewal communities; to
the Committee on Finance.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to make
a small change to the Renewal Community program that will make a big
difference for the people of my State. This legislation will spur job
growth and economic development in many impoverished areas that have
been designated as renewal communities.
Renewal communities were authorized under the Community Renewal Tax
Relief Act of 2000. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has
designated 40 urban and rural areas around the country as renewal
communities that are eligible to share in an estimated $17 billion in
tax incentives to stimulate job growth, promote economic development,
and create affordable housing. The purpose of the Act is to help bring
needed investment to areas with demonstrated economic distress. The
poverty rate in renewal communities is at least 20 percent, and the
unemployment rate is one-and-a-half times the national level. The
households in the renewal communities have incomes that are 80 percent
below the median income of households in their local jurisdictions.
Businesses in renewal communities are eligible to receive wage
credits, tax deductions, and capital gains exclusions for hiring
workers living in the renewal communities. In order for businesses to
qualify for participation in the program they must meet certain
criteria. For example, at least fifty percent of the total gross income
of a business must come from operations within the renewal community
and a substantial part of its tangible property must lie within the
renewal community. Furthermore, at least thirty-five percent of its
employees must be residents of the renewal community and the employees'
services must be performed in the renewal community.
The Renewal Community program is targeted to help small businesses in
poor communities. Through the tax benefits provided, the small and
family-owned businesses are able to maintain their operations and
continue supplying goods and services to their neighborhoods. These
businesses are the true essence of the entrepreneurial spirit and are
the engines of economic growth and development. The Renewal Community
program also encourages the start of new businesses. Louisiana has
really benefited from this program. It has been a catalyst in boosting
local economics and cutting unemployment.
Louisiana has four renewal communities. Some of them border one
another. Under the rules of the program, however, a business cannot
take advantage of the tax incentives if they hire someone who lives
outside the renewal community, even if that person lives in the renewal
community next door. In rural areas, this rule poses a problem for
people living in one renewal community who often find jobs with
companies in an adjacent renewal community.
A good example of what I am talking about is in the northern part of
Louisiana, home of the North Louisiana Renewal Community and the
Ouachita Renewal Community. The City of Monroe is located at the heart
of the Ouachita Renewal Community. Monroe serves as the hub for
Northeast Louisiana. All around Monroe and the Ouachita Renewal
Community there are parishes which all fall in the North Louisiana
Renewal Community, Morehouse Parish to the north, Richland Parish to
the east, Caldwell Parish to the south, and Lincoln Parish to the west.
We know that many companies in the Ouachita Renewal Community would
qualify for the tax benefits if they could count any employees they
hired from the adjacent North Louisiana Renewal Community toward
meeting the thirty-five percent requirement. My legislation will allow
the employers in one renewal community to hire employees from an
adjacent or nearby renewal community areas and still receive the tax
benefits granted through the Act.
The goal of the Renewal Community Program is to provide a vehicle for
change in poverty stricken areas. It makes sense that we take steps to
add flexibility to the program. Employees with a particular skill set
may be better suited to work at companies located in an adjacent
renewal community. My legislation provides employers and employees with
the opportunity to take full advantage of the Renewal Community
program.
This legislation is an opportunity for continued assistance to low
income people and economically distressed areas of our country. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2838. A bill to provide for the conveyance of Forest Service
facilities and lands comprising the Five Mile Regional Learning Center
in the State of California to the Clovis Unified School District, to
authorize a new special use permit regarding the continued use of
unconveyed lands comprising the Center, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation
today to transfer 27 acres of land from the Stanislaus National Forest
to the Clovis Unified School District.
This bill allows the school district to continue operating the
California Five Mile Regional Learning Center and, more importantly,
raise the necessary funds to renovate the facilities.
Since 1989, Clovis Unified School District has leased the Five Mile
Regional Learning Center from the Forest Service to offer programs to
students living in the Central Valley. And each year, thousands of
eager children come to the Center to take classes that emphasize
natural resource conservation. During this past academic year, for
instance, more than 14,000 students benefitted from classes ranging
from forest management to aviary studies to team building.
In addition to classes, students have the option of attending summer
basketball camps offered in the Center's gymnasium and participating in
individual activities given on the Center's adjacent 93 acres. To date,
the district has invested $14 million of local funds to provide these
opportunities.
Unfortunately, in the last few years, the Regional Learning Center
has fallen into a state of disrepair. The buildings that occupy the 27
acres are over 40 years old, but have never undergone
[[Page S7905]]
major renovations to modernize and improve them. As a result, the
Center has a laundry list of items in need of repair: from cracked
asphalt and leaky roofs to unreliable electrical wiring. And while
Clovis Unified School District officials have done a fine job of
operating the Center and are willing to invest in renovations, the
Forest Service can not permit the district to spend local funds to
renovate these federally owned buildings.
This bill enables the Forest Service to convey the acreage that the
buildings occupy to the school district allowing the district to make
the necessary repairs. Clovis Unified has already committed to
investing $5 million over 5 years to make the renovations, in addition
to the district's $1.2 million of annual contributions spent on routine
maintenance and operating costs. These investments will be used to
expand and enhance the Center's environmental educational curriculum. I
believe that given the budget constraints that schools nationwide are
facing that this commitment speaks to the quality of these programs and
to the need to keep the Center in operation.
The Forest Service has already acknowledged that this transfer would
be in the best interest of both the Forest Service and the general
public. At the Forest Service's request, reversionary language was
added to this bill to ensure that the gederal government would retain
ownership of the land should the school district decide to no longer
operate the facilities.
Without this important legislation, in a few years time, the
California Five Mile Regional Learning Center will be uninhabitable and
another educational resource that benefits our children will close its
doors. I believe that this bill is the perfect example of what can
happen when local, state, and federal governments work together to get
something done. It is this type of partnership that Congress should
support in our efforts to diversify and improve educational
opportunities for students and encourage multi-use activities on
federal land. In this case, I believe everyone wins and I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
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. 2838
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 ``California Five Mile
Regional Learning Center Transfer Act''.
SEC. 2. LAND CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL USE AGREEMENT, FIVE MILE
REGIONAL LEARNING CENTER, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Conveyance.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall convey
to the Clovis Unified School District of California all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of National Forest System land consisting of 27.10
acres located within the southwest \1/4\ of section 2,
township 2 north, range 15 east, Mount Diablo base and
meridian, California, which has been utilized as the Five
Mile Regional Learning Center by the school district since
1989 pursuant to a special use permit (Holder No. 2010-02) to
provide natural resource conservation education to California
youth. The conveyance shall include all structures,
improvements, and personal property shown on original map
#700602 and inventory dated February 1, 1989.
(b) Special Use Agreement.--As soon as practicable after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
enter into negotiations with the Clovis Unified School
District to enter into a new special use permit for the
approximately 100 acres of National Forest System land that,
as of the date of the enactment of this Act, is being used by
the school district pursuant to the permit described in
subsection (a), but is not included in the conveyance under
such subsection.
(c) Reversion.--In the event that the Clovis Unified School
District discontinues its operation of the Five Mile Regional
Learning Center, title to the real property conveyed under
subsection (a) shall revert back to the United States.
(d) Costs and Mineral Rights.--The conveyance under
subsection (a) shall be for a nominal cost. Notwithstanding
such subsection, the conveyance does not include the transfer
of mineral rights.
______
By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 2839. A bill to enhance the protection of privacy of children who
use school or library computers employing Internet content management
services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in December 2000, New York Times
reporter, John Schwartz, wrote ``When Congress passed a new bill last
week requiring virtually every school and library in the nation to
install technology to protect minors from adult materials online, it
created a business opportunity for companies that sell Internet
filtering systems. . . . some of the filtering companies' business
plans include tracking students' Web wanderings and selling the data to
market research firms.'' While I support the use of filtering
technology in schools and libraries that will be visited by our
children, this statement alarmed me.
A month later, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department
of Defense was buying information about our school children's Internet
habits from a filtering company without the knowledge of their parents
or the school officials. The Defense Department contracted directly
with the filtering company. As one of our most vulnerable populations,
I believe it is Congress's duty to act in a manner to ensure families
knowledge of the information that is collected about our children and
to restrict the collection of personal information on children. The
fact that this arrangement could occur without anyone with direct
responsibility for the children having knowledge of it is a serious
oversight. We need a solution, and to that end, I am introducing the
Children's Electronic Access Safety Enhancement, or CEASE Act.
This legislation is a commonsense approach to dealing with this
problem in order to ensure our children are protected. The first
section of the bill requires an Internet filtering government
contractor to disclose its treatment of collected information to the
school or library with which it is contracting. Additionally, if
changes to these policies are made, the filtering company must inform
the school or library of these changes. If adequate notice is not
provided, the entity has the option to cancel the contract. Armed with
such information about the company's practices, the school or library
officials can make an informed decision of whether it wishes to
contract with a particular company.
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA, which passed
Congress and was signed into law in 1998, prohibits the collection of
personal information about children on commercial websites. In the
second section of my legislation, a similar COPPA prohibition would
extend to Internet content management services at schools and
libraries. If personal information is collected on a child, the
provider is required to inform the school or library and the Federal
Trade Commission and to indicate how it will treat this information so
that it will not be disclosed or distributed. When children go to
schools and libraries, these environments are supposed to be safe.
Parents and guardians should not have to worry about how their
children's personal information may be compromised, especially by a
company that markets itself to protect children and in some cases
facilitate learning. I believe my legislation will help put to rest
such concerns.
Protecting the privacy of children has been widely supported, as it
should be. When Congress was debating COPPA in 1998, the bill received
broad support. At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in September
1998, Arthur Sackler, representing the Direct Marketing Association,
DMA stated, ``Although DMA usually supports self-regulation of
electronic commerce, we believe it may be appropriate to consider
targeted legislation in this area.'' Kathyrn Montgomery from the Center
for Media Education stated, ``Children are not little adults. . . .
Because many young children do not fully understand the concept of
privacy, they can be quite eager and willing to offer up information
about themselves and their families when asked. Children also tend to
be particularly trusting of computers, and thus more open to
interacting with them.''
An April 2002 FTC report on the implementation of COPPA draws the
conclusion that Web sites have generally been able to comply with
COPPA. That is why I have every hope and expectation that the CEASE Act
can also be implemented.
[[Page S7906]]
Given the fact that we have evidence of some Internet content
management companies already sharing information with outside entities,
the CEASE Act is timely. If an Internet content management company
believes it is a good business plan to share information, even in
aggregate, with outside parties, these companies should not be adverse
to disclosing this practice with a potential client. And, I believe
that a number of communities may not wish to allow these practices at
all because they believe that, as Alex Molnar, a professor at the
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, stated, ``Providing demographic
information about students to special interests, even in aggregate
form, is a potential violation of the privacy of children and their
families.'' Communities with such beliefs should be able to act upon
them in the best interest of their children, and my legislation
requires the disclosure that will help make this a reality.
There is no arguing that the Internet is, and will continue to be, an
important part of the learning process. Personally, I support wiring
the schools and libraries in this Nation as rapidly as possible because
I understand the educational and job opportunities the Internet can
bring. However, especially for our children, we need to ensure there
are safeguards. Providing more information and empowering local
officials to make decisions based on this information are good
policies. As the Nation's children prepare to return to school--schools
that are more wired now than ever before--I urge my colleagues to
support the CEASE bill to protect our children.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2839
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 ``Children's Electronic Access
Safety Enhancement (CEASE) Act''.
SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE BY INTERNET CONTENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES OF
COLLECTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
UNDER CONTRACTS FOR SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES.
(a) Initial Disclosure of Policies.--
(1) In general.--A provider of Internet content management
services shall, before entering into a contract or other
agreement to provide such services to or for an elementary or
secondary school or library, notify the local educational
agency or other authority with responsibility for the school,
or library, as the case may be, of the policies of the
provider regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of
information from or about children whose Internet use will be
covered by such services.
(2) Elements of notice.--Notice on policies regarding the
collection, use, disclosure of information under paragraph
(1) shall include information on the following:
(A) Whether any information will be collected from or about
children whose Internet use will be covered by the services
in question.
(B) Whether any information so collected will be stored or
otherwise retained by the provider of Internet content
management services, and, if so, under what terms and
conditions, including a description of how the information
will be secured.
(C) Whether any information so collected will be sold,
distributed, or otherwise transferred, and, if so, under what
terms and conditions.
(3) Form of notice.--Any notice under this subsection shall
be clear, conspicuous, and designed to be readily
understandable by its intended audience.
(b) Modification of Policies.--
(1) In general.--A provider of Internet content management
services shall, before implementing any material modification
of the policies described in subsection (a)(1) under a
contract or other agreement with respect to an elementary or
secondary school or library, notify the local educational
agency or other authority with responsibility for the school,
or library, as the case may be, of the proposed modification
of the policies.
(2) Timeliness.--Notice under paragraph (1) shall be
provided in sufficient time in advance of the modification
covered by the notice to permit the local educational agency
or other authority concerned, or library concerned, as the
case may be, to evaluate the effects of the modification.
(c) Regulations.--The Commission shall prescribe
regulations for purposes of the administration of this
section. The regulations shall include provisions regarding
the elements of notice required under subsection (a)(2) and
the timeliness of notice under subsection (b)(2).
(d) Administration.--
(1) In general.--This section shall be enforced by the
Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
41 et seq.).
(2) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any
other provision of law.
(e) Noncompliance.--
(1) In general.--The violation of any provision of this
section, including the regulations prescribed by the
Commission under subsection (c), shall be treated as a
violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or
practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(2) Termination of contract or agreement.--
(A) Authority to terminate.--Notwithstanding any provision
of a contract or agreement to the contrary, if a provider of
Internet content management services for a school or library
fails to comply with a policy in a notice under subsection
(a), or fails to submit notice of a modification of a policy
under subsection (b) in a timely manner, the local
educational agency or other authority concerned, or library
concerned, may terminate the contract or other agreement with
the provider to provide Internet content management services
to the school or library, as the case may be.
(B) Resolution of disputes.--Any dispute under subparagraph
(A) regarding the failure of a provider of Internet content
management services as described in that subparagraph shall
be resolved by the Commission.
(C) Relationship to other relief.--The authority under this
paragraph with respect to noncompliance of a provider of
Internet content management services is in addition to the
power of the Commission to treat the noncompliance as a
violation under paragraph (1).
(f) Notice to Parents.--A school or library shall provide
reasonable notice of the policies of an Internet content
management service provider used by that school or library to
parents of students, or patrons of the library, as the case
may be.
SEC. 3. COLLECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT CERTAIN
OLDER CHILDREN BY PROVIDERS OF INTERNET CONTENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES.
(a) Prohibition.--A provider of Internet content management
services to or for an elementary or secondary school or
library may not collect through such services personal
information from or about a child who is a student at that
school or a user of that library.
(b) Responsibilities Upon Collection.--
(1) In general.--If a provider of Internet content
management services to or for an elementary or secondary
school or library collects through such services personal
information from or about a child who is a student at that
school or a user of that library, the provider shall--
(A) provide prompt notice of such collection--
(i) to either--
(I) the local educational agency or other authority with
responsibility for the school and appropriate officials of
the State in which the school is located; or
(II) the library; and
(ii) to the Federal Trade Commission; and
(B) take appropriate actions to treat the personal
information--
(i) in a manner consistent with the provisions of the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C.
6501 et seq.) if the personal information was collected from
a child as defined in section 1302(1) of that Act; or
(ii) in a similar manner, under regulations prescribed by
the Commission, if the personal information was collected
from a child over the age of 12.
(2) Elements of notice.--Notice of the collection of
personal information by a provider of Internet content
management services under paragraph (1)(A) shall include the
following:
(A) A description of the personal information so collected.
(B) A description of the actions taken by the provider with
respect to such personal information under paragraph (1)(B).
(c) Response to Notice.--A local educational agency or
other authority, or library, receiving notice under
subsection (b) with respect to a covered child shall take
appropriate actions to notify a parent or guardian of the
child of receipt of such notice.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF COPPA.
Section 1302 of the Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C. 6501) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(13) Provider of internet content management services
treated as operator.--The term `operator' includes a provider
of Internet content management services (as defined in
section 5(4) of the Children's Electronic Access Safety
Enhancement Act) who collects or maintains personal
information from or about the users of those services, or on
whose behalf such information is collected or maintained, if
those services are provided for commercial purposes involving
commerce described in paragraph (2)(A)(i), (ii), or (iii).''.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Trade Commission.
(2) Child.--Except as provided in section 3(b)(1)(B), the
term ``child'' means an individual who is less than 19 years
of age.
(3) Personal information.--The term ``personal
information'' has the meaning given that term in section
1301(8) of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of
1998 (15 U.S.C. 6501(8)).
(4) Provider of internet content management services.--The
term ``provider of
[[Page S7907]]
Internet content management services'' includes a provider of
Internet content management software if such software
operates, in whole or in part, by or through an Internet
connection or otherwise provides information on users of such
software to the provider by the Internet or other means.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Schumer,
and Mr. Allard):
S. 2841. A bill to adjust the indexing of multifamily mortgage
limits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the
FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Improvement Act, to expand the
supply of affordable housing by increasing the Federal Housing
Administration's multifamily housing loan limit to account for
inflation.
Providing access to decent, safe, affordable housing for individuals
and families remains an enormous challenge for our Nation. Throughout
the country, rising construction costs have resulted in shortage of
affordably priced rental units. In fact, the shortage of affordable
housing should be considered nothing short of a crisis. After all,
housing is among the most basic of human needs, and it is critically
important for all American communities.
The Federal Housing Administration, FHA, was established as part of a
national commitment to providing affordable housing, particularly for
those most in need. Overall, the FHA, through its various initiatives,
has been successful in providing increased access to housing. But as
the crisis of affordable housing has grown, so has the need for
Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to
promote increased production of affordable housing.
That is why I am pleased to join with Senators Carper, Ensign and
Schumer in introducing this legislation to increase the production and
availability of affordable housing for American families. The bill
would improve upon legislation I introduced last year, ``The FHA
Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act,'' which Congress
approved last year as part of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. That
legislation increased by twenty-five percent the statutory limits for
multifamily project development loans that are insurable by the FHA.
The change reflected the increased costs associated with the production
of multifamily units since 1992, the last time those limits were
revised upwards.
In other words, it had taken Congress ten years to modify the
underlying statute to account for rising prices and simply maintain the
effectiveness of the program. That is too long. The legislation we are
introducing today would ensure that it does not take another decade or
longer to assist those who need affordable housing.
This bill is simple, it ensures that the insurable FHA loan limit
amounts, as adjusted under ``The FHA Multifamily Loan Adjustment Act,''
would keep pace with economic growth by indexing them each year to the
Annual Construction Cost Index, issued annually by the Census Bureau.
This bill also promotes the production of affordable housing in
another important way, by promoting the development of affordable
housing in high-cost cities like Newark, NJ, New York, Philadelphia and
San Francisco. Currently in those communities, the cost of living is so
high that the FHA insurance program is rendered largely ineffective.
This bill improves the FHA multifamily program by adjusting its
statutory limits to promote increased housing production in high-cost,
primarily urban, communities.
There is a very real need for Congress to address the shortage of
affordable housing. A report released last year by the Center for
Housing Policy, ``Housing America's Working Families,'' documented the
severity of this need. The report found that more than fourteen million
people faced severe housing needs because of the lack of affordable
housing. That number may well be higher now.
This bill will provide the proper incentive for public/private
investment in affordable housing in communities throughout America and
spur new production of cooperative housing projects, rental housing for
the elderly, new construction or substantial rehabilitation of
apartments by for- and non-profit entities, condominium developments
and refinancing of rental properties.
In short, this bill is good housing policy. That is why the National
Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors and
the Mortgage Bankers Association endorse the legislation, along with
other housing and community advocates.
I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and 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 the
Record, as follows:
S. 2841
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 ``FHA Multifamily Housing Loan
Limit Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. INDEXING OF MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE LIMITS.
(a) Section 207 Limits.--Section 207(c)(3) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``11,250'' and inserting ``$17,460'';
(2) by inserting before ``; and except that'' the
following: ``; except that the Secretary shall adjust each
such dollar amount limitation set forth in this paragraph (as
such limitation may have been previously adjusted pursuant to
this paragraph) effective January 1 of each year, beginning
in 2003, in accordance with the percentage increase, if any,
during the 12-month period ending with the preceding October,
in the Annual Construction Cost Index of the Bureau of the
Census of the Department of Commerce''; and
(3) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount
limitations contained in this paragraph'' the following:
``(as such limitations may have been previously adjusted
pursuant to this paragraph)''.
(b) Section 213 Limits.--Section 213(b)(2) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715e(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$38,025'', ``$42,120'', ``$50,310'',
``$62,010'', and ``$70,200'', and inserting ``$41,207'',
``$47,511'', ``$57,300'', ``$73,343'', and ``$81,708'',
respectively;
(2) by striking ``$49,140'', ``$60,255'', ``$75,465'', and
``$85,328'', and inserting ``$49,710'', ``$60,446'',
``$78,197'', and ``$85,836'', respectively;
(3) by inserting after the colon at the end of the first
proviso the following: ``Provided further, That the Secretary
shall adjust each such dollar amount limitation set forth in
this paragraph (as such limitation may have been previously
adjusted pursuant to this paragraph) effective January 1 of
each year, beginning in 2003, in accordance with the
percentage increase, if any, during the 12-month period
ending with the preceding October, in the Annual Construction
Cost Index of the Bureau of the Census of the Department of
Commerce:''; and
(4) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount
limitations contained in this paragraph'' the following:
``(as such limitations may have been previously adjusted
pursuant to this paragraph)''.
(c) Section 220 Limits.--Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount
limitations contained in this clause'', the first place such
phrase appears, the following: ``(as such limitations may
have been previously adjusted pursuant to this clause)''.
(2) by inserting after ``Provided,'' the following: ``That
the Secretary shall adjust each such dollar amount limitation
set forth in this clause (as such limitation may have been
previously adjusted pursuant to this clause) effective
January 1 of each year, beginning in 2003, in accordance with
the percentage increase, if any, during the 12-month period
ending with the preceding October, in the Annual Construction
Cost Index of the Bureau of the Census of the Department of
Commerce: Provided further,''; and
(3) by striking ``(as determined after the application of
the preceding proviso)'' and inserting ``(as such limitations
may have been previously adjusted pursuant to the preceding
proviso and as determined after application of any percentage
increase authorized in this clause relating to units with 2,
3, 4, or more bedrooms)''.
(d) Section 221(d)(3) Limits.--Section 221(d)(3)(ii) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(3)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by inserting before ``; and except that'' the
following: ``; except that the Secretary shall adjust each
such dollar amount limitation set forth in this clause (as
such limitation may have been previously adjusted pursuant to
this clause) effective January 1 of each year, beginning in
2003, in accordance with the percentage increase, if any,
during the 12-month period ending with the preceding October,
in the Annual Construction Cost Index of the Bureau of the
Census of the Department of Commerce''; and
(2) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount
limitations contained in this clause'' the following: ``(as
such limitations may have been previously adjusted pursuant
to this clause)''.
[[Page S7908]]
(e) Section 221(d)(4) Limits.--Section 221(d)(4)(ii) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(4)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by inserting before ``; and except that'' the
following: ``; except that the Secretary shall adjust each
such dollar amount limitation set forth in this clause (as
such limitation may have been previously adjusted pursuant to
this clause) effective January 1 of each year, beginning in
2003, in accordance with the percentage increase, if any,
during the 12-month period ending with the preceding October,
in the Annual Construction Cost Index of the Bureau of the
Census of the Department of Commerce''; and
(2) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount
limitations contained in this clause'' the following: ``(as
such limitations may have been previously adjusted pursuant
to this clause)''.
(f) Section 231 Limits.--Section 231(c)(2) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715v(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by inserting before ``; and except that'' the
following: ``; except that the Secretary shall adjust each
such dollar amount limitation set forth in this paragraph (as
such limitation may have been previously adjusted pursuant to
this paragraph) effective January 1 of each year, beginning
in 2003, in accordance with the percentage increase, if any,
during the 12-month period ending with the preceding October,
in the Annual Construction Cost Index of the Bureau of the
Census of the Department of Commerce''; and
(2) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount
limitations contained in this paragraph'' the following:
``(as such limitations may have been previously adjusted
pursuant to this paragraph)''.
(g) Section 234 Limits.--Section 234(e)(3) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715y(e)(3)) is amended--
(1) by inserting before ``; except that'' the second place
such phrase appears the following: ``; except that the
Secretary shall adjust each such dollar amount limitation set
forth in this paragraph (as such limitation may have been
previously adjusted pursuant to this paragraph) effective
January 1 of each year, beginning in 2003, in accordance with
the percentage increase, if any, during the 12-month period
ending with the preceding October, in the Annual Construction
Cost Index of the Bureau of the Census of the Department of
Commerce'';
(2) by inserting after ``each of the foregoing dollar
amounts'' the following: ``(as such amounts may have been
previously adjusted pursuant to this paragraph)''; and
(3) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount
limitations contained in this paragraph'' the following:
``(as such limitations may have been previously adjusted
pursuant to this paragraph and increased pursuant to the
preceding clause)''.
SEC. 2. HIGH-COST AREAS.
(a) Section 207 Limits.--Section 207(c)(3) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170
percent''; and
(2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140
percent''.
(b) Section 213 Limits.--Section 213(b)(2) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715e(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170
percent''; and
(2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140
percent''.
(c) Section 220 Limits.--Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170
percent''; and
(2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140
percent''.
(d) Section 221(d)(3) Limits.--Section 221(d)(3)(ii) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(3)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170
percent''; and
(2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140
percent''.
(e) Section 221(d)(4) Limits.--Section 221(d)(4)(ii) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(4)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170
percent''; and
(2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140
percent''.
(f) Section 231 Limits.--Section 231(c)(2) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715v(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170
percent''; and
(2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140
percent''.
(g) Section 234 Limits.--Section 234(e)(3) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715y(e)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170
percent''; and
(2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140
percent''.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with my
distinguished colleagues from New Jersey, Nevada, and New York to
introduce legislation to index the Federal Housing Administration's,
FHA, multifamily loan limits.
Last year, Senator Corzine and I introduced similar legislation that
raised the FHA multifamily loan limits, which had not been increased
since 1992 despite a 23 percent increase in the Annual Construction
Cost Index. Senators Mikulski and Bond included this increase in last
year's VA-HUD appropriations legislation. I am pleased that these
limits were increased last year, however, an important piece of the
original legislation was left undone. While the FHA loan limits were
increased, they were not indexed. Construction costs will continue to
rise, and the multifamily loan limits should be indexed, just like the
FHA single-family loan limits.
Affordable housing continues to be a problem in this country. Over
the July recess, I held a series of housing summits in Delaware to hear
from Delawareans about the lack of affordable housing. In each county,
I heard that working families in Delaware are having difficulty finding
affordable housing. This shortage of affordable housing also comes at a
time of limited federal resources. Thus, we have to find the best use
of each dollar at our disposal, as well as the most effective use of
existing Federal programs to stimulate new housing production and
substantial rehabilitation. This bill modifies a current federal
program, FHA multifamily insurance, to make that program more
effective.
In the next Congress, I hope to be able to address the affordable
housing problem in a more comprehensive manner. In the meantime, I
believe Congress can take some incremental steps to address the
shortage of affordable housing.
I ask my colleagues to join Senators Corzine, Ensign, and Schumer and
me to increase these multifamily loan limits so that more working
families will have access to affordable housing.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend,
the Senator from New Jersey, to introduce a bill that will help solve
the affordable housing crisis that is facing this Nation.
There is a dramatic shortage of rental housing that is affordable to
low and moderate income working families. FHA multifamily insurance
programs are designed to stimulate the construction, rehabilitation and
preservation of properties by insuring lenders against loss in
financing first mortgages. The programs assist both the private and the
public sectors towards the goal of providing affordable housing to
those that otherwise may not be able to afford it.
Last year, in a remarkable step, Congress granted a 25 percent
increase in the FHA multifamily loan limits. The new loan limits are
one great remedy to the affordable housing crisis facing our nation,
but this alone does not do enough.
Unfortunately, without additional legislation, the loan limits will
again be outpaced by inflation and today's growing construction costs.
The legislation that we are introducing solves this problem by
indexing the multifamily loan limits to the annual construction costs
index of the Bureau of the Census. This will allow loan limits to
increase automatically, as costs increase. Without such a fix, the FHA
multifamily loan program will again be limited in its ability to
stimulate the development of affordable housing.
This legislation will help halt the growing shortage of affordable
rental housing faced by millions of Americans and give builders and
lenders the confidence that they will be able to use the programs in
their communities every year, even as construction and land costs rise
over time.
Additionally, this legislation raises the loan limits in high-cost
areas. This will allow several major urban markets to take advantage of
the new FHA multifamily insurance programs, and to provide much needed
new affordable housing to low and moderate income families.
I believe this legislation is an important step in our ongoing battle
to ensure that each American has access to affordable housing. I would
like to once again thank the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, for
his hard work on this bill, and for recognizing the significant effect
this legislation will have for many low and moderate income families by
dramatically increasing their access to affordable housing.
______
By Mrs. CARNAHAN:
S. 2842. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to authorize
appropriations for demonstration
[[Page S7909]]
projects to provide supportive services to older individuals who reside
in naturally occurring retirement communities; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, we are all familiar with our changing
demographics. Those once a part of the baby boom are now well on their
way to creating a senior boom. By the year 2020, one in six Americans
will be age 65 or over. By 2040, the number of seniors aged 85 and
older will more than triple from about 4 million to 14 million. This
boom will create a dramatic increase in the demand for services for
seniors especially long-term care.
Long-term care is more than just health care. It includes any
services that seniors need to maintain their quality of life, such as
transportation, nutrition, or other supports that help seniors live
independently.
Long-term care can mean help with buying groceries, paying bills each
month, getting dressed in the morning, getting a ride to the doctor's
office, or taking medicine at the appropriate time. We need to make
sure our society is ready to provide these kinds of services for
seniors, and we need to make sure that we give seniors options. We need
to be creative in what we offer.
Last year I learned about an innovative option for providing long-
term care services for seniors. The concept is based on naturally
occurring retirement communities, NORCs. A naturally occurring
retirement community develops in a community or neighborhood where
residents remain for years and age as neighbors. A NORC may be a large
apartment building or a street of single family homes. According to
AARP, about 27 percent of seniors currently live in NORCs. NORCs
represent a new model for giving seniors the support services they
need. We can bring services directly to seniors, and we can help
enhance their quality of life and allow them to age in place.
This is important because most seniors prefer living in their own
homes. To address the need for long-term care services, I secured $1.2
million last year to establish a NORC project in downtown St. Louis. To
get this project underway, first there will be assessment of residents'
needs. The funds will then be used to meet these individual needs.
Residents will receive such services as individual case management,
family education, wellness services, and other needed supports.
The St. Louis program is only the first step. This unique model could
be used to deliver support services to seniors in communities across
the country. That is why I am pleased to introduce the Senior Self-
Sufficiency Act. This legislation would lay the foundation for a new
way of helping seniors stay in their own homes and in their own
communities. The Senior Self-Sufficiency Act would create ten
demonstration projects in naturally occurring retirement communities
across the country. Each would last 4 years. The grant would be used to
provide comprehensive support services to seniors.
The services offered would be created to meet the individual needs of
the residents and to help them maintain their independence. Funds would
also be used to make housing improvements that would allow seniors to
live in their own neighborhoods longer. For example, they could install
safety bars in bathrooms or replace stairs with wheelchair ramps. Two
of the ten projects would be located in rural areas where access to
services is often harder or more distant. We will learn from the
research how best to expand the program to all areas of the country.
If given the choice, most people would prefer to grow older in their
own homes, surrounded by friends and family. This is exactly what this
legislation will allow seniors to do. By making support services
available to seniors in their own homes, we can extend the time they
live independently, and we can improve their quality of life. We can
provide services at lower cost, and we can start preparing now for the
future needs of our population.
I am pleased to announce that the Senior Self-Sufficiency Act has the
support of the Missouri Department of Health and the Jewish Federation
of St. Louis.
I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support and the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. We need to begin now to plan for the future senior
boom. The Senior Self-Sufficiency Act is a step in the right direction,
making it possible for seniors to remain in their home longer and to
retain their independence. That is a goal worth pursuing.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Missouri Department of Health
and Senior Services,
Jefferson City, MO, July 31, 2002.
Hon. Jean Carnahan,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Carnahan: The Missouri Department of Health
and Senior Services is charged with the mission of enhancing
the quality of life for all Missourians by protecting and
promoting the community's health and well-being of citizens
of all ages. In following that mission, we are pleased to
offer our support of your proposed legislation known as the
Senior Self-Sufficiency Act.
This legislation, which would authorize demonstration
projects in naturally occurring retirement communities, would
help show the effectiveness of providing comprehensive
supportive services to older individuals who reside in their
homes to enhance their quality of life and reduce the need
for institutionalization. Missouri has long supported the
concept of ``options in care'' to include comprehensive home
and community based services and supports. This legislation
would help focus and define the concept and value of
communities, to include the significance of retaining seniors
within their natural occurring communities. The comprehensive
nature of the services to be offered under this concept, such
as health services, nutrition services, transportation, home
and personal care, socialization, continuing adult education,
information and referral, and any other services to enhance
quality of life will greatly increase a person's ability to
remain in their home and community.
I can assure you the Department of Health and Senior
Services is eager to assist with the implementation of this
concept. Your proposed legislation is paramount in supporting
our mission to protect and promote our community's health,
and well-being of citizens of all ages. Please feel free to
contact Jerry Simon, Interim Department Deputy Director, at
(573) 751-8535, if we can offer any additional information or
support to this important concept.
Respectfully,
Ronald W. Cates,
Interim Director.
______
Jewish Federation of St. Louis,
St. Louis, MO, July 29, 2002.
Hon. Jean Carnahan,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Carnahan: I am writing regarding the
legislation you will be introducing to amend the Older
Americans act of 1965 authorizing appropriations for
demonstration projects to provide services to older
individuals residing in NORCs. As you are aware, the St.
Louis community has a large senior citizen population
compared with other communities of similar size. It is
essential that we find ways to help our older adults remain
health, productive, and independent for as long as possible
in order to enhance their quality of life.
Your bill, the Senior Self-Sufficiency Act, authorizing ten
demonstration projects to provide comprehensive supportive
services to residents of naturally occurring retirement
communities will ensure that best practices are developed
and/or replicated nationwide. It is an innovative and
exciting opportunity to study aging-in-place populations and
postpone or avoid institutionalization for these populations.
I strongly support this legislation and appreciate your
tireless efforts on behalf of older adults.
Sincerely,
Barry Rosenberg,
Executive Vice President.
S. 2842
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 ``Senior Self-Sufficiency
Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.
Part A of title IV of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3001 et seq) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 422. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN NATURALLY OCCURRING
RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES.
``(a) Program Authorized.--The Assistant Secretary shall
award grants to eligible entities to carry out 10
demonstration projects to provide comprehensive supportive
services to older individuals who reside in noninstitutional
residences in naturally occurring retirement communities to
enhance the quality of life of such individuals and reduce
the need to institutionalize such individuals. Those
residences for which assistance is provided under section 202
of the National Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q) in
naturally occurring retirement communities shall not receive
services through a demonstration project under this section
if such services would otherwise be provided as part of the
assistance received by such residences under such section
202.
``(b) Eligible Entity.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section if
[[Page S7910]]
such entity is a nonprofit public or private agency,
organization, or institution that proposes to provide
services only in geographical areas considered to be low- or
middle-income areas.
``(c) Priority.--
``(1) In general.--In awarding grants under this section,
the Assistant Secretary shall give priority to eligible
entities that provided comprehensive supportive services in
fiscal year 2002 to older individuals who resided in
noninstitutional residences in naturally occurring retirement
communities.
``(2) Rural areas.--Two of the 10 grants awarded under this
section shall be awarded to eligible entities that propose to
provide services to residents in rural areas.
``(d) Grant Period.--Each grant awarded under this section
shall be awarded for a period of 4 years, with not more than
$1,000,000 being awarded annually.
``(e) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Assistant Secretary in such form and containing such
information as the Assistant Secretary may require, including
a plan for continuing services provided under the grant after
the grant expires.
``(f) Limitations.--
``(1) Cost-sharing.--An eligible entity receiving a grant
under this section may require cost-sharing from individuals
receiving services only in a manner consistent with the
requirements of title III.
``(2) Construction.--An entity may not use funds received
under a grant under this section to construct or permanently
improve (other than remodeling to make facilities accessible
to older individuals) any building or other facility.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Naturally occurring retirement community.--The term
`naturally occurring retirement community' means a
geographical area in which not less than 40 percent of the
noninstitutional residences are occupied for not less than 10
years by heads of households who are older individuals, but
does not include residences for which assistance is provided
under section 202 of the National Housing Act of 1959 (12
U.S.C. 1701q). The definition provided for in the previous
sentence may be modified by the Secretary as such definition
relates to grants for rural areas.
``(2) Supportive services.--The term `supportive services'
means services offered to residents that may include--
``(A) case management;
``(B) health services and education;
``(C) nutrition services, nutrition education, meals, and
meal delivery;
``(D) transportation services;
``(E) home and personal care services;
``(F) continuing adult education;
``(G) information and referral services; and
``(H) any other services and resources appropriate to
enhance the quality of life of residents and reduce the need
to institutionalize such individuals.
``(h) Matching Requirement.--The Assistant Secretary may
not make a grant to an eligible entity under this section
unless that entity agrees that, with respect to the costs to
be incurred by the entity in carrying out the program for
which the grant was awarded, the entity will make available
in cash or in-kind (directly or through donations from public
or private entities) non-Federal contributions equaling 5
percent of Federal funds provided under the grant for the
second year that such grant is provided, 10 percent of
Federal funds provided under the grant for the third year
that such grant is provided, and 15 percent of Federal funds
provided under the grant for the fourth year that such grant
is provided.
``(i) Report.--Not later than the beginning of the fourth
year of distributing grants under this section, the Assistant
Secretary shall evaluate services provided with funds under
this section and submit a report to Congress summarizing the
results of such evaluation and recommending what services
should be taken in the future.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, not
more than $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through
2006.''.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 2843. A bill to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
promulgate a rule that requires manufacturers of certain consumer
products to establish and maintain a system for providing notification
of recalls of such products to consumers who first purchase such a
product; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to come to the floor
today and introduce a bill that I believe will make it easier for
parents to learn about dangerous products that may harm their children,
and remove these products from their homes.
Every year, more than 1.7 million children under the age of 5 are
harmed by defective or hazardous products. As my colleagues know, each
year the Consumer Products Safety Commission recalls hundreds of
products which have been found to pose a danger to consumers.
Unfortunately, many times parents do not get the word about these
recalls, because companies often do not have a way of getting in touch
with their customers. This is particularly significant when you are
talking about children's products. The manufacturers of these products
rarely have records of who their customers are; often all they can do
is publicize the recall as best they can. It is for this reason, that I
am introducing the Product Safety Notification and Recall Effectiveness
Act of 2002.
This legislation would require the Consumer Products Safety
Commission to establish a rule to require manufacturers to establish
and maintain a system for notifying consumers of the recall of certain
products that may cause harm to children. The database could be
assembled through the use of shortened product registration cards,
Internet registration, or other alternate means of encouraging
consumers to provide vital contact information.
As an example for my colleagues, I just want to touch on one method
that this bill would encourage companies to use. We've all seen the
registration cards that come with many products. It is these cards that
provide companies with much of the information on their customers, and
could be used to help spread the word about a recall. Unfortunately,
many consumers just throw these cards away without even sending them
in. In fact, by some estimates 90 percent of these cards are thrown
away. Why? Well, one reason is because the cards ask for personal and
marketing information that many people do not want to give out. So they
throw the card away.
But if you shorten the card, to just ask for the basic information,
name, address, and phone number, people are much more likely to return
them. This is particularly true if the card specifies the information
will not be used for marketing purposes. These cards are an idea that
Ann Brown, former chairman of the CPSC and now Chairman of the non-
profit group SAFE, a Safer America for Everyone Foundation, has been
advocating for years. And studies done with companies like Mattel and
BrandStamp have shown that these methods really do increase the number
of consumers who respond.
So, I come to the floor today to say that this is something we need
to do, and we need to do it as quickly as possible. This is a very
important bill for our citizens. I am hopeful that we can get a hearing
on this legislation very soon.
Before I close, I just want to commend Ann Brown and the folks at
SAFE for all of their hard work on product recall. I introduced this
legislation in the Senate today, but Ann is the one who has been
pushing this issue for years, since she served on the CPSC. I am proud
to work with her on this and want to thank her for her monumental
efforts to bring this to the forefront. I also want to acknowledge my
colleagues, Congressman Jim Moran and Congressman James McGovern, who
introduced this bill in the House of Representatives. And, of course, I
look forward to working with the CPSC on this bill. I know they had
some problems with this bill initially, and I am hopeful we have
addressed most of these concerns.
I want to encourage my colleagues to support this much-needed
legislation. By passing this bill, we can give parents the information
they need to protect their children. When a child is hurt or killed by
a defective product that has already been recalled, there simply is no
excuse. This legislation would go a long way towards ensuring that this
kind of tragedy never happens again.
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. 2843
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 ``Product Safety Notification
and Recall Effectiveness Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Consumer Product Safety Commission conducts
approximately 300 recalls of hazardous, dangerous, and
defective consumer products each year.
(2) In developing comprehensive corrective action plans
with recalling companies, the
[[Page S7911]]
Consumer Product Safety Commission staff greatly relies upon
the media and retailers to alert consumers to the dangers of
unsafe consumer products, because the manufacturers do not
generally possess contact information regarding the
purchasing consumers. Based upon information received from
companies maintaining customer registration lists, such
contact information is known for generally less than 7
percent of the total consumer products produced and
distributed.
(3) The Consumer Product Safety Commission staff has found
that most consumers do not return purchaser identification
cards because of requests for marketing and personal
information on the cards, and the likelihood of receiving
unsolicited marketing materials.
(4) The Consumer Product Safety Commission staff has
conducted research demonstrating that direct consumer contact
is one of the most effective ways of motivating consumer
response to a consumer product recall.
(5) Companies that maintain consumer product purchase data,
such as product registration cards, warranty cards, and
rebate cards, are able to effectively notify consumers of a
consumer product recall.
(6) The Consumer Product Safety Commission staff has found
that a consumer product safety owner card, without marketing
questions or requests for personal information, that
accompanied products such as small household appliances and
juvenile products would increase consumer participation and
information necessary for direct notification in consumer
product recalls.
(7) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has,
since March 1993, required similar simplified, marketing-free
product registration cards on child safety seats used in
motor vehicles.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to reduce the
number of deaths and injuries from defective and hazardous
consumer products through improved recall effectiveness, by--
(1) requiring the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
promulgate a rule to require manufacturers of juvenile
products, small household appliances, and certain other
consumer products, to include a simplified product safety
owner card with those consumer products at the time of
original purchase by consumers, or develop effective
electronic registration of the first purchasers of such
products, to develop a customer database for the purpose of
notifying consumers about recalls of those products; and
(2) encouraging manufacturers, private labelers, retailers,
and others to use creativity and innovation to create and
maintain effective methods of notifying consumers in the
event of a consumer product recall.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) Terms defined in consumer product safety act.--The
definitions set forth in section 3 of the Consumer Product
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052) shall apply to this Act.
(2) Covered consumer product.--The term ``covered consumer
product'' means--
(A) a juvenile product;
(B) a small household appliance; and
(C) such other consumer product as the Commission considers
appropriate for achieving the purpose of this Act.
(3) Juvenile product.--The term ``juvenile product''--
(A) means a consumer product intended for use, or that may
be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age
of 5 years; and
(B) includes--
(i) full-size cribs and nonfull-size cribs;
(ii) toddler beds;
(iii) high chairs, booster chairs, and hook-on chairs;
(iv) bath seats;
(v) gates and other enclosures for confining a child;
(vi) playpens;
(vii) stationary activity centers;
(viii) strollers;
(ix) walkers;
(x) swings;
(xi) child carriers; and
(xii) bassinets and cradles.
(4) Product safety owner card.--The term ``product safety
owner card'' means a standardized product identification card
supplied with a consumer product by the manufacturer of the
product, at the time of original purchase by the first
purchaser of such product for purposes other than resale,
that only requests that the consumer of such product provide
to the manufacturer a minimal level of personal information
needed to enable the manufacturer to contact the consumer in
the event of a recall of the product.
(5) Small household appliance.--The term ``small household
appliance'' means a consumer product that is a toaster,
toaster oven, blender, food processor, coffee maker, or other
similar small appliance as provided for in the rule
promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
SEC. 4. RULE REQUIRING SYSTEM TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF RECALLS OF
CERTAIN CONSUMER PRODUCTS.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall promulgate a rule
under section 16(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15
U.S.C. 2065(b)) that requires that the manufacturer of a
covered consumer product shall establish and maintain a
system for providing notification of recalls of such product
to consumers of such product.
(b) Requirement To Create Database.--
(1) In general.--The rule shall require that the system
include use of product safety owner cards, Internet
registration, or an alternative method, to create a database
of information regarding consumers of covered consumer
products, for the sole purpose of notifying such consumers of
recalls of such products.
(2) Use of technology.--Alternative methods specified in
the rule may include use of on-line product registration and
consumer notification, consumer information data bases,
electronic tagging and bar codes, embedded computer chips in
consumer products, or other electronic and design strategies
to notify consumers about product recalls, that the
Commission determines will increase the effectiveness of
recalls of covered consumer products.
(c) Use of Commission Staff Proposal.--In promulgating the
rule, the Commission shall consider the staff draft for an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled ``Purchaser
Owner Card Program'', dated June 19, 2001.
(d) Exclusion of Low-Price Items.--The Commission shall
have the authority to exclude certain low-cost items from the
rule for good cause.
(e) Deadlines.--
(1) In general.--The Commission--
(A) shall issue a proposed rule under this section by not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act;
and
(B) shall promulgate a final rule under this section by not
later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Extension.--The Commission may extend the deadline
described in paragraph (1) if the Commission provides timely
notice to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2844. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a tax incentive to individuals teaching in elementary and secondary
schools located in rural or high unemployment areas and to individuals
who achieve certification from the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, perhaps the most effective way to
improve the education of America's children is to ensure that they
begin their education in an uncrowded classroom led by a qualified
teacher. This body recognized that fact when we overwhelmingly passed
the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' last year, mandating the hiring of
qualified teachers by every school in every district.
Unfortunately, without our help, America's poor and rural schools may
not be able to attract the qualified teachers this legislation mandates
and our children deserve. Isolated and impoverished, competing against
higher paying and well-funded school districts for scarce classroom
talent, they are already facing a desperate shortage of qualified
teachers. As pressure to hire increases, that shortage will become a
crisis, and children already at a disadvantage in relation to their
more affluent and less isolated peers will be the ones who suffer most.
Today, I propose a bill that will help bring dedicated and qualified
teaching professionals to West Virginia's and America's poor and rural
schools, and help give their students the opportunity to learn and
flourish that every child deserves. The Incentives To Educate American
Children Act, or ``I Teach'' Act, will provide teachers a refundable
tax credit every year they practice their profession in the public
schools where they are needed most. And it will give every public
school teacher, whichever school they choose, a refundable tax credit
for earning certification by the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards. Together, these two tax credits will give
economically depressed areas a better ability to recruit and retain
skilled teachers.
One-fourth of America's children attend public schools in rural
areas, and of the 250 poorest counties in the United States, 244 are
rural. West Virginia has rural schools scattered through 36 of its 55
counties, and these schools face real challenges in recruiting and
retaining teachers, as well as dealing with other issues related to
their rural location.
Attracting teachers to these schools is difficult in large part due
to the vast gap between what rural districts are able to offer and the
salaries paid by more affluent school districts, as wide as $20,000 a
year, according to one study. Poor urban schools must overcome similar
difficulties. It is often a challenge for these schools to attract and
keep qualified teachers. Yet, according to the 2001 No Child Left
Behind Act, every school must have
[[Page S7912]]
qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
My ``I Teach'' Act will reward teachers willing to work in rural or
high poverty schools with an annual $1,000 refundable tax credit. If
the teacher obtains certification by the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards, they will receive an additional annual
$1,000 refundable tax credit.
Every teacher willing to work in underserved schools will earn a tax
credit. Every teacher who gets certified will earn a tax credit.
Teachers who work in rural or poor schools and get certified will earn
both. Schools who desperately need help attracting teachers will get a
boost. And children educated in poor and rural schools will benefit
most.
In my State of West Virginia, as in over 30 other States, there is
already a State fiscal incentive for teachers who earn National Board
certification. My legislation builds upon the West Virginia program;
together, they add up to a powerful tax incentive for teachers to
remain in the classroom and to use their skills where they are most
needed.
I have spent a great deal of time in West Virginia classrooms this
year, and it has become obvious to me that our education agenda suffers
greatly from inadequate funding on a number of fronts. In response, I
have introduced a series of bills attacking different aspects of the
problem.
A qualified teacher is a great start, but children also deserve a
safe, modern classroom. And so, in addition to the ``I Teach'' Act, I
have introduced a measure to encourage investment in school
construction and renovations.
I am promoting legislation to develop Math and Science Partnerships
at the National Science Foundation, to place needed emphasis on these
core subjects.
And to ensure that every student, including those in rural areas, has
access to modern technology and the wealth of educational resources on
the web, I remain vigilant in protecting the E-Rate, which provides
$2.25 billion in annual discounts to connect our schools and libraries
to the Internet.
Education is among our top national priorities, essential for every
family with a child and vital for our economic and national security. I
supported the bold goals and higher standards of the 2001 No Child Left
Behind Act, but they won't be met unless our schools have the teachers
and resources they need. I am committed to working closely with my
Senate colleagues this fall to secure as much funding as possible for
our children's education.
No amount of construction or technology can replace a qualified and
motivated teacher, however, and making it easier for underserved
schools to attract the teachers they need remains one of my most
important objectives. I hope each of my colleagues will join me in
supporting this important legislation which takes a great stride toward
better education for every child in the United States.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 2847. A bill to assist in the conservation of cranes by supporting
and providing, through projects of persons and organizations with
expertise in crane conservation, financial resources for the
conservation programs of countries the activities of which directly or
indirectly affect cranes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crane
Conservation Act of 2002. I propose this legislation in the hope that
Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds,
whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide.
This legislation is important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State
provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this
legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts
both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a
larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the
boundaries of my home State.
In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided
support for multinational Rhino and Tiger conservation through the
creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF.
Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF
distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation
groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its
establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover
other species, such as elephants and great apes.
Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to
add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds
in the world, with ten of the world's fifteen species at risk of
extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $3
million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation
project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial
resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying
conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The
program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2007.
In keeping with my belief that we should maintain fiscal integrity,
this bill proposes that the $15 million in authorized spending over
five years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this
legislation should be offset by rescinding $18 million in unspent funds
from funds carried over the Department of Energy's Clean Coal
Technology Program in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to
transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act
back to the Treasury at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. I do not intend my
bill to make any particular judgments about the Clean Coal program or
its effectiveness, but I do think, in general, that programs should
expend resources that we appropriate in a timely fashion.
I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant
decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without
conservation efforts. The decline of the North American whooping crane,
the rarest crane on earth, perfectly illustrates the dangers faced by
these birds. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire
world. This stands in contrast to the almost 400 birds in existence
today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to
the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists
in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North
American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its
winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being
reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the
Wisconsin to Florida flyway.
This flock of five birds illustrates that any effort by Congress to
regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and
international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from
Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude
of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National
Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife
Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in
the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional
watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance,
disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population,
and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Despite
the conservation efforts taken since 1941, this symbol of conservation
is still very much in danger of extinction.
While over the course of the last half-century, North American
whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of
crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of
Asia and the wattled crane of Africa.
The sarus crane is a symbol of martial fidelity in many Asian
cultures, especially Laos, Thailand and Indonesia. Additionally, in
northern India, western Nepal, and Vietnam, these birds are a symbol of
fertility, lending them as important religious significance. Standing
at four feet tall, these birds can be found in the wetlands of northern
India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered
plains or marshes to breed and survive.
Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin
development, pollution, warfare, and heavy
[[Page S7913]]
use of pesticides, which is found to be highly prevalent in India and
southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline.
Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration
compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through
Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth
and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from
India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading
of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the
drop-in population of the sarus crane.
Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in
northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one
resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the
main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In
Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.
The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation
of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found
in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the
mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000
to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of
wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction,
and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of
dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further
endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or
near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of
oversight and education over the actions of humans, industry, and
agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which
cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in
these regions.
If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the
ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the
decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit
can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local
farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest
positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile
habitats. This small investment can secure the future of these
exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore,
I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2002.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr.
Kerry, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Miller):
S. 2848. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for a clarification of the definition of homebound for purposes
of determining eligibility for home health services under the medicare
program; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators
Cleland, Hutchinson, Kerry, Snowe and Miller in introducing the David
Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 2002 to modernize
Medicare's outdated ``homebound'' requirement that has impeded access
to needed home health services for many of our nation's elderly and
disabled Medicare beneficiaries.
Health care in American has gone full circle. People are spending
less time in institutions, and recovery and care for patients with
chronic diseases and conditions has increasingly been taking place in
the home. The highly skilled and often technically complex care that
our home health agencies provide have enabled millions of our most
vulnerable older and disabled individuals to avoid hospitals and
nursing homes and stay just where they belong, in the comfort and
security of their own homes.
Under current law, a Medicare patient must be considered
``homebound'' if he or she is to be eligible for home health services.
While an individual is not actually required to be bedridden to qualify
for benefits, his or her conditions must be such that ``there exists a
normal inability to leave home.'' The statute does allow for absences
from the home of ``infrequent'' or ``relatively short duration.''
Unfortunately, however, it does not define precisely what this means.
It leaves it to the fiscal intermediaries to interpret just how many
absences qualify as ``frequent'' and just how short those absences must
be. Interpretations of this definition have therefore varied widely.
As a consequence, there have been far too many instances where an
overzealous or arbitrary interpretation of the definition has turned
elderly or disabled Medicare beneficiaries, who are dependent upon
Medicare home health services and medical equipment for survival, into
virtual prisoners in their own home. We have heard disturbing accounts
of individuals on Medicare who have had their home health benefits
terminated for leaving their homes to visit a hospitalized spouse or to
attend a family gathering, including, in one case, to attend the
funeral of their own child.
Under current law, a Medicare patient must be considered
``homebound'' if he or she is to be eligible for home health services.
While an individual is not actually required to be bedridden to quality
for benefits, his or her condition must be such that ``there exists a
normal inability to leave home.''
The statute does allow for absences from the home that are
``infrequent and of short duration.'' It also gives specific permission
for the individual to leave home to attend medical appointments, adult
day care or religious services. Otherwise, it leaves it to the fiscal
intermediaries to interpret just how many absences qualify as
``frequent'' and just how short those absences must be. Interpretations
of this definition have therefore varied widely.
As a consequence, there have been far too many instances where an
overzealous or arbitrary interpretation of the definition has turned
elderly or disabled Medicare recipients, who are dependent upon
Medicare home health services and medical equipment for survival, into
virtual prisoners in their own homes.
The current homebound requirement is particularly hard on younger,
disabled Medicare patients. For example, I recently met with David
Jayne, a 40-year old man with Lou Gehrig's disease, who is confined to
a wheelchair and cannot swallow, speak or even breathe on his own. Mr.
Jayne needs several skilled nursing visits per week to enable him to
remain independent and out of an inpatient facility. Despite his
disability, Mr. Jayne meets frequently with youth and church groups.
Speaking through a computerized voice synthesizer, he gives
inspirational talks about how the human spirit can endure and even
overcome great hardship.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran a feature article on Mr. Jayne
and his activities, including a report about how he had, with the help
of family and friends, attended a football game to root for the
University of Georgia Bulldogs. A few days later, at the direction of
the fiscal intermediary, his home health agency, which had been sending
a health care worker to his home for two hours, four mornings a week,
notified him that he could no longer be considered homebound, and that
his benefits were being cut off. While his benefits were subsequently
reinstated due to the media attention given the case, this experience
motivated him to launch a crusade to modernize the homebound definition
and led him to found the National Coalition to Amend the Medicare
Homebound Restriction.
The current homebound requirement is particularly hard on younger,
disabled individuals who are on Medicare. The fact is that the current
requirement reflects an outmoded view of life for persons who live with
serious disabilities. The homebound criteria may have made sense thirty
years ago, when an elderly or disabled person might expect to live in
the confines of their home, perhaps cared for by an extended family.
The current definition, however, fails to reflect the technological and
medical advances that have been made in supporting individuals with
significant disabilities and mobility challenges. It also fails to
reflect advances in treatment for seriously ill individuals, like Mr.
Jayne, which allow them brief periods of relative wellness.
It also fails to recognize that an individual's mental acuity an
physical stamina can only be maintained by use, and that the use of the
body and mind is encouraged by social interactions outside the four
walls of a home.
[[Page S7914]]
The David Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 2002 will
amend the homebound definition to base eligibility for the home health
benefit on the patient's functional limitations and clinical condition,
rather than on an arbitrary limitation on absences from the home. It
will provide a specific, limited exception to the homebound rule for
individuals who:
One, have been certified by a physician has having a permanent and
severe condition that will not improve;
Two, who need assistance from another person with 3 or more of the 5
activities of daily living and require technological and/or personal
assistance with the act of leaving home;
Three, who have received Medicare home health services during the
previous 12 month period; and
Four, who are only able to leave home because the services provided
through the home health benefit makes it possible for them to do so.
We believe that our legislation is budget neutral because it is
specifically limited to individuals who are already eligible for
Medicare and whose conditions require the assistance of a skilled
nurse, therapist or home health aide to make it functionally possible
for them to leave the home. Our legislation does not expand Medicare
eligibility--it simply gives people who are already eligible for the
benefit their freedom.
This issue was first brought to my attention by former Senator Robert
Dole, who has long been a vigorous advocate for people with
disabilities. Our proposal is also supported by the Consortium of
Citizens with Disabilities, the Visiting Nurse Associations of America,
the National Association for Home Care, Advancing Independence:
Modernizing Medicare and Medicaid, AIMM, and the National Coalition to
Amend the Medicare Homebound Restriction.
Moreover, the David Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of
2002 is consistent with President Bush's ``New Freedom Initiative''
which has, as its goal, the removal of barriers that impede
opportunities for those with disabilities to integrate more fully into
the community. By allowing reasonable absences from the home, our
amendment will bring the Medicare home health benefit into the 21st
Century, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to getting it
done.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 2849. A bill to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for
research, to provide better coordination of Federal efforts and
information on islet cell transplantation, and to collect the data
necessary to move islet cell transplantation from an experimental
procedure to a standard therapy; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. Collins. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Washington, Senator Murray, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell
Transplantation Act of 2002 which will help to advance important
research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than one million
Americans with Type 1 or juvenile diabetes.
As the founder and Co-Chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have
learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties
and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families
as they await a cure. Diabetes is a devastating, life-long condition
that affects people of every age, race and nationality. It is the
leading cause of kidney failure, blindness in adults, and amputations
not related to injury. Moreover, diabetes costs the nation more than
$105 billion a year, one out of every ten health care dollars, in
health-related expenditures.
The burden of diabetes is particularly heavy for children and young
adults with juvenile diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is the second most
common chronic disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that
they never outgrow.
In individuals with juvenile diabetes, the body's immune system
attacks the pancreas and destroys the islet cells that produce insulin.
While the discovery of insulin was a landmark breakthrough in the
treatment of people with diabetes, it is not a cure, and people with
juvenile diabetes face the constant threat of developing devastating,
life-threatening complications as well as a drastic reduction in their
quality of life.
Thankfully, there is good news for people with diabetes. We have seen
some tremendous breakthroughs in diabetes research in recent years, and
I am convinced that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and will
be cured in the near future.
We were all encouraged by the development of the ``Edmonton
Protocol,'' an experimental treatment developed at the University of
Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic
islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in
diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. Of the
approximately 70 patients who have been treated using variation of the
Edmonton Protocol over the past two years, all have seen a reversal of
their life-disabling hypoglycemia, and nearly 80 percent have
maintained normal glucose levels without insulin shots for more than
two years.
Moreover, the side effects associated with this treatment--which uses
more islet cells and a less-toxic combination of immunosuppressive
drugs than previous, less successful protocols--have been mild, and the
therapy has been generally well-tolerated by most patients.
Unfortunately, long-term use of toxic immunosuppressive drugs, has
side-effects that make the current treatment inappropriate for use in
children. Researchers, however, are working hard to find a way to
reduce the transplant recipient's dependence on these drugs so that the
procedure will be appropriate for children in the future, and the
protocol has been hailed around the world as a remarkable breakthrough
and proof that islet transplantation can work. It appears to offer the
most immediate chance to achieve a cure for juvenile diabetes, and the
research is moving forward rapidly.
New sources of islet cells must be found, however, because, as the
science advances and continues to demonstrate promise, the number of
islet cell transplants that can be performed will be limited by a
serious shortage of pancreases available for islet cell
transplantation. There currently are only 2,000 pancreases donated
annually, and, of these, only about 500 are available each year for
islet cell transplants. Moreover, most patients require islet cells
from two pancreases for the procedure to work effectively.
The legislation we are introducing today will increase the supply of
pancreases available for these trials and research. Our legislation
will direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to grant
credit to organ procurement organizations, OPS, for the purposes of
their certification--for pancreases harvested and used for islet cell
transplantation and research.
Currently, CMS collects performance data from each OPO based upon the
number of organs procured for transplant relative to the population of
the OPO's service area. While CMS considers a pancreas to have been
procured for transplantation if it is used for a whole organ
transplant, the OPO receives no credit towards its certification if the
pancreas is procured and used for islet cell transplantation or
research. Our legislation will therefore give the OPOs an incentive to
step up their efforts to increase the supply of pancreases donated for
this purpose.
In addition, the legislation establishes an inter-agency committee on
islet cell transplantation comprised of representatives of all of the
federal agencies with an active role in supporting this research. The
many advisory committees on organ transplantation that currently exist
are so broad in scope that the issue of islet cell transplantation--
while of great importance to the juvenile diabetes community--does not
rise to the level of consideration when included with broader issues
associated with organ donation, such as organ allocation policy and
financial barriers to transplantation. We believe that a more focused
effort in the area of islet cell transplantation is clearly warranted
since the research is moving forward at such a rapid pace and with such
remarkable results.
And finally, to help us collect the data necessary to move islet cell
transplantation from an experimental procedure to a standard therapy
covered by insurance, our legislation directs the Institute of Medicine
to conduct a study on the impact of islet cell transplantation on the
health-related quality of life for individuals with juvenile
[[Page S7915]]
diabetes as well as the cost-effectiveness of the treatment.
Islet cell transplantation offers real hope for people with juvenile
diabetes. Our legislation, which is strongly supported by the Juvenile
Diabetes Research Foundation, addresses some of the specific obstacles
to moving this research forward as rapidly as possible, and I urge all
of our colleagues to join us in sponsoring it.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 2853. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish
the Missouri River Monitoring and Research Program, to authorize the
establishment of the Missouri River Basin Stakeholder Committee, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Byron
dorgan in introducing legislation that will establish a world-class,
science-based long-term monitoring program for the Missouri River. As
America's longest river, fed by the headwaters of thousand, year-old
glaciers, the Missouri is intertwined into the fabric of the American
experience. Fed by dozens of tributaries crisscrossing Montana, North
and South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas, the Missouri River
supports hundreds of river species and provides crucial wildlife
habitat for migratory birds and other animals. The Missouri River also
sustains trophy walleye fishing on South Dakota's main stem reservoirs
and is the hub for the cultural and economic development of several
communities and Indian Tribes.
The Missouri River faces challenges on several fronts: The
manipulation of its water levels by the Corps of Engineers, the
continued development of river shoreline, and the invasion of nonnative
fish and plants. The Missouri River Enhancement and Monitoring Act of
2002 creates a comprehensive monitoring program to investigate and
examine how the multiple uses of the Missouri are impacting water
quality and the sustainability of fish and wildlife.
The legislation authorizes the establishment of a federal research
program through the Biological Resources Division of the USGS, the
Department of the Interior's research engine. The strength of the bill,
however, stems from the participation of the states, Indian Tribes, and
academic institutions all who have a stake in the health of the River.
To that end, the legislation authorizes the establishment of monitoring
field stations throughout the Missouri River basin. The bill also
includes a competitive funding process to contract with Indian Tribes
and basin States for the recovery of threatened species and specific
habitat restoration projects. These focused investigations will
encourage States and Indian Tribes to study the impact of water flows
on fish populations at main stem reservoirs.
Earlier this year, water releases from South Dakota reservoirs
damaged the spring fish spawn and the ecology of the Missouri River.
This bill authorizes funds for State agencies with jurisdiction over
fish and wildlife habitat to initiate projects that will be able to
tell us how low water levels at South Dakota reservoirs impact fish
populations and recreational opportunities.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish, and Parks in support of the Missouri River
Monitoring Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Department of Game,
Fish and Parks,
Pierre, SD, July 23, 2002.
Senator Tim Johnson,
Hart Senate Office,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnson: I would like to express my
appreciation for all of your efforts on behalf of Missouri
River fish and wildlife resources, especially the
introduction of the ``Missouri River Monitoring Act of
2002.'' The framework for this legislation. ``The Missouri
River Environmental Assessment Program (MOREAP), was
developed by the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee
(MRNRC) during 1996 and 1997 in partnership with the
Biological Resources Division of the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) and 79 Missouri River scientists and fish and
wildlife managers. The MRNRC was established in 1987 by my
agency and other main stem state fish and wildlife agencies
with statutory responsibilities for management and
stewardship of river fish and wildlife resources held in
trust for the public. We are accountable to the public for
management of those resources.
My staff and I have reviewed the proposed legislation and I
want you to know that we support your bill. The Missouri
River lacks a basin wide biological monitoring program and
environmental assessment is desperately needed. The need for
collecting comprehensive, long-term natural resource data to
understand the effects of future river management decisions
cannot be over-stated. This program will generate a system-
wide database on Missouri River water quality, habitat, and
biota that will provide the scientific foundation for
management decisions.
The Missouri River is 2,341 miles long and drains one-sixth
of the United States. It is one of the most important
resources in our country. Harnessing the river's flow and
constricting its channel has altered and reduced native fish
and wildlife habitat. Recovering declining fish and wildlife
resources in this extremely large, diverse and complex river
environment, while maintaining the important economic
benefits the river and reservoir system provides, will
require sound and ongoing scientific data.
The time has come to make management changes on the
Missouri River and those changes should be based on a
thorough understanding of how those changes affect the
river's environment. Scientific data will help us understand
the complex relationships between river management and fish
and wildlife habitat recovery.
I thank you once again for your help. This legislation has
the strong support of the South Dakota Department Game Fish
and Parks.
Sincerely,
John L. Cooper,
Department Secretary.
The time for a monitoring program for the Missouri River has arrived.
With the Corps of Engineers poised to revise the Missouri River Master
Water Control Manual, a monitoring program will establish a baseline
for judging the impact of new water flows. Years of scientific analysis
and research from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service point toward Corps
management of the river as the reason for diminished riparian habitat
and a laundry list of threatened fish and bird species. Scientific
monitoring must be part of a new Master Manual to examine how the new
water flows impact fish and wildlife populations. The Corps has spent
nearly 13 years and millions of dollars to find a consensus and
implement a new, more balanced Master Manual. The Missouri River
Enhancement and Monitoring Act of 2002 establishes a comprehensive
database to analyze and examine how fish and wildlife respond to a new
management plan. A long-term monitoring program will ensure that future
decisions over the Missouri River are based on sound science and not
politics.
As we approach the 200 year anniversary of Lewis and Clark's journey
up the Missouri River, I call on Congress to pass the Missouri River
Enhancement and Monitoring Act of 2002 to ensure the health and
vitality of the River for the enjoyment of future generations.
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. 2853
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 ``Missouri River Enhancement
and Monitoring Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Center.--The term ``Center'' means the River Studies
Center of the Biological Resources Division of the United
States Geological Survey, located in Columbia, Missouri.
(2) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the Missouri
River Basin Stakeholder Committee established under section
4(a).
(3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(4) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Missouri River
monitoring and research program established under section
3(a).
(5) River.--The term ``River'' means the Missouri River.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Biological Resources
Division of the United States Geological Survey.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) the State of Iowa;
(B) the State of Kansas;
(C) the State of Missouri;
(D) the State of Montana;
(E) the State of Nebraska;
(F) the State of North Dakota;
[[Page S7916]]
(G) the State of South Dakota; and
(H) the State of Wyoming.
(8) State agency.--The term ``State agency'' means an
agency of a State that has jurisdiction over fish and
wildlife of the River.
SEC. 3. MISSOURI RIVER MONITORING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish the
Missouri River monitoring and research Program--
(1)(A) to coordinate the collection of information on the
biological and water quality characteristics of the River;
and
(B) to evaluate how those characteristics are affected by
hydrology;
(2) to coordinate the monitoring and assessment of biota
(including threatened or endangered species) and habitat of
the River; and
(3) to make recommendations on means to assist in restoring
the ecosystem of the River.
(b) Consultation.--In establishing the program under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with--
(1) the Biological Resources Division of the United States
Geological Survey;
(2) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service;
(3) the Chief of Engineers;
(4) the Western Area Power Administration;
(5) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(6) the Governors of the States, acting through--
(A) the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee; and
(B) the Missouri River Basin Association; and
(7) the Indian tribes of the Missouri River Basin.
(c) Administration.--The Center shall administer the
program.
(d) Activities.--In administering the program, the Center
shall--
(1) establish a baseline of conditions for the River
against which future activities may be measured;
(2) monitor biota (including threatened or endangered
species), habitats, and the water quality of the River;
(3) if initial monitoring carried out under paragraph (2)
indicates that there is a need for additional research, carry
out any additional research appropriate to--
(A) advance the understanding of the ecosystem of the
River; and
(B) assist in guiding the operation and management of the
River;
(4) use any scientific information obtained from the
monitoring and research to assist in the recovery of the
threatened species and endangered species of the River; and
(5) establish a scientific database that shall be--
(A) coordinated among the States and Indian tribes of the
Missouri River Basin; and
(B) readily available to members of the public.
(e) Contracts With Indian Tribes.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall enter into contracts in accordance
with section 102 of the Indian Self-Determination Act (25
U.S.C. 450f) with Indian tribes that have--
(A) reservations located along the River; and
(B) an interest in monitoring and assessing the condition
of the River.
(2) Requirements.--A contract entered into under paragraph
(1) shall be for activities that--
(A) carry out the purposes of this Act; and
(B) complement any activities relating to the River that
are carried out by--
(i) the Center; or
(ii) the States.
(f) Monitoring and Recovery of Threatened Species and
Endangered Species.--The Center shall provide financial
assistance to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
State agencies to monitor and recover threatened species and
endangered species, including monitoring the response of
pallid sturgeon to reservoir operations on the mainstem of
the River.
(g) Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Center shall carry out a competitive
grant program under which the Center shall provide grants to
States, Indian tribes, research institutions, and other
eligible entities and individuals to conduct research on the
impacts of the operation and maintenance of the mainstem
reservoirs on the River on the health of fish and wildlife of
the River, including an analysis of any adverse social and
economic impacts that result from reoperation measures on the
River.
(2) Requirements.--On an annual basis, the Center, the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Director of the United States Geological Survey, and the
Missouri River Natural Resources Committee, shall--
(A) prioritize research needs for the River;
(B) issue a request for grant proposals; and
(C) award grants to the entities and individuals eligible
for assistance under paragraph (1).
(h) Allocation of Funds.--
(1) Center.--Of amounts made available to carry out this
section, the Secretary shall make the following percentages
of funds available to the Center:
(A) 35 percent for fiscal year 2003.
(B) 40 percent for fiscal year 2004.
(C) 50 percent for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2017.
(2) States and indian tribes.--Of amounts made available to
carry out this section, the Secretary shall use the following
percentages of funds to provide assistance to States or
Indian tribes of the Missouri River Basin to carry out
activities under subsection (d):
(A) 65 percent for fiscal year 2003.
(B) 60 percent for fiscal year 2004.
(C) 50 percent for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2017.
(3) Use of allocations.--
(A) In general.--Of the amount made available to the Center
for a fiscal year under paragraph (1)(C), not less than--
(i) 20 percent of the amount shall be made available to
provide financial assistance under subsection (f); and
(i) 33 percent of the amount shall be made available to
provide grants under subsection (g).
(B) Administrative and other expenses.--Any amount
remaining after application of subparagraph (A) shall be used
to pay the costs of--
(i) administering the program;
(ii) collecting additional information relating to the
River, as appropriate;
(iii) analyzing and presenting the information collected
under clause (ii); and
(iv) preparing any appropriate reports, including the
report required by subsection (i).
(i) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which
the program is established under subsection (a), and not less
often than every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary, in
cooperation with the individuals and agencies referred to in
subsection (b), shall--
(1) review the program;
(2) establish and revise the purposes of the program, as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
(3) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a
report on the environmental health of the River, including--
(A) recommendations on means to assist in the comprehensive
restoration of the River; and
(B) an analysis of any adverse social and economic impacts
on the River, in accordance with subsection (g)(1).
SEC. 4. MISSOURI RIVER BASIN STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Governors of the States and the
governing bodies of the Indian tribes of the Missouri River
Basin shall establish a committee to be known as the
``Missouri River Basin Stakeholder Committee'' to make
recommendations to the Federal agencies with jurisdiction
over the River on means of restoring the ecosystem of the
River.
(b) Membership.--The Governors of the States and governing
bodies of the Indian tribes of the Missouri River Basin shall
appoint to the Committee--
(1) representatives of--
(A) the States; and
(B) Indian tribes of the Missouri River Basin;
(2) individuals in the States with an interest in or
expertise relating to the River; and
(3) such other individuals as the Governors of the States
and governing bodies of the Indian tribes of the Missouri
River Basin determine to be appropriate.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary--
(1) to carry out section 3--
(A) $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(B) $8,500,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(C) $15,100,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2017;
and
(2) to carry out section 4, $150,000 for fiscal year 2003.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson today in introducing this Missouri
River Enhancement and Monitoring Act of 2002 and thank him for his
efforts in working with me on this legislation. This bill will
establish a program to conduct research on, and monitor the health of,
the Missouri River to help recover threatened and endangered species,
such as the pallid sturgeon and piping plover.
This bill will enable those who are active in the Missouri River
Basin to collect and analyze baseline data, as river operations change,
so that we can monitor changes in the health of the river and in
species recovery in future years.
The program would also provide an analysis of the social and economic
impacts along the river. And, it would establish a stakeholder group to
make recommendations on the recovery of the Missouri River ecosystem.
The bill establishes a cooperative working arrangement between state,
regional federal, and tribal entities that are active in the Missouri
River Basin. I look forward to working with all of the stakeholders in
the Basin to implement this important legislation.
I am especially pleased that this legislation is supported by a broad
range of stakeholders, including the North Dakota State Water
Commission, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the North Dakota
Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Three Affiliated
[[Page S7917]]
Tribes, the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee, The Missouri
River Basin Association, the South Dakota Game and Fish Department,
American Rivers, and Environmental Defense.
I am confident that this legislation will enjoy bipartisan support,
because of its significance in helping to monitor and restore the
health of this historic River. Lewis and Clark traveled on this River.
This River also contributes to $80 million in recreation, fishing, and
tourism benefits in the Basin. I look forward to holding hearings on
this bill and hope that we will be able to pass it into law in the near
future.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 2854. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve disproportionate share medicare payments to hospitals serving
vulnerable populations; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing bipartisan legislation
today with Senators Roberts and Enzi that addresses some inequities in
the current Medicare disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, program.
The bill incorporates the recommendations by the Medicare Payment
Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, to address the current inequities in
the formula that harm rural hospitals and to better target the money to
safety net hospitals.
The Medicare DSH program was created with the purpose of assisting
hospitals that provide a substantial amount of care to low-income
beneficiaries, including seniors and disabled citizens served by
Medicare. To protect access to low-income Medicare beneficiaries, DSH
funds are provided to hospitals whose viability is threatened by
providing care, including unreimbursed care, to low-income patients.
Unfortunately, the current Medicare DSH formula does not adequately
reflect or target money appropriately to these safety net institutions
and it also inappropriately sets limits and inequities for rural
hospitals, which are a life-line to many of our Nation's senior
citizens and yet struggle due to such payment inequities in the
Medicare system.
This legislation adopts the recommendations of MedPAC to address
these inequities. According to MedPAC from its March 2000 ``Report to
the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy''--
The Commission believes that special policy changes are
needed to ameliorate several problems inherent in the
existing disproportionate share payment system. The current
low-income share measure does not include care to all the
poor; most notably, it omits uncompensated care. Instead, the
measure relies on the share of resources devoted to treating
Medicaid recipients to represent the low-income patient load
for the entire nonelderly poor population.
New Mexico leads the Nation in the percentage of uninsured in its
populations, according to the Census Bureau. Consequently, as MedPAC
has noted repeatedly, the hospitals in my state lose more money to
uncompensated care than similarly situated hospitals in other states.
Because the Medicare DSH formula fails to account for uncompensated
care directly but instead uses Medicaid as a proxy, the hospitals in
New Mexico are not fairly compensated by the Medicare DSH formula.
To address this problem, MedPAC recommends the formula ``include the
costs of all poor patients in calculating low-income shares used to
distribute disproportionate share payments. . . .'' The legislation we
are introducing today would make that important change on behalf of our
Nation's safety net hospitals.
In addition, MedPAC notes that the current Medicare DSH program has
10 different formulas. MedPAC adds, ``In particular, current policy
favors hospitals located in urban areas; almost half of urban hospitals
receive DSH payments, compared with only one-fifth of rural
facilities.''
Although BIPA improved the equity of DSH payments by raising the
minimum low-income share needed to qualify for a payment adjustment for
rural hospitals to that of urban hospitals, BIPA capped the DSH add-on
payments a rural hospital can receive at just 5.25 percent, except for
those rural hospitals already receiving higher payments due to the sole
community hospital or rural referral center status. While MedPAC
estimated the change made about 840 additional rural hospitals, or 40
percent of all rural facilities, eligible to receive DSH payments, the
cap maintains some of the inequities between urban and rural hospitals.
Again, according to MedPAC in its June 2001 ``Report to Congress:
Medicare in Rural America'':
Rural hospitals were responsible for 12.8 percent of the
care provided to Medicaid and uncompensated care patients
nationally in 1999. With the DSH payment rules in effect
through 2000, only 3.1 percent of payments went to rural
facilities; BIPA rules would increase that proportion to 6.9
percent.
To address this problem, MedPAC also recommends using the ``same
formula to distribute payments to all hospitals covered by prospective
payment.''
In incorporating the recommendations of MedPAC in this legislation,
it is estimated the bill would increase rural DSH payments by 5.4
percent across the country, including an 8.4 percent increase for rural
hospitals with less than 50 beds. Our Nation's public hospitals would
also benefit greatly, as urban public hospitals and rural government
facilities are estimated to receive increases of 3.6 percent and 7.7
percent, respectively, under this legislation.
This legislation I am introducing with Senators Roberts and Enzi
addresses some long-standing inequities in the Medicare DSH formula. I
urge its adoption this year.
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. 2854
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 ``Medicare Safety Net Hospital
Improvement Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF DATA AND MODIFICATION OF
DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO
HOSPITALS SERVING VULNERABLE POPULATIONS.
(a) Collection of Data.--Section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new clause:
``(xiv) The Secretary shall collect from each subsection
(d) hospital annual data on inpatient and outpatient charges,
including all such charges for each of the following
categories:
``(I) All patients.
``(II) Patients who are entitled to benefits under part A
and are entitled to benefits (excluding any State
supplementation) under the supplemental security income
program under title XVI.
``(III) Patients who are entitled to (or, if they applied,
would be eligible for) medical assistance under title XIX or
child health assistance under title XXI.
``(IV) Patients who are beneficiaries of indigent care
programs sponsored by State or local governments (including
general assistance programs) which are funded solely by local
or State funds or by a combination of local, State, or
Federal funding.
``(V) The amount of charity care charges and bad debt.''.
(b) Modification.--Section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)), as amended by
subsection (a), is amended--
(1) by striking all the matter preceding clause (xiv) and
inserting the following:
``(F)(i) The Secretary shall provide, in accordance with
this subparagraph, for an additional payment amount for each
subsection (d) hospital which serves a significantly
disproportionate number of low-income patients (as defined in
clause (iv)).
``(ii) The amount of the payment described in clause (i)
for each discharge shall be determined by multiplying--
``(I) the sum of the amount determined under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii)(II) (or, if applicable, the amount determined
under paragraph (1)(A)(iii)) and, for cases qualifying for
additional payment under subparagraph (A)(i), the amount paid
to the hospital under subparagraph (A) for that discharge, by
``(II) the disproportionate share adjustment percentage
established under clause (iii) for the cost reporting period
in which the discharge occurs.
``(iii) The disproportionate share adjustment percentage
for a cost reporting period for a hospital is equal to (P-
T)(C), where--
``(I) `P' is equal to the hospital's disproportionate
patient percentage (as defined in clause (v)) for the period;
``(II) `T' is equal to the threshold percentage established
by the Secretary under clause (iv); and
``(III) `C' is equal to a conversion factor established by
the Secretary in a manner so that, in applying such
conversion factor for cost reporting periods beginning in
fiscal year 2002--
[[Page S7918]]
``(aa) the total of the additional payments that would have
been made under this subparagraph for cost reporting periods
beginning in fiscal year 2002 if the amendment made by
section 2(b) of the Medicare Safety Net Hospital Improvement
Act of 2002 had been in effect; are equal to
``(bb) the total of the additional payments that would have
been made under this subparagraph for cost reporting periods
beginning in fiscal year 2002 if such amendment was not in
effect but if the disproportionate share adjustment
percentage (as defined in clause (iv) (as in effect during
such cost reporting periods)) for all hospitals was equal to
the percent determined in accordance with the applicable
formulae described in clause (vii) (as so in effect).
The Secretary shall establish the conversion factor under
subclause (III) based upon the data described in clause (iv)
that is collected by the Secretary.
``(iv) For purposes of this subparagraph, a hospital
`serves a significantly disproportionate number of low-income
patients' for a cost reporting period if the hospital has a
disproportionate patient percentage (as defined in clause
(v)) for that period which equals or exceeds a threshold
percentage, as established by the Secretary in a manner so
that, if the amendment made by section 2(b) of the Medicare
Safety Net Hospital Improvement Act of 2002 had been in
effect for cost reporting periods beginning in fiscal year
2002 and if the disproportionate share adjustment percentage
(as defined in clause (iv) (as in effect during such
periods)) for all hospitals was equal to the percent
determined in accordance with the applicable formulae
described in clause (vii) (as so in effect), 60 percent of
subsection (d) hospitals would have been eligible for an
additional payment under this subparagraph for such periods.
The Secretary shall establish such threshold percentage based
upon the data described in clause (iv) that is collected by
the Secretary.
``(v) In this subparagraph, the term `disproportionate
patient percentage' means, with respect to a cost reporting
period of a hospital (expressed as a percentage)--
``(I) the charges described in subclauses (II) through (V)
of clause (vi) for such period; divided by
``(II) the charges described in subclause (I) of such
clause for such period.''; and
(2) by redesignating clause (xiv) as clause (vi).
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Medicare.--
(A) Qualified long-term care hospital.--Section
1886(b)(3)(G)(ii)(II) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(b)(3)(G)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ``of at least
70 percent (as determined by the Secretary under subsection
(d)(5)(F)(vi))'' and inserting ``under subsection
(d)(5)(F)(v) equal to or greater than an appropriate
percentage (as determined by the Secretary)''.
[(B) Provider-based status.--Section 404(b)(2)(B) of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-507), as enacted into
law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, is amended by
striking ``greater than 11.75 percent or is described in
clause (i)(II) of such section'' and inserting ``greater than
an appropriate percent (as determined by the Secretary)''.]
(2) Medicaid.--Section 1923(c) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(c)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``section
1886(d)(5)(F)(iv)'' and inserting ``section
1886(d)(5)(F)(iii)''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence.
(3) Public health service act.--Section 340B(a)(4)(L)(ii)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
256b(a)(4)(L)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) for the most recent cost reporting period that ended
before the calendar quarter involved--
``(I) in the case of a calendar quarter involved that
begins prior to April 1, 2004, had a disproportionate share
adjustment percentage (as determined under section
1886(d)(5)(F) of the Social Security Act) greater than 11.75
percent or was described in section 1886(d)(5)(F)(i)(II) of
such Act; and
``(II) in the case of a calendar quarter involved that
begins on or after April 1, 2004, had a disproportionate
share adjustment percentage (as so determined) that is
greater than an appropriate percent, as established by the
Secretary in a manner so that, with respect to the 12-month
period beginning on such date, the number of hospitals that
are described in this subparagraph is the same as, or greater
than, the number of hospitals that would have been described
in this subparagraph if the Medicare Safety Net Hospital
Improvement Act of 2002 had not been enacted; and''.
(d) Technical Amendments.--Section 1815(e)(1)(B) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395g(e)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``a''
before ``hospital''; and
(2) in clause (i), by striking ``(as established in clause
(iv) of such section)'' and inserting ``(as established in
section 1886(d)(5)(F)(iv), as in effect during fiscal year
1987)''.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) Collection.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Modification and conforming amendments.--The amendments
made by subsections (b) and (c) shall apply to payments for
discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2004.
(3) Technical amendments.--The amendments made by
subsection (d) shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of section 9311(a) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-509; 100 Stat.
1996).
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Graham):
S. 2855. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
improve the qualified medicare beneficiary (QMB) and special low-income
medicare beneficiary (SLMB) programs within the medicaid program; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with
Senator Rockefeller that will make significant and long-overdue
improvements in the programs that provide assistance to low-income
Medicare beneficiaries. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 5276,
which was introduced by Representatives John Dingell, Sherrod Brown,
Henry Waxman, and Pete Stark last week.
Medicare provides coverage to all 40 million elderly and disabled
beneficiaries, regardless of income, but the cost of uncovered
services, premiums, and cost-sharing is a serious burden on those with
the lowest incomes.
More than 40 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes below 200
percent of poverty, including 47 percent or 102,000 seniors in New
Mexico, at income levels below $17,720 for an individual and $23,880
for a couple. These low-income beneficiaries are nearly twice as likely
as higher-income beneficiaries to report their health status as fair or
poor, but are less likely to have private supplemental insurance to
cover the cost of uncovered services or Medicare cost-sharing. Poor
beneficiaries also bear a disproportionate burden in out-of-pocket
health care costs, spending more than a third of their incomes on
health care compared to only 10 percent for higher-income
beneficiaries.
Medicaid, through what is known as the ``Medicare Savings Programs,''
fills in Medicare's gaps for low-income beneficiaries, providing
supplemental coverage to 17 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries.
According to the Center for Medicare Education, which is funded by the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the costs for low-income beneficiaries
enrolled in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary, or QMB, program drops
out-of-pocket expenditures from 34 percent to 13 percent for low-income
beneficiaries. Moreover, Medicare beneficiaries with full Medicaid
coverage have out-of-pocket expenses of about 5 percent of their income
or $295 a year.
This is a significant and important protection for our Nation's most
financially vulnerable seniors and disabled citizens. Unfortunately,
millions of beneficiaries, who are eligible for assistance under the
Medicare Savings Programs, are not enrolled. Again, the Center for
Medicare Education estimates that only half of the beneficiaries below
poverty who are eligible for assistance are actually enrolled. Lack of
outreach, complex and burdensome enrollment procedures, and restrictive
asset requirements keep millions of seniors from receiving the
assistance they desperately need.
The ``Medicare Beneficiary Improvement Act of 2002'' takes a number
of steps to address these problems. First, the legislation improves
eligibility requirements for these programs. It raises the income level
for eligibility for Medicare Part B premium assistance from 120 to 135
percent of poverty. This expansion was originally enacted in 1997 but
it expires this year. The Congress needs to take action this year to
maintain these important protections for the Nation's elderly and
should take the additional action to make this provision permanent.
In addition, the bill also ensures that all seniors who meet
supplemental security income, or SSI, criteria are automatically
eligible for assistance. Currently, automatic eligibility is only
required in certain States, meaning that beneficiaries in other states
may miss out on critical assistance unless they know enough to apply.
The bill also eliminates the restrictive assets test that requires
seniors to become completely destitute in order to qualify for
assistance. Most low-income Medicare beneficiaries have limited assets
to begin with but the asset restrictions are so severe, a beneficiary
[[Page S7919]]
could not keep a fund or more than $1,500 for burial expenses without
being disqualified from assistance. Moreover, own a car and you are
likely to be denied financial protections under current law.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, it is estimated that up to
40 percent of low-income elderly that are otherwise eligible for
financial assistance are denied protections due to the assets test. Any
senior citizen making less than $13,290 a year who somehow has managed
to scrape together $4,000 in a savings account for emergency are not
eligible for financial protections from Medicare's cost sharing
requirements. This runs counter to the goal of the Medicare program of
providing security to the elderly rather than requiring impoverishment
of them.
Furthermore, the legislation take steps to eliminate barriers to
enrollment under the program. Again, according to the Center for
Medicare Education, ``While some states have conducted activities to
reach and enroll people in the Medicare Savings Programs, there is a
need for more outreach activity in states. For example, in 1999, only
18 states reported that they used a short application form for the
Medicare Savings Programs, and less than half of the states placed
eligibility workers in settings other than welfare offices.''
The bill allows Medicare beneficiaries to apply for assistance at
local social security offices, encourages states to station eligibility
workers at these offices, as well as at other sites frequented by
senior citizens and individuals with disabilities, and ensures that
beneficiaries can apply for the program using a simplified application
form. In addition, this bill will ensure that once an individual is
found eligible for assistance, the individual remains continuously
eligible and does not need to re-apply annually.
Another important step the legislation takes for low-income Medicare
beneficiaries is that it provides 3 months of retroactive for QMBs. All
other groups of beneficiaries have this protection currently. In
addition, it prohibits estate recovery for QMBs for the cost of their
cost-sharing or benefits provided through this program. The fear that
Medicaid will recoup such costs from a surviving spouse is often a
deterrent for many seniors to apply for such assistance.
And finally, the legislation funds a demonstration project to improve
information and coordination between federal state, and local entities
to increase enrollment of eligible Medicare beneficiaries. This
demonstration would help agencies identify individuals who are
potentially eligible for assistance by coordinating various data and
sharing it with states for the purposes of locating and enrolling these
individuals. In addition, the legislation provides grant money for
additional innovative outreach and enrollment projects for the Medicare
Savings Programs.
I would like to thank Representative Dingell for his leadership on
this issue and am pleased to be introducing the Senate companion bill
to his legislation.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
S. 2855
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 ``Medicare
Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Renaming program to eliminate confusion.
Sec. 3. Expanding protections by increasing SLMB eligibility income
level to 135 percent of poverty.
Sec. 4. Eliminating barriers to enrollment.
Sec. 5. Elimination of asset test.
Sec. 6. Improving assistance with out-of-pocket costs.
Sec. 7. Improving program information and coordination with State,
local, and other partners.
Sec. 8. Notices to certain new medicare beneficiaries.
SEC. 2. RENAMING PROGRAM TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION.
The programs of benefits for lower income medicare
beneficiaries provided under section 1902(a)(10)(E) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)) shall be
known as the ``Medicare Savings Programs''.
SEC. 3. EXPANDING PROTECTIONS BY INCREASING SLMB ELIGIBILITY
INCOME LEVEL TO 135 PERCENT OF POVERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)(iii)) is amended by
striking ``120 percent in 1995 and years thereafter'' and
inserting ``120 percent in 1995 through 2002 and 135 percent
in 2003 and years thereafter''.
(b) Conforming Removal of QI-1 and QI-2 Provisions.--
(1) Section 1902(a)(10)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)(E)) is further amended--
(A) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii); and
(C) by striking clause (iv).
(2) Section 1933 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-3) is
repealed.
(3) The amendments made by this subsection shall take
effect as of January 1, 2003.
(c) Application of CHIP Enhanced Matching Rate for SLMB
Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Section 1905(b)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396d(b)(4)) is amended by inserting ``or section
1902(a)(10)(E)(iii)'' after ``section
1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVIII)''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to medical assistance for medicare cost-sharing
for months beginning with January 2003.
SEC. 4. ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO ENROLLMENT.
(a) Automatic Eligibility for SSI Recipients in 209(b)
States and SSI Criteria States.--Section 1905(p) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)) is amended--
(1) be redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (11); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) In the case of a State which has elected treatment
under section 1902(f) for aged, blind, and disabled
individuals, individuals with respect to whom supplemental
security income payments are being paid under title XVI are
deemed for purposes of this title to be qualified medicare
beneficiaries.''.
(b) Self-Certification of Income.--Section 1905(p) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended by
subsection (a), is further amended by inserting after
paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
``(7) In determining whether an individual qualifies as a
qualified medicare beneficiary or is eligible for benefits
under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii), the State shall permit
individuals to qualify on the basis of self-certifications of
income without the need to provide additional
documentation.''.
(c) Automatic Reenrollment Without Need To Reapply.--
(1) In general.--Section 1905(p) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended by subsections (a) and (b),
is further amended by inserting after paragraph (7) the
following new paragraph:
``(8) In the case of an individual who has been determined
to qualify as a qualified medicare beneficiary or to be
eligible for benefits under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii), the
individual shall be deemed to continue to be so qualified or
eligible without the need for any annual or periodic
application unless and until the individual notifies the
State that the individual's eligibility conditions have
changed so that the individual is no longer so qualified or
eligible.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1902(e)(8) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(8)) is amended by striking
the second sentence.
(d) Use of Simplified Application Process.--Section 1905(p)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended
by subsections (a), (b), and (c), is further amended by
inserting after paragraph (8) the following new paragraph:
``(9) A State shall permit individuals to apply to qualify
as a qualified medicare beneficiary or for benefits under
section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii) through the use of the simplified
application form developed under section 1905(p)(5)(A) and
shall permit such an application to be made over the
telephone or by mail, without the need for an interview in
person by the applicant or a representative of the
applicant.''.
(e) Role of Social Security Offices.--
(1) Enrollment and provision of information at social
security offices.--Section 1905(p) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended by subsections (a), (b),
(c), and (d) is further amended by inserting after paragraph
(9) the following new paragraph:
``(10) The Commissioner of Social Security shall provide,
through local offices of the Social Security Administration--
``(A) for the enrollment under State plans under this title
for appropriate medicare cost-sharing benefits for
individuals who qualify as a qualified medicare beneficiary
or for benefits under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii); and
``(B) for providing oral and written notice of the
availability of such benefits.''.
(2) Clarifying amendment.--Section 1902(a)(5) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(5)) is amended by inserting ``as provided
in section 1905(p)(10)'' after ``except''.
(f) Outstationing of State Eligibility Workers at SSA Field
Offices.--Section 1902(a)(55) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(55)) is amended--
[[Page S7920]]
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``subsection (a)(10)(A)(i)(IV), (a)(10)(A)(i)(VI),
(a)(10)(A)(i)(VII), or (a)(10)(A)(ii)(IX)'' and inserting
``paragraph (10)(A)(i)(IV), (10)(A)(i)(VI), (10)(A)(i)(VII),
(10)(A)(ii)(IX), or (10)(E)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1905(1)(2)(B)'' and
inserting ``1905(l)(2)(B), and in the case of applications of
individuals for medical assistance under paragraph (10)(E),
at locations that include field offices of the Social
Security Administration''.
SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF ASSET TEST.
(a) In General.--Section 1905(p)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)(1)) is amended--
(1) by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) by striking ``, and'' at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting a period; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (C).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to eligibility determinations for medicare cost-
sharing furnished for periods beginning on or after January
1, 2003.
SEC. 6. IMPROVING ASSISTANCE WITH OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS.
(a) Eliminating Application of Estate Recovery
Provisions.--Section 1917(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by inserting
``(but not including medical assistance for medicare cost-
sharing or for benefits described in section
1902(a)(10)(E))'' before the period at the end.
(b) Providing for 3-Months Retroactive Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--Section 1905(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396d(a)) is amended, in the matter before paragraph (1), by
striking ``described in subsection (p)(1), if provided after
the month'' and inserting ``described in subsection (p)(1),
if provided in or after the third month before the month''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--(A) The first sentence of
section 1902(e)(8) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(8)), as
amended by section 4(c)(2), is amended by striking ``(8)''
and the first sentence.
(B) Section 1848(g)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
4(g)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Treatment of retroactive eligibility.--In the case of
an individual who is determined to be eligible for medical
assistance described in subparagraph (A) retroactively, the
Secretary shall provide a process whereby claims previously
for services furnished during the period of retroactive
eligibility which were not submitted in accordance with such
subparagraph are resubmitted and re-processed in accordance
with such subparagraph.''.
SEC. 7. IMPROVING PROGRAM INFORMATION AND COORDINATION WITH
STATE, LOCAL, AND OTHER PARTNERS.
(a) Data Match Demonstration Project.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(acting through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services), the Secretary of the Treasury, and the
Commissioner of Social Security shall enter into an
arrangement under which a demonstration is conducted,
consistent with this subsection, for the exchange between the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Internal
Revenue Service, and the Social Security Administration of
information in order to identity individuals who are medicare
beneficiaries and who, based on data from the Internal
Revenue Service that (such as their not filing tax returns or
other appropriate filters) are likely to be qualified
medicare beneficiaries or individuals otherwise eligible for
medical assistance under section 1902(a)(10)(E) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)).
(2) Limitation on use of information.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, specific information on income or
related matters exchanged under paragraph (1) may be
disclosed only as required to carry out subsection (b) and
for related Federal and State outreach efforts.
(3) Period.--The project under this subsection shall be for
an initial period of 3 years and may be extended for
additional periods (not to exceed 3 years each) after such an
extension is recommended in a report under subsection (d).
(b) State Demonstration Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall enter into a demonstration project with States (as
defined for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S..C 1396 et seq.) to provide funds to States to use
information identified under subsection (a), and other
appropriate information, in order to do ex parte
determinations or other methods for identifying and enrolling
individuals who are potentially eligible to be qualified
medicare beneficiaries or otherwise eligible for medical
assistance described in section 1902(a)(10)(E) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)).
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services for the purpose of
making grants under this subsection.
(c) Additional CMS Funding for Outreach and Enrollment
Projects.--There are hereby appropriated, out of any funds in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services through the Administrator of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, $100,000,000 which
shall be used only for the purpose of providing grants to
States to fund projects to improve outreach and increase
enrollment in Medicare Savings Programs. Such projects may
include cooperative grants and contracts with community
groups and other groups (such as the Department of Veterans'
Affairs and the Indian Health Service) to assist in the
enrollment of eligible individuals.
(d) Reports.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall submit to Congress periodic reports on the projects
conducted under this section. Such reports shall include such
recommendations for extension of such projects, and changes
in laws based on based projects, as the Secretary deems
appropriate.
SEC. 8. NOTICES TO CERTAIN NEW MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.
(a) SSA Notice.--At the time that the Commissioner of
Social Security sends a notice to individuals that they have
been determined to be eligible for benefits under part A or B
of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq., 1395j et seq.), the Commissioner shall send a notice
and application for benefits under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) to those individuals
the Commissioner identifies as being likely to be eligible
for benefits under clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section
1902(a)(10)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)). Such
notice and application shall be accompanied by information on
how to submit such an application and on where to obtain more
information (including answers to questions) on the
application process.
(b) Including Information in Medicare & You Handbook.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall include in the
annual handbook distributed under section 1804(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-2(a)) information on the
availability of Medicare Savings Programs and a toll-free
telephone number that medicare beneficiaries may use to
obtain additional information about the program.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 2857. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act to improve the requirements regarding advance directives in order
to ensure that an individual's health care decisions are complied with,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr President, I am extremely pleased to be joined by
my colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Wyden, in introducing the
Advanced Directives and Compassionate Care Act of 2002.
The end of life is a difficult time for individuals and their
families. A complex web of emotional, legal, medical, and spiritual
demands magnify the pain and turmoil already being experienced. Loss of
control can result in depression and confusion, sometimes even
hastening death. And, too often, a lifetime's dignity can be stripped
away in a person's final months, leaving their survivors an inheritance
of sadness and regret.
The Advanced Directives and Compassionate Care Act will help families
and individuals avoid this bitter legacy, by helping maintain greater
control of their final months. It gives patients greater information
and power in determining treatment and hospice options. The legislation
addresses legal issues that often arise at the end-of-life, and makes
it more certain that advanced directives, such as ``living wills'' will
be followed. It promotes the hospice-based care that most terminally
ill patients prefer. Most important, it gives people a better chance to
maintain their dignity in their final hours. I urge that the Senate
take up this vital and compassionate legislation this year, and that we
ensure it's passage before we return home this fall.
According to a 1999 National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization
survey, Americans are hesitant to talk with their elderly parents about
how they would like to be cared for at the end of life. This same study
showed that less than twenty-five percent of Americans have put into
writing instructions for how we'd like to be cared for personally at
the end of our lives. Many health care providers overlook the equally
important issue of providing adequate and appropriate care such as
relief of pain, or family support services to those who are at the end
of life. In addition, there is great variation among State laws with
respect to advanced directives.
Our legislation takes real and tangible steps toward improving the
practices and care that affect our citizens when they are facing death
or the real possibility of death.
First, and perhaps most important, the Compassionate Care Act gives
patients greater power to control their
[[Page S7921]]
final days, by directly addressing the improvement of advanced
directives. In my home state, a 2000 survey showed that three-quarters
of West Virginians would prefer to die at home, yet nearly 60 percent
of all deaths occur in a hospital. West Virginia has perhaps the most
progressive state laws with regard to living wills and power of
attorney, yet only one-third of those surveyed have either. These
figures are unacceptable--people need to have a greater say in their
own destiny.
Currently, state laws on the execution of advance directives vary
greatly. Too often, this means a serious problem when the patient's
wishes about their medical care are ignored--even when family members
attest to their validity--because they moved to another state after
creating the directive, but before or at the time that care is needed.
Most of the differences that cause one state not to honor an advance
directive created in another state are technical in nature--for
example, one state requires two witnesses while another only one. This
variance should not deny a person the type of care desired. Only a
federal portability statute can address this problem.
Under our legislation, an advance directive valid in the state in
which it is executed would be honored in any other state in which it
may be presented. In addition, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services would be required to gather information and consult with
experts about the feasibility and desirability of creating a uniform
advance directive for all Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and
possibly others, in the United States, as well as study such issues as
the provision of adequate palliative care. A uniform advance directive
would enable people to designate the kind of care they wish to receive
at the end of their lives in a way that is easily recognizable and
understood by everyone.
In 1990, this body passed bipartisan legislation entitled the Patient
Self-Determination Act. That legislation required hospitals, and other
health care facilities participating in the Medicare and Medicaid
programs to provide every adult receiving medical care with written
information regarding the patient's involvement with their own
treatment decisions. The Compassionate Care Act builds on this Act, and
the thinking behind it, to improve the quality of care and the quality
of life for terminally ill patients.
Our bill builds on the Patient Self-Determination Act, improving the
type and amount of information available by ensuring that a person
entering a hospital, nursing home, or other health care facility is
helped by a knowledgeable person to create a new advance directive or
discuss an existing one. The patient's own needs, desires, and values
must be the basis of decision-making and, whenever possible, the
patient's family and/or friends should be part of the conversation.
Further, the bill requires that if a person has an advance directive it
be placed prominently in the medical record where all doctors and
nurses involved in the patient's care can clearly see it. Finally,
under the Compassionate Care Act, a 24-hour, toll-free hotline that
provides consumers with information on advance directives, end-of-life
care decision-making, and hospice care would be established.
Second, our legislation would require the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to develop outcome standards and other measures for
evaluating the quality of end-of-life care including the
appropriateness of care and ease of access to high quality care. There
are currently too few measures or standards available to assess the
quality of care provided to Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP beneficiaries
with terminal conditions. There are also significant variations in
available medical care for patients at the end-of-life based on
geographic area, ethnic group and alternative models of care.
Third, this legislation would authorize demonstration projects to
develop new and innovative approaches to improving end-of-life care and
pain management for Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP beneficiaries. At
least one demonstration would focus particularly on pediatric end-of-
life care. Priorities include adequate pain management for terminally
ill patients--40-80 percent of terminally ill patients say they do not
receive adequate treatment for their pain; treatment of pediatric
illnesses--28 thousand children die of chronic illness each year, but
fewer than 10 percent receive hospice care; and treatment of Medicare
beneficiaries in hospice care.
Finally, to help improve communication between federal agencies and
experts in the fields of hospice, end-of-life, and palliative care, the
legislation establishes a 15 member End-of-Life Care Advisory Board
consisting of end-of-life care providers, consumers, professional and
resource-based groups, and policy/advocacy organizations. Recently, the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has made a concerted effort
to improve its involvement in the area of end-of-life care. The
Advisory Board is designed to further assist the Secretary and the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the evaluation of and
decisions relating to adequate end-of-life care. In addition, it would
utilize the reports mandated in this bill to create its own evaluation
of the field and propose recommendations for legislative and
administrative actions to improve end-of-life care in America.
Mr. President, death is a hard subject to talk about. It's hard to
think about--and especially hard to plan for. I know this personally,
as many of my colleagues may as well, from dealing with the loss of a
family member to a prolonged illness. Too often discussion about end-
of-life care and adequate pain management focuses around physician
assisted suicide. The fact is that this quality end-of-life care--
helping the dying and their families who want better, more
compassionate care--is what we should be talking about, and what our
legislation does.
This legislation has been endorsed by the National Hospice and
Palliative Care Association, Partnership for Caring, The American Bar
Association, Americans for Better Care of the Dying, and the American
Academy of Pediatrics. I ask unanimous consent that several of the
letters of support from these organizations and the full text of the
legislation be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2857
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 ``Advance
Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Development of standards to assess end-of-life care.
Sec. 3. Study and report by the Secretary of Health and Human Services
regarding the establishment and implementation of a
national uniform policy on advance directives.
Sec. 4. Improvement of policies related to the use of advance
directives.
Sec. 5. National information hotline for end-of-life decisionmaking and
hospice care.
Sec. 6. Demonstration project for innovative and new approaches to end-
of-life care for medicare, medicaid, and SCHIP
beneficiaries.
Sec. 7. Establishment of End-of-Life Care Advisory Board.
SEC. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS TO ASSESS END-OF-LIFE CARE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Director of the
National Institutes of Health, the Administrator of the
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, and the End-of-
Life Care Advisory Board (established under section 7), shall
develop outcome standards and measures to--
(1) evaluate the performance of health care programs and
projects that provide end-of-life care to individuals,
including the quality of the care provided by such programs
and projects; and
(2) assess the access to, and utilization of, such programs
and projects, including differences in such access and
utilization in rural and urban areas and for minority
populations.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall submit to Congress a report on the
outcome standards and measures developed under subsection
(a), together with recommendations for such legislation and
administrative actions as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
[[Page S7922]]
SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORT BY THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A NATIONAL UNIFORM POLICY ON
ADVANCE DIRECTIVES.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a thorough study of all matters relating to the
establishment and implementation of a national uniform policy
on advance directives for individuals receiving items and
services under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.; 1396 et seq.).
(2) Matters studied.--The matters studied by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services under paragraph (1) shall
include issues concerning--
(A) family satisfaction that a patient's wishes, as stated
in the patient's advance directive, were carried out;
(B) the portability of advance directives, including cases
involving the transfer of an individual from 1 health care
setting to another;
(C) immunity from civil liability and criminal
responsibility for health care providers that follow the
instructions in an individual's advance directive that was
validly executed in, and consistent with the laws of, the
State in which it was executed;
(D) conditions under which an advance directive is
operative;
(E) revocation of an advance directive by an individual;
(F) the criteria used by States for determining that an
individual has a terminal condition;
(G) surrogate decisionmaking regarding end-of-life care;
(H) the provision of adequate palliative care (as defined
in paragraph (3)), including pain management; and
(I) adequate and timely referrals to hospice care programs.
(3) Palliative care.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(H), the
term ``palliative care'' means interdisciplinary care for
individuals with a life-threatening illness or injury
relating to pain and symptom management and psychological,
social, and spiritual needs and that seeks to improve the
quality of life for the individual and the individual's
family.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall submit to Congress a report on the study
conducted under subsection (a), together with recommendations
for such legislation and administrative actions as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the study and developing
the report under this section, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall consult with the End-of-Life Care
Advisory Board (established under section 7), the Uniform Law
Commissioners, and other interested parties.
SEC. 4. IMPROVEMENT OF POLICIES RELATED TO THE USE OF ADVANCE
DIRECTIVES.
(a) Medicare.--Section 1866(f) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and if presented by
the individual, to include the content of such advance
directive in a prominent part of such record'' before the
semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to
discuss issues relating to the information provided to that
individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately
trained professional.'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a written'' and
inserting ``an''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5)(A) An advance directive validly executed outside of
the State in which such advance directive is presented by an
adult individual to a provider of services, a Medicare+Choice
organization, or a prepaid or eligible organization shall be
given the same effect by that provider or organization as an
advance directive validly executed under the law of the State
in which it is presented would be given effect.
``(B)(i) The definition of an advanced directive shall also
include actual knowledge of instructions made while an
individual was able to express the wishes of such individual
with regard to health care.
``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term ``actual
knowledge'' means the possession of information of an
individual's wishes communicated to the health care provider
orally or in writing by the individual, the individual's
medical power of attorney representative, the individual's
health care surrogate, or other individuals resulting in the
health care provider's personal cognizance of these wishes.
Other forms of imputed knowledge are not actual knowledge.
``(C) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any
State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such
provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not
preempt any State law that provides for greater portability,
more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in
determining a patient's wishes.''.
(b) Medicaid.--Section 1902(w) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396a(w)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``in the individual's medical record'' and
inserting ``in a prominent part of the individual's current
medical record''; and
(ii) by inserting ``and if presented by the individual, to
include the content of such advance directive in a prominent
part of such record'' before the semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to
discuss issues relating to the information provided to that
individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately
trained professional.'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``a written'' and
inserting ``an''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(6)(A) An advance directive validly executed outside of
the State in which such advance directive is presented by an
adult individual to a provider or organization shall be given
the same effect by that provider or organization as an
advance directive validly executed under the law of the State
in which it is presented would be given effect.
``(B)(i) The definition of an advanced directive shall also
include actual knowledge of instructions made while an
individual was able to express the wishes of such individual
with regard to health care.
``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term ``actual
knowledge'' means the possession of information of an
individual's wishes communicated to the health care provider
orally or in writing by the individual, the individual's
medical power of attorney representative, the individual's
health care surrogate, or other individuals resulting in the
health care provider's personal cognizance of these wishes.
Other forms of imputed knowledge are not actual knowledge.
``(C) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any
State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such
provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not
preempt any State law that provides for greater portability,
more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in
determining a patient's wishes.''.
(c) Study and Report Regarding Implementation.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a study regarding the implementation of the
amendments made by subsections (a) and (b).
(2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit to Congress a report on the study
conducted under paragraph (1), together with recommendations
for such legislation and administrative actions as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments
made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to provider
agreements and contracts entered into, renewed, or extended
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395
et seq.), and to State plans under title XIX of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), on or after such date as the Secretary
of Health and Human Services specifies, but in no case may
such date be later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) Extension of effective date for state law amendment.--
In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) which the Secretary of
Health and Human Services determines requires State
legislation in order for the plan to meet the additional
requirements imposed by the amendments made by subsection
(b), the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to
comply with the requirements of such title solely on the
basis of its failure to meet these additional requirements
before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning
after the close of the first regular session of the State
legislature that begins after the date of enactment of this
Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a
State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the
session is considered to be a separate regular session of the
State legislature.
SEC. 5. NATIONAL INFORMATION HOTLINE FOR END-OF-LIFE
DECISIONMAKING AND HOSPICE CARE.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through
the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, shall operate directly, or by grant, contract, or
interagency agreement, out of funds otherwise appropriated to
the Secretary, a clearinghouse and a 24-hour toll-free
telephone hotline in order to provide consumer information
about advance directives (as defined in section 1866(f)(3) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)(3)), as amended
by section 4(a)), end-of-life decisionmaking, and available
end-of-life and hospice care services. In carrying out the
preceding sentence, the Administrator may designate an
existing clearinghouse and 24-hour toll-free telephone
hotline or, if no such entity is appropriate, may establish a
new clearinghouse and a 24-hour toll-free telephone hotline.
[[Page S7923]]
SEC. 6. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR INNOVATIVE AND NEW
APPROACHES TO END-OF-LIFE CARE FOR MEDICARE,
MEDICAID, AND SCHIP BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, shall conduct a demonstration project under which
the Secretary contracts with entities operating programs in
order to develop new and innovative approaches to providing
end-of-life care to medicare beneficiaries, medicaid
beneficiaries, and SCHIP beneficiaries.
(2) Application.--Any entity seeking to participate in the
demonstration project shall submit to the Secretary an
application in such form and manner as the Secretary may
require.
(3) Duration.--The authority of the Secretary to conduct
the demonstration project shall terminate at the end of the
5-year period beginning on the date the Secretary implements
the demonstration project.
(b) Selection Criteria.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in
selecting entities to participate in the demonstration
project, the Secretary shall select entities that will allow
for programs to be conducted in a variety of States, in an
array of care settings, and that reflect--
(A) a balance between urban and rural settings;
(B) cultural diversity; and
(C) various modes of medical care and insurance, such as
fee-for-service, preferred provider organizations, health
maintenance organizations, hospice care, home care services,
long-term care, pediatric care, and integrated delivery
systems.
(2) Preferences.--The Secretary shall give preference to
entities operating programs that--
(A) will serve medicare beneficiaries, medicaid
beneficiaries, or SCHIP beneficiaries who are dying of
illnesses that are most prevalent under the medicare program,
the medicaid program, or SCHIP, respectively; and
(B) appear capable of sustained service and broad
replication at a reasonable cost within commonly available
organizational structures.
(3) Selection of program that provides pediatric end-of-
life care.--The Secretary shall ensure that at least 1 of the
entities selected to participate in the demonstration project
operates a program that provides pediatric end-of-life care.
(c) Evaluation of Programs.--
(1) In general.--Each program operated by an entity under
the demonstration project shall be evaluated at such regular
intervals as the Secretary determines are appropriate.
(2) Use of private entities to conduct evaluations.--The
Secretary, in consultation with the End-of-Life Care Advisory
Board (established under section 7), shall contract with 1 or
more private entities to coordinate and conduct the
evaluations under paragraph (1). Such a contract may not be
awarded to an entity selected to participate in the
demonstration project.
(3) Requirements for evaluations.--
(A) Use of outcome measures and standards.--In coordinating
and conducting an evaluation of a program conducted under the
demonstration project, an entity shall use the outcome
standards and measures required to be developed under section
2 as soon as those standards and measures are available.
(B) Elements of evaluation.--In addition to the use of the
outcome standards and measures under subparagraph (A), an
evaluation of a program conducted under the demonstration
project shall include the following:
(i) A comparison of the quality of care provided by, and of
the outcomes for medicare beneficiaries, medicaid
beneficiaries, and SCHIP beneficiaries, and the families of
such beneficiaries enrolled in, the program being evaluated
to the quality of care and outcomes for such individuals that
would have resulted if care had been provided under existing
delivery systems.
(ii) An analysis of how ongoing measures of quality and
accountability for improvement and excellence could be
incorporated into the program being evaluated.
(iii) A comparison of the costs of the care provided to
medicare beneficiaries, medicaid beneficiaries, and SCHIP
beneficiaries under the program being evaluated to the costs
of such care that would have been incurred under the medicare
program, the medicaid program, and SCHIP if such program had
not been conducted.
(iv) An analysis of whether the program being evaluated
implements practices or procedures that result in improved
patient outcomes, resource utilization, or both.
(v) An analysis of--
(I) the population served by the program being evaluated;
and
(II) how accurately that population reflects the total
number of medicare beneficiaries, medicaid beneficiaries, and
SCHIP beneficiaries residing in the area who are in need of
services offered by such program.
(vi) An analysis of the eligibility requirements and
enrollment procedures for the program being evaluated.
(vii) An analysis of the services provided to beneficiaries
enrolled in the program being evaluated and the utilization
rates for such services.
(viii) An analysis of the structure for the provision of
specific services under the program being evaluated.
(ix) An analysis of the costs of providing specific
services under the program being evaluated.
(x) An analysis of any procedures for offering medicare
beneficiaries, medicaid beneficiaries, and SCHIP
beneficiaries enrolled in the program being evaluated a
choice of services and how the program responds to the
preferences of such beneficiaries.
(xi) An analysis of the quality of care provided to, and of
the outcomes for, medicare beneficiaries, medicaid
beneficiaries, and SCHIP beneficiaries, and the families of
such beneficiaries, that are enrolled in the program being
evaluated.
(xii) An analysis of any ethical, cultural, or legal
concerns--
(I) regarding the program being evaluated; and
(II) with the replication of such program in other
settings.
(xiii) An analysis of any changes to regulations or of any
additional funding that would result in more efficient
procedures or improved outcomes under the program being
evaluated.
(d) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive compliance
with any of the requirements of titles XI, XVIII, XIX, and
XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.; 1395
et seq.; 1396 et seq.; 1397aa et seq.) which, if applied,
would prevent the demonstration project carried out under
this section from effectively achieving the purpose of such
project.
(e) Reports to Congress.--
(1) Annual reports by secretary.--
(A) In general.--Beginning 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the demonstration
project and on the quality of end-of-life care under the
medicare program, the medicaid program, and SCHIP, together
with recommendations for such legislation and administrative
actions as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(B) Summary of recent studies.--A report submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall include a summary of any recent
studies and advice from experts in the health care field
regarding the ethical, cultural, and legal issues that may
arise when attempting to improve the health care system to
meet the needs of individuals with serious and eventually
terminal conditions.
(C) Continuation or replication of demonstration
projects.--The first report submitted under subparagraph (A)
after the 3-year anniversary of the date the Secretary
implements the demonstration project shall include
recommendations regarding whether such demonstration project
should be continued beyond the period described in subsection
(a)(3) and whether broad replication of any of the programs
conducted under the demonstration project should be
initiated.
(2) Report by end-of-life care advisory board on
demonstration project.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the
conclusion of the demonstration project, the End-of-Life
Advisory Board shall submit a report to the Secretary and
Congress on such project.
(B) Contents.--The report submitted under subparagraph (A)
shall contain--
(i) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the demonstration
project; and
(ii) recommendations for such legislation and
administrative actions as the Board considers appropriate.
(f) Funding.--There are appropriated such sums as are
necessary for conducting the demonstration project and for
preparing and submitting the reports required under
subsection (e)(1).
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration
project'' means the demonstration project conducted under
this section.
(2) Medicaid beneficiaries.--The term ``medicaid
beneficiaries'' means individuals who are enrolled in the
State medicaid program.
(3) Medicaid program.--The term ``medicaid program'' means
the health care program under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
(4) Medicare beneficiaries.--The term ``medicare
beneficiaries'' means individuals who are entitled to
benefits under part A or enrolled for benefits under part B
of the medicare program.
(5) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means
the health care program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
(6) SCHIP beneficiary.--The term ``SCHIP beneficiary''
means an individual who is enrolled in SCHIP.
(7) SCHIP.--The term ``SCHIP'' means the State children's
health insurance program under title XXI of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.).
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF END-OF-LIFE CARE ADVISORY BOARD.
(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of Health and Human Services an End-of-Life Care
Advisory Board (in this section referred to as the
``Board'').
(b) Structure and Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Board shall be composed of 15 members
who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'').
[[Page S7924]]
(2) Required representation.--The Secretary shall ensure
that the following groups, organizations, and associations
are represented in the membership of the Board:
(A) An end-of-life consumer advocacy organization.
(B) A senior citizen advocacy organization.
(C) A physician-based hospice or palliative care
organization.
(D) A nurse-based hospice or palliative care organization.
(E) A hospice or palliative care provider organization.
(F) A hospice or palliative care representative that serves
the veterans population.
(G) A physician-based medical association.
(H) A physician-based pediatric medical association.
(I) A home health-based nurses association.
(J) A hospital-based or health system-based palliative care
group.
(K) A children-based or family-based hospice resource
group.
(L) A cancer pain management resource group.
(M) A cancer research and policy advocacy group.
(N) An end-of-life care policy advocacy group.
(O) An interdisciplinary end-of-life care academic
institution.
(3) Ethnic diversity requirement.--The Secretary shall
ensure that the members of the Board appointed under
paragraph (1) represent the ethnic diversity of the United
States.
(4) Prohibition.--No individual who is a Federal officer or
employee may serve as a member of the Board.
(5) Terms of appointment.--Each member of the Board shall
serve for a term determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(6) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall designate a member of
the Board as chairperson.
(c) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the
chairperson but not less often than every 3 months.
(d) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Board shall advise the Secretary on
all matters related to the furnishing of end-of-life care to
individuals.
(2) Specific duties.--The specific duties of the Board are
as follows:
(A) Consulting.--The Board shall consult with the Secretary
regarding--
(i) the development of the outcome standards and measures
under section 2;
(ii) conducting the study and submitting the report under
section 3; and
(iii) the selection of private entities to conduct
evaluations pursuant to section 6(c)(2).
(B) Report on demonstration project.--The Board shall
submit the report required under section 6(e)(2).
(e) Members To Serve Without Compensation.--
(1) In general.--All members of the Board shall serve on
the Board without compensation for such service.
(2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Board shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Board.
(f) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The chairperson of the Board may, without
regard to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and
terminate an executive director and such other additional
personnel as may be necessary to enable the Board to perform
its duties. The employment of an executive director shall be
subject to confirmation by the Board.
(2) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Board may fix the
compensation of the executive director and other personnel
without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the
rate of pay for the executive director and other personnel
may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive
Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
(3) Personnel as federal employees.--
(A) In general.--The executive director and any personnel
of the Board who are employees shall be employees under
section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of
chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
(B) Members of board.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed to apply to members of the Board.
(g) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Board without additional
reimbursement (other than the employee' regular
compensation), and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(h) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The chairperson of the Board may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of such title.
(i) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Section 14 of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to the Board.
(j) Termination.--The Board shall terminate 90 days after
the date on which the Board submits the report under section
6(e)(2).
(k) Funding.--Funding for the operation of the Board shall
be from amounts otherwise appropriated to the Department of
Health and Human Services.
____
National Hospice and Palliative
Care Organization,
Alexandria, VA, July 31, 2002.
Hon. John D. Rockefeller,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Rockefeller: The National Hospice and
Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO), the nation's largest
and oldest organization dedicated to advancing the philosophy
and practice of hospice care, appreciates the opportunity to
continue to work with you on your proposed draft legislation,
``Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 2002''.
We applaud your efforts to address an important health care
issue and appreciate your willingness to work with the NHPCO
to incorporate changes relative to hospice into the
legislation. Specifically, the NHPCO supports your efforts to
make advance directives portable among the states, to study
end of life care needs of the general population and to
authorize Medicare demonstration projects on end of life
care.
We look forward to working with you on your legislation.
Sincerely,
Galen Miller,
Executive Vice President.
____
Partnership for Caring Inc.,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2002.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Rockefeller: On behalf of Partnership for
Caring: America's Voices for the Dying I am writing to
endorse and support the passage of the ``Compassionate Care
and Advance Planning Act of 2002'' Our Board of Directors,
staff and membership are grateful for and applaud your
continuing leadership and deep commitment to improving care
for people nearing the end of their lives.
Partnership for Caring is a national, nonprofit
organization representing consumers of end-of-life care and
their families. Our mission is to encourage individuals to
think about and plan for the type of care they would like to
receive at the end of their journey and to discuss those
plans with their families, friends and physicians.
Partnership makes available to the public Advance Directives
specific to each state's law and educational materials on
many aspects of end-of-life care and conversation. We also
provide assistance via our 24 hour, toll-free help line, as
well as advocacy to improve palliative and end-of-life care.
The health care systems and reimbursement mechanisms in
America today are the focus of a great deal of scrutiny,
especially the Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP programs.
Unfortunately, the critically important health care
components of palliative and end-of-life care too often are
overlooked. We thank you and the cosponsors of the
legislation for raising the visibility of this essential
aspect of care and for proposing immediate improvements in
our health systems as well as research and demonstration
projects that will inform us about better ways to care for
people in the last phase of their lives.
We are particularly pleased about the proposal to create an
End-of-Life Care Advisory Board to work with CMS and HHS.
This provision alone will help make certain that any federal
government proposals to reform Medicare, Medicaid or S-CHIP
will have the informed contributions of experts in the fields
of palliative and hospice medicine. Such a Board is vitally
important if these programs and other health care laws and
regulations are to adequately address the needs of people who
are dying. The Board's diversity will help assure that the
unique concerns of minorities, children and young adults,
various religious and ethnic groups are heard. Consumers and
providers of end-of-life care will both have a voice.
The inclusion of the S-CHIP program in legislation dealing
with end-of-life care deserves special thanks. While no one
likes to think about children dying, about 53,000 children
die each year. Research on caring for terminally ill
pediatric patients is minimal and dying children have been
woefully underserved in the areas of pain management and
hospice care. Mandating that at least one demonstration
project focus on pediatric issues is step in the right
direction and will benefit thousands of children whose young
lives will end too soon.
Medicare beneficiaries have a compelling reason to seek
improvements in end-of-life care: everyone who becomes a
Medicare beneficiary will die a Medicare beneficiary. Today
27% of all Medicare expenditures are spent caring for people
in the last year of their lives, frequently on costly,
unnecessary procedures in hospitals and nursing homes.
Although hospice care currently accounts for only 1.3% of all
Medicare expenditures that percentage will grow as the baby-
boomers age and seek a qualitatively different end-of-life
scenario than the ones many of them watched their parents and
grandparents endure. The demonstration projects authorized by
your legislation will allow us to learn more about our
choices and become better educated consumers of care.
As you will know, caring for an elderly parent, a sick
spouse, or a dying child, can
[[Page S7925]]
be emotionally, economically, and physically draining under
any circumstance. As a consumer based organization,
Partnership for Caring knows first hand how much worse it is
for those who have never discussed with their loved ones
their wishes for end-of-life care, who do not know what
resources are available, or who are unaware of palliative and
hospice care and how to access these services. Health care
providers, too, are often caught having to make decisions or
talk to family members without benefit of knowing their
patients' wishes or alternative services in their
communities. ``The Compassionate Care and Advance Planning
Act of 2002'' will help educate the pubic and providers as
well as encourage conversations and advance planning.
Insuring that each of us can receive the kind of care we
would want for ourselves and our loved ones as we near death
should be a priority concern as these programs look to the
future.
Again, our thanks to you and all of the senators who join
in supporting this bill. Insuring that each of us can receive
the kind of care we want for ourselves and our loved ones as
we near death should be a national priority as we look to the
future of health care. We at Partnership for Caring will be
working with you and our partner organizations to assure
passage of the ``Compassionate Care Act'' and, more
importantly, to assure better quality care for all our loved
ones and for ourselves.
Sincerely,
Karen Orloff Kaplan,
President and CEO.
____
American Bar Association
Governmental Affairs Office,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2002.
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Rockefeller: On behalf of the American Bar
Association, I am writing to commend you and your co-sponsors
for introducing the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care
Act of 2002. This legislation takes several important steps
beyond the 1990 Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) which
introduced the term ``Advance Directive'' to the American
vernacular. The American Bar Association supported the
enactment of the PSDA and has continued to encourage greater
access to the tools of advance planning, greater uniformity
and portability of advance directives, and greater
responsiveness to the needs of patients in health care
systems at all stages of life, including end-of-life care.
The Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act takes
several modest but vital steps towards these goals. Under its
provisions there will be an opportunity to discuss advance
directives with an appropriately trained individual upon
admission to a health care facility, which will help
transform the existing paper-disclosure requirement into a
meaningful vehicle for discussion and understanding. This
will do much to combat the misperception that advance
planning means merely signing a form. Good advance planning
is, in essence, good communication, not mere form-drafting.
The portability and research mandates concerning advance
directives are seriously needed to move public policy beyond
the current Balkanization of legal formalities that
characterizes current advance-directive law. In addition, the
mandate to examine the feasibility and desirability of
creating a uniform advance directive will generate much-
needed fresh thinking on the strategies that may best
encourage advance planning. Sadly, twelve years after the
PSDA, the majority of adults still avoid the necessary task
of planning for end-of-life decision-making.
The National Information Hotline will provide a valuable
consumer tool for information about advance directives and
end-of-life care options. Finally, the mandates for standards
development, evaluation and demonstration projects, as well
as coverage provisions, will help fill the inexcusable chasm
in current knowledge, regulation, and financing of end-of-
life care under Medicare and Medicaid. Historically, end-of-
life decision-making and quality of care have been relegated
to the shadows of health and long-term care policy. This Act
will help the public and policy makers understand the issues
and options in the light of day.
The ABA strongly supports this legislation. We commend your
leadership in seeking to enhance patient autonomy and end-of-
life care, and we stand ready to be a resource in these
efforts.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Evans.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague
from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the Advance
Planning and Compassionate Care Act, which is intended to improve the
way we care for people at the end of their lives.
Noted health economist, Uwe Reinhardt, once observed that ``Americans
are the only people on earth who believe that death is negotiable.''
Advancements in medicine, public health, and technology have enabled
more and more of us to live longer and healthier lives. However, when
medical treatment can no longer promise a continuation of life,
patients and their families should not have to fear that the process of
dying will be marked by preventable pain, avoidable distress, or care
that is inconsistent with their values or wishes.
The fact is, dying is a universal experience, and it is time to re-
examine how we approach death and dying and how we care for people at
the end of their lives. Clearly, there is more that we can do to
relieve suffering, respect personal choice and dignity, and provide
opportunities for people to find meaning and comfort at life's
conclusion.
Unfortunately, most Medicare patients and their physicians do not
currently discuss death or routinely make advance plans for end-of-life
care. As a result, about one-fourth of Medicare funds are now spent on
care at the end of life that is geared toward expensive, high-
technology interventions and ``rescue'' care. While most Americans say
they would prefer to die at home, studies show that almost 80 percent
die in institutions where they may be in pain, and where they are
subjected to high-tech treatments that merely prolong suffering.
Moreover, according to a Dartmouth study conducted by Dr. Jack
Wennberg, where a patient lives has a direct impact on how that patient
dies. The study found that the amount of medical treatment Americans
receive in their final months varies tremendously in the different
parts of the country, and it concluded that the determination of
whether or not an older patient dies in the hospital probably has more
to do with the supply of hospital beds than the patient's needs or
preference.
The Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act is intended to help
us improve the way our health care system serves patients at the end of
their lives. Among other provisions, the bill makes a number of changes
to the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 to facilitate appropriate
discussions and individual autonomy in making difficult discussions
about end-of-life care. For instance, the legislation requires that
every Medicare beneficiary receiving care in a hospital or nursing
facility be given the opportunity to discuss end-of-life care and the
preparation of an advanced directive with an appropriately trained
professional within the institution. The legislation also requires that
if a patient has an advanced directive, it must be displayed in a
prominent place in the medical record so that all the doctors and
nurses can clearly see it.
In addition, the legislation authorizes the Department of Health and
Human Services to study end-of-life issues and also to develop
demonstration projects to develop models for end-of-life care for
Medicare, Medicaid, and State Child Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP,
patients. The Institute of Medicine recently released a report that
concluded that we need to improve palliative and end-of-life care for
children with terminal illnesses. According to the report, far too
often children with fatal or potentially fatal conditions and their
families fail to receive competent, compassionate, and consistent care
that meets their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. Our
legislation therefore requires that at least one of these
demonstrations focus particularly on pediatric end-of-life care.
Finally, the legislation establishes a telephone hotline to provide
consumer information and advice concerning advance directives, end-of-
life issues, and medical decisionmaking and also establishes an End-of-
Life Care Advisory Board to assist the Secretary of Health and Human
Services in developing outcome standards and measures to evaluate end-
of-life care programs and projects.
The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important in
light of the debate on physician-assisted suicide. The desire for
assisted suicide is generally driven by concerns about the quality of
care for the terminally ill; by the fear of prolonged pain, loss of
dignity and emotional strain on family members. Such worries would
recede and support for assisted suicide would evaporate if better
palliative care and more effective pain management were widely
available.
Patients and their families should be able to trust that the care
they receive at the end of their lives is not only of high quality, but
also that it respects their desires for peace, autonomy, and
[[Page S7926]]
dignity. The Advanced Planning and Compassionate Care Act that Senator
Rockefeller and I are introducing today will give us some of the tools
that we need to improve care of the dying in this country, and I urge
all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 2858. A bill to modify the project for navigation, Union River,
Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 2859. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce two bills for harbors in Maine,
one to deauthorize the Federal Navigation Project in Northeast Harbor,
and the second to redesignate the Upper Basin of the Union River
Federal Navigational Channel as an anchorage. The bills, cosponsored by
Senator Collins, will help strengthen the economic viability of these
two popular Maine harbors.
Because of changing harbor usage over the last 45 years, the Town of
Mount Desert has requested that Northeast Harbor be withdrawn from the
Federal Navigation Project. This removal will allow the town to adapt
to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain
moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity
for both moorings and shoreside facilities and has a waiting list of
over sixty people along with commercial operators who have been waiting
for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels.
The Harbor was authorized in 1945 and constructed in 1954 as a mixed-
use commercial fishing/recreational boating harbor--and it still is
today. It was dredged in the early 1950s to provide more space for
recreational boating and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has informed
the town that Northeast Harbor would be very low on its dredging
priority list as it has become primarily a recreational harbor. The
town says it realizes that, once it is no longer part of the Federal
Navigational Project, any further dredging within the harbor would be
carried out at town expense.
The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and
commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast
Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the
nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water.
My second bill supports the City of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize
the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The
modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of
the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for
a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with
navigation and will further improve the City's revitalization efforts
for the harbor area.
I have worked with the New England Division of the Corps to draft
these bills and the language has been approved by Army Corps
Headquarters in Washington. I look forward to working with my
colleagues for their passage, either as stand alone bills or as
separate provisions in the Corps reauthorization bill, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2002, that Congress is currently drafting.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Hatch):
S. 2860. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
modify the rules for redistribution and extended availability of fiscal
year 2000 and subsequent fiscal year allotments under the State
children's health insurance program, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on France.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that will improve
and protect health insurance for our nation's children. The Children's
Health Improvement and Protection Act of 2002, CHIP Act, brings us back
to the basics of health care--the fundamental philosophy that no child
should go without needed health care. I'm pleased to be joined by my
good friends Senator Chafee and Senator Kennedy to introduce the
Children's Health Insurance Improvement and Protection Act of 2002.
Established in 1997 to reduce the number of uninsured children, the
Children's Health Insurance Program has been an unqualified success.
Last year, 4.6 million children were enrolled in CHIP and the
percentage of children without health insurance has declined in recent
years. In my state of West Virginia, the CHIP program provides health
coverage to over 20,000 children. Health insurance coverage is key to
assuring children's access to appropriate and adequate health care,
including preventive services. Research demonstrates that uninsured
children are more likely to lack a usual source of care, to go without
needed care, and to experience worse health outcomes than children with
coverage. Uninsured children who are injured are 30 percent less likely
than insured children to receive medical treatment and three times more
likely not to get a needed prescription.
However, the continued success of the CHIP program is now in serious
jeopardy. The Bush Administration projects that 900,000 children will
lose their health coverage between fiscal years 2003 and 2006, if
Congress does not take appropriate action. This is because even as
state enrollment and spending rapidly increases, federal CHIP funding
dropped by more than $1 billion this year and will be reduced in each
of the next two years. Known as the ``CHIP Dip,'' this reduction has no
underlying health policy justification; it was solely the result of the
budget compromises we had to make when enacting the balanced budget
deal in 1997.
As a result, a number of states will have insufficient federal
funding to sustain their enrollment and they will have no choice but to
scale back or limit their CHIP programs. As enrollment is cut, the
number of uninsured children will increase, and as a consequence, sick
children will get sicker. The biggest problem that will result from
enrollment cuts in the CHIP program are the future health problems of
adults who as children could have received benefits under CHIP. Yet,
even as states face this funding shortfall, under federal rules, nearly
$3 billion in federal CHIP funding is scheduled to expire and revert
back to the Treasury over the next two years. If Congress does not act,
in order to maintain our current enrollment levels, West Virginia will
run out of CHIP funding in 2005.
We cannot allow this to happen. We need a comprehensive and
reasonable approach to shore up CHIP financing in order to avert the
devastating enrollment decline and make sure that our children are
protected into the future. This legislation will extend the life of the
expiring funds and fully restore CHIP funding to the pre- ``dip''
levels. This legislation will provide West Virginia with $117 million
over the 2004-2012 period allowing them to strengthen and protect
children's access to health care.
I urge Congress to enact this legislation and ensure the continued
success of the CHIP program and sustain the significant progress CHIP
has made in reducing the ranks of uninsured children. Mr. President I
ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2860
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 ``Children's Health
Improvement and Protection Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. CHANGES TO RULES FOR REDISTRIBUTION AND EXTENDED
AVAILABILITY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND SUBSEQUENT
FISCAL YEAR ALLOTMENTS.
Section 2104(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397dd(g)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading--
(A) by striking ``and'' after ``1998'' and inserting a
comma; and
(B) by inserting ``, and 2000 and subsequent fiscal year''
after ``1999'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(I) by inserting ``or for fiscal year 2000 by the end of
fiscal year 2002, or allotments for fiscal year 2001 and
subsequent fiscal years by the end of the last fiscal year
for which such allotments are available under subsection (e),
subject to paragraph (2)(C)'' after ``2001,''; and
[[Page S7927]]
(II) by striking ``1998 or 1999'' and inserting ``1998,
1999, 2000, or subsequent fiscal year'';
(ii) in clause (i)--
(I) in subclause (I), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(II) in subclause (II), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) the fiscal year 2000 allotment, the amount by which
the State's expenditures under this title in fiscal years
2000, 2001, and 2002 exceed the State's allotment for fiscal
year 2000 under subsection (b);
``(IV) the fiscal year 2001 allotment, the amount by which
the State's expenditures under this title in fiscal years
2001, 2002, and 2003 exceed the State's allotment for fiscal
year 2001 under subsection (b); or
``(V) the allotment for any subsequent fiscal year, the
amount by which the State's expenditures under this title in
the period such allotment is available under subsection (e)
exceeds the State's allotment for that fiscal year under
subsection (b).''; and
(iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``1998 or 1999
allotment'' and inserting ``1998, 1999, 2000, or subsequent
fiscal year allotment'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``with
respect to fiscal year 1998 or 1999'';
(ii) in clause (ii)--
(I) by inserting ``with respect to fiscal year 1998 or
1999,'' after ``subsection (e)''; and
(II) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
(iv) by inserting after clause (ii), the following:
``(iii) notwithstanding subsection (e), with respect to
fiscal year 2000 or any subsequent fiscal year, shall remain
available for expenditure by the State through the end of the
fiscal year in which the State is allotted a redistribution
under this paragraph; and'';
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``1998 and 1999''
and inserting ``1998, 1999, 2000, and subsequent fiscal
year'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the
following:
``(iii) Fiscal year 2000 allotment.--Of the amounts
allotted to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year
2000 that were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal
year 2002, the amount specified in subparagraph (B) for
fiscal year 2000 for such State shall remain available for
expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 2003.
``(iv) Fiscal year 2001 allotment.--Of the amounts allotted
to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year 2001 that
were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal year
2003, the amount specified in subparagraph (B) for fiscal
year 2001 for such State shall remain available for
expenditure by the State through the end of 2004.
``(v) Subsequent fiscal year allotments.--Of the amounts
allotted to a State pursuant to this section for any fiscal
year after 2001, that were not expended by the State by the
end of the last fiscal year such amounts are available under
subsection (e), the amount specified in subparagraph (B) for
that fiscal year for such State shall remain available for
expenditure by the State through the end of the fiscal year
following the last fiscal year such amounts are available
under subsection (e).'';
(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``The'' and inserting
``Subject to subparagraph (C), the'';
(D) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(E) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the following:
``(C) Floor for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.--For fiscal
years 2000 and 2001, if the total amounts that would
otherwise be redistributed under paragraph (1) exceed 60
percent of the total amount available for redistribution
under subsection (f) for the fiscal year, the amount
remaining available for expenditure by the State under
subparagraph (A) for such fiscal years shall be--
``(i) the amount equal to--
``(I) 40 percent of the total amount available for
redistribution under subsection (f) from the allotments for
the applicable fiscal year; multiplied by
``(II) the ratio of the amount of such State's unexpended
allotment for that fiscal year to the total amount available
for redistribution under subsection (f) from the allotments
for the fiscal year.''; and
(4) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following:
``For purposes of calculating the amounts described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) relating to the allotment for any
fiscal year after 1999, the Secretary shall use the amount
reported by the States not later than November 30 of the
applicable calendar year on HCFA Form 64 or HCFA Form 21, as
approved by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF CASELOAD STABILIZATION POOL AND
ADDITIONAL REDISTRIBUTION OF ALLOTMENTS.
Section 2104 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Redistribution of Caseload Stabilization Pool
Amounts.--
``(1) Additional redistribution to stabilize caseloads.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to fiscal year 2003 and any
subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary shall redistribute to
an eligible State (as defined in subparagraph (B)) the amount
available for redistribution to the State (as determined
under subparagraph (C)) from the caseload stabilization pool
established under paragraph (3).
``(B) Definition of eligible state.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), an eligible State is a State whose total
expenditures under this title through the end of the previous
fiscal year exceed the total allotments made available to the
State under subsection (b) or subsection (c) (not including
amounts made available under subsection (f)) through the
previous fiscal year.
``(C) Amount of additional redistribution.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the amount available for redistribution to
a State under subparagraph (A) is equal to--
``(i) the ratio of the State's allotment for the previous
fiscal year under subsection (b) or subsection (c) to the
total allotments made available under such subsections to
eligible States as defined under subparagraph (A) for the
previous fiscal year; multiplied by
``(ii) the total amounts available in the caseload
stabilization pool established under paragraph (3).
``(2) Period of availability.--Amounts redistributed under
this subsection shall remain available for expenditure by the
State through the end of the fiscal year in which the State
receives any such amounts.
``(3) Caseload stabilization pool.--For purposes of making
a redistribution under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
establish a caseload stabilization pool that includes the
following amounts:
``(A) Any amount made available to a State under subsection
(g) but not expended within the periods required under
subparagraphs (g)(1)(B)(ii), (g)(1)(B)(iii), or (g)(2)(A).
``(B) Any amount made available to a State under this
subsection but not expended within the period required under
paragraph (2).''.
SEC. 4. RESTORATION OF SCHIP FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEARS 2003
AND 2004.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 2104(a)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(a)) are amended
by striking ``$3,150,000,000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``$4,275,000,000''.
(b) Additional Allotment To Territories.--Section
2104(c)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397dd(c)(4)(B)) is amended by striking ``$25,200,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004'' and inserting
``$25,200,000 for fiscal year 2002, $34,200,000 for each of
fiscal years 2003 and 2004''.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Rockefeller
in introducing the Children's Health Improvement and Protection Act of
2002.
The Children's Health Improvement and Protection Act of 2002 will
finally provide long-term stability to the State Children's Health
Insurance Program. While SCHIP has been extremely successful at
enrolling and insuring low-income and uninsured children since its
inception in 1997, the continued success of this program is in
question. In fact, it is estimated that almost a million children will
lose their SCHIP coverage over the next three years if a legislative
remedy is not signed into law to prevent this from happening.
When SCHIP was created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, states
were given their annual SCHIP allotment based on the number of
uninsured and low-income children in each state. According to the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, these state allotments
range from $3.5 million for Vermont to $855 million for California.
While the percentage of children without health insurance has declined
over the past couple of years due to these allotments, the SCHIP
allotments for all states are 26 percent lower for Fiscal Years 2002,
2003, and 2004. Each of these years results in a decline of $1 billion
for state SCHIP allotments. This phenomenon is known as the ``CHIP-
Dip.'' There was no hidden policy agenda behind this steady decline in
funding; it was based on a lack of federal funding for SCHIP at the
time this program was enacted.
In addition, BBA gave states only three years to roll-over unexpended
funds before these funds are given back to the federal treasury for
redistribution to other states that have used up their entire
allotments. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, a
total of $3.2 billion in federal SCHIP funds is scheduled to expire and
revert to Treasury over the next two years.
These funding inadequacies not only create instability in the
program, but they pose negative consequences for each state over the
long-haul due to the uncertainty of federal commitment to SCHIP. The
likely result will be that states will either have to cap enrollment in
their SCHIP programs, push children out of their programs, or scale
back benefits to make up for these budget shortfalls. The end result
[[Page S7928]]
will be that children who once had access to health insurance will no
longer get the care they need.
Our bill will remedy these funding problems. It will do so by fixing
the ``CHIP-Dip'' and by extending the life of expiring funds to states
that need the assistance to take care of funding shortfalls. This
legislation is crucial to my state of Rhode Island. Without this
legislative remedy, Rhode Island is set to run out of SCHIP funds by FY
2004. At 4.5 percent, Rhode Island currently has the lowest uninsured
rate of any state in the nation for children. This bill will enable
Rhode Island to continue offering health coverage to this vulnerable
population.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Rockefeller and me in supporting
this important legislation. It is a crucial step in ensuring that our
nation's children will have long-term access to quality health
insurance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Children's
Health Improvement and Protection Act today, along with my good friends
Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and Senator Lincoln
Chafee. This bill will provide needed funding to keep children enrolled
in the Children's Health Insurance Program and to allow the program to
grow. Without this legislation, hundreds of thousands of children will
lose their CHIP coverage and rejoin the ranks of the uninsured.
Monday is the fifth anniversary of the Children's Health Insurance
Program. Senator Hatch and I have worked together on many proposals,
but none has had more lasting benefit for millions of American children
than our legislation to create CHIP. We first proposed CHIP after we
became acutely aware of the health defects facing children and the need
to assure that every child got a healthy start in life. Before we
passed CHIP, 500,000 children with asthma never saw a doctor. Another
600,000 children with earaches and 600,000 with sore throats never
received medical care.
A sick child can't learn. A child who can't hear the teacher can't
learn. A child who can't see the doctor when they're sick can't learn.
That's why uninsured children are more likely to fall behind or drop
out of school altogether.
We also became aware of the ravages of smoking on health, and that
the key to addressing this problem was to discourage children from
starting to smoke. In my own state of Massachusetts, there had been a
very successful campaign to raise money to expand children's health
coverage by raising the cigarette tax. This united anti-tobacco
activists and child health advocates.
So Senator Hatch and I decided that the winning, fiscally
responsible, right health policy approach was to develop a major
expansion of children's health insurance and finance it with an
increase in the tobacco tax.
And what a success CHIP has been. This legislation has touched every
community in America. Last year, over 4.5 million children received
health insurance through either Children's Health Insurance Program or
through Medicaid expansions under the CHIP program. Last year, 105,000
children in Massachusetts were covered through these programs, and many
other states have had similar successes.
Despite the clear evidence that health insurance provides children
with a healthier start, funding cuts to the CHIP program of more than
$1 billion this year and each of the next two years puts the gains we
have made in insuring children at risk. This ``CHIP dip'' is a result
of the budget constraints when CHIP was enacted in 1997 as part of the
Balanced Budget Act. This funding cut comes at the same time enrollment
in the program is rising and will cause 900,000 children to lose the
health insurance they have today through CHIP.
While states are facing a drop in funding that will cause them to
drop insured children, almost $3 billion in unspent CHIP funds will be
lost if we do nothing. CHIP funds must be spent within three years of
allocation. Because of a mismatch between the time unspent funds were
reallocated to the states and when the states needed the funds, some
states will not be able to use all of their CHIP funds within the
allocation period.
It makes no sense to have funds expire and revert to the Treasury
when we know states will be facing a funding drop that will cause them
to cut children from their programs. One of this nation's most
fundamental guarantees should be that every child has the opportunity
to succeed in life. But that commitment rings hollow if children are
doomed to a lifetime of disability and illness because they lack needed
health care in their early years.
That is why we are introducing the Children's Health Insurance
Program. This bill will allow states to maintain and expand their CHIP
programs. It lets states keep a portion of their unspent funds that
would otherwise expire. It also establishes a new caseload
stabilization pool with funds that would otherwise expire. The pool
will direct unspent funds to states that are expected to use up all
their CHIP funds. Finally, the bill provides additional CHIP funding
for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 so that CHIP enrollment can be
maintained and expanded. This legislation will move us one important
step closer to fulfilling the promise that no child in America will be
left behind because of inadequate health care coverage.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, Senators Rockefeller, Chafee,
Kennedy, and I are introducing legislation to make certain that States
have adequate funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program,
otherwise known as CHIP.
I cosponsor this legislation to reflect my concern that, unless the
Congress addresses this issue, thousands of children may risk losing
their health insurance coverage. CHIP has proven to be an enormously
popular program, which has provided much needed health insurance to
literally millions of low-income children. It helps the poorest of the
poor families who are not Medicaid-eligible.
We cannot afford to stand back now and watch those efforts be
undermined because of funding problems that Congress should correct.
That is the intent, as I understand it, of the Rockefeller-Chafee bill.
As most of my colleagues are aware, when CHIP was established in
1997, Congress committed $20 billion over five years and a total of $40
billion over 10 years for the program. For each fiscal year 1999
through 2001, Congress allocated $4.3 billion; yet for the fiscal years
2002 through 2004, Congress allocated $3 billion per year for CHIP
programs. This so-called ``CHIP'' dip may reduce funding levels in
States that are just beginning to ramp up their programs.
I am concerned that while States will have some unspent CHIP moneys
available to them, that those funds still might not be enough to
address the ``CHIP dip'' and the expanding CHIP population. We need to
deal with this issue and we need to deal with the nearly $3 billion in
federal CHIP moneys scheduled to revert back to the Treasury in fiscal
year 2002 and 2003.
My cosponsorship of this legislation reflects my commitment to
address these issues, although I recognize that there are a number of
issues associated with this legislation that will need to be worked
out. I accept the assurances of my fellow cosponsors that they will
work with me to address those issues as the bill moves forward in the
Finance Committee.
Let me also add that I am aware that many of my colleagues have
additional policy issues regarding the CHIP program that they feel
should be addressed. Know I do. I am particularly concerned by recent
legislation, approved by the Finance Committee, which would extend
coverage under the CHIP program to pregnant women. Now, I
wholeheartedly support providing expectant mothers health care
assistance. But, I believe that before we extend coverage under CHIP to
any adult, States need to demonstrate that they are covering, to the
greatest extend possible, all eligible children.
The CHIP program is one of my proudest accomplishments. I want to
continue to maintain the integrity of this program. The only purpose of
CHIP was to extend access to health insurance to poor kids. As one of
the prime authors of the legislation, I can assure my colleagues that
it was not our intent that the program be expanded to address the
entire problem of health care for the uninsured a piece at a time.
Covering the uninsured is a worthy goal and one which we need to
address, but that was not the purpose
[[Page S7929]]
of CHIP. We were dealing with a special problem: the up to 10 million
children who did not have access to health insurance. We ought not lose
sight of this. I am confident we can come to an agreement on measures
to ensure that needy children receive the health care they deserve and
thus I am pleased to join with my colleagues today.
______
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 2861. A bill to empower States with authority for most taxing and
spending for highway programs and mass transit programs, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President; I introduce The Transportation Empowerment
Act which will allow states to keep a majority of the federal gas tax
dollars raised in their state. Similar to legislation introduced by our
former colleague Connie Mack, ``The Transportation Empowerment Act''
restores to states and local communities the ability to make their own
transportation decisions without the interference of Washington.
This proposal is very straightforward. It streamlines the federal-aid
highway program into four core areas: Interstate, Federal Lands, Safety
and Research. The proposed bill provides for continued general fund
support for transit grants and authorizes states to enter into multi
state compacts for planning and financing regional transportation
needs.
The federal tax is kept in place for a four-year transition period,
beginning in FY04. After funding the core programs and paying off
outstanding bills, the balance is returned to the states in a block
grant. At the end of the transition period, in FY07, the federal tax is
reduced to two cents per gallon.
I have long believed that the best decisions are those made at the
local level. Unfortunately, many of the transportation choices made by
cities and states are governed by federal rules and regulations. This
bill returns to states the responsibility and resources to make their
own transportation decisions.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr.
Biden):
S. 2862. A bill to provide for the establishment of a scientific
basis for new firefighting technology standards, improve coordination
among Federal, State, and local fire officials in training for and
responding to terrorist attacks and other national emergencies, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Hollings, Cantwell, and Biden in introducing the Firefighting Research
and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the
establishment of the scientific basis for new firefighting technology
standards; improved coordination between Federal, state, and local fire
officials in training and response to a terrorist attack or a national
emergency; and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to
improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such as the
tragedy of September 11, 2001.
The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons
learned from the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and
address other problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the
New York City fire fighters and emergency service personnel acted with
great heroism in selflessly rushing to the World Trade Center and
saving the lives of many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and
EMS technicians paid the ultimate price in the service of their
country. While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United
States, it is our duty to ensure that we are adequately prepared for
any future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition, we must
recognize that many of the preparations we make to improve the response
to national emergencies will also prepare our firefighters for their
everyday role in protecting our families and homes.
Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal
imaging equipment, devices for locating firefighters and victims, and
state-of-the-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or
hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices.
The Federal government's Firefighter Investment and Response
Enhancement, FIRE, program is authorized for $900 million this year to
assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech equipment.
It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used for
effective new equipment that will protect our local communities.
Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for this new
equipment for combating fires. Without such standards, local fire
companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or
even purchase faulty equipment. For example, Montgomery County, MD,
spent $40,000 on ``Level B'' protective suits that they cannot use,
because these suits have ``booties'' that are not compatible with the
firefighter's boots. Currently, local fire departments also have
problems using each other's fire hoses and air bottles for self-
contained breathing apparatuses because of inconsistent equipment
standards. It is important that new equipment performs properly and is
compatible with older equipment.
This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment standards by
establishing a scientific basis for voluntary consensus standards. It
would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for
Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, and other interested
parties to establish measurement techniques and testing methodologies
for new firefighting equipment. These new techniques and methodologies
will act as a scientific basis for the development of voluntary
consensus standards. This bill would allow the Federal government to
cooperate with the private sector in developing the basic uniform
performance criteria and technical standards to ensure that
effectiveness and compatibility of these new technologies.
Many issues regarding coordination surfaced on September 11. Titan
Systems Corporation recently issued an after-action report, on behalf
of the fire department of Arlington County, VA, which highlighted
problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and Arlington
County fire departments. The report also cited the confusion caused by
a large influx of self-dispatched volunteers, and increased risk faced
by the ``bonafide responders.'' These conclusions are consistent with
an article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. David Paulison,
in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, where he described being
overwhelmed by the number of uncoordinated volunteer efforts that
poured into Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, many fire
officials and the General Accounting Office have highlighted the
duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for better
coordination between federal, state, and local officials.
The bill also seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S.
Fire Administrator to work with state and local fire service officials
to establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for responding to
national emergencies. These mutual aid plans would include collection
of accurate asset and resource information to ensure that local fire
services could work together to deploy equipment and personnel
effectively during an emergency. This legislation would also establish
the U.S. Fire Administrator as the primary point of contact within the
Federal government for state and local firefighting units, in order to
ensure greater Federal coordination and interface with state and local
officials in preparing and responding to terrorist attacks, hurricanes,
earthquakes, or other national emergencies. In addition, the bill would
direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to report on the need for a strategy
for deploying volunteers, including the use of a national credentialing
system. Currently, there is a system for credentialing volunteers to
fight wildfires that has proven effective, and the development of a
similar system may prevent some of the confusion that occurred at the
World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11.
Finally, the bill would improve the training of state and local
firefighters. The bill would authorize the National Fire Academy to
offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of technology in
response to fires caused by
[[Page S7930]]
terrorist attacks and other national emergencies; leadership and
strategic skills including integrated management systems operations;
deployment of new technology for fighting forest and wild fires;
fighting fires at ports; and other courses related to tactics and
strategies for responding to terrorist incidents and other fire
services' needs.
This bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to coordinate
the National Fire Academy's training programs with the Attorney
General, Secretary of Health and Human Services and other Federal
agencies to prevent the duplication in training programs that has been
identified by the General Accounting Office.
I am pleased to announce that this legislation is supported by the
National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services
Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International
Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire
Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; and the
International Fire Service Training Association. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to ensure passage of this legislation. I am
aware that some issues, including funding of this legislation, need to
be addressed.
Last year, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a
result. We must ensure that future firefighters are adequately equipped
and trained, and are working in coordination to respond to any future
national emergencies. Every day firefighters rush into burning
buildings to save the lives of their fellow Americans. It is our duty
to adequately equip and protect them.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I introduced legislation designating the
year beginning February 1, 2003, as the Year of the Blues and
requesting that the President issue a proclamation calling on the
people of the United States to observe the ``Year of the Blues'' with
appropriate ceremonies, activities, and educational programs. I am
joined by Senators Cochran, Thompson, and Frist and ask unanimous
consent that it be printed in the Record.
It has been said that ``Blues is more than music; Blues is culture.
Blues is America.'' As a native of Helena, Arkansas, I could not agree
more. Growing up in the Delta, I often listened to the blues during the
famous ``King Biscuit Time'' show on my hometown station, KFFA radio.
The songs I heard often told stories of both celebration and triumph,
as well as sorrow and struggle.
Although its roots are in the tradition of the primitive songs of the
old Southern sharecroppers, the blues has left an important cultural
legacy in our country and has documented African-American history in
the last century. As the blues began to transform in style and content
throughout the twentieth century, its evolution paralleled the
migration of American life from a rural, agricultural society to an
urban industrialized nation. The blues has also left an indelible
impression on other forms of music with its influence heard in jazz,
rock and roll, rhythm and blues, country, and even classical music.
Despite these facts, though, many young people today do not understand
the rich heritage of the blues or recognize its impact on our nation
and our world.
That is why I am delighted to introduce this resolution and
participate in the Year of the Blues project. Coordinated by The Blues
Foundation and Experience Music Project, The Year of the Blues is a
multi-faceted entertainment, education, and outreach program recently
formed to both celebrate and create greater awareness for the blues and
its place in the history and evolution of music and culture, both in
the United States and around the world. The program is anchored by high
profile events, and beginning next year, it will feature a wide array
of participants, projects, and components designed to reach a large
audience, as well as support blues oriented education and outreach
programs, such as Blues in the Schools.
This project also takes on a special meaning for me because I am a
``daughter of the Delta,'' and my hometown of Helena has played a large
role in the development of the blues. Today, Helena serves as a
temporary blues Mecca each October when the three day King Biscuit
Blues Festival takes place. And as I noted earlier, it is also the site
of one of the longest running daily music shows, ``King Biscuit Time,''
which continues to air every weekday at 12:15 pm on KFFA radio from the
Delta Cultural Center Visitors' Center. As long as I can remember,
``King Biscuit Time'' has been an integral part of life and culture in
the Delta. Debuting in November 1941, ``King Biscuit Time'' originally
featured famous harmonica player Sonny Boy Williamson, guitarist Robert
Junior Lockwood, and the King Biscuit Entertainers. When recently
noting the uniqueness of the show, long-time host ``Sunshine'' Sonny
Payne recalled that many of the songs played on ``King Biscuit Time''
originated during the live broadcasts, and in some cases, words to the
songs were known to change day to day. After becoming involved with
this project, I recently came across an article ``Pass the biscuits,
cause it's King Biscuit Time . . . '' written by freelance writer Lex
Gillespie. I believe this article provides an accurate account of the
development of blues in the South, and I ask unanimous consent to
submit it for the Record.
So as you can see, the blues has been an important part of my life
and the life of many others. It's a style of music that is, in its
essence, truly American. But as we move into a new century and embrace
new forms and styles of music, we must not allow today's youth to
forget the legacy of our past. By teaching the blues, promoting the
blues, and celebrating the blues, we can ensure that the rich culture
and heritage of our forefathers will always live on. I urge my
colleagues to support this resolution.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
August 1, 2002.
Hon. John McCain,
Senate Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: The tragic events of September 11th
certainly underscored the important need for additional
training and advanced technologies for our nation's fire and
emergency services. They are equal components in our efforts
to prepare our nation for future large-scale emergencies that
require rapid deployment of local first responders.
In the area of technology, we have witnessed an emergence
of new technologies designed to improve our level of
readiness to future terrorist events and other large-scale
disasters. Some of this technology has the potential to
address the immediate needs of our nation's public safety
agencies; while other requires additional scrutiny and
testing before the fire and emergency services can be assured
of its intended performance.
We extend our appreciation for your interest in this matter
and for introducing the Firefighter Research and Coordination
Act. We support this legislation as a crucial step towards
developing and deploying advanced technologies our nation's
first responders need in this period of heightened risk and
security.
Working as partners, the United States Fire Administration,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, the
Interagency Board and other interested parties, including the
National Fire Protection Association, can develop a
scientific basis for the private sector development of
standards for new fire fighting technology. Your legislation
will not undermine or duplicate the standards-making process
that has served the fire service for over a hundred years,
but rather strengthen it in areas of new technologies
necessitated by the events of September 11th.
We also support the other two sections of your legislation
calling for coordination of response to national emergencies
and for increased training. Our organizations strongly
believe that the United States Fire Administrator should
serve as the primary point of contact for state and local
firefighting units during national emergencies. We have
expressed this message repeatedly, including in the Blue
Ribbon Panel report presented to then-FEMA Director James Lee
Witt in 1998 and most recently in a white paper, titled
``Protecting Our Nation'' that we presented to Congress last
year. To ensure the success of this legislation, it is
imperative that Congress appropriate additional dollars to
carry-out this new role of the Administrator.
As the threats to our nation's security intensify, so must
the level of training for our nation's first responders. We
must expose our firefighters and rescue personnel to advanced
levels of training and technologies so they can safely
respond to all acts of terrorism and other major disasters.
The final section of your legislation will help us attain
this goal.
We look forward to working with you in advancing this
legislation through Congress. Again, we thank you for your
continued support.
Sincerely,
Congressional Fire Services Institute, International
Association of Arson Investigators, International
Association
[[Page S7931]]
of Fire Chiefs, International Association of Fire
Fighters, International Fire Service Training
Association, National Fire Protection Association,
National Volunteer Fire Council.
____
National Volunteer Fire Council,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2002.
Hon. John McCain,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: The National Volunteer Fire Council
(NVFC) is a non-profit membership association representing
the more than 800,000 members of America's volunteer fire,
EMS, and rescue services. Organized in 1976, the NVFC serves
as the voice of America's volunteer fire personnel in over
28,000 departments across the country. On behalf of our
membership, I would like to express our full support for the
Firefighting Research and Coordination Act.
This legislation would allow the U.S. Fire Administrator to
develop measurement techniques and testing methodologies to
evaluate the compatibility of new firefighting technology. In
addition, it would require new equipment purchased under the
FIRE Grant program to meet or exceed these standards.
The bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to
establish a national plan for training and responding to
national emergencies and it would designate the Administrator
as the contact point for State and local firefighting units
in the event of a national emergency. It would also direct
the Administrator to work with state and local fire service
officials to establish nationwide and state mutual aid
systems for dealing with national emergencies that include
threat assessment, and means of collecting asset and resource
information for deployment.
Finally, the bill authorizes the Superintendent of the
National Fire Academy to train fire personnel in building
collapse rescue, the use of new technology, tactics and
strategies for dealing with terrorist incidents, the use of
the national plan for training and responding to emergencies,
leadership skills, and new technology tactics for fighting
forest fires.
Once again, the NVFC commends your efforts to train and
equip America's volunteer firefighters and we thank you for
the leadership role you have taken on this issue. We look
forward to working with you in the 107th Congress to pass
this important piece of legislation. If you have any
questions or comments feel free to contact Craig Sharman,
NVFC Government Affairs Representative at (202) 887-5700.
Sincerely,
Philip C. Sittleburg,
Chairman.
____
S. 2862
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 ``Firefighting Research and
Coordination Act''.
SEC. 2. NEW FIREFIGHTING TECHNOLOGY.
Section 8 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of
1974 (15 U.S.C. 2207) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Development of New Technology.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to, or as part of, the
program conducted under subsection (a), the Administrator, in
consultation with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment
Standardization and Inter-Operability, national voluntary
consensus standards development organizations, and other
interested parties, shall--
``(A) develop new, and utilize existing, measurement
techniques and testing methodologies for evaluating new
firefighting technologies, including--
``(i) thermal imaging equipment;
``(ii) early warning fire detection devices;
``(iii) personal protection equipment for firefighting;
``(iv) victim detection equipment; and
``(v) devices to locate firefighters and other rescue
personnel in buildings;
``(B) evaluate the compatibility of new equipment and
technology with existing firefighting technology; and
``(C) support the development of new voluntary consensus
standards through national voluntary consensus standards
organizations for new firefighting technologies based on
techniques and methodologies described in subparagraph (A).
``(2) New equipment must meet standards.--The Administrator
shall, by regulation, require that equipment purchased
through the assistance program established by section 33 meet
or exceed applicable voluntary consensus standards.''.
SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF RESPONSE TO NATIONAL EMERGENCY.
(a) In General.--Section 10 of the Federal Fire Prevention
and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2209) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Coordination of Response for National Emergencies.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a
national plan for training and responding to national
emergencies under which the Administrator shall be the
primary contact point for State and local firefighting units
in the event of a national emergency. The Administrator shall
ensure that the national plan is consistent with the master
plans developed by the several States and political
subdivisions thereof.
``(2) Mutual aid systems.--The Administrator shall work
with State and local fire service officials to establish, as
part of the national plan, nationwide and State mutual aid
systems for dealing with national emergencies that--
``(A) include threat assessment and equipment deployment
strategies;
``(B) include means of collecting asset and resource
information to provide accurate and timely data for regional
deployment; and
``(C) are consistent with the national plan established
under paragraph (1) for Federal response to national
emergencies.''.
(b) Report on Strategic Needs.--Within 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
United States Fire Administration shall report to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Science on the need for
a strategy concerning deployment of volunteers and emergency
response personnel (as defined in section 6 of the
Firefighters' Safety Study Act (15 U.S.C. 2223e), including a
national credentialing system, in the event of a national
emergency.
SEC. 4. TRAINING.
(a) In General.--Section 8(d)(1) of the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2206(d)(1)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph
(E);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (N);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) strategies for building collapse rescue;
``(G) the use of technology in response to fires, including
terrorist incidents and other national emergencies;
``(H) response, tactics, and strategies for dealing with
terrorist-caused national catastrophes;
``(I) use of and familiarity with the national plan
developed by the Administrator under section 10(b)(1);
``(J) leadership and strategic skills, including integrated
management systems operations and integrated response;
``(K) applying new technology and developing strategies and
tactics for fighting forest fires;
``(L) integrating terrorism response agencies into the
national terrorism incident response system;
``(M) response tactics and strategies for fighting fires at
United States ports, including fires on the water and aboard
vessels; and''.
(b) Coordination with Other Programs To Avoid
Duplication.--The Administrator of the United States Fire
Administration shall coordinate training provided under
section 8(d)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control
Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2206(d)(1)) with the Attorney General,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the heads of
other Federal agencies to ensure that there is no duplication
of that training with existing courses available to fire
service personnel.
______
By Mr. McCain:
S. 2863. A bill to provide for deregulation of consumer broadband
services; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Consumer Broadband
Deregulation Act of 2002. This legislation takes a comprehensive,
deregulatory, but measured approach to providing more Americans with
more broadband choices. By ensuring that the market, not government,
regulates the deployment of broadband services, the legislation will
promote investment and innovation in broadband facilities--and
consumers will benefit.
The bill would create a new title in the Communications Act of 1934
that would ensure that residential broadband services exist in a
minimally regulated environment. The new section of the Act would also
make certain that providers of broadband services are treated in a
similar fashion without regard to the particular mode of providing
service. The bill includes provisions that would take the following
actions:
Deregulate the retail provision of residential broadband
services; dictate a hands-off approach to the deployment of
new facilities by telephone companies while maintaining
competitors' access to legacy systems; resist government-
mandated open access while providing a safety net to ensure
consumers enjoy a competitive broadband services market;
ensure that local and state barriers to broadband deployment
are removed; facilitate deployment of broadband services to
rural and unserved communities by creating an information
clearing house in the federal government; maximize wireless
technology as a platform for broadband services; ensure
access to broadband services by people with disabilities;
enhance the enforcement tools
[[Page S7932]]
available to the FCC; and put the federal government in the
role of stimulator, rather than regulatory, of broadband
services.
In 1996, Congress passed the first major overhaul of
telecommunications policy in 62 years. Supporters of the
Telecommunications Act argued that it would create increased
competition, provide consumers with a variety of new and innovative
services at lower prices, and reduce the need for regulation. My
principal objection to the Act was that it fundamentally regulated, not
deregulated, the telecommunications industry and would lead inevitably
to prolonged litigation. It has been six years since the passage of the
Act, but consumers have yet to benefit. Competition denied by excessive
regulation is costly to consumers.
The latest legislative debate in the communications industry has
focused on the availability of high-speed Internet access services,
often called ``broadband.'' Indeed, Federal Communications Commission
Chairman, Michael Powell, has called broadband, ``the central
communications policy objective in America.''
There is stark disagreement about the state of affairs of broadband
services in the United States. Depending on who is speaking, there is a
supply problem, a demand problem, a combination of the two, or no
problem at all. All parties agree, however, that Americans and our
national economy will benefit greatly from the widespread use of
broadband services. Accelerated broadband deployment reportedly could
benefit our nation's economy by hundreds of billions of dollars.
With such tremendous opportunity comes no shortage of ``solutions.''
Many want a national industrial policy to drive broadband deployment--
they suggest multi-billion dollar central planning efforts aimed to
deliver services to consumers regardless of whether those consumers
want or need such services. Others have focused on narrow issues
affecting only a subset of all providers of broadband services.
This legislation takes a different approach. It takes a comprehensive
look at the proper role of the government with respect to these new
services. It reduces government interference with market forces that
lead to consumer welfare, and looks for ways that government can
facilitate, not dictate or control, the development of broadband
technologies.
Mr. President, I am a firm believe in free market principles. In
1995, I introduced a series of amendments during the floor debate on
the Telecommunications Act that would have made the bill truly
deregulatory. As I said at the time, I believe that ``[i]n free
markets, less government usually means more innovation, more
entrepreneurial opportunities, more competition, and more benefits to
consumers.'' Likewise, in 1998, I introduced the Telecommunications
Competition Act that would have allowed competition to flourish and
brought true deregulation to the telecommunications market. In 1999, I
introduced the Internet Regulatory Freedom Act that would have
eliminated certain regulation of telephone companies' deployment of
broadband facilities. And in 1999 and 2000, I was a leading advocate in
the Senate for the Internet Tax Freedom Act ensuring a moratorium on
taxation of the Internet.
I stand by the legislation and amendments I previously introduced and
believe that they represented the right approach at the right time. In
fact, if I had it my way, I would throw out the 1996 Act and start from
scratch. I am mindful, however, that broadband has been an issue that
has polarized policymakers to the point of legislative paralysis. Now
is the time for a measured approach that focuses on achieving what can
be done to improve the deployment of services to all consumers. I
believe that this legislation is such an approach.
The bill has multiple components designed to address all aspects of
broadband deployment and usage, and also provides adequate safety nets
in the event that there proves to be a market failure that is harmful
to consumers.
Broadband services can be provided over multiple platforms including
telephone, cable, wireless, satellite, and perhaps one day soon, power
lines, Each of these platforms is regulated differently based on the
nature of the service the platform was originally designed to provide.
This legislation would move us closer to a harmonization of regulatory
ancestry of a particular platform.
First, the bill makes clear that the retail provision of high-speed
Internet service remains unregulated. The Internet's tremendous growth
is a testament to the exercise of regulatory restraint.
Some have suggested a need for government regulation of consumer
broadband service quality. They allege that service deficiencies
inhibit the development of these new offerings. But we must remember
that these are new services, and new services will have problems. This
legislation allows for these services to mature. If upon maturity, the
FCC determines that there is a need to protect consumers from service
quality shortcomings related to the technical provision of service.
Then the states can enforce uniform requirements. This provides a
measured approach to service quality--a safety net without a
presumption of regulation.
Next, we must clarify that new services offered by varied providers,
regardless of mode, will not be subject to the micromanagement of
government regulation. Recognizing that upgrading networks requires
substantial investment not free of risk, this bill begins this process
by relaxing the obligations on telephone companies that invest in
facilities that will bring better broadband services to more consumers.
Nothing in this legislation, however, will undermine competitors'
efforts to provide services using the telephone companies' legacy
facilities. This approach strikes a balance between the interests of
those who have invested capital on the promise of government-managed
competition and those who will invest in the future of broadband
facilities on the promise of government restraint and market-driven
competition.
The bill also grapples with the government-managed wholesale market
for consumer broadband services--the so-called ``open access'' debate.
Mr. President, there is perhaps no more difficult issue addressed in
this bill.
The Internet has thrived because it is an open platform. The presence
of numerous ISPs in the narrowband market certainly contributed to the
vitality of this open network, particularly at the inception of the
Internet. Those providers have depended on access to customers
guaranteed by FCC rules. As a result, many have suggested the need for
government-mandated access to customers served over broadband
connections. They raise significant concerns about carriers becoming
screeners of content, and anti-competitive threats to web site
operators if consumers do not have a choice of ISP or are limited in
their ability to access particular web sites.
However tempting it may be to believe that government mandates will
produce desired policy outcomes, such intervention too often comes at
the price of market inefficiencies, stifled innovation, and increased
regulatory costs. Moreover, regulators are often slow to respond to
dynamic industry changes.
The bill would rely on market forces to resolve access issues by
establishing the general rule that the FCC may not impose open access
requirements on any provider--no matter what platform is used to
provide the consumer broadband service. Again, the bill takes a
measured approach by creating a safety net for consumers. Today a
multitude of ISPs rely on access mandated by the FCC to serve their
customers. The bill would allow the FCC to continue to enforce these
obligations during a transition period, but would mandate the sunset of
such requirements unless the FCC determines their continued enforcement
is necessary to preserve competition for consumers.
I firmly believe that market forces will guide the development of a
wholesale market producing sustainable, not government-managed,
competition. The bill is sufficiently flexible to ensure that consumers
are protected, whole sending a clear signal to those parties willing to
make the significant investment necessary to provide broadband services
that the government will not lie in wait only to reward their risk-
taking with regulation.
I note again, however, that this issue raises challenging and complex
policy questions. We should ensure the continued open nature of the
Internet. To
[[Page S7933]]
the extent that market forces prove incapable of preventing
restrictions on consumers' use of the Internet or limitations on
devices that consumers wish to attach to their Internet connection, we
may need to consider a different approach. I look forward to continue
debate on these difficult questions.
The potential for government interference with market forces is not
limited to federal regulation. State and local governments are also
capable of obstructing the deployment of broadband. The bill would
address this threat by precluding any state or local regulation from
prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide consumer broadband
service. It would also prevent localities from transforming their
legitimate interest in managing their rights of way into an imposition
of additional, revenue-generating financial burdens on broadband
deployment.
Consumer broadband services should be accessible to all people,
regardless of where they live, what they do, or how much they earn. We
must be realistic, however, about how quickly this can occur. The bill
recognizes the important role that government can play as facilitator
to accelerate universal deployment by using its resources to allow
communities to share information about successful efforts to attract
broadband deployment.
Government can facilitate broadband deployment and use in other ways
as well. Wireless technologies like Wi-Fi and mesh networks hold
tremendous promise for the delivery of consumer broadband services.
Given its role in the management of spectrum, the government can impact
the use of these technologies. The bill would require the FCC to
examine the best role for government in fully exploiting wireless
technologies as a broadband platform for the benefit of consumers.
Although government should limit its role to those circumstances
where market failure is demonstrated, Chairman Powell has suggested
that the Commission must be prepared to better enforce its existing
rules by increasing the Commission's ability to impose penalties on
parties that act in a manner that is anticompetitive. This bill would
given him the tools to do so.
Some claim that there is a demand ``problem'' with broadband that is
caused by the dearth of available broadband content. Here, too,
government can play an important role. Certainly content is one of the
factors that will drive consumers to subscribe to high-speed Internet
services. Given the prominent role that the federal government plays in
the lives of most Americans, it can be a source of substantial
broadband content. The bill would ensure that the federal government is
fully exploiting its ability to provide this content.
Finally, I recognize that many will look at the bill and ask about
broadband services used by businesses. Why treat those services
differently? It is a fair question. I have stated previously that most
of the advantages of the Telecommunications Act have accrued not to the
average consumer who has seen only higher prices for existing services,
but to business customers. It is these business customers that many
competitors have attempted to serve using the facilities of the
incumbent telephone companies. Moreover, whereas the cable platform is
the source of robust, facilities-based competition in the consumer
market, it has not developed to a similar extent in the market for
business customers. Given these factors, and a desire to take a
measured approach, I have generally limited the scope of this bill to
the consumer broadband services market. This focus does not reflect my
lack of support for a similarly deregulatory approach to the business
market. Indeed, I strongly encourage Chairman Powell to be aggressive
in using the tools at his disposal to remove regulations wherever
appropriate in the business broadband services market.
Mr. President, technological progress has too often been constrained
by government policies that seek to control it and dictate its course.
Such policies have often had the perverse effect of slowing
technological advancements. The growth of the Internet demonstrates
what happens when governments choose to learn from the mistakes of the
past in order to build a better and richer future for our citizens. The
choice we have made is to adapt our mechanisms for governance to
facilitate and encourage technological change--to facilitate rather
than to control--to monitor rather than dominate. This bill continues
that course.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this deregulatory
legislation to help advance broadband in the United States.
Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2863
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1934; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer
Broadband Deregulation Act''.
(b) Amendment of Communications Act of 1934.--Except as
otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,
or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et
seq.).
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of Communications Act of 1934; table of
contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Deregulation of consumer broadband services.
Sec. 4. Unbundled access and collocation requirements.
Sec. 5. National clearinghouse for high-speed Internet access.
Sec. 6. Enforcement.
Sec. 7. Spectrum reform study.
Sec. 8. Study on ways to promote broadband through e-government.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) All consumer broadband service markets should be open
to competition.
(2) Consumer broadband service can be provided over
numerous different platforms.
(3) All providers of consumer broadband services should be
able to provide such services and be subject to harmonized
regulation when offering such services.
(4) Consumer broadband services can enhance the quality of
life for Americans and promote economic development, job
creation, and international competitiveness.
(5) Advancements in the nation's Internet infrastructure
will enhance the public welfare by helping to speed the
delivery of services such as telemedicine, distance learning,
remote medical services, and distribution of health
information.
(6) Government regulations that affect high-speed Internet
access should promote investment and innovation in all
technological platforms.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to allow market
forces to introduce investment and innovation in consumer
broadband services for the benefit of all Americans.
SEC. 3. DEREGULATION OF CONSUMER BROADBAND SERVICES.
(a) In General.--The Act is amended--
(1) by redesignating title VII as title VIII;
(2) by redesignating sections 701 through 714 as sections
801 through 814, respectively;
(3) by striking ``section 714'' in section
309(j)(8)(C)(iii) and inserting ``section 814'';
(4) by striking ``section 705'' in section 712(b) and
inserting ``section 805''; and
(5) by inserting after title VI the following:
``TITLE VII--CONSUMER BROADBAND SERVICES
``SEC. 701. RETAIL CONSUMER BROADBAND SERVICE.
``(a) Freedom From Regulation.--Except as provided in
subsection (c), neither the Commission, nor any State, shall
have authority to regulate the rates, charges, terms, or
conditions for the retail offering of consumer broadband
service.
``(b) Other Services and Facilities.--Nothing in this
section precludes the Commission, or a State or local
government, from regulating the provision of any service
other than consumer broadband service, even if that service
is provided over the same facilities as are used to provide
consumer broadband service.
``(c) Service Quality.--
``(1) Commission determination required.--The Commission
shall initiate a study within 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act to
determine whether State regulation of consumer broadband
service quality is appropriate or necessary for the
protection of consumers.
``(2) Regulations; state enforcement.--If the Commission
determines that State regulation of consumer broadband
service quality is appropriate or necessary for the
protection of consumers, the Commission shall promulgate
regulations establishing uniform national guidelines
regulating consumer broadband service quality that may be
enforced by States. Any regulations promulgated under this
paragraph may not take effect before the date that is 2 years
after the date of enactment of the Consumer Broadband
Deregulation Act.
[[Page S7934]]
``(3) Preemption of other state service quality
regulation.--
``(A) In general.--Unless the Commission promulgates
regulations under paragraph (2), no State may regulate the
quality of consumer broadband services provided to its
citizens or residents.
``(B) Limitation.--If the commission promulgates
regulations under paragraph (2), no State may regulate the
quality of consumer broadband services provided to its
citizens or residents except as provided in those
regulations.
``(4) No inference.--Nothing in this section shall affect a
State's ability to enforce consumer protection laws and
regulations unrelated to the technical provision of consumer
broadband service.
``SEC. 702. WHOLESALE CONSUMER BROADBAND SERVICE.
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
neither the Commission nor any State or political subdivision
thereof shall have authority to require a consumer broadband
service provider to afford an Internet service provider
access to its facilities or services for the purpose of
offering a consumer broadband service.
``(b) Exception.--To the extent that any entity is required
by the Commission to afford an Internet service provider
access to its facilities or services for the purpose of
providing consumer broadband service on the date of enactment
of the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act, the Commission
may require that entity to continue to afford such access.
``(c) Report.--The Commission shall report to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce
within 2 years after the date of enactment of the Consumer
Broadband Deregulation Act on the state of the wholesale
market for consumer broadband services and its effect on
retail competition for these services.
``(d) Sunset Provision.--Subsection (b) shall cease to be
effective 5 years after the date of enactment of such Act,
unless the Commission finds that the continued exercise of
its authority under that subsection is necessary to preserve
and protect competition in the provision of consumer
broadband services.
``SEC. 703. LIMIT ON STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY; PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY CHARGES.
``(a) Removal of Barriers to Entry.--No State or local
statute or regulation, or other State or local legal
requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting
the ability of any entity to provide any consumer broadband
service.
``(b) Cost-based Compensation for Rights-of-Way.--A State
or local government may not require compensation from
consumer broadband service providers for access to, or use
of, public rights-of-way that exceeds the direct and actual
costs reasonably allocable to the administration of access
to, or use of, public rights-of-way.
``(c) Public disclosure.--A State or local government shall
disclose to the public, on a timely basis and in an easily
understood format, any compensation required from consumer
broadband service providers for access to, of use of, public
rights-of-way.
``SEC. 704. ACCESS BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.
``(a) Manufacturers.--A manufacturer of equipment used for
consumer broadband services shall ensure that equipment is
designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and
usable by persons with disabilities, unless the manufacturer
demonstrates that taking such steps would result in an undue
burden.
``(b) Consumer Broadband Service Providers.--A provider of
consumer broadband services shall ensure that its services
are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities,
unless the provider demonstrates that taking such steps would
result in an undue burden.
``(c) Compatibility.--Whenever the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b) constitute an undue burden, a
manufacturer or provider shall ensure that the equipment or
service is compatible with existing peripheral devices or
specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by
persons with disabilities to achieve access, unless the
manufacturer or provider demonstrates that taking such steps
would result in an undue burden.
``(d) Regulations.--Within 18 months after the date of
enactment of the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act, the
Commission shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary
to implement this section. The regulations shall ensure
consistency across multiple service platforms with respect to
access by persons with disabilities. The regulations also
shall provide that neither broadband services, broadband
access services, nor the equipment used for such services may
impair or impede the accessibility of information content
when accessibility has been incorporated in that content for
transmission through broadband services, access services, or
equipment.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) Disability.--The term `disability' has the meaning
given to it by section 3(2)(A) of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A)).
``(2) Undue burden.--The term `undue burden' means
significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether the
requirements of this paragraph would result in an undue
burden, the factors to be considered include--
``(A) the nature and cost of the steps required for the
manufacturer or provider;
``(B) the impact on the operation of the manufacturer or
provider;
``(C) the financial resources of the manufacturer or
provider; and
``(D) the type of operations of the manufacturer or
provider.''.
``SEC. 705. RELATIONSHIP TO TITLES II, III, AND VI.
``If the application of any provision of title II, III, or
VI of this Act is inconsistent with any provision of this
title, then to the extent the application of both provisions
would conflict with or frustrate the application of the
provision of this title--
``(1) the provision of this title shall apply; and
``(2) the inconsistent provision of title II, III, or VI
shall not apply.''.
(b) Consumer Broadband Services Defined.--Section 3 (47
U.S.C. 153) is amended by inserting after paragraph (12) the
following:
``(12A) Consumer broadband services.--
``(A) In general.--The term `consumer broadband services'
means interstate residential high-speed Internet access
services.
``(B) High-speed.--The Commission shall establish by rule
the criterion, in terms of megabits per second, to be used
for the purpose of determining whether residential Internet
services are high-speed Internet services. In establishing
that criterion, the Commission shall consider whether the
speed is sufficient to support existing applications and to
encourage the development of new applications. The Commission
shall revise the criterion as necessary and shall review any
criterion established by it no less frequently than each 18
months.
``(C) Internet access service.--The term `Internet access
service' means a service that combines computer processing,
information storage, protocol conversion, and routing with
telecommunications to enable users to access Internet content
and services.''.
SEC. 4. UNBUNDLED ACCESS AND COLLOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Unbundled Access.--Section 251(c)(3) (47 U.S.C.
251(c)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Unbundled access.--
``(A) In general.--The duty to provide, to any requesting
telecommunications carrier for the provision of a
telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to
network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically
feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just,
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the agreement and the requirements of
this section and section 252. An incumbent local exchange
carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a
manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such
elements in order to provide such telecommunications service.
``(B) Exception.--The duty to provide access under
subparagraph (A) does not require an incumbent local exchange
carrier to provide access to a fiber local loop or fiber
feeder subloop to a requesting carrier to enable the
requesting carrier to provide a telecommunications service
that is an input to a consumer broadband service unless the
incumbent local exchange carrier has removed or rendered
useless a previously existing cooper loop necessary to
provide such services.''.
(b) Collocation.--Section 251(c)(6) (47 U.S.C. 251(c)(6))
is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Collocation.--
``(A) In general.--The duty to provide, on rates, terms,
and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory, for physical collocation of equipment
necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network
elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier,
except that the carrier may provide for virtual collocation
if the local exchange carrier demonstrates to the State
commission that physical collocation is not practical for
technical reasons or because of space limitations.
``(B) Exception.--The duty to provide for collocation under
subparagraph (A) does not require an incumbent local exchange
carrier to provide for collocation in a remote terminal.''.
SEC. 5. NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR HIGH-SPEED INTERNET
ACCESS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall establish
a national clearinghouse within the Department of Commerce
that allows communities throughout the United States,
particularly rural communities, to find data and information
relating to the deployment of facilities capable of
supporting high-speed Internet services.
(b) Exchange Function.--The Secretary shall solicit and
accept data, information, and advice from communities that
have succeeded in attracting the deployment of broadband
services and infrastructure in order to make that data,
information, and advice available to other communities that
are seeking to deploy high-speed Internet services.
SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Cease and Desist Authority.--Section 501 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 501) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Any person'' and inserting ``(a) Fines
and Imprisonment.--Any person'';
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Cease and Desist Orders.-- If, after a hearing, the
Commission determines that any common carrier or consumer
broadband service provider is engaged in an act, matter,
[[Page S7935]]
or thing prohibited by this Act, or is failing to perform any
act, matter, or thing required by this Act, the Commission
may order such common carrier or provider to cease or desist
from such action or inaction.''.
(b) Forfeiture Penalties.--Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(B)--
(A) by striking ``exceed $100,000'' and inserting ``exceed
$1,000,000''; and
(B) by striking ``of $1,000,000'' and inserting ``of
$10,000,000'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``subparagraph (A) or
(B)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)'';
(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) of paragraph
(2) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2)
the following new subparagraph:
``(C) If a common carrier or consumer broadband service
provider has violated a cease and desist order or has
previously been assessed a forfeiture penalty for a violation
of a provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation, or
order issued by the Commission, and if the Commission or an
administrative law judge determines that such common carrier
has willfully violated the same provision, rule, regulation,
that this repeated violation has caused harm to competition,
and that such common carrier or consumer broadband service
provider has been assessed a forfeiture penalty under this
subsection for such previous violation, the Commission may
assess a forfeiture penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for each
violation or each day of continuing violation; except that
the amount of such forfeiture penalty shall not exceed
$20,000,000.''; and
(5) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years''.
SEC. 7. WIRELESS BROADBAND STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Federal Communications Commission
shall conduct a study--
(1) on wireless technology to determine the appropriate
role of the Federal government in facilitating greater
consumer access to consumer broadband services using evolving
advanced technology; and
(2) what, if any, action by the Federal government is
needed to increase the deployment of new wireless technology
to facilitate high-speed Internet access.
(b) Focus.--In conducting the study, the Commission shall
focus on consumer broadband services utilizing wireless
technology.
(c) Consideration of Wireless Industry Views.--In
conducting the study, the Commission shall consider the views
of, among other interested parties, representatives of the
telecommunications industry (as defined in section 714(k)(3)
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 614(k)(3))
involved in wireless communications.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall transmit a report,
containing its findings, conclusions, and recommendations
from the study to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee
on Energy and Commerce within 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Report to be available to public.--The Commission shall
make its report available to the public.
SEC. 8. STUDY ON WAYS TO PROMOTE BROADBAND THROUGH E-
GOVERNMENT.
The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall
transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce within 6 months after the
date of enactment of this Act on how the Federal government
can promote the use of broadband services through e-
government, including--
(1) online delivery of government services;
(2) video-streaming of government press events and open
public events, such as announcements and administrative
proceedings;
(3) e-health and online education initiatives;
(4) access to government documents; and
(5) the ramifications of enhanced government online
services on user privacy and the security of the Federal
government's electronic infrastructure.
______
By Mr. THURMOND:
S. 2865. A bill to establish Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National
Historical Park in the State of South Carolina, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I introduced a bill establishing the
Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park. These sites are
presently managed by the National Park Service as the Fort Sumter
National Monument. The bill clarifies the boundaries of the park and
will more accurately reflect the resources that are recognized,
protected, and interpreted at these sites.
Both of these forts were pivotal sites in the history of South
Carolina and the Nation. Fort Moultrie was the centerpiece of the
Battle of Sullivan's Island on June 28, 1776, just six days prior to
the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The valiant defense of
the fort by South Carolina militia units resulted in the first decisive
victory over British forces in the Revolutionary War. The fort is named
after the commander of those units, Colonel William Moultrie.
Colonel Moultrie's forces constructed the first fort out of Palmetto
trees and sand. The Palmettos were used because of the lack of proper
building materials. Though initially thought to be inadequate for
protection, the Palmettos repelled salvo after salvo from the British
naval forces. Such excellent fortifications allowed Colonel Moultrie's
militia to return fire with devastating results.
Fort Moultrie also played a part in the events leading up to the
Civil War. It was the site of the batteries that bombarded Fort Sumter.
After the war, the fort was to remain an integral part of America's
coastal defenses until World War II, when it was used to guard the port
of Charleston against German U-boats. Indeed, it is the only site in
the National Park System that preserves the history of the Nation's
coastal defense system from 1776 to 1947. Although its days of conflict
are over, the fort stands as a reminder that the cost of freedom is
constant vigilance and stalwart resolve, even in the face of
overwhelming odds.
Fort Sumter is also an important part of American history. The
bombardment of the fort on April 12, 1861 was the opening engagement of
the Civil War. The evacuation of the fort by its commanding officer,
Major Robert Anderson, left the fort in Confederate hands until the
fall of Charleston in February of 1865. Fort Sumter was also an
integral part of the Nation's coastal defense system until the end of
World War II. Fort Sumter is a fine example of the historical
significance of National Park Service work.
The passage of this bill will allow for the more efficient
administration of the two forts. The present arrangement does not
adequately reflect the boundaries or management authority for the site.
For example, Fort Moultrie was acquired by the Secretary of the
Interior from the State of South Carolina in 1960, but no boundaries
were established for the property, nor were any directives given to the
National Park Service for administering the site. This bill will
establish the boundaries of the site and provide long-overdue
management authority for the National Park Service.
Hopefully, this bill will facilitate more efficient management of the
forts and allow many more Americans to learn from these living
monuments to America's history. The Department of Interior supports
this bill and has urged its enactment. I urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2865
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 ``Fort Sumter and Fort
Moultrie National Historical Park Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) Fort Sumter National Monument was established by the
Joint Resolution entitled ``Joint Resolution to establish the
Fort Sumter National Monument in the State of South
Carolina'', approved April 28, 1948 (62 Stat. 204, chapter
239; 16 U.S.C. 450ee), to commemorate historic events in the
vicinity of Fort Sumter, the site of the first engagement of
the Civil War on April 12, 1861;
(2) Fort Moultrie--
(A) was the site of the first defeat of the British in the
Revolutionary War on June 28, 1776; and
(B) was acquired by the Federal Government from the State
of South Carolina in 1960 under the authority of the Act of
August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666, chapter 593);
(3) since 1960, Fort Moultrie has been administered by the
National Park Service as part of the Fort Sumter National
Monument without a clear management mandate or established
boundary;
(4) Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie played important roles in
the protection of Charleston Harbor and in the coastal
defense system of the United States;
(5) Fort Moultrie is the only site in the National Park
System that preserves the history of the United States
coastal defense
[[Page S7936]]
system during the period from 1776 through 1947; and
(6) Sullivan's Island Life Saving Station, located adjacent
to the Charleston Light--
(A) was constructed in 1896; and
(B) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Charleston light.--The term ``Charleston Light'' means
the Charleston Light and any associated land and improvements
to the land that are located between Sullivan's Island Life
Saving Station and the mean low water mark.
(2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled
``Boundary Map, Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National
Historical Park'', numbered 392/80088, and dated November 30,
2000.
(3) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Fort Sumter and Fort
Moultrie National Historical Park established by section
4(a).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of South
Carolina.
SEC. 4. FORT SUMTER AND FORT MOULTRIE NATIONAL HISTORICAL
PARK.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the Fort Sumter
and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park in the State as a
unit of the National Park System to preserve, maintain, and
interpret the nationally significant historical values and
cultural resources associated with Fort Sumter and Fort
Moultrie.
(b) Boundary.--
(1) In general.--The boundary of the Park shall be
comprised of the land, water, and submerged land depicted on
the map.
(2) Availability of map.--The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the National Park Service.
(c) Acquisitions.--
(1) Land.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary
may acquire any land or interest in land (including
improvements) located within the boundaries of the Park by--
(i) donation;
(ii) purchase with appropriated or donated funds;
(iii) exchange; or
(iv) transfer from another Federal agency.
(B) Limitation.--Any land or interest in land (including
improvements) located within the boundaries of the Park that
is owned by the State (including political subdivisions of
the State) shall be acquired by donation only.
(2) Personal property.--The Secretary may acquire by
donation, purchase with appropriated or donated funds,
exchange, or transfer from another Federal agency, personal
property associated with, and appropriate for, interpretation
of the Park.
(d) Administration.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the National Park Service, shall administer the Park in
accordance with this Act and the laws generally applicable to
units of the National Park System, including--
(A) the Act of August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and
(B) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
(2) Interpretation of historical events.--The Secretary
shall provide for the interpretation of historical events and
activities that occurred in the vicinity of Fort Sumter and
Fort Moultrie, including--
(A) the Battle of Sullivan's Island on June 28, 1776;
(B)(i) the bombardment of Fort Sumter by Confederate forces
on April 12, 1861; and
(ii) any other events of the Civil War that are associated
with Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie;
(C) the development of the coastal defense system of the
United States during the period from the Revolutionary War to
World War II; and
(D) the lives of--
(i) the free and enslaved workers who built and maintained
Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie;
(ii) the soldiers who defended the forts;
(iii) the prisoners held at the forts; and
(iv) captive Africans bound for slavery who, after first
landing in the United States, were brought to quarantine
houses in the vicinity of Fort Moultrie in the 18th Century,
if the Secretary determines that the quarantine houses and
associated historical values are nationally significant.
(e) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with public and private entities and
individuals to carry out this Act.
SEC. 5. CHARLESTON LIGHT.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
of Transportation shall transfer to the Secretary, for no
consideration, administrative jurisdiction over, and
management of the Charleston Light for inclusion in the Park.
(b) Condition.--Before transferring the Charleston Light
under subsection (a) the Secretary of Transportation shall
repair, paint, remove hazardous substances from, and improve
the condition of the Charleston Light in any other manner
that the Secretary may require.
(c) Improvements.--The Secretary shall make improvements to
the Charleston Light only to the extent necessary to--
(1) provide utility service; and
(2) maintain the existing structures and historic
landscape.
SEC. 6. REPEAL OF EXISTING LAW.
Section 2 of the Joint Resolution entitled ``Joint
Resolution to establish the Fort Sumter National Monument in
the State of South Carolina'', approved April 28, 1948 (62
Stat. 204, chapter 239; 16 U.S.C. 450ee-1), is repealed.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Craig, and Mr.
Brownback):
S. 2866. A bill to provide scholarships for District of Columbia
elementary and secondary students, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues in the House and
the Senate, I applaud the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris. The Court found that a publically funded private school
choice program was Constitutional and does not violate the
establishment clause of the Constitution. The Court's decision finally
puts to rest the constitutionality arguments which have long been
raised by those who oppose providing choice to low-income families.
Within hours of the Court decision, Congressman Armey introduced H.R.
5033, the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of
2002. I join my House colleague in introducing the companion bill, here
in the Senate. Specifically, these bills provide scholarships to some
of the District's poorest students to enable them to select the public
or private school of their choice from participating schools in the
District and the surrounding areas. This program, like the Cleveland
program upheld by the Supreme Court, would allow families to choose
from a wide variety of providers, including religious schools.
Both bills are nearly identical to the 1997 D.C. Student Scholarship
Act. Although that bill had passed both houses of the Congress and more
than a thousand D.C. families had expressed interest in the scholarship
program, President Clinton vetoed the bill.
Why should we extend the option of private schools to poor families?
Because, as is true in many urban areas, thousands of students in the
District of Columbia are in need of high quality educational options.
Seventy-two percent of D.C. fourth graders tested below basic
proficiency in reading and seventy-six percent tested below basic
proficiency in mathematics. This means that three quarters of 4th
graders do not possess elementary reading skills and can not complete
simple arithmetic problem. Unfortunately, these statistics do not
improve dramatically as children grow older. Even in the older grades,
the majority of students are found to be struggling with math and
reading.
Tragically, lagging academic performance isn't the only problem
plaguing many of the public schools in D.C., there is also the issue of
safe, secure classrooms. In 1999, nearly one in five D.C high school
students reported, that at some point in the preceding month, they felt
too unsafe to go to school, while nearly one in every seven students
admitted to bringing a weapon to school.
Although the creation of charter schools in the District has led to
some choice for families lucky enough to get a spot for their child,
there are simply not enough charter schools to accommodate the growing
clamor of D.C. parents to obtain a better education for their children.
Interestingly enough, the lack of space in charter schools is
compounded by the City's refusal to free a handful of the 30 surplus
public school buildings--buildings, which in some cases, are just
sitting there abandoned and unused.
D.C. parents have witnessed superintendents come and go, and have
been given the promise of education reform and improvements that never
materialized. Yet, all the while their children remain trapped in
failing schools. This is unacceptable to them and should be wholly
unacceptable to my colleagues. The thousands of families clamoring for
better educational opportunities for their children in our nation's
capital need an immediate solution.
As Frederick Douglass, quoted by Justice Clarence Thomas in the
recent Zelman decision, said, ``Education. . . . means emancipation. It
means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of
[[Page S7937]]
the soul of the man into the glorious light of truth, the light by
which men can only be made free.''
Unfortunately, for many families, that freedom remains unobtainable
within D.C.'s current educational system. I encourage my colleagues to
seriously consider this important bill. We have allowed too many
students to languish in failing schools. Let's provide a way for real
education, and doing so, help make the freedom Douglass refers to a
reality for some of the district's neediest children.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 2867. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to
increase competition and transparency among packers that purchase
livestock from producers; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as everyone knows, I pushed the packer
ban because I want more competition in the marketplace. While I don't
think packers should be in the same business as independent livestock
producers, it's not the fact that the packers own the livestock that
bothers me as much as the fact that the packers' livestock competes for
shackle space and adversely impacts the price independent producers
receive.
My support of the packer ban is based in the belief that independent
producers should have the opportunity to receive a fair price for their
livestock. The last few years have led to widespread consolidation and
concentration in the packing industry. Add on the trend toward vertical
integration among packers and there is no question why independent
producers are losing the opportunity to market their own livestock
during profitable cycles in the live meat markets.
The past CEO of IBP in 1994 explained that the reason packers own
livestock is that when the price is high the packers use their own
livestock for the lines and when the price is low the packers buy
livestock. This means that independent producers are most likely being
limited from participating in the most profitable ranges of the live
market. This is not good for the survival of the independent producer.
My new legislative concept would guarantee that independent producers
have a share in the marketplace while assisting the mandatory price
reporting system. The proposal would require that 25 percent of a
packer's daily kill comes from the spot market. By requiring a 25
percent spot market purchase daily, the mandatory price reporting
system which has been criticized due to reporting and accuracy problems
would have consistent, reliable numbers being purchased from the spot
market, improving the accuracy and transparency of daily prices. In
addition, independent livestock producers would be guaranteed a
competitive position due to the packers need to fill the daily 25
percent spot/cash market requirement.
This isn't the packer ban. The intent of this piece is to improve
price transparency and hopefully the accuracy of the daily mandatory
price reporting data. I feel strongly that packers should NOT be able
to own or feed livestock, but this approach is not intended to address
my concern with packer ownership.
The packs required to comply would be the same packs required to
report under the mandatory price reporting system. Those are packs that
kill either 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of hogs, or 75,000
lambs annually, over a 5 year average.
Packers are arguing that this will hurt their ability to offer
contracts to producers, but the fact of the matter is that the majority
of livestock contracts pay out on a calculation incorporating mandatory
price reporting data. If the mandatory price reporting data is not
accurate, or open to possible manipulation because of low numbers on
the spot market, contracts are not beneficial tools for producers to
manage their risk. This legislative proposal will hopefully give
confidence to independent livestock producers by improving the accuracy
and viability of the mandatory price reporting system and secure fair
prices for contracts based on that data.
It's just common sense, when there aren't a lot of cattle and pigs
being purchased on the cash market, it's easier for the mandatory price
reporting data to be inaccurate or manipulated. The majority of
livestock production contracts are based on that data, so if that
information is wrong the contract producers suffer. That's why the Iowa
Pork Producers, Iowa Cattlemen, Iowa Farm Bureau, R-CALF, the
Organization for Competitive Markets, and the Center for Rural Affairs
have all endorsed this proposal.
Mr. President, this legislation will guarantee independent livestock
producers market access and a fair price. It will accomplish these
goals by making it more difficult for the mandatory price reporting
system to be manipulated because of low numbers being reported by the
packs.
I ask consent the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2867
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SPOT MARKET PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK BY PACKERS
Chapter 5 of subtitle B of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1636 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 260. SPOT MARKET PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK BY PACKERS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Cooperative association of producers.--The term
`cooperative association of producers' has the meaning given
the term in section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act (7
U.S.C. 1a).
``(2) Covered packer.--
``(A) In general.--The term `covered packer' means a packer
that is required under this subtitle to report to the
Secretary each reporting day information on the price and
quantity of livestock purchased by the packer.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `covered packer' does not
include a packer that owns only 1 livestock processing plant.
``(3) Nonaffiliated producer.--The term `nonaffiliated
producer' means a producer of livestock--
``(A) that sells livestock to a packer;
``(B) that has less than 1 percent equity interest in the
packer and the packer has less than 1 percent equity interest
in the producer;
``(C) that has no officers, directors, employees or owners
that are officers, directors, employees or owners of the
packer;
``(D) that has no fiduciary responsibility to the packer;
and
``(E) in which the packer has no equity interest.
``(4) Spot market sale.--The term `spot market sale' means
an agreement for the purchase and sale of livestock by a
packer from a producer in which--
``(A) the agreement specifies a firm base price that may be
equated with a fixed dollar amount on the day the agreement
is entered into;
``(B) the livestock are slaughtered not more than 7 days
after the date of the agreement;
``(C) a reasonable competitive bidding opportunity existed
on the date the agreement was entered into;
``(5) Reasonable competitive bidding opportunity.--The term
`reasonable competitive bidding opportunity' means that
``(A) no written or oral agreement precludes the producer
from soliciting or receiving bids from other packers; and
``(B) no circumstances, custom or practice exist that
establishes the existence of an implied contract, as defined
by the Uniform Commercial Code, and precludes the producer
from soliciting or receiving bids from other packers.
``(b) General Rule.--Of the quantity of livestock that is
slaughtered by a covered packer during each reporting day in
each plant, the covered packer shall slaughter not less than
the applicable percentage specified in subsection (c) of the
quantity through spot market sales from nonaffiliated
producers.
``(c) Applicable Percentages.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
applicable percentage shall be:
``(A) 25 percent for covered packers that are not
cooperative associations of producers; and
``(B) 12.5 percent for covered packers that are cooperative
associations of producers.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) In the case of covered packers that reported more
than 75 percent captive supply cattle in their 2001 annual
report to Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration of the United States Department of
Agriculture, the applicable percentage shall be the greater
of:
``(i) the difference between the percentage of captive
supply so reported and 100; and
``(ii) the following numbers (applicable percentages):
``(a) during each of the calendar years of 2004 and 2005, 5
percent;
``(b) during each of the calendar years of 2006 and 2007,
15 percent; and
``(c) during the calendar year 2008 and each calendar year
thereafter, 25 percent.
``(B) In the case of covered packers that are cooperative
associations of producers and
[[Page S7938]]
that reported more than 87.5 percent captive supply cattle in
their 2001 annual report to Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration of the United States Department of
Agriculture, the applicable percentage shall be the greater
of:
``(iii) the difference between the percentage of captive
supply so reported and 100; and
``(iv) the following numbers (applicable percentages):
``(a) during each of the calendar years of 2004 and 2005, 5
percent;
``(b) during each of the calendar years of 2006 and 2007,
7.5 percent; and
``(c) during the calendar year 2008 and each calendar year
thereafter, 12.5 percent.
``(d) Nonpreemption.--Notwithstanding section 259, this
section does not preempt any requirement of a State or
political subdivision of a State that requires a covered
packer to purchase on the spot market a greater percentage of
the livestock purchased by the covered packer than is
required under this section.''
``(e) Nothing in this section shall affect the
interpretation of any other provision of this Act, including
but not limited to section 202 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 192).''.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Allard):
S. 2868. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to carry out a
research and demonstration program concerning control of salt cedar and
other nonnative phreatophytes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of
legislation that is of paramount importance to the State of New Mexico.
Specifically, this bill will address the mounting pressures brought on
by the growing demands, on all fronts, of a diminishing water supply.
As you may know the water situation in the west can be described at
this time, as difficult at best. Annual snow packs were abnormally low
this year causing many areas in the west to be plagued by severe
drought conditions.
The seriousness of the water situation in New Mexico becomes more
acute every single day. The chance of this drought effecting every New
Mexican in some way is substantial. Wells are running dry, farmers are
being forced to sell livestock, many of our cities are in various
stages of conservation and many, many acres have been charred by
catastrophic wildfires.
The drought conditions also have other consequences. For example, the
lack of stream flow makes it very difficult for New Mexico to meet its
compact delivery obligations to the state of Texas.
The bill that I am introducing today deals more specifically with the
issue of in stream water flows. To compound the drought situation, New
Mexico is home to a vast amount of Salt Cedar. Salt Cedar is a water-
thirsty non-native tree that continually strips massive amounts of
water out of New Mexico's two predominant water supplies--the Pecos and
the Rio Grande rivers.
Estimates show that one mature salt cedar tree can consume as much as
200 gallons of water per day. In addition to the excessive water
consumption, salt cedars increase fire and flood frequency, increase
river channelization, decrease water flow and increase water and soil
salinity along the river. Studies indicate that eradication of the salt
cedars could increase river flows. Increasing river flows could help
alleviate mounting pressure to meet compact delivery obligations--
especially on the Pecos.
This bill that I am introducing today would authorize the Army Corps
of Engineers to establish a research and demonstration program to help
with the eradication of this non-native species. In addition to
projects along the Pecos and the Rio Grande, the bill allows other
states with similar problems, including Texas, Colorado, Utah and
Arizona to develop and participate in similar projects as well.
The drought and the mounting legal requirements on both the Pecos and
Rio Grande rivers are forcing us toward a severe water crisis. Solving
such water problems has become one of my top priorities for the state.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and my statement be
printed in the record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2868
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SALT CEDAR CONTROL.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) States are having increasing difficulty meeting their
obligations under interstate compacts to deliver water;
(2) it is in the best interest of States to minimize the
impact of and eradicate invasive species that extort water in
the Rio Grande watershed, the Pecos River, and other bodies
of water in the Southwest, such as the salt cedar, a noxious
and nonnative plant that can use 200 gallons of water a day;
and
(3) as drought conditions and legal requirements relating
to water supply accelerate water shortages, innovative
approaches are needed to address the increasing demand for a
diminishing water supply.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Control method.--
(A) In general.--The term ``control method'' means a method
of controlling salt cedar (Tamarix) or any other nonnative
phreatophyte.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``control method'' includes the
use of herbicides, mechanical means, and biocontrols such as
goats and insects.
(2) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration
project'' means a demonstration project carried out under
this section.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
(c) Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which funds are made available to carry out this section, the
Secretary shall--
(A) complete a program of research, including a review of
past and ongoing research, concerning a control method for
use in--
(i) the Rio Grande watershed in the State of New Mexico;
(ii) the Pecos River in the State of New Mexico; and
(iii) other bodies of water in the States of Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah that are affected by
salt cedar or other nonnative phreatophytes; and
(B) commence a demonstration program of the most effective
control methods.
(2) Available expertise.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out the programs under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall use the expertise of
institutions of higher education and nonprofit
organizations--
(i) that are located in the States referred to in paragraph
(1)(A)(iii); and
(ii) that have been actively conducting research or
carrying out other activities relating to the control of salt
cedar.
(B) Inclusions.--Institutions of higher education and
nonprofit organizations under subparagraph (A) include--
(i) Colorado State University;
(ii) Dine College in the State of New Mexico;
(iii) Mesa State College in the State of Colorado;
(iv) New Mexico State University;
(v) Northern Arizona University;
(vi) Texas A&M University;
(vii) University of Arizona;
(viii) Utah State University; and
(ix) WERC: A Consortium for Environmental Education and
Technology Development.
(d) Federal Expense.--The research and demonstration
program under subsection (c) shall be carried out at full
Federal expense.
(e) Consultation.--The activities under this section shall
be carried out in consultation with--
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(2) the Secretary of the Interior;
(3) the Governors of the States of Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, Texas, and Utah;
(4) tribal governments; and
(5) the heads of other Federal, State, and local agencies,
as appropriate.
(f) Research.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
research shall focus on--
(1) supplementing and integrating information from past and
ongoing research concerning control of salt cedar and other
nonnative phreatophytes;
(2) gathering experience from past eradication and control
projects;
(3) arranging relevant data from available sources into
formats so that the information is accessible and can be
effectively brought to bear by land managers in the
restoration of the Rio Grande watershed;
(4) using control methods to produce water savings; and
(5) identifying long-term management and funding approaches
for control of salt cedar and watershed restoration.
(g) Demonstration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out not fewer
than 10 demonstration projects, of which not fewer than 2
shall be carried out in each of the States referred to in
subsection (c)(1)(A)(iii).
(2) Cost.--Each demonstration project shall be carried out
at a cost of not more than $7,000,000, including costs of
planning, design, and implementation.
(3) Relationship to other control projects.--Each
demonstration project shall be coordinated with control
projects being carried out as of the date of enactment of
this Act by other Federal, State, tribal, or local entities.
(4) Period of project implementation.--Each demonstration
project shall be carried out--
[[Page S7939]]
(A) during a period of not less than 2 but not more than 5
years, depending on the control method selected; and
(B) in a manner designed to determine the time period
required for optimum use of the control method.
(5) Design.--
(A) Control methods.--Of the demonstration projects--
(i) at least 1 demonstration project shall use primarily 1
or more herbicides;
(ii) at least 1 demonstration project shall use primarily
mechanical means;
(iii) at least 1 demonstration project shall use a
biocontrol such as goats or insects; and
(iv) each other demonstration project may use any 1 or more
control methods.
(B) Measurement of costs and benefits.--Each demonstration
project shall be designed to measure all costs and benefits
associated with each control method used by the demonstration
project, including measurement of water savings.
(6) Monitoring and maintenance.--After completion, each
demonstration project shall be monitored and maintained for a
period of not more than 5 years, at a cost of not more than
$100,000 per demonstration project per year.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2004 through 2007.
____
By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 2869. A bill to facilitate the ability of certain spectrum auction
winners to pursue alternative measures required in the public interest
to meet the needs of wireless telecommunications consumers; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation which I hope
will create an equitable solution to the dilemma facing many wireless
companies in America. Unfortunately, due to the uncertain legal status
of licenses related to that FCC Auction No. 35, several companies have
contingent liabilities in the millions or billions of dollars. These
contingent liabilities are damaging the companies' ability to acquire
additional spectrum to meet the urgent needs of wireless consumers and
to roll out new and innovative services to consumers. The affected
providers are the successful bidders for wireless spectrum that the
Federal Communications Commission auctioned in Auction No. 35. Some of
the spectrum had previously been licensed to companies, including
NextWave Personal Communications Inc., whose bankruptcy filings and
subsequent failure to pay amounts due to the FCC for their licenses led
to the cancellation of those licenses.
The status of NextWave's licenses has been the subject of extended
litigation in the Bankruptcy Court, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United
States. In June 2001, after the FCC had conducted Auction No. 35, the
D.C. Circuit held that ``the Commission violated the provision of the
Bankruptcy Code that prohibits governmental entities from revoking
debtors' licenses solely for failure to pay debts dischargeable in
bankruptcy,'' effectively nullifying the FCC ability to deliver the
licenses to winning bidder. In August 2001, after the issuance of that
court's mandate, the FCC restored the NextWave licenses to active
status. More recently, the Supreme Court granted the FCC's petition for
a writ of certiorari to review the D.C. Circuit's judgment. The Supreme
Court will not hear arguments in the case until the fall of 2002 and is
unlikely to announce a decision until the spring of 2003. If the Court
reverses the D.C. Circuit's decision, there will be further litigation
on remand in the D.C. Circuit to resolve issues that the court did not
reach in its first decision. The result is that there is not likely to
be a final resolution of the status of the NextWave licenses and the
FCC therefore will not be in a position to deliver licenses to the
winners of Auction No. 35--until three or more years from the time the
auction was concluded. Although the FCC recently returned most of the
down payment funds previously deposited by successful bidders, it
continues to hold without interest substantial sums equal to three
percent of the total amount of the winning bids. It apparently intends
to hold those sums indefinitely. Despite the lengthy delay in
delivering the licenses, moreover, the FCC takes the position that the
successful bidders remain obligated, on a mere 10 days' notice, to pay
the full amount of their successful bids if and when the FCC at some
unknown future date establishes its right to deliver those licenses.
The situation is grossly unfair to those who bid on these licenses in
good faith. Companies calibrate their bids on the understanding,
implicit in any commercial arrangement, that delivery of the licenses
will occur in a reasonable time following the auction. That expectation
is especially crucial in the context of spectrum licenses, given the
recent volatility we have seen in market prices for spectrum. It is
particularly burdensome to such companies for the FCC to hold even a
portion of their enormous down payments without paying interest for
such extended periods. Even more troubling, the companies' contingent
obligation to pay on very short notice the remaining $16 billion they
bid for the licenses at issue adversely affects their capacity to serve
the needs of their customers. Such large contingent liabilities impede
the companies' ability to take interim steps, such as building out its
network further or leasing spectrum from others, that may be urgently
needed to improve service for its customers. The FCC's failure to
respond appropriately to alleviate these serious burdens disserves the
public interest.
This bill addresses these problems in two ways. It requires the FCC
promptly to refund to the winning bidders the full remaining amount of
their deposits and down payments. In addition, it gives each winning
bidder an opportunity to elect, within 15 days after enactment, to
relinquish its rights and to be relieved of all further obligations
under Auction No. 35. Those who choose to retain their rights and
obligations under Auction No. 35 will nonetheless be entitled to the
return of their deposits and down payments in the interim. If and when
the FCC is in a position to deliver the licenses at issue to those who
remain obligated, they will be required to pay the full amount of their
bid in accordance with the FCC's existing regulations. Those who elect
to terminate their rights and obligations under Auction No. 35 will be
free to pursue other opportunities to acquire spectrum and serve
consumers.
I want to make this next point especially clear, nothing in the
bill's provisions would affect the FCC's legal position in the Supreme
Court with respect to the validity of its original cancellation of the
NextWave licenses. If the FCC prevails in the Supreme Court, it will
reestablish its right to allocate the spectrum at issue. It may then
grant licenses to Auction No. 35 winning bidders who have declined to
relinquish their rights under the bill. It will also be free to conduct
a re-auction of any spectrum won by Auction No. 35 bidders who have in
the meantime elected to relinquish their auction rights.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 2870. A bill to amend titles 10 and 14, United States Code, to
provide for the use of gold in the metal content of the Medal of Honor;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to
bring greater honor and prestige to our most valiant veterans. This
legislation, the Congressional Medal of Honor Act, will require the use
of 90 percent gold in the metal content of the Medal of Honor.
You may be surprised to learn that while foreign dignitaries, famous
singers, and other civilians receive an approximately $30,000 medal--
the Congressional Gold Medal, our most valued veterans receive a $30
medal. The cost difference lies in that the Medal of Honor consists
primarily of brass plated slightly with gold. These American heroes
deserve better and it's certainly the least we can do to honor their
service.
The cost of the proposal would be minimal. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the total cost of the bill would be $2
million for a five-year period during which the new medals would be
designed, produced and stockpiled. Our legislation would allow the
approximately less than 1,000 living recipients awarded the Medal, or
their next of kin, to receive a replacement Medal.
Amelia Earhart once said that ``Courage is the price that life exacts
for granting peace.'' In helping us win our peace, we should truly
honor our bravest heroes by giving them the Medals they deserve.
[[Page S7940]]
______
By Mr. FITZGERALD:
S. 2872. A bill to reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement
of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to reinstate a
license surrendered to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that
authorized the construction of a hydroelectric power plant in Carlyle,
Illinois. In order to facilitate the construction of the hydroelectric
power plant, the bill also contains a provision that extends the
deadline for beginning construction of the plant.
Carlyle, IL, is a small community of 3,406 people in Southwestern
Illinois, fifty miles east of St. Louis. Carlyle is situated on the
Kaskaskia River at the southern tip of Carlyle Lake, which was formed
in 1967 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction of
a dam on the river. Carlyle Lake is 15 miles long and 3\1/2\ miles
wide--the largest man-made lake in Illinois.
When the Army Corps of Engineers constructed the dam, it failed to
build a hydroelectric power plant to capitalize on the energy available
from water flowing through the dam. A hydroelectric power facility in
Carlyle would produce 4,000 kilowatts of power and provide a renewable
energy source for surrounding communities. Furthermore, the
environmental impact of adding a hydroelectric facility would be
minimal, and such a facility, located at a site near the existing dam,
would not produce harmful emissions.
In 1997, Southwestern Electric Cooperative obtained a license from
the FERC to begin work on a hydroelectric project in Carlyle. In 2000,
Southwestern Electric Cooperative surrendered their license because
they were unable to begin the project in the required time period. The
City of Carlyle is interested in constructing the hydroelectric power
plant and is seeking to obtain Southwestern Electric Cooperative's
license.
The bill I am introducing today is required for the construction of
the facility. Legislation is necessary to authorize FERC to reinstate
Southwestern Electric Cooperative's surrendered license. Because there
is not enough time remaining on the license to conduct studies, produce
a design for the facility, and begin construction of the project, the
bill includes a provision that allows FERC to extend the applicable
deadline.
This legislation is an easy and environmentally safe approach to
meeting the energy needs of Southwestern Illinois. Please join me in
supporting this measure to provide a clean alternative energy source
for this part of the Midwest.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record
following the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2872
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION PROJECT.
Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise
apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project
numbered 11214, the Commission may, at the request of the
licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice, in
accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public
interest requirements of that section and the Commission's
procedures under that section--
(1) reinstate the license for the construction of the
project as of the effective date of the surrender of the
license; and
(2) extend the time period during which the licensee is
required to commence the construction of the project for 3
consecutive 2-year periods beyond the date that is 4 years
after the date of issuance of the license.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Dayton, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 2875. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 to increase the maximum levels of guaranteed single-employer
plan benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I introduced an extremely important
bill, the Pension Guarantee Improvement Act of 2002. I urge my
colleagues to join me in pressing for its swift consideration and
passage.
For over a quarter of a century, the federal government has run an
insurance system for private ``defined benefit'' pension plans. The
agency that administers this system, the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation, PBGC, has worked hard to live up to its statutory
obligations to protect benefits in the event that the plan sponsor goes
bankrupt and is forced to terminate the plan.
In my home state of Minnesota, I have worked closely with former LTV
workers whose plans have been taken over to facilitate a dialogue with
the PBGC. I am very grateful to Joe Grant, Steven Kandarian, Michael
Rae and all the other PBGC staff who have provided invaluable
assistance to my office and my constituents over the past few moths. I
have been greatly impressed with their responsiveness, dedication and
hard work.
Yet the experiences of the LTV workers in Minnesota--and other
manufacturing workers around the country I suspect--have exposed some
serious though limited gaps in the guarantees that PBGC is permitted to
provide.
These guarantees are predicated on a certain set of assumptions
regarding retirement that unfortunately do not hold true for all
workers. For example, the vast majority of all workers that retire at
age 65 having earned a defined benefit pension are guaranteed their
full earned pension, regardless of whether or not the sponsoring
company is still in business. In most white-collar jobs this
arrangement works well; the nature of the employment permits most
employees to continue in their jobs through age 65 and the terms of
their private pension plans are generally set up for retirement at that
age.
In labor-intensive industries such as steel and other manufacturing
sectors, however,workers have never been expected to endure as many
years of active employment as their white-collar counterparts. Again,
the expectations of workers as they enter these industries are well-
known. Employees are generally promised a secure retirement in exchange
for their 25-30 years of service and they work for decades under the
assumption that that promise will be kept.
What has happened to many of the former LTV employees in Minnesota is
their hard-earned benefits have been unexpectedly--and in a few cases,
dramatically--reduced as a result of their company being forced into
bankruptcy. This is because their plan was taken over by the PBGC which
is not allowed to provide as comprehensive a guarantee to these workers
as they can offer to their white-collar counterparts.
The shorter working lives of steelworkers and others who labor in our
rapidly-shrinking manufacturing sector effectively means that they will
often not receive the full measure of their earned benefit if their
company happens to go bankrupt before they reach age 65. The reductions
in benefits that many of these workers suffer occur regardless of how
hard they worked, how productive an employee they were--anything that
they have any control over.
These losses are inflicted on these workers because they labored in
the manufacturing sector and because they happened to be employed by a
company that was forced into bankruptcy. There is no other reason.
Given that we insure defined benefit plans, I see no reason why we
should have one standard of coverage for white-collar workers and
another, lesser guarantee for manufacturing workers. If a worker has
fully earned the pension that they were originally promised I see no
reason why we should pull the rug out from under them just because
their company happens to go under.
Mr. President, we must strengthen the guarantees that the PBGC is
required to provide in order to protect this small subset of all
workers from unfair and unreasonable cuts in their earned benefits--
cuts that all too often come at a tremendously difficult time in their
lives when health or geographic location may prevent them from finding
alternative employment. In my state of Minnesota, I saw first-hand how
LTV workers in their 50s, who had qualified for a full retirement
benefit under the terms of their original plan, had to struggle to
survive the loss of their health insurance, and
[[Page S7941]]
some substantial reduction in their earned benefits as a result of PBGC
takeover of their plan.
This legislation is designed to provide some relief to those workers
who often suffer unexpected benefit reductions as a result of a PBGC
takeover. Let me be quite clear that the affected workers represent
only a very small fraction of all those covered by PBGC. The CBO has
issued a preliminary score for this proposal that puts its cost at $110
million over the next ten years. Colleagues, this very modest proposal
would allow PBGC to provide guarantees to these workers that more
closely reflect what they earned under the terms of the plan that they
had signed onto. It would help bring the level of guarantees provided
to manufacturing-sector workers closer to that provided to their white-
collar counterparts.
This bill involves three changes to the rules that determine how much
of an earned benefit is guaranteed by the PBGC.
First, it would increase the maximum benefit guarantee level for
single employer plans by adjusting an indexed formula that would boost
the monthly maximum payable for retired workers of all ages by some 13
percent. This would translate into an increase of approximately $150-
200/month for retirees over the age of 50 whose benefits are often
reduced by the current maximum payable limitation.
Second, this bill directs the PBGC to cover supplemental benefits
such as social security ``bridge'' payments as basic pension benefits.
Again, this benefit is often earned by workers in steel and other
labor-intensive industries and is specially provided to tide them over
until they become eligible for Social Security.
Finally, this proposal would index the $20/year option on the 5-yr
phase-in rule for recent benefit increases--which would put it at $95
using the same 4.773 social security index multiplier as is used to
calculate the maximum payable. The current $20/year figure was part of
the original 1975 ERISA statute and was intended to represent normal
benefit increase. It has become essentially meaningless because it has
never been increased. This would allow workers who received a
``normal'' benefit increase within the last 5 years to receive the
entire raise instead of a percentage of it.
Mr. President, defined benefits plans and the manufacturing sector
have both suffered serious declines in recent years. At the very least
we owe it to these hard-working men and women to improve their access
to meaningful pensions guarantees should their company be forced out of
business. This bill would make a huge difference to people who need it
the most--and do so without in any way threatening the solvency of the
PBGC. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this modest yet
meaningful relief for these workers.
______
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 2876. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act to promote secure and healthy families under the temporary
assistance to needy families program, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President since the 1996 welfare reform, our nation
has experienced one of the longest economic booms in history, but
families are still struggling to make ends meet, and children are still
living in poverty.
Now, with the recession, working families are facing even more
barriers on the path toward self-sufficiency, and states are struggling
to maintain their existing programs. In my own state of Washington,
we've seen the results of the recession: good jobs are more difficult
to find, welfare rolls are up, and state budget cuts have taken a chunk
out of childcare and other critical supports for our most disadvantaged
families. It is with this in mind that I introduce Senate bill S. 2876,
the Secure and Healthy Families Act of 2002.
The Secure and Healthy Families Act will help build on the successes
of welfare reform. This bill gives us an important opportunity to
reaffirm that we value America's families and that we will protect our
children. This bill takes what we know from our own experiences as
parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents and what research has proven
to be effective to help us move toward the goal of building healthy
families. It does not impose inflexible top-down strategies. Instead,
it allows states to support work and engage families on assistance. It
will help build secure and healthy families in a number of ways.
First, this legislation will create the Promoting Healthy Families
Fund that enables the Secretary of HHS to fund state activities to
promote and support secure families. For example, the fund would
support state and local efforts to provide family counseling, income
enhancement programs for working poor families--like the successful
Minnesota Family Investment Program, or teen pregnancy prevention
programs that help young people avoid the poverty that often comes with
these unplanned pregnancies.
Second, this act will ensure states recognize that secure and healthy
families come in all shapes and sizes. The federal government has long
led the way in opposing discrimination, and this bill will continue
that critical role.
Next, this bill puts in place several provisions to help the parents
build a better future for themselves and their children. The bill
encourages teen parents to remain in school by not counting the time
that they are in school against their five-year lifetime limit. Under
this legislation, a teen mother would also be given the chance to get
on her feet, get settled in school, and find a safe place for her and
her baby to live without losing assistance.
Mr. President, in families where children are chronically ill or
disabled, parents are confronted with special challenges. Most cannot
find appropriate affordable care, and cannot leave sick and vulnerable
children alone. They run from the doctor's office and emergency rooms--
trying to keep their jobs while dealing with the sudden and frequent
life-threatening health problems that these children face. This bill
would offer support for these families by recognizing that full time
care of a chronically sick or disabled child is hard work, and by
giving parents the opportunity to meet their children's special needs.
The bill also strengthens support for those families who are victims
of domestic or sexual violence. We know that as many as 70 percent of
welfare recipients are or have been victims of domestic violence. This
bills sends a clear message to states that they must protect there
vulnerable families in several ways including: having comprehensive
standards and procedures to address domestic and sexual violence,
training caseworkers so that they are sensitive to the unique needs of
victims of domestic violence, and informing survivors of domestic and
family violence of the existing protections to ensure their privacy and
safety.
Most states are approaching domestic violence prevention and
assistance in interesting and innovative ways. The bill will provide
funding for a national study of best practices on the ways states are
addressing domestic violence. In addition, states will be able to
continue to provide services to domestic and family violence survivors
without worrying about federal exemption caps. The bill will allow
these survivors to receive the services they need when they are making
the transition out of dangerous situations to safe and successful
lives.
Finally, the bill would support relatives who take in underprivileged
children. A growing number of children, 2.16 million in 2000, are being
cared for solely by grandparents and other relatives. Although some of
these children are involved with the child welfare system, many more of
these children are able to remain outside of the system because their
relatives are able to care for them.
Last week a young man named Eustaquito Beltran came to my office to
talk to me about the importance of supporting foster children. He told
me that he had lived in more than one hundred homes since he was a
toddler. The results for children like him are heartbreaking. Fewer
than half graduate from high school, and many become homeless after
they turn 18.
Prior to being abandoned by or taken away from their parents, most of
these children live in poverty with families devastated by substance
abuse, mental health disorders, poor education, unemployment, violence,
lack of parenting skills, and involvement with the criminal justice
system. A 1990 study
[[Page S7942]]
found that the incidence of emotional, behavioral, and developmental
problems among children in foster care was three to six times greater
than the incidence of these problems among children not in care.
If care by a relative can help children like Eustaquito avoid the
foster care system, then we should be grateful for the assistance that
relative is offering. Instead, relatives who care for children with
support form TANF are often trapped in a Catch-22. If a grandmother
takes in her grandchild, but needs support herself and receives TANF
assistance, federal time limits and work requirements apply. It doesn't
make sense to require this grandmother, who may have worked for years
and finally reached retirement, to return to work in order to help her
grandchild stay out of the foster care system.
My bill would exempt kinship care families from federal time limits
and work requirements to help ensure ongoing support for these
children. This will allow relative caregivers to provide the additional
supervision and care that children who have been abused and neglected
often need.
Mr. President, the strength of our nation lies in how we care for our
most vulnerable. Coming together to support victims of domestic
violence, children abandoned by their parents, and teen mothers can
make it clear that welfare reform is about helping all Americans
succeed, not about punishing the needy.
The Senate must focus our crucial federal welfare dollars on programs
and practices that create a bridge to self-sufficiency and productivity
while keeping families secure and healthy. I am committed to
strengthening the safety net our families depend on so that parents
have the skills they need to find work and succeed once they are in the
workplace. This bill will ensure that children grow up in secure and
healthy families. It is a critical step in our work to leave no child
behind.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2877. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure
that stock options of public companies are granted to rank and file
employees as well as officers and directors, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of stock
option reforms, and propose legislation that will make stock options, a
powerful tool in the democratization of capitalism, even more effective
as an incentive to spur innovation and create wealth.
The waves of corporate abuse that our economy has suffered over the
past ten months have been devastating to so many employees,
shareholders, and families across America. The investments that people
have counted upon to safeguard their retirement, send their children to
college, buy a home, start a business-trillions of dollars have gone up
in smoke, turned to ash while, for a few executives, those misfortunes
turned to cash.
That's maddening, as a result, the most productive economy in the
world-in the history of the world-has been scarred. The American
corporation, a great institution of democratic capitalism in which the
public owns the company, has been stained. Potentially empowering
innovations that enable individual investment, like the 401-k account,
have been skewered.
Today, I want to talk about another fundamentally decent idea that
has been dragged into the quicksand of corporate corruption: stock
options. We've discovered over the last ten months that too many
companies and executives have been misusing and abusing them. In far
too many cases, options have been turned into mere feed in the
corporate trough by the greed of corporate executives.
Stock options are a hammer. They can be used well or used poorly.
We've seen corporate executives use this hammer to weaken the
foundations of their companies, build rickety and top-heavy structures
ready to collapse, and build themselves nice, secure shelters from the
damage. That's unconscionable.
The bill I propose today will correct this abuse by ensuring that the
tool of stock options is put in the hands of more and more employees so
it can be used as it was initially intended-to construct wealth, to
build fortunes, to strengthen companies, and to incentivize the long-
term soundness and stability of a company.
The way to fix this problem is not, as some have suggested, to
require stock option expensing at the time an option is granted. That
would, in fact, make the problem worse. It would disincentive the
dissemination of options in the first place-and in the end, those at
the top of the corporate food chain will still take care of themselves.
No, the way to fix this problem is to ensure that stock options are
more broadly shared by more and more employees of American
corporations-that they truly are the democratizing tool that they can
be.
Our challenge is to fix the flaws that have been exposed without
hurting stock options themselves. In the name of addressing this
serious crisis in corporate accountability, let's not make the mistake
of pushing through unwise reforms that threaten to further confuse
investors and endanger the engines of entrepreneurship that make
America's economy, for all its faults and flaws, the envy of history
and of the world. It would be a terrible shame if we threw out the
stock options baby with the corporate corruption bathwater.
That's the spirit of my legislation: to mend, not end, stock option
distribution.
My legislation focuses on three critical reform issues regarding
stock options, distribution, shareholder approval, and disposition by
senior executives. I believe that my proposed reforms will ensure that
stock options serve their highest purpose: that we give shareholders
more control to ensure that stock options are issued consistent with
their interests, while we do away with the perverse incentive for
senior executives to cash in and bail out of their companies.
The bill does not address the elephant in the room-the issue of
whether or not companies should be required to account for stock
options. That is because I remain firmly convinced that would fail to
address the fundamental problems we face-and would, in fact, create new
problems with which we will have to grapple.
If the Congress were to require expensing of stock options, we can be
sure that the fat cats would still get their milk. Top corporate
executives would still take care of themselves. But the middle-income
employees, who represent the vast majority of Americans who benefit
from stock options, would have no option but to accept no options.
Requiring the expensing of options will not give shareholders a
greater say in approving stock option plans or ensuring that they are
focused on effective incentives for growth. The reforms I propose today
will. And requiring the expensing of options will not address the
incentives that executives may have to manipulate earnings immediately
prior to selling shares acquired through a stock option plan. The
reforms I propose today will.
The reform issues addressed in my bill are ones that are well suited
for Congress because they are policy matters, not accounting rules.
I have little doubt that FASB will again take up the stock option
accounting issue. When it does, I think it will find, again, that
expensing options at the time they are granted is not possible. This is
the unsung issue with stock option accounting.
There is no doubt that stock options are a form of compensation, but
this happens when they are exercised, not when they are granted.
Options that go ``underwater'', when the stock price drops, never
become compensation and the options are worthless. We only know if
options are compensation when they are exercised and only then do we
know how much compensation has been received.
This is the issue I have raised about expensing, not whether they are
compensation, but when they become compensation and when the amount of
the compensation can be measured. I said in 1994 and I say it again
today, I do not believe at the time an option is granted that we know
if or how much it is worth as compensation.
I doubt if the champions of expensing can point to a single case
where a company's disclosure of stock option costs at grant, now
included in footnotes to the company's P&L statement, proved
[[Page S7943]]
to be accurate. The Enron footnotes estimated stock option costs that
proved to wildly inflated and inaccurate because they did not
anticipate the decline in Enron's stock price. In this bear market, I
would think that every company's footnote estimates have proven to be
wildly inflated and inaccurate.
I doubt if the champions of expensing can cite a single stock broker
or analyst who uses the Black-Scholes estimating method to pick stocks.
I do not believe that these champions would be willing to put their
own money behind a stock based on the Black-Scholes estimates. Anyone
who finds a reliable way to estimate the price of a stock three to ten
years in the future is bound to be rich, and will certainly win the
Nobel Prize for Economics.
These are issues that FASB will review and it is not an appropriate
subject for this or any other legislation. This legislation focuses on
reforms that address abuses. Expensing of stock options, whatever its
merits as an accounting standard, do not address any of the key reform
issues addressed in this legislation. Expensing is quite irrelevant to
these reforms; it's a sideshow and a diversion. It's a false surrogate
for reform.
I have long championed broad-based stock option plans and I believe
they are a great spur to productivity and competitiveness. A study by
two Rutgers University professors found that over a three-year post-
plan period, companies that grant options to most or all employees show
a 17 percent improvement in productivity over what would have been
expected had they not set up such a plan. The return on assets of these
companies went up 2.3 percent per year over what would have been
expected, while their stock performance is either better or about the
same than comparable companies, depending on how performance is
measured. These were companies that granted options broadly, which
unfortunately is still not the norm.
On June 29, 1993, I introduced the ``Equity Expansion Act,'' S. 1175,
to provide a tax incentive in favor broad-based stock option plans,
options I referred to as ``performance'' stock options. The incentives
were available only for options where ``immediately after the grant of
the option, employees who are not highly compensated employees hold * *
* share options which permit the acquisition of at least 50 percent of
all shares which may be acquired * * *:
In my statement about this bill I stated that the bill could ``spur
the competitiveness and profitability of American companies by
expanding the number of employees in all industries who will have the
opportunity to receive part of their remuneration in the form of stock
options.'' I argued that that bill was appealing because it ``America's
best companies learned long ago that the key to success in the world's
toughest markets is a dedicated work force that shares the common goals
for their company.'' The bill required shareholders to approve the
plans and the employees were required to hold the shares for at least
two years. I noted that ``much of the criticism of stock options
revolves around horror stories about a small number of extravagantly
compensated executives.''
My 1993 bill provided incentives for broad-based plans. It proposed a
special capital gains incentive for the stock option shares. At the
time, there was no capital gains preference; it had been repealed in
1986. Since then, of course, the capital gains preference has been
restored. At that time, and at all times since then, companies can
deduct the ``spread'' on an option at the time the option is exercised.
The ``spread'' is the difference between the grant price and the market
price, the discount.
There is a trend in favor of broad-based stock option plans. The
National Center for Employee Ownership estimates that 7-10 million
employees now hold stock options. The number of people who hold options
has grown dramatically since 1992, when only about one million people
held options. Stock options are a way to provide productivity
incentives to many middle-class employees.
Despite the trend in favor of broad-based stock option plans, I am
not satisfied with the status quo. In companies with broad-based plans,
NCOE finds that 34 percent of the options go to senior management, the
average grant value for senior executives was more than $500,000
compared to only about $8,000 for hourly employees and $35,000 for
technical employees. In non-broad-based plans, of course, the
distribution is even more skewed to senior management. The NCOE
estimates that ``While the growth of broad-based options has been an
important economic trend, our data nonetheless indicate that even in
plans that do share options widely, executives still get an average of
65 percent to 70 percent of the total options granted.''
Similarly, estimates by the National Association Stock Plan
Professionals finds in a 2000 survey that 26 percent of the plans only
grant options to senior and middle management, and 43 percent to all
employees. For high tech companies, the percentage of these top-heavy
plans is only 4 percent, and 73 percent of the plans provide options to
all of the employees. For non-high tech companies, the percentage of
these top-heavy plans is 36 percent, and 29 percent of the plans
provide options to all of the employees. So the prevalence of top-heavy
plans seems to be concentrated in the non-high tech companies.
If options are justified as incentives for company performance and as
a way of giving employees a stake in the company performance, which I
believe they are, then this is not fair and not appropriate. This is
why we need to go beyond enacting an incentive in favor of broad-based
plans. As the NCOE has stated, ``Options for ordinary employees can
work out to a new car, college tuition, a down payment on a house, a
great vacation, and maybe even a more secure retirement. Options for
executives can amount to enough money to fund a small nation. The
option packages some executives have received would amount to tens of
thousands of dollars per employee in their company.'' This imbalance is
not good public policy.
In addition, if it turns out that companies are forced to expense
their options at the time of grant, many of us fear that the first
options that would be cut are those for middle-income and rank and file
employees. We fear that the senior executives and their allies on the
Board would take care of themselves, and drop or not enact broad-based
plans. The legislation I propose here would help to ensure that this
will not happen.
The bill I introduce today takes a direct and forceful approach and
provides that this tax deduction is limited to the spread on options
that are granted on a broad-basis to the employees of the firm. The
intent and thrust of the bill is the same as the one I introduced in
1993, and the definitions are the same. The approach is more direct and
forceful.
The bill, called the ``Rank and File Stock Option Act'', states that
the ordinary and necessary business expense deduction attributed to the
spread on the exercise of stock options (deducting the ``spread''
between the strike and exercise price) is limited on a pro rata basis
to the extent stock option grants for the taxpayer are not broad-based.
So, when the three-year average of the stock option grants is broad-
based, as defined in the bill, there is no limitation on the deduction.
In terms of a pro-rata reduction, the deduction would be limited by the
same percentage to which the percentage of highly compensated employees
options exceeded the broad-based standard.
This test goes to the number of options granted, not the exercise
price or any other weighting or valuation. No deduction is allowed if
the options granted to senior management are different in form and
superior to those granted to rank and file employees, which will help
ensure that there are no efforts to evade the purpose of this
legislation.
The stock option grants are deemed to be broad-based when,
immediately after the grant of the options, employees who are not
highly compensated employees hold share options that permit the
acquisition of at least 50 percent of all shares that may be acquired
pursuant to all stock options outstanding (whether or not exercisable)
as of such time. The bill does not require that stock option grants be
made to literally every employee, but as a practical matter such grants
to every employee may be necessary to meet
[[Page S7944]]
the test. Requiring that all employees receive some options involves
complex issues about part-time employees and new employees. The 50
percent test is tough enough to ensure that the options are broad-
based.
The definition of a ``highly compensated employee'' includes all
employees who earn $90,000 or more and are among the firm's top 20
percent highest paid employees. This is similar to the current test
applied to prevent ``discrimination'' in 401K plans.
In addition, under the legislation no deduction is allowed if more
than 5 percent of the total number of options is granted to any one
individual. And no deduction is allowed if more than 15 percent of the
stock option grants go to the top 10 officers and directors of the
firm.
The legislation applies only to public companies. The Treasury
Department shall issue regulations to implement this provision. The
effective date is for stock grants after December 31 of this year.
During the remainder of the year, corporations granting stock options
must disclose grants in filings to the SEC within 3 days.
To be clear, the legislation does not prevent a company from adopting
a stock option plan that does not meet the terms of this legislation.
It simply denies them a tax deduction on the spread when they do so.
This should ensure that broad-based stock option plans become the norm
and that senior executives do not hoard the options for themselves to
the detriment of their companies and shareholders.
There is ample precedent for the limitation on deductions. Deductions
are only permitted for ``ordinary and necessary'' business expenses and
Congress has frequently intervened to define what this means. There is
no right for corporations, or any other taxpayer, to avoid taxes on any
and all expenses that they choose to incur.
There is also ample precedent for limiting the deduction for non-
broad based stock option plans. We have similar limitations in the law
defining contributions for 401K plans, the compensation in closely held
corporations is regulated to prevent abuse, and we have limits on
excessive compensation paid to executives of non-profit entitles.
To make sure that an employer's 401(k) plan does not unfairly favor
its higher-paid workers, there are also rules governing highly-
compensated employees or HCEs. The term highly-compensated employees
may include a person who was a 5 percent owner at any time during the
current or prior year or an employee who earned more than $90,000. An
employee whose salary ranked in the top 20 percent of payroll for the
prior year might also be considered an HCE. Generally, to make sure a
401(k) plan is compliant, each year the plan must pass a non-
discrimination test.
These tests generally compare the amounts contributed by and on
behalf of highly compensated employees to those contributed by and on
behalf of the non-highly compensated employees. As long as the
difference between the percentages of these two groups is within the
Internal Revenue Code's guidelines, the plan retains its tax-qualified
status. If the plan does not pass the tests, the plan must take
corrective action or lose its tax-favored status.
With regard to closely held corporations, the deduction for ordinary
and necessary expenses is limited to ``reasonable'' compensation for
services performed by the shareholders/employees. A corporation paying
excessive compensation to a shareholder-employee is required to
reclassify the excess as a dividend (provided there are
adequate corporate earnings and profits). This has unfavorable tax
consequences, since dividends are not deductible. In addition to an
employee's salary, employer-provided benefits should be considered in
determining whether an employee's compensation is reasonable. This
includes pension and welfare benefits, as well as fringe benefits such
as the use of a company car.
Finally, the 1993 Taxpayer's Bill of Rights enacted Section 4958
which imposes an excise tax on transactions that provide excessive
economic benefits to top executives of non-profit charitable groups.
The Internal Revenue Service finalized regulations implementing this
law on January 10, 2001. The regulations define what constitutes
excessive compensation and benefits.
The limitation on the deduction proposed in my legislation serves a
constructive public policy purpose. The only purpose of the limitation
on deduction we find in S. 1940, the lead bill on expensing of stock
options, is to coerce companies into expensing their options at grant.
If the companies do not expense options at grant, as S. 1940 prefers
that they do despite FASB's current rule that this is not necessary,
then they lose their tax deduction. If this legislation is effective,
and companies are forced to expense their options at grant, the likely
result is that fewer options will be granted, especially to rank and
file employees, although not for top executives. My legislation is
directed at protecting the stock options of rank and file employees.
In addition to ensuring that stock options are broad-based and
performance oriented and not just allocated to the top executives, we
need to make sure that shareholders are involved in the decision to
implement these stock option plans.
The legislation provides that not later than one year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall finalize rules pursuant
to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to ensure that shareholder
approval is required for stock option plans and grants, stock purchase
plans, and other arrangements by public companies by which any person
may acquire an equity interest in the company in exchange for
consideration that is less than the fair market value of the equity
interest at the time of the exchange.
This approval would apply to any stock option plan, not just a stock
option plan that meets the terms for a broad-based plan.
In securing this approval, prior to submission of such plans to
shareholders for approval, the company must give its shareholders
detailed information about the stock option plans and grants, including
(a) the economic rationale and interest of shareholders in the plan or
grant; (b) a detailed description of the anticipated distribution of
the plan or grant among directors, officers, and employees and the
rationale such distribution; (c) the total number of options reserved
or intended for grants to each director and officer, and to different
classes of employees; (d) the maximum potential future earnings per
share dilution of investors' shareholdings assuming the exercise of all
in-the-money options with no adjustment for the use of the Treasury
stock method, as stock price varies; (e) the terms under which stock
option grants may be cancelled or reissued; and (f) the number,
weighted average exercise prices, and vesting schedule of all options
previously approved or outstanding.
The Commission shall ensure that all disclosures required by this
Section shall increase the reliability and accuracy of information
provided to shareholders and investors.
Such shareholder approval requirement may exempt stock option grants
to individual employees under terms and conditions specified by the
Commission. Such exemptions shall be available only where the grant is
(1) made to an individual who is not a director or officer of the
company at the time the grant is approved; (2) necessary, based on
business judgment; (3) represents a deminimus potential dilution of
future earnings per share of investors' shareholdings; and (4) made on
terms disclosed to shareholders of the grant that is made in the next
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Such approval requirement may exempt stock option plans and grants of
any registrant that qualifies as a small business issuer under
applicable securities laws and regulations or to such additional small
issuers as the Commission determines would be unduly burdened by such
requirements as compared to the benefit to shareholders. The Commission
is authorized to phase in the applicability of this rule both as to the
applicability and to its effective date so that it can determine the
size of issuer to which this rule will apply and the extent to which
the rule should apply to plans that exclude officers and directors.
The bill also focuses on the issue of the incentives stock options
give to executives as they manage a company.
[[Page S7945]]
Questions have been raised about whether the options are partly
responsible for the deception and fraud that has occurred at Enron and
other companies. The charge is that the options gave these executives
an irresistible rationale to deceive shareholders and investors to pump
up the stock price and increase the value of the options. Charges have
been made that these manipulations were timed to occur immediately
before options were exercised and shares were sold.
While there is intuitive appeal to this argument, it is difficult to
establish the role of stock options in these acts of deceptions, fraud
and manipulation. The concerns are sufficient, however, that we need to
turn to the Securities and Exchange Commission to evaluate them and
determine what restrictions might be imposed on the sale of stock
acquired through stock options. The bill directs the SEC to conduct an
analysis and make regulatory and legislative recommendations on the
need for new stock holding period requirements for senior executives.
The Commission is directed to make recommendations regarding minimum
holding periods after exercise of options to purchase stock and maximum
percentage of stock purchased through options that may be sold. These
recommendations would include transactions involving sales to company,
sales on public markets, and derivative sales.
We need the expertise of the Commission on this complicated issue. It
would probably not be reasonable to bar executives from selling any
shares during their employment with the firm. Executives may need the
proceeds of these sales to finance the college education of their
children and many other completely legitimate reasons. The Commission
is in a better position to evaluate the incentives, the opportunities
for fraud, and other key factual and policy questions.
Stock options have been under attack. We need to focus on how to
prevent abuse of stock options, not just abandon these incentives. They
are a uniquely American idea, they provide a way to increase
productivity and broaden the winner's circle. As with any economic
incentive, they can be abused and we need to focus on these abuses. By
reforming stock options, we can ensure that these incentives will be
even more effective.
I believe that the reforms I have proposed will address the abuses we
have seen. It is unfortunate that the accounting for stock options has
become a surrogate for any and all issues regarding stock options. I
continue to believe that accounting for stock options as an expense at
the time they are granted is not appropriate or possible. But
irrespective of the outcome of this debate, the reforms I have proposed
here address the real issues, the real abuses, and the real
opportunities to ensure that stock options continue to provide a
powerful incentive in favor of economic growth and democratic
capitalism.
I ask unanimous consent than the following outline of the legislation
and the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Rank and File Stock Option Act
Legislation focuses on three critical reform issues
regarding stock options--distribution, shareholder approval,
and disposition by senior executives.
Requiring expensing of stock options at the time they are
granted is likely to discourage the use of stock options, but
it will not prevent senior executives from hoarding options--
it will probably encourage it. It will not give shareholders
a greater say in approving stock option plans and ensuring
that they are focused on effective incentives for growth. And
expensing will not address the incentives that executives may
have to manipulate earnings immediately prior to selling
shares acquired through a stock option plan.
A. Broad-based Options. This provision of the bill is based
on the structure and elements of a bill introduced by Senator
Lieberman on June 29, 1993, the ``Equity Expansion Act,'' S.
1175.
This bill limits the ordinary and necessary business
expense deduction attributed to the spread on the exercise of
stock options to the extent stock option grants for the
taxpayer are not broad-based.
The stock option grants are deemed to be broad-based when,
immediately after the grant of the options, employees who are
not highly compensated employees hold share options that
permit the acquisition of at least 50 percent of all shares
that may be acquired pursuant to all stock options
outstanding (whether or not exercisable) as of such time. The
bill does not require that stock option grants be made to
literally every employee, but as a practical matter such
grants to every employee may be necessary to meet the test.
Requiring that all employees receive some options involves
complex issues about part-time employees and new employees.
The 50% test is tough enough to ensure that the options are
broad-based.
The definition of a highly compensated employee includes
all employees who earn $90,000 or more and are among the
firm's top 20 percent highest paid employees. This is similar
to the current test applied to prevent ``discrimination'' in
401K plans.
B. Shareholder Approval. The bill provides that not later
than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Commission shall finalize rules pursuant to the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 to ensure that shareholder approval
is required for stock option plans and grants, stock purchase
plans, and other arrangements by public companies by which
any person may acquire an equity interest in the company in
exchange for consideration that is less than the fair market
value of the equity interest at the time of the exchange.
C. Holding Period For Executives. Finally, the bill
requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct an
analysis and make regulatory and legislative recommendations
on the need for new stock holding period requirements for
senior executives to reduce incentives for earnings
manipulations.
S. 2877
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 ``Rank and File Stock Option
Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR STOCK OPTION PLANS
DISCRIMINATING IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY COMPENSATED
EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to deduction for trade and business
expenses) is amended by redesignating subsection (p) as
subsection (q) and by inserting after subsection (o) the
following new subsection:
``(p) Deductibility of Stock Options Not Widely Available
to All Employees.--
``(1) In general.--If--
``(A) an applicable taxpayer grants stock options during
any taxable year, and
``(B) the taxpayer fails to meet the overall concentration
test of paragraph (2) or the individual concentration tests
of paragraph (3) for such taxable year with respect to the
granting of such options,
then the deduction allowable to such taxpayer for any taxable
year in which any such option is exercised shall be limited
as provided in this subsection.
``(2) Overall concentration test.--If the total number of
shares which may be acquired pursuant to options granted to
applicable highly compensated employees by an applicable
taxpayer during a taxable year exceeds 50 percent of the
aggregate share amount, then the deduction allowable under
this chapter with respect to the exercise of any option
granted by the applicable taxpayer during such taxable year
to any employee shall be reduced by the product of--
``(A) the amount of such deduction computed without regard
to this subsection, and
``(B) a percentage equal to the number of percentage points
(including any fraction thereof) by which such total number
exceeds 50 percent.
``(3) Individual concentration tests.--
``(A) Options granted to single employee.--If the total
number of shares which may be acquired pursuant to options
granted to any applicable highly compensated employee by an
applicable taxpayer during a taxable year exceeds 5 percent
of the aggregate share amount, then no deduction shall be
allowable under this chapter with respect to the exercise of
any options granted by the applicable taxpayer to such
employee during such taxable year.
``(B) Options granted to top employees.--
``(i) In general.--If the total number of shares which may
be acquired pursuant to options granted to employees who are
members of the top group by an applicable taxpayer during a
taxable year exceeds 15 percent of the aggregate share
amount, then no deduction shall be allowable under this
chapter with respect to the exercise of any options granted
by the applicable taxpayer to such employees during such
taxable year.
``(ii) Top group.--For purposes of this subparagraph, an
employee shall be treated as a member of the top group if the
employee is a covered employee (within the meaning of section
162(m)(3)).
``(C) Exception.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply
to any taxable year if the applicable taxpayer granted an
equal number of identical options to each employee without
regard to whether the employee was highly compensated or not.
``(4) Rules relating to tests.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) Aggregate share amount.--
``(i) In general.--The aggregate share amount for any
taxable year is the total number of shares which may be
acquired pursuant to options granted to all employees by an
applicable taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(ii) Certain options disregarded.--Except as provided in
regulations, if the terms of any option granted to an
employee other than a highly compensated employee during
[[Page S7946]]
any taxable year are not substantially the same as, or more
favorable than, the terms of any option granted to any highly
compensated employee, then such option shall not be taken
into account in determining the aggregate share amount.
``(B) Options granted on different classes of stock.--
Except as provided in regulations, this subsection shall be
applied separately with respect to each class of stock for
which options are granted.
``(5) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) Applicable taxpayer.--The term `applicable taxpayer'
means any taxpayer which is an issuer (as defined in section
3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 15 U.S.C. 78c)--
``(i) the securities of which are registered under section
12 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 78l), or
``(ii) which--
``(I) is required to file reports pursuant to section 15(d)
of that Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)), or
``(II) will be required to file such reports at the end of
a fiscal year of the issuer in which a registration statement
filed by such issuer has become effective pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), unless its
securities are registered under section 12 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c) on or before the end of
such fiscal year.
``(B) Applicable highly compensated employee.--The term
`applicable highly compensated employee' means--
``(i) any highly compensated employee who is described in
subparagraph (B) of section 414(q)(1), and
``(ii) any director of the applicable taxpayer.
``(C) Incentive stock options not taken into account.--An
incentive stock option (as defined in section 422(b)) shall
not be taken into account for purposes of applying this
section.
``(D) Aggregation.--All corporations which are members of
an affiliated group of corporations filing a consolidated
return shall be treated as 1 taxpayer.
``(6) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection, including regulations to prevent the
avoidance of this subsection through the use of phantom
stock, restricted stock, or similar instruments.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2002.
SEC. 3. SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL.
(a) Rules Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange
Commission shall finalize rules pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 to ensure that--
(1) shareholder approval is required for stock option plans
and grants, stock purchase plans, and other arrangements by
public companies by which any person may acquire an equity
interest in the company in exchange for consideration that is
less than the fair market value of the equity interest at the
time of the exchange; and
(2) prior to submission of such plans to shareholders for
approval, such shareholders are given detailed information
about the stock option plans and grants, including--
(A) the economic rationale and interest of shareholders in
the plan or grant;
(B) a detailed description of the anticipated distribution
of the plan or grant among directors, officers, and employees
and the rationale of such distribution;
(C) the total number of options reserved or intended for
grants to each director and officer, and to different classes
of employees;
(D) the maximum potential future earnings per share
dilution of investors' shareholdings, assuming the exercise
of all in-the-money options with no adjustment for the use of
the Treasury stock method, as stock price varies;
(E) the terms under which stock option grants may be
canceled or reissued; and
(F) the number, weighted average exercise prices, and
vesting schedule of all options previously approved or
outstanding.
(b) Reliability and Accuracy.--The Commission shall ensure
that all disclosures required by this section shall increase
the reliability and accuracy of information provided to
shareholders and investors.
(c) Exemption Authority.--Shareholder approval rules issued
in accordance with this section--
(1) may exempt stock option grants to individual employees
under terms and conditions specified by the Commission,
except that such exemptions shall be available only in cases
in which the grant--
(A) is made to an individual who is not a director or
officer of the company at the time the grant is approved;
(B) is necessary, based on business judgment;
(C) represents a de minimus potential dilution of future
earnings per share of investors' shareholdings; and
(D) is made on terms disclosed to shareholders in the next
filing with the Commission; and
(2) may exempt stock option plans and grants of any
registrant that qualifies as a small business issuer under
applicable securities laws and regulations, or to such
additional small issuers as the Commission determines would
be unduly burdened by such requirements as compared to the
benefit to shareholders, except that such exemption may be
phased in, both as to applicability and to its effective
date, so that the Commission may determine the size of issuer
to which such exemptions will apply and the extent to which
the rule should apply to plans that exclude officers and
directors.
SEC. 4. HOLDING PERIOD FOR EXECUTIVES.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall conduct an
analysis of, and make regulatory and legislative
recommendations on, the need for new stock holding period
requirements for senior executives, including--
(1) recommendations to set minimum holding periods after
the exercise of options to purchase stock and to set a
maximum percentage of stock purchased through options that
may be sold; and
(2) an analysis of sales to company, sales on public
markets, and derivative sales.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 2878. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act to ensure fair treatment and due process protections under the
temporary assistance to needy families program, to facilitate enhanced
data collection and reporting requirements under that program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2878
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; REFERENCES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fair
Treatment and Due Process Protection Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; references.
TITLE I--ACCESS TO TRANSLATION SERVICES AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Sec. 101. Provision of interpretation and translation services.
Sec. 102. Assisting families with limited English proficiency.
TITLE II--SANCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS
Sec. 201. Sanctions and due process protections.
TITLE III--DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 301. Data collection and reporting requirements.
Sec. 302. Enhancement of understanding of the reasons individuals leave
State TANF programs.
Sec. 303. Longitudinal studies of TANF applicants and recipients.
Sec. 304. Protection of individual privacy.
TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 401. Effective date.
(c) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the amendment or repeal shall be considered to be
made to a section or other provision of the Social Security
Act.
TITLE I--ACCESS TO TRANSLATION SERVICES AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
SEC. 101. PROVISION OF INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION
SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Provision of interpretation and translation
services.--A State to which a grant is made under section
403(a) for a fiscal year shall, with respect to the State
program funded under this part and all programs funded with
qualified State expenditures (as defined in section
409(a)(7)(B)(i)), provide appropriate interpretation and
translation services to individuals who lack English
proficiency if the number or percentage of persons lacking
English proficiency meets the standards established under
section 272.4(b) of title 7 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
paragraph).''.
(b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(15) Penalty for failure to provide interpretation and
translation services.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State
to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year
has violated section 408(a)(12) during the fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under
section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year
by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family
assistance grant.
``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary
shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect
to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.
SEC. 102. ASSISTING FAMILIES WITH LIMITED ENGLISH
PROFICIENCY.
(a) In General.--Section 407(c)(2) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
[[Page S7947]]
``(E) Individuals with limited english proficiency.--In the
case of an adult recipient who lacks English language
proficiency, as defined by the State, the State shall--
``(i) advise the adult recipient of available programs or
activities in the community to address the recipient's
education needs;
``(ii) if the adult recipient elects to participate in such
a program or activity, allow the recipient to participate in
such a program or activity; and
``(iii) consider an adult recipient who participates in
such a program or activity on a satisfactory basis as being
engaged in work for purposes of determining monthly
participation rates under this section, except that the
State--
``(I) may elect to require additional hours of
participation or activity if necessary to ensure that the
recipient is participating in work-related activities for a
sufficient number of hours to count as being engaged in work
under this section; and
``(II) shall attempt to ensure that any additional hours of
participation or activity do not unreasonably interfere with
the education activity of the recipient.''.
(b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)), as amended
by section 101(b), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(16) Penalty for failure to provide interpretation and
translation services.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State
to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year
has violated section 407(c)(2)(E) during the fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under
section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year
by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family
assistance grant.
``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary
shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect
to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.
TITLE II--SANCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS
SEC. 201. SANCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as
amended by section 101(a), is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(13) Sanction procedures.--
``(A) Pre-sanction review process.--Prior to the imposition
of a sanction against an individual or family receiving
assistance under the State program funded under this part or
under a program funded with qualified State expenditures (as
defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)) for failure to comply
with program requirements, the State shall take the following
steps:
``(i) Provide or send notice to the individual or family,
and, if the recipient's native language is not English,
through a culturally competent translation, of the following
information:
``(I) The specific reason for the proposed sanction.
``(II) The amount of the proposed sanction.
``(III) The length of time during which the proposed
sanction would be in effect.
``(IV) The steps required to come into compliance or to
show good cause for noncompliance.
``(V) That the agency will provide assistance to the
individual in determining if good cause for noncompliance
exists, or in coming into compliance with program
requirements.
``(VI) That the individual may appeal the determination to
impose a sanction, and the steps that the individual must
take to pursue an appeal.
``(ii)(I) Ensure that, subject to clause (iii)--
``(aa) an individual other than the individual who
determined that a sanction be imposed shall review the
determination and have the authority to take the actions
described in subclause (II); and
``(bb) the individual or family against whom the sanction
is to be imposed shall be afforded the opportunity to meet
with the individual who, as provided for in item (aa), is
reviewing the determination with respect to the sanction.
``(II) An individual to which this subclause applies may--
``(aa) modify the determination to impose a sanction;
``(bb) determine that there was good cause for the
individual or family's failure to comply;
``(cc) recommend modifications to the individual's
individual responsibility or employment plan; and
``(dd) make such other determinations and take such other
actions as may be appropriate under the circumstances.
``(iii) The review required under clause (ii) shall include
consideration of the following:
``(I) To the extent applicable, whether barriers to
compliance exist, such as a physical or mental impairment,
including mental illness, substance abuse, mental
retardation, a learning disability, domestic or sexual
violence, limited proficiency in English, limited literacy,
homelessness, or the need to care for a child with a
disability or health condition, that contributed to the
noncompliance of the person.
``(II) Whether the individual or family's failure to comply
resulted from failure to receive or have access to services
previously identified as necessary in an individual
responsibility or employment plan.
``(III) Whether changes to the individual responsibility or
employment plan should be made in order for the individual to
comply with program requirements.
``(IV) Whether the individual or family has good cause for
any noncompliance.
``(V) Whether the State's sanction policies have been
applied properly.
``(B) Sanction follow-up requirements.--If a State imposes
a sanction on a family or individual for failing to comply
with program requirements, the State shall--
``(i) provide or send notice to the individual or family,
in language calculated to be understood by the individual or
family, and, if the individual's or family's native language
is not English, through a culturally competent translation,
of the reason for the sanction and the steps the individual
or family must take to end the sanction;
``(ii) resume the individual's or family's full assistance,
services, or benefits provided under this program (provided
that the individual or family is otherwise eligible for such
assistance, services, or benefits) once the individual who
failed to meet program requirements that led to the sanction
complies with program requirements for a reasonable period of
time, as determined by the State and subject to State
discretion to reduce such period;
``(iii) if assistance, services, or benefits have not
resumed, as of the period that begins on the date that is 60
days after the date on which the sanction was imposed, and
end on the date that is 120 days after such date, provide
notice to the individual or family, in language calculated to
be understood by the individual or family, of the steps the
individual or family must take to end the sanction, and of
the availability of assistance to come into compliance or
demonstrate good cause for noncompliance with program
requirements.''.
(b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)), as amended
by section 102(b), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(17) Penalty for failure to follow sanction procedures.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State
to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year
has violated section 408(a)(13) during the fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under
section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year
by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family
assistance grant.
``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary
shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect
to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.
(c) State Plan Requirement To Describe How States Will
Notify Applicants and Recipients of Their Rights under the
Program and of Potential Benefits and Services Available
under the Program.--Section 402(a)(1)(B)(iii) (42 U.S.C.
602(a)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended by inserting ``, and will
notify applicants and recipients of assistance under the
program of the rights of individuals under all laws
applicable to program activities and of all potential
benefits and services available under the program'' before
the period.
(d) Requirement To Provide Notice to Applicants and
Recipients of Rights and of Potential Program Benefits and
Services, and To Train Program Personnel To Respect Such
Rights.--
(1) In general.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as
amended by subsection (a), is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(14) Requirement to provide notice to applicants and
recipients of rights and of potential program benefits and
services, and to train program personnel to respect such
rights.--A State to which a grant is made under section 403
shall--
``(A) notify each applicant for, and each recipient of,
assistance under the State program funded under this part or
under a program funded with qualified State expenditures (as
defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)) of the rights of
applicants and recipients under all laws applicable to the
activities of such program (including the right to claim good
cause exceptions to program requirements), and shall provide
the notice--
``(i) to a recipient when the recipient first receives
assistance, benefits, or services under the program;
``(ii) to all such recipients on a semiannual basis; and
``(iii) orally and in writing, in the native language of
the recipient and at not higher than a 6th grade level, and,
if the recipient's native language is not English, through a
culturally competent translation; and
``(B) train all program personnel on a regular basis
regarding how to carry out the program consistent with such
rights.''.
(2) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)), as amended
by subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(18) Penalty for failure to provide notice to applicants
and recipients of rights and of potential program benefits
and services, and to train program personnel to respect such
rights.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State
to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year
has violated section 408(a)(14) during the fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under
section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year
by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family
assistance grant.
``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary
shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect
to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.
[[Page S7948]]
TITLE III--DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 301. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 411(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``(except for information relating to activities carried out
under section 403(a)(5))'' and inserting ``, and, in
complying with this requirement, shall ensure that such
information is reported in a manner that permits analysis of
the information by race, ethnicity or national origin,
primary language, gender, and educational level, including
analysis using a combination of these factors, and that all
data, including Federal, State, and local data (whether
collected by public or private local agencies or entities
that administer or operate the State program funded under
this part) is made public and easily accessible'';
(B) by striking clause (v) and inserting the following:
``(v) The employment status, occupation (as defined by the
most current Federal Standard Occupational Classification
system, as of the date of the collection of the data), and
earnings of each employed adult in the family.'';
(C) in clause (vii), by striking ``and educational level''
and inserting ``, educational level, and primary language'';
(D) in clause (viii), by striking ``and educational level''
and inserting ``, educational level, and primary language'';
and
(E) in clause (xi), in the matter preceding subclause (I),
by inserting ``, including, to the extent such information is
available, information on the specific type of job, or
education or training program'' before the semicolon;
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A), the following:
``(B) Information regarding applicants.--
``(i) In general.--Each eligible State shall collect on a
monthly basis, and report to the Secretary on a quarterly
basis, disaggregated case record information on the number of
individuals who apply for but do not receive assistance under
the State program funded under this part, the reason such
assistance were not provided, and the overall percentage of
applications for assistance that are approved compared to
those that are disapproved with respect to such month.
``(ii) Requirement.--In complying with clause (i), each
eligible State shall ensure that the information required
under that clause is reported in a manner that permits
analysis of such information by race, ethnicity or national
origin, primary language, gender, and educational level,
including analysis using a combination of these factors.''.
SEC. 302. ENHANCEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONS
INDIVIDUALS LEAVE STATE TANF PROGRAMS.
(a) Case Closure Reasons.--Section 411(a)(1) (42 U.S.C.
611(a)(1)), as amended by section 301, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by
such section 301) as subparagraph (D); and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) (as added by such
section 301) the following:
``(C) Development of comprehensive list of case closure
reasons.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop, in
consultation with States and individuals or organizations
with expertise related to the provision of assistance under
the State program funded under this part, a comprehensive
list of reasons why individuals leave State programs funded
under this part. In developing such list, the Secretary shall
consider the full range of reasons for case closures,
including the following:
``(I) Lack of access to specific programs or services, such
as child care, transportation, or English as a second
language classes for individuals with limited English
proficiency.
``(II) The medical or health problems of a recipient.
``(III) The family responsibilities of a recipient, such as
caring for a family member with a disability.
``(IV) Changes in eligibility status.
``(V) Other administrative reasons.
``(ii) Other requirements.--The list required under clause
(i) shall be developed with the goal of substantially
reducing the number of case closures under the State programs
funded under this part for which a reason is not known.
``(iii) Public comment.--The Secretary shall promulgate for
public comment regulations that--
``(I) list the case closure reasons developed under clause
(i);
``(II) require States, not later than October 1, 2004, to
use such reasons in accordance with subparagraph (A)(xvi);
and
``(III) require States to report on efforts to improve
State tracking of reasons for case closures, including the
identification of additional reasons for case closures not
included on the list developed under clause (i).
``(iv) Review and modification.--The Secretary, through
consultation and analysis of quarterly State reports
submitted under this paragraph, shall review on an annual
basis whether the list of case closure reasons developed
under clause (i) requires modification and, to the extent the
Secretary determines that modification of the list is
necessary, shall publish proposed modifications for notice
and comment, prior to the modifications taking effect.''.
(b) Inclusion in Quarterly State Reports.--Section 411
(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (xvi)--
(A) in subclause (IV), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subclause (V), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(VI) a reason specified in the list developed under
subparagraph (C), including any modifications of such
list.'';
(2) by redesignating clause (xvii) as clause (xviii); and
(3) by inserting after clause (xvi), the following:
``(xvii) The efforts the State is undertaking, and the
progress with respect to such efforts, to improve the
tracking of reasons for case closures.''.
SEC. 303. LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF TANF APPLICANTS AND
RECIPIENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended by
striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Longitudinal Studies of Applicants and Recipients To
Determine the Factors that Contribute to Positive Employment
and Family Outcomes.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, directly or through
grants, contracts, or interagency agreements, shall conduct
longitudinal studies in at least 5, and not more than 10,
States (or sub-State areas, except that no such area shall be
located in a State in which a Statewide study is being
conducted under this paragraph) of a representative sample of
families that receive, and applicants for, assistance under a
State program funded under this part or under a program
funded with qualified State expenditures (as defined in
section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)).
``(2) Requirements.--The studies conducted under this
subsection shall--
``(A) follow families that cease to receive assistance,
families that receive assistance throughout the study period,
and families diverted from assistance programs; and
``(B) collect information on--
``(i) family and adult demographics (including race,
ethnicity or national origin, primary language, gender,
barriers to employment, educational status of adults, prior
work history, prior history of welfare receipt);
``(ii) family income (including earnings, unemployment
compensation, and child support);
``(iii) receipt of assistance, benefits, or services under
other needs-based assistance programs (including the food
stamp program, the medicaid program under title XIX, earned
income tax credits, housing assistance, and the type and
amount of any child care);
``(iv) the reasons for leaving or returning to needs-based
assistance programs;
``(v) work participation status and activities (including
the scope and duration of work activities and the types of
industries and occupations for which training is provided);
``(vi) sanction status (including reasons for sanction);
``(vii) time limit for receipt of assistance status
(including months remaining with respect to such time limit);
``(viii) recipient views regarding program participation;
and
``(ix) measures of income change, poverty, extreme poverty,
food security and use of food pantries and soup kitchens,
homelessness and the use of shelters, and other measures of
family well-being and hardship over a 5-year period.
``(3) Comparability of results.--The Secretary shall, to
the extent possible, ensure that the studies conducted under
this subsection produce comparable results and information.
``(4) Reports.--
``(A) Interim reports.--Not later than October 1, 2005, the
Secretary shall publish interim findings from at least 12
months of longitudinal data collected under the studies
conducted under this subsection.
``(B) Subsequent reports.--Not later than October 1, 2007,
the Secretary shall publish findings from at least 36 months
of longitudinal data collected under the studies conducted
under this subsection.''.
(b) Annual Report To Congress.--
(1) In general.--Section 411(b) (42 U.S.C. 611(b)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting ``(including types of sanctions or other
grant reductions)'' after ``financial characteristics''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, disaggregated by race, ethnicity or
national origin, primary language, gender, education level,
and, with respect to closed cases, the reason the case was
closed'' before the semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the economic well-being of children and families
receiving assistance under the State programs funded under
this part and of children and families that have ceased to
receive such assistance, using longitudinal matched data
gathered from federally supported programs, and including
State-by-State data that details the distribution of earnings
and stability of employment of such families and (to the
extent feasible) describes, with respect to such families,
the distribution of income from known sources
[[Page S7949]]
(including employer-reported wages, assistance under the
State program funded under this part, and benefits under the
food stamp program), the ratio of such families' income to
the poverty line, and the extent to which such families
receive or received noncash benefits and child care
assistance, disaggregated by race, ethnicity or national
origin, primary language, gender, education level, whether
the case remains open, and, with respect to closed cases, the
reason the case was closed.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 411(a) (42 U.S.C.
611(a)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (6), the following:
``(7) Report on economic well-being of current and former
recipients.--The report required by paragraph (1) for a
fiscal quarter shall include for that quarter such
information as the Secretary may specify in order for the
Secretary to include in the annual reports to Congress
required under subsection (b) the information described in
paragraph (5) of that subsection.''.
SEC. 304. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY.
Section 411 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 611) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Protection of Individual Privacy.--With respect to
any information concerning individuals or families receiving
assistance, or applying for assistance, under the State
programs funded under this part that is publicly disclosed by
the Secretary, the Secretary shall ensure that such
disclosure is made in a manner that protects the privacy of
such individuals and families.''.
TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act take effect on October 1,
2002.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2880. A bill to designate Fort Bayard Historic District in the
State of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to designate
Fort Bayard in New Mexico as a national historic landmark. I am excited
to offer this bill because I believe that the history of the fort
deserves Federal recognition. Fort Bayard is significant not only for
the role it played as a military post in fostering early settlement in
the region, but for its role as a nationally important tuberculosis
sanatorium and hospital. During the 99 years spanning its establishment
in 1866 through its closing as a Veterans Administration hospital in
1965, Fort Bayard served as the most prominent evidence of the Federal
government's role in Southwestern New Mexico. Fort Bayard has recently
been listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition
of the historical significance of the site.
From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its
soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected
settlers working in nearby mining district. These Buffalo Soldiers were
a mainstay of the Army during the late Apache wars and fought
heroically in numerous skirmishes. Like many soldiers who served at
Fort Bayard, some of the Buffalo Soldiers remained in the area
following their discharge. Lines of headstones noting the names of men
and their various Buffalo Soldier units remain in the older section of
what is now the National Cemetery. In 1992, these soldiers were
recognized for their bravery when a Buffalo Soldier Memorial statue was
dedicated at the center of the Fort Bayard parade ground. It gradually
became apparent that the Army's extensive frontier fort system was no
longer necessary. By 1890, it was clear that the era of the western
frontier, at least from the Army's perspective, had ended. Fort Bayard
was scheduled for closure in 1899.
Even as the last detachment of the 9th U.S. Cavalry prepared to
depart the discontinued post, new Federal occupants were arriving at
Fort Bayard. On August 28, 1899, the War Department authorized the
surgeon-general to establish a general hospital for use as a military
sanatorium. This would be the first sanatorium dedicated to the
treatment of officers and enlisted men of the Army suffering form
pulmonary tuberculosis. At 6,100 ft. and with a dry, sunny climate, the
fort lay within what proponents of climatological therapy termed the
``zone of immunity.'' By 1919, the cumulative effect of over 15 years
of construction and improvement projects was the creation of a small,
nearly self-sufficient community.
In 1920, the War Department closed the sanatorium and the United
States Public Health Service assumed control of the facility. A second
phase occurred in 1922 when a new agency, the Veterans' Bureau, was
created within the Treasury Department and charged with operating
hospitals throughout the country whose clientele were veterans
requiring medical services. As a result, in the summer of 1922 the
United States General Hospital at Fort Bayard was transferred to the
Veterans' Bureau and became known as United States Veterans' Hospital
No. 55. Its mission of treating those afflicted with tuberculosis,
however, remained the same.
By 1965, there was no longer a need for a tuberculosis facility
located at a high elevation in a dry climate, and the Veterans'
Administration decided to close the hospital in that year. However, in
part because of the concerns of the local communities that depended
upon the hospital, the State of New Mexico assumed responsibility for
the facility and 484 acres of the former military reservation. Since
then, the State has used it for geriatric, as well as drug and alcohol
rehabilitation and orthopedic programs. Because of the extensive
cemetery dating to the fort and sanatorium eras at Fort Bayard, the
State of New Mexico transferred 16 acres in 1975 for the creation of
the Fort Bayard National Cemetery, administered by the Veterans'
Administration.
For these and many other reasons, believe it is clear that Fort
Bayard is historically significant and merits recognition as a national
historic landmark. Fort Bayard illuminates a rich and complex story
that is important to the entire nation.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 2883. A bill to allow States to design a program to increase
parental choice in special education, to fully fund the Federal share
of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to help
States reduce paperwork requirements under part B of such Act, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce The Choice IDEA Act, which
would reform the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. The
federal government began dealing with special education in the 1970's,
and on the whole what has come to be known as IDEA had proven to be a
remarkable success. Before federal legislation, many times a child with
a disability received little or no education. And if the child did
receive an education, it was often sub-standard. IDEA has undoubtedly
been a success, and you will find no stronger champion of educating the
disabled than I. However, the success of IDEA should not blind us to
the problems it, in its current form, causes.
These problems come up every time I meet with educators and education
administrators from my state. When we sit down and discuss what we in
the federal government can do for them, the discussion invariably turns
to IDEA. These educators and school personnel want two things: full
funding of the federal government's share of IDEA, like we promised
back in the 1970's, and a reduction in paperwork. I have also talked to
numerous parents about their experiences with IDEA. While many are
happy with the current system, there are also many who are dissatisfied
and who want more control and more choice over how their children are
educated.
Some of the stories I hear are truly incredible and illustrate the
serious need for IDEA reform. For example, there is a school district
in North Idaho--in a county which has had very high unemployment and
below average per-capita income since the early 1990's--which has well
above the national average of children in special education. This
district is doing a great job educating those children, but the high
costs associated with doing so, and the time it takes to complete the
reams of paperwork that must be filled out for every child, are severe
drains on that district. I've also heard from a school superintendent
in Idaho who is going through a particularly sticky due process hearing
and who laments that the paperwork required by this hearing is costly,
unnecessary, and takes away teachers' time from the
[[Page S7950]]
classroom. Parents have also contacted me with their stories of how
school districts have mistreated them and how they can only find the
proper program for their special child at a private school. The Choice
IDEA Act would help out these parents, teachers, and school
administrators by fully funding IDEA by Fiscal Year 2010, giving
parents significantly more control over how their children are
educated, and by reducing the onerous burden of paperwork that hampers
the special education process.
The centerpiece of the bill is a proposal to allow states to set up a
special education system based on parental choice. States that want to
reform would draw up a list of disability categories and how much it
costs to educate and accommodate a child who has that disability. The
states would also draw up a menu outlining the educational services
each pubic school in the state offers to children with those
disabilities, and how much those services costs. These services must
equal the quality of the services they offer today, and the states'
programs would be approved by the Department of Education. If the
Department of Education approves a state's plan, parents of special
education children in that state would get a voucher for each child to
choose from schools' menus to meet the needs of their children. Or, if
parents did not find satisfactory services from the public schools,
they could take their vouchers to any private school that could meet
their children's needs.
As you can see, parents would have the ultimate control over how
their child is educated. Since parents would have the option of taking
their voucher and leaving a school if their child was not being
educated properly, the due process requirements under IDEA would not be
necessary and the school personnel would have their paperwork burden
dramatically reduced. Parents and school personnel could work together
to find a proper diagnosis for a student who had a disability and to
find the right ways to educate this child, instead of being forced into
an adversarial relationship as they are today.
It is important to point out, though, that this bill has no mandate
on states that they must design the system outlined above. My bill
would strengthen states' rights by allowing states one more option in
dealing with special education. If states want to design such a special
education system, they should have the freedom to do so. As welfare
reform has shown us, states are often more innovative than the federal
government in solving problems. This bill would give them one more tool
to deal with the problems that are associated with IDEA.
Another important provision of this bill is that it would set up a
grant program (up to $1 million) within the Department of Education to
help school districts which have 15 percent or more of their students
in special education hire para-professionals to help deal with the
paperwork.
The Choice IDEA Act is not intended to be the final say on IDEA
reform. I agree with many of the Presidential Commission's suggestions
for IDEA reauthorization and hope to see them enacted into law;
however, this reauthorization should include a provision giving states
the option of pursuing their own reforms within the structure outlined
above. When the Senate begins debating IDEA reauthorization, it is my
hope that my bill will be considered and the Senate will reform IDEA so
that the concept of ``no child is left behind'' truly includes every
child.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Allard):
S. 2884. A bill to improve transit service to rural areas, including
for elderly and disabled; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I introduce a bill to help rural America.
Now I am always trying to help Montana, but this bill will help every
state. Today I introduce the MEGA RED TRANS Act. Maximum Economic
Growth for America Through Investment in Rural, Elderly and Disabled
Transit.
Quite simply, there are transit needs not being met nationwide. This
bill addresses those needs.
This is the second bill in a series that I am introducing to
highlight my proposals on reauthorization of TEA 21--the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Last month I introduced the MEGA TRUST Act--Maximum Growth for
America Through the Highway Trust Fund. Today its MEGA RED TRANS.
The Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Investment in Rural,
Elderly and Disabled Transit Act or MEGA RED TRANS Act would ensure,
that as Federal transit programs are reauthorized, increased funding is
provided to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled and of rural and
small urban areas.
There is no question that our nation's large metropolitan areas have
substantial transit needs that will receive attention as transit
reauthorization legislation is developed. But the transit needs of
rural and smaller areas, and of our elderly and disabled citizens, also
require additional attention and funding.
The bill would provide that additional funding in a way that does not
impact other portions of the transit program. For example, while the
bill would at least double every State's funding for the elderly and
disabled transit program by FY 2004, nothing in the bill would reduce
funding for any portion of the transit program or for any State.
To the contrary, the bill would help strengthen the transit program
as a whole by providing that the mass Transit Account of the Highway
Trust Fund is credited with the interest on its balance. This is a key
provision in the MEGA TRUST Act and is also included here in the MEGA
RED TRANS Act.
Specifically, the bill would set modest minimum annual
apportionments, by State, for the elderly and disabled transit program,
the rural transit program, and for urbanized areas with a population of
less than 200,000.
It would ensure that each state gets a minimum of $11 million for
these three programs.
For my state of Montana that is double what we get for those programs
currently. For some other states it is more than four times what they
receive.
The bill would also establish a $30 million program for essential bus
service, to help connect citizens in rural communities to the rest of
the world by facilitating transportation between rural areas and
airports and passenger rail stations.
I am very aware of the role that public transit plays in the lives of
rural citizens and the elderly and disabled. When most people hear the
word ``transit'' they think of a light rail system. But in rural areas
transit translates to buses and vanpools. Take Elaine Miller for
example.
Elaine is 73 years old and lives in Missoula, MT. She depends upon
the city's Mountain Line public transit system for virtually all of her
transportation needs. ``It's my car!'' she says.
Twelve years ago, Elaine suffered a stroke and decided that it was
simply too dangerous to drive anymore. Today she takes transit to the
doctor and to shop. She gets her prescriptions and meets family and
friends, all using public transit.
As a regular rider, however, Elaine also understands the current
limitations of transit in Missoula. ``Our bus service here needs to
offer more service, particularly on the weekends and the evenings. I'd
like to be able to take the bus to church,'' she says.
The frequency of bus service in Missoula, too, can often be an issue
for Elaine. Last week, for example, she was left waiting more than two
hours at a local store for the next bus to take her home.
``We seniors know how important the bus is to our quality of life. We
really need more bus service. Without the bus, I know that myself and
others would just have to stay home,'' says Elaine.
For Elaine, increased Federal investment in public transit in Montana
would mean increased bus service in Missoula. Weekend service and
increased frequency on current routes, she believes, are a great need.
I'd like to discuss another example of how rural transit and transit
for the elderly and disabled is crucial to Montana. And I am sure we
could easily find similar examples in every state.
[[Page S7951]]
Let's talk about Kathy Collins of Helena, MT.
Kathy moved to Helena in 1982 from Butte, MT, an area with no
accessible transportation. In Helena, she discovered the Dial-A-Ride
system, where lift-equipped vehicles could easily transport her in her
wheelchair.
``It was terrific. I could get to work on time. And I could even get
home on time!'' lauds Collins.
While she owns a minivan that she can drive to the middle school
where she teaches, she is thankful to have a transportation option in
inclement weather.
``Transit gets me to and from work in the winter time. I couldn't do
it without them,'' she says, ``And for people who don't work, it's a
godsend. They can't afford a taxi.''
While the Dial-A-Ride system provides Collins with dependable
employment transportation on weekdays, she would like to see operations
expanded to evenings and weekends.
``The service is essential. You need to give people access. You need
to give people control over their lives. You need to give people the
mobility that the rest of the country enjoys. Just because we live in
the boondocks doesn't mean we don't need to go anywhere.'' she says.
I couldn't agree with her more. The MEGA RED TRANS Act will help
these people and millions of others around the country. Considering the
enormous impact the MEGA RED TRANS Act will have on the country, it is
actually a very modest proposal.
The bill would not set funding levels for the transit program as a
whole, or for large transit systems.
Moreover, the call for increases in the elderly and disabled, rural,
and small urban area programs are not made in a static setting, but in
the context of reauthorization.
In reauthorization the overall transit program undoubtedly will grow
by more than the modest increases required by the provisions of this
bill. So, nothing in the bill would preclude growth in other aspects of
the transit program.
In sum, the bill stands for the proposition that, as the transit
program is likely to continue to grow, no less than the funding
increases proposed in this bill should be provided in order to better
meet the needs of rural and small urban area transit systems and the
transit needs of the elderly and disabled.
I would like to thank Senators Crapo, Thomas, Johnson, Enzi, Conrad,
Bingaman and Craig for joining me on this important piece of
legislation.
I'd also like to thank both the members and staff of the American Bus
Association, The Community Transportation Association and the
Amalgamated Transit Union, for their assistance with this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and to work to include it
in the highway and transit reauthorization, next year.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 2885. A bill to amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to require
additional disclosures relating to exchange rates in transfers
involving international transactions; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, along with my distinguished colleague
from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, I am introducing The Wire Transfer Fairness
and Disclosure Act, legislation that will protect consumers who send
cash remittances through international money wire transfer companies by
providing greater disclosure of the fees, including hidden costs,
charged for those services.
Every year, thirty million Americans send their friends and relatives
$40 billion in cash remittances through wire transfers. The majority of
these transfers are remittances sent to their native countries by
immigrants to the United States. For these individuals, many of whom
are in low-to-minimum wage jobs, sending this money only increases
their own personal financial burdens--but they do so to aid their
families and their loved ones.
Unfortunately, these immigrants increasingly find themselves being
preyed upon by the practices of some money wire transfer providers who
not only charge consumers an upfront charge for the transfer service,
but also hit them on the back end with hidden costs. Many of these
charges are extracted when the dollars sent by the consumer are
converted to the foreign currency value that is supposed to be paid out
to the friend of the family member.
This exploitation is especially pervasive in Latin American and
Caribbean countries. In fact, as many as 10 million Hispanic immigrants
in the U.S. send remittances to their family and friends back home.
Cumulatively, these individuals send $23 billion annually to some of
our hemisphere's poorest economies. This money is used to pay for such
basic needs such as food, medicine, and schooling.
In most Latin American and Caribbean countries, remittances far
exceed U.S. development assistance. In the case of Nicaragua, Haiti,
Jamaica, Ecuador and El Salvador, cash remittances account for more
than 10 percent of national GDP.
These large cash flows have proven to be a powerful incentive for
greed in the case of some wire transfer companies. Customers wiring
money to Latin America and elsewhere in the world lose billions of
dollars annually to undisclosed ``currency conversion fees.'' In fact,
many large companies aggressively target immigrant communities, often
advertising ``low fee'' or ``no fee'' rates for international
transfers. But these misleading ads do not always clearly disclose the
fees charged when the currency is exchanged.
While large wire service companies typically obtain foreign
currencies at bulk rates, they charge a significant currency conversion
fee to their U.S. customers. For example, customers wiring money to
Mexico are charged an exchange rate that routinely varies from the
benchmark by as much as 15 percent. These hidden fees create staggering
profits, allowing companies to reap billions of dollars on top of the
stated fees they charge for the wire transfer services.
While this practice may not be illegal, it is wrong, and it must be
stopped. The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act requires
financial institutions or money-transmitting businesses that initiate
international money transfers to disclose all fees charged in an
international wire transfer.
The legislation also requires these companies to provide consumers
with important disclosures regarding the exchange rate used in
connection with the transaction; the exchange rate prevailing at a
major financial center in the foreign country whose currency is
involved in the transaction; or the official exchange rate, if any, of
the government or central bank of that foreign country.
The bill would additionally require disclosure to the consumer who
initiates the transaction of any fees or commissions charged by
transfer service providers in connection with any transaction and the
exact amount of foreign currency to be received by the recipient in the
foreign country, which shall be disclosed to the consumer before the
transaction is consummated and printed on the receipt given to
customer.
This legislation does more than merely provide better information to
consumers--it should also help them financially. Consumers will see
increased competition among wire transfer companies because they are
better-informed and more knowledgeable. That competition will result in
lower fees for the wire transfer services that will free up a greater
portion of these cash remittances to go to the friends and families
that they were originally intended for.
In short, this is sound public policy that empowers those who do
their part to help America's economy move forward.
I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I cosponsor the Wire Transfer Fairness and
Disclosure Act of 2002, introduced by my colleague, Senator Corzine. I
thank Senator Corzine and Representative Luis Gutierrez for their
leadership on this issue. I also want to express my appreciation to the
Chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, for conducting a
hearing on the issue of remittances.
Immigrants nationwide often send a portion of their hard-earned wages
to
[[Page S7952]]
relatives and their communities abroad. Remittances can be used to
improve the standard of living of recipients by increasing access to
health care and education.
Unfortunately, people who send remittances are often unaware of the
fees and exchange rates used in the transaction that reduce the amount
of money received by their family members. In many cases, fees for
sending remittances can be ten to twenty percent of the value of the
transaction. In addition to the fees, the exchange rate used in the
transaction can be significantly lower than the market rate. The
exchange rate used in the transaction is typically not disclosed to
customers.
Consumers cannot afford to be uneducated regarding financial service
options and fees placed on their transactions. This legislation is
needed to provide the necessary information to consumers so that they
may make informed decisions about sending money. The Wire Transfer
Fairness and Disclosure Act would ensure that each customer is fully
informed of all of the fees and the exchange rates used in the
transaction.
If consumers are provided additional information about the
transaction costs involved with sending money, they may be more likely
to utilize banks and credit unions which often can provide lower cost
remittances. If unbanked immigrants use the remittance services offered
by banks and credit unions, they may be more likely to open up an
account. Many immigrants are unbanked and lack a relationship with a
mainstream financial services provider. The unbanked are more likely to
use check-cashing services which charge an average fee of over nine
percent. They are also more likely to utilize the services provided by
pay-day and predatory lenders. The unbanked miss the opportunities for
saving and borrowing at mainstream financial institutions.
This legislation is particularly important to my home State of
Hawaii. Hawaii is home to significant numbers of recent immigrants from
many nations, including the Philippines. The Philippines is one of the
largest destinations for remittances from the United States. The gross
value of remittances to the Philippines is $3.7 billion and a large
portion of that amount comes from people in Hawaii.
Mr. President, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this much
needed legislation and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill
be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2885
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 ``Wire Transfer Fairness and
Disclosure Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF EXCHANGE RATES IN CONNECTION WITH
INTERNATIONAL MONEY TRANSFERS.
(a) In General.--The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15
U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 918 through 921 as sections
919 through 922, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 917 the following new
section:
``SEC. 918. DISCLOSURE OF EXCHANGE RATES IN CONNECTION WITH
INTERNATIONAL MONEY TRANSFERS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(1) International money transfer.--The term
`international money transfer' means any money transmitting
service involving an international transaction which is
provided by a financial institution or a money transmitting
business.
``(2) Money transmitting service.--The term `money
transmitting service' has the same meaning as in section
5330(d)(2) of title 31, United States Code.
``(3) Money transmitting business.--The term `money
transmitting business' means any business which--
``(A) provides check cashing, currency exchange, or money
transmitting or remittance services, or issues or redeems
money orders, travelers' checks, or other similar
instruments; and
``(B) is not a depository institution (as defined in
section 5313(g) of title 31, United States Code).
``(b) Exchange Rate and Fees Disclosures Required.--
``(1) In general.--Any financial institution or money
transmitting business which initiates an international money
transfer on behalf of a consumer (whether or not the consumer
maintains an account at such institution or business) shall
disclosure, in the manner required under this section--
``(A) the exchange rate used by the financial institution
or money transmitting business in connection with such
transactions;
``(B) the exchange rate prevailing at a major financial
center of the foreign country whose currency is involved in
the transaction, as of the close of business on the business
day immediately preceding the date of the transaction (or the
official exchange rate, if any, of the government or central
bank of such foreign country);
``(C) all commissions and fees charged by the financial
institution or money transmitting business in connection with
such transaction; and
``(D) the exact amount of foreign currency to be received
by the recipient in the foreign country, which shall be
disclosed to the consumer before the transaction is
consummated and printed on the receipt referred to in
paragraph (3).
``(2) Prominent disclosure inside and outside the place of
business where an international money transfer is
initiated.--The information required to be disclosed under
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) shall be
prominently displayed on the premises of the financial
institution or money transmitting business both at the
interior location to which the public is admitted for
purposes of initiating an international money transfer, and
on the exterior of any such premises.
``(3) Prominent disclosure in all receipts and forms used
in the place of business where an international money
transfer is initiated.--All information required to be
disclosed under paragraph (1) shall be prominently displayed
on all forms and receipts used by the financial institution
or money transmitting business when initiating an
international money transfer in such premises.
``(c) Advertisements in Print, Broadcast, and Electronic
Media and Outdoor Advertising.--The information required to
be disclosed under subparagraphs (A) and (C) of subsection
(b)(1) shall be included--
``(1) in any advertisement, announcement, or solicitation
which is mailed by the financial institution or money
transmitting business and pertains to international money
transfers; or
``(2) in any print, broadcast, or electronic medium or
outdoor advertising display not on the premises of the
financial institution or money transmitting business and
pertaining to international money transfers.
``(d) Disclosures in Languages Other Than English.--The
disclosures required under this section shall be in English
and in the same language as that principally used by the
financial institution or money transmitting business, or any
of its agents, to advertise, solicit, or negotiate, either
orally or in writing, at that office, if other than
English''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect 3 months after the date of enactment of
this Act.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Helms, and Mr.
Hutchinson):
S. 2886. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure
the religious free exercise and free speech rights of churches and
other houses of worship to engage in an insubstantial amount of
political activities; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, along with my colleagues
Senators Tim Hutchinson and Jesse Helms, to introduce the Houses of
Worship Political Speech Protection Act.
This bill, introduced by my friend Congressman Walter B. Jones of
North Carolina, H.R. 2357, enjoys broad support on the House side with
128 bipartisan cosponsors.
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit a church to
participate or intervene in a political campaign and maintain its tax-
exempt status as long as such participation is not a substantial parts
of its activities.
The bill replaces the absolute ban on political intervention with the
``no substantial part of the activities'' test currently used in the
lobbying context. This bill would give clergy the freedom to speak out
on moral and political issues of our day and to fully educate their
congregation on where the candidates stand on the issues without the
threat of losing their tax exempt status.
Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted the ban on political speech in 1954
as a floor amendment in order to hamstring certain anticommunist
organizations that were opposing him in the Democratic Party. No
hearings took place nor was any congressional record developed in order
to explain the reasons for the ban. There is no indication that Senator
Johnson intended to target churches.
Before 1954, pastors and members of many churches spoke freely about
candidates and political issues. The slavery abolitionist organizations
and the
[[Page S7953]]
civil rights movement are great examples of church inspired political
success.
Had the current law been enforced earlier in American history,
William Lloyd Garrison could not have spoken out against slavery, nor
could Martin Luther King, Jr. have spoken out against segregation.
Currently, the ban on political speech has a dramatic chilling effect
on the ability of houses of worship to speak out on moral and political
issues, since under Section 501(C)(3), houses of worship may not engage
in even a single activity that might be regarded as participating in,
or intervening in a campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a
candidate for public office.
Thus ultimately restricts the clergy's freedom of speech by
threatening to revoke the church's tax-exempt status if they dare to
speak out on moral and political questions of our day.
Additionally, the bill seeks to shift the burden of proof from houses
of worship to the IRS. Rather than require the house of worship to
prove that its activities are not political at all, this bill will
force the IRS to prove that its activities are in fact substantially
political.
Nothing in this bill ``makes'' a church speak on political issues; it
merely gives them the freedom to do so if they choose to.
Since so many of the issues that are debated in the halls of Congress
have a moral or religious aspect to them, those who ask for help from a
higher power should not be absent from the political process.
America is a religious nation. Religion affects every aspect of our
culture, and yes, even our government. The views of our church-going
members and their clergy are vital to a well-rounded debate on the
important issues of our day.
This substantial portion of the American people who consider
themselves religious and practice that religion should not be shut out
of the process.
I hope more of my colleagues will join us and cosponsor this
important legislation.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2887. A bill to provide for the sharing of homeland security
information by Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies with
State and local entities; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Homeland Security
Information Sharing Act, a bill to increase state and local access to
security information that could save American lives. The House has
already passed similar legislation bill sponsored by Representatives
Harman and Chambliss, and it is my understanding that the
Administration supports this legislation as well.
The bill I introduce today will not solve our intelligence problems--
we have a long road ahead of us before we can accomplish that. But this
legislation will send a clear signal to our federal agencies that
information gathered at the federal level must be shared with states
and localities if we are to triumph in the battle against terrorism.
State and local law enforcement are first-line defenders of our
homeland security. Too often, though, state and local officials do not
receive information necessary for them to protect us. If, for instance,
there were a terrorist threat against the Golden Gate Bridge in San
Francisco, we would want a cooperative effort between the Federal
government and local officials.
This bill would:
Direct the President to establish procedures for federal agencies to
share homeland security information with state and local officials, and
for all government officials to be able to communicate with each other.
Local officials should quickly have access to relevant intelligence
necessary to prevent or respond to attacks in their communities.
Direct the President to address concerns about too much dissemination
of classified or sensitive information, by setting procedures to
protect this material. This could include requiring background checks
of local officials who seek access to classified information, or
perhaps even non disclosure agreements so that secret information stays
secret.
Direct the President to ensure that our current information sharing
systems and computers are capable of sharing relevant homeland security
information with each other and with state and local systems.
Mr. President, we can improve information sharing without re-
inventing the wheel. The legislation applies technology already used to
share information with our NATO allies and with Interpol. The
information can be shared through existing networks, such as the
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the Regional
Information Sharing Systems, and the Terrorist Threat Warning System.
These systems already reach law enforcement offices throughout America.
Better information sharing will result in better homeland security.
As a Congress, we are already working on making intelligence gathering
and dissemination work better within the federal government. We must
not forget to improve communications with state and local law
enforcement as well.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I hope that we
can pass it quickly in September. It is non-controversial, and would
help send a clear signal that information gathering and dissemination
may be our best defense against terror.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2888. A bill to direct the Administrator of General Services to
convey to Fresno County, California, the existing Federal courthouse in
that country; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I introduced a bill that will convey the
B.F. Sisk Federal Building in Fresno, California to the County of
Fresno, when the new federal courthouse is completed and occupied.
Fresno County is a rapidly growing county in the heart of
California's Great Central Valley. The County of Fresno's Superior
Court has a serious need for new court space that will grow in the
years ahead. The Sisk Building contains courtrooms and related space
that will help the people of Fresno County meet those needs. The Sisk's
building existing security measures are a perfect fit for Fresno
County's justice system.
This legislation is a common sense measure that will allow
appropriate utilization of the Sisk Building, while contributing to the
ongoing revitalization of downtown Fresno. I am proud that it is yet
another opportunity for the federal government to improve the lives of
Fresno County's people.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
S. 2889. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
individuals a refundable credit against income tax for the purchase of
private health insurance; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, there are 39 million uninsured people
in America, and that number is predicted to grow to 50 million by 2010.
Surprisingly, 80 percent of the uninsured are members of working
families, who work hard everyday but simply cannot afford the rising
cost of health care.
According to a recent survey by Hewitt Associates, the average
insurance premium will increase more than 20 percent in 2003. This is a
sharp increase from earlier forecasts. Such an increase is in addition
to the double digit increase in premiums anticipated this year.
I am pleased today to introduce the Securing Access Value and
Equality in Health Care Act, or SAVE Act. This bill will provide every
American with a pre-payable, fully refundable tax credit toward the
purchase of health insurance.
The tax credit will be $1,000 for individuals, $2,000 for married
couples, and $500 per dependent, up to $3,000 per family. An additional
50 percent will be added for any additional premiums to assist those
with higher costs. By being pre-payable, the credit will be available
to individuals at the time of purchase, instead of when they receive
their annual tax return.
A study by Professor Mark Pauly at the Wharton School at the
University of Pennsylvania showed that a credit like that contained in
the SAVE Act would remove 20 million Americans from the ranks of the
uninsured.
The SAVE Act will provide direct assistance to millions of Americans,
and
[[Page S7954]]
over 498,000 uninsured Arkansans, in affording health insurance. I urge
my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 2890. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish
grant programs to provide for education and outreach on newborn
screening and coordinated followup care once newborn screening has been
conducted, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Mike
DeWine, to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members
of our society: newborn infants. About 2 months ago, many families
across the country celebrated Father's Day. As a first-time dad of a
10-month-old baby girl, I now know the joy of being able to experience
that holiday and every other pleasure that comes along with being a
father. What I also now share with parents everywhere is a constant
sense of worry about whether our kids are doing well, are feeling well,
and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and
well-being of our children.
Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now
possible to test newborns for at least 30 genetic and metabolic
disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe
disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and
treated can go on to live healthy lives. In the most direct sense,
newborn screening saves lives.
Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can
come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical
history of the condition in the family, no way to predict the health of
a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that
are tested for are quite rate, there is a chance that any one newborn
will be affected. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct
impact on the lives of every family.
Fortunately, screening has become common practice in every state.
Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel
to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-term
health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of
these disorders. That means that newborn screening could save
approximately 1,000 lives each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can
possibly be averted--families left with the joy of a new infant rather
than absolute heartbreak.
That is the good news. However, there is so much more to be done.
More than 2,000 babies born are estimated to be born every year in the
United States with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected
because they are not screened. These infants and their families face
the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. Let me
repeat that--disability or death from a preventable disorder. The
survival of a newborn may very well come down to the state in which it
is born. Only two states, including my home state of Connecticut thanks
to recent legislation, will test for all 30 disorders. The vast
majority test for eight or fewer.
I recently chaired a hearing on this issue during which I related a
story that illustrates the impact of newborn screening, or the lack of
newborn screening, in a very personal sense. Jonathan Sweeney is a
three-year-old from Brookfield, CT. At the time of his birth, the state
only tested for eight disorders. He was considered a healthy baby,
although he was a poor sleeper and needed to be fed quite frequently.
One morning in December of 2000, Jonathan's mother, Pamela, found
Jonathan with his eyes wide open but completely unresponsive. He was
not breathing and appeared to be having a seizure. Jonathan was rushed
to the hospital where, fortunately, his life was saved. He was later
diagnosed with L-CHAD, a disorder that prevents Jonathan's body from
turning fat into energy.
Despite this harrowing tale, Jonathan and his family are extremely
fortunate. Jonathan is alive, and his disorder can be treated with a
special diet. He has experienced developmental delays that most likely
could have been avoided had he been tested and treated for L-CHAD at
birth. This raises a question. Why was he not tested? Why do 47 states
still not test for L-CHAD?
The primary reason for this unfortunate reality is the lack of
consensus on the federal level about what should be screened for, and
how a screening program should be developed. Twenty of the thirty
disorders can only be detected using a costly piece of equipment called
a tandem mass spectrometer. Currently, only nine states have this
resource. Many health care professionals are unaware of the possibility
of screening for disorders beyond what their state requires. Parents,
and I include myself, are even less well-informed. My daughter Grace
was born in Virginia, where they screen for nine disorders. I was
extremely relieved when all of those tests came out negative. However,
at that time I did not know that this screening was not as complete as
it could have been. My ignorance had nothing to do with my love for my
daughter or my capability as a parent. The fact is that the majority of
parents do not realize that this screening occurs at all, nor are they
familiar with the disorders that are being screened for. For that
reason, one of the most important first steps that we can take to
protect our children is to educate parents and health care
professionals.
In the Children's Health Act of 2000, I supported the creation of an
advisory committee on newborn screening within the Department of Health
and Human Services. The purpose of this committee would be to develop
national recommendations on screening, hopefully eliminating the
disparities between states that currently exist. The Children's Health
Act also included a provision to provide funding to states to expand
their technological resources for newborn screening. Unfortunately,
funds were not appropriated for either of these provisions. We are told
that $25 million in appropriations is needed for this crucial
initiative and we need to fight for these dollars as we develop the
FY03 budget.
The legislation that we are introducing today, the Newborn Screening
Saves Lives Act of 2002, seeks to address the shocking lack of
information available to health care professionals and parents about
newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to
protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only
compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was
preventable. This bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 2003 and
such sums as are necessary through fiscal year 2007 to HRSA for grants
to provide education and training to health care professionals, state
laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates.
Our legislation will also provide states with the resources to
develop programs of follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a
disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are
the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the
prospect of extended and complex treatment or major lifestyle changes.
We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis. For that
reason, this bill authorizes $5 million in fiscal year 2003 and such
sums as are necessary through FY 2007 to HRSA for grants to develop a
coordinated system of follow-up care for newborns and their families
after screening and diagnosis.
Finally, the bill directs HRSA to assess existing resources for
education, training, and follow-up care in the states, ensure
coordination, and minimize duplication; and also directs the Secretary
to provide an evaluation report to Congress two and a half years after
the grants are first awarded and then after five years to assess impact
and effectiveness and make recommendations about future efforts.
I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative and look
forward to working together to accomplish its passage.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Harkin and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 2891. A bill to create a 4-year pilot program that makes small,
non-profit child care businesses eligible for SBA 504 loans; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have shortage of childcare in this
country, and it is a problem for our families, a
[[Page S7955]]
problem for our businesses, and a problem for our economy. The Census
Bureau estimates that there are approximately 24 million school age
children with parents who are in the workforce or pursuing education,
and the numbers are growing. There has been a 43 percent increase in
dual-earner families and single parent families over the last half a
century. As parents leave the home for work and education, the need for
quality childcare in America continues to increase.
As Chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I think we
can foster the establishment and expansion of existing child care
businesses through the Small Business Administration. Today with
Senators Harkin and Landrieu, I am introducing, the Child Care Lending
Pilot Act, a bill to create a four-year pilot that allows small, non-
profit child care businesses to access financing through SBA's 504
loans.
Non-profit child care small businesses already have access to
financing through the SBA's microloan program, which many of us made
possible through legislation in 1997. Microloans help with working
capital and the purchase of some equipment, but there is also a need to
help finance the purchase of buildings, expand existing facilities to
meet child care demand, or improve facilities. It is appropriate to
provide financing through the 504 program because it was created to
spur economic development and rebuild communities, and child care is
critical to businesses and their employees. Financing through 504 could
spur the establishment and growth of child care businesses because the
program requires the borrower to put down only between 10 and 20
percent of the loan, making the investment more affordable.
As anyone with children knows, quality childcare comes at a very high
cost to a family, and it is especially burdensome to low-income
families. The Children's Defense Fund estimates that childcare for a 4-
year-old in a childcare center averages $4,000 to $6,000 per year in
cities and states around the nation. In all but one state, the average
annual cost of childcare in urban area childcare centers is more than
the average annual cost of public college tuition.
These high costs make access to child care all but non-existent for
low-income families. While some states have made efforts to provide
grants and loans to assist childcare businesses, more must be done to
increase the supply of childcare and improve the quality of programs
for low-income families. According to the Child Care Bureau, state and
federal funds are so insufficient that only one out of 10 children in
low-income working families who are eligible for assistance under
federal law receives it.
For parts of the country, when affordable child care is available, it
is provided through non-profit child care businesses. I formed a task
force in my home State of Massachusetts to study the state of child
care, and of the many important findings, we discovered that more than
60 percent of the child care providers are non-profit and that there is
a real need to help them finance the purchase of buildings or expand
their existing space. Child care in general is not a high earning
industry, and the owners don't have spare money lying around. Asking
centers to charge less or cut back on employees is not the way to make
childcare more affordable for families and does not serve the children
well. An adequate staff is needed to make sure children receive proper
supervision and support. Furthermore, if centers are asked to lower
their operating costs in order to lower costs to families, the safety
and quality of the childcare provided would be in jeopardy.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so non-profit
childcare providers can access funds to start new centers or expand and
improve upon existing centers.
Allowing non-profit childcare centers to receive SBA loans will be
the first step toward improving the availability of childcare in the
United States. Non-profit childcare centers provide the same quality of
care as the for-profit centers, and non-profit centers often serve our
nation's most needy communities. I hope that my colleagues will
recognize the vital role that early education plays in the development
of fine minds and productive citizens and realize that in this great
nation, childcare should be available to all families in all income
brackets.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and several letters
of support be printed in the Record. These letters demonstrate that
this is a good investment that is good for our country.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2891
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Child Care Lending Pilot
Act''.
SEC. 2. CHILD CARE BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM.
(a) Loans Authorized.--Section 502 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``The Administration'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Authorization.--The Administration'';
(B) by striking ``and such loans'' and inserting ``. Such
loans''; and
(C) by striking ``: Provided, however, That the foregoing
powers shall be subject to the following restrictions and
limitations:'' and inserting a period; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Restrictions and Limitations.--The authority under
subsection (a) shall be subject to the following restrictions
and limitations:''; and
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting after ``Use of proceeds.--'' the
following:
``(A) In general.--''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Loans to small, non-profit child care businesses.--
The proceeds of any loan described in subsection (a) may be
used by the borrower to assist, in addition to other eligible
small business concerns, small, non-profit child care
businesses, provided that--
``(i) the loan will be used for a sound business purpose
that has been approved by the Administration; and
``(ii) each such business receiving financial assistance
meets all of the same eligibility requirements applicable to
for-profit businesses under this title, except for status as
a for-profit business.''.
(b) Reports.--
(1) Small business administration.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter until
September 30, 2006, the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration shall submit a report on the implementation of
the program under subsection (a) to--
(i) the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate; and
(ii) the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives.
(B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall
contain--
(i) the date on which the program is implemented;
(ii) the date on which the rules are issued pursuant to
subsection (c); and
(iii) the number and dollar amount of loans under the
program applied for, approved, and disbursed during the
previous 6 months.
(2) General accounting office.--
(A) In general.--Not later than March 31, 2006, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a
report on the child care small business loans authorized by
section 502(b)(1)(B) of the Small Business Investment Act of
1958, as added by this Act, to--
(i) the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate; and
(ii) the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives.
(B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall
contain information gathered during the first 2 years of the
loan program, including--
(i) an evaluation of the timeliness of the implementation
of the loan program;
(ii) a description of the effectiveness and ease with which
Certified Development Companies, lenders, and small
businesses have participated in the loan program;
(iii) a description and assessment of how the loan program
was marketed;
(iv) the number of child care small businesses, categorized
by status as a for-profit or non-profit business and a new
business or an expanded business, that--
(I) applied for loans under the program;
(II) were approved for loans under the program; and
(III) received loan disbursements under the program.
(v) of the businesses under clause (iv)(III)--
(I) the number of such businesses in each State;
(II) the total amount loaned to such businesses under the
program; and
(III) the average loan amount and term.
(c) Rulemaking Authority.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Small Business Administration shall issue final rules to
carry out the loan program authorized by section 502(b)(1)(B)
of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as added by
this Act.
[[Page S7956]]
(d) Sunset Provision.--The amendments made by this section
shall remain in effect until September 30, 2006, and shall
apply to all loans authorized by section 502(b)(1)(B) of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as added by this Act,
that are made during the period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2006.
OMNIBANK, N.A.,
Houston, TX, July 30, 2002.
Re: Proposed Senate Bill
Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: Please accept this letter as my full
support of the bill, soon to be introduced, proposing a Pilot
Program, operating through the Small Business
Administration's 504 Loan Program, that would allow Day Care
facilities designated as non-profits to be eligible for the
program.
I believe the demand for such a product is strong, and is
fiscally sound. My reasons are as follows:
1. Day Care Centers must carry a non-profit designation in
order to accept children to the center from low-income
families.
2. These business benefit low-income neighborhoods and
enterprise zones by purchasing property, improving the
physical appearance of the community and providing safe
facilities for the children. The ability to utilize the SBA-
504 program would enable these businesses to decrease lease/
payment expense and hence, help more children.
3. These families are in the most need for quality day care
facilities in their community, since many use mass transit to
get to work.
4. Small businesses have provided most of the job growth in
this country in the last ten years. By enabling these Day
Care Centers to operate efficiently and provide quality
facilities, we will be helping small business gain and
maintain employees.
5. Designation as a non-profit business does not equate to
an inability to pay loans, or other business expenses.
OMNIBANK, a 50-year-old community bank in Houston, Texas,
has experienced a consistent demand for loans to Day Care
Centers. Most loan requests from these entities are for the
purpose of acquiring or expanding property (real-estate) or
acquiring transportation equipment. An example of a specific,
recent request follows:
The Executive Director and Owner of Teeter Totter Day Care
Center approached OMNIBANK about a loan to purchase the
building used to house the Center. The owner an African-
American woman, was experienced in this business. Cash flow
to service the debt was sufficient and appropriate under
prudent lending guidelines. The only deterrent from making a
conventional loan was the amount available for down payment.
Twenty percent or more is usually required.
Under the SBA-504 Program, a ten percent down payment is
allowed and standard procedure for multi-use buildings.
Additionally, it offers a fixed rate on the SBA portion of
the loan. Most small businesses do not have access to fixed
rate mortgages, due to the size of the loan requests, which
enhances to attractives of the SBA 504 Program even further.
As we were preparing the request package, we realized that
a non-profit did not qualify. The owner would personally
guarantee the loan, and even agreed to form a for profit
corporation to hold the property, because the underlying
tenant was non-profit it would not work. The owner could not
change Teeter Totter into a for profit corporation without
jeopardizing its subsidies for low-income children.
OMNIBANK and the day care center are located in Houston's
fifth ward, most of which is classified as low to moderate
income. Its population is primarily low-income African
Americans and Hispanics. The project was viewed by the Bank
as a good loan from a business perspective, with many
additional benefits to the community at large.
Ultimately, after appealing to SBA for a exception, and
spending a great deal of time on the project, the loan was
not completed. This delayed a good project from improving
many aspects of an already underscored community, due to a
simple tax classification.
As stated earlier, OMNIBANK receives consistent requests
from day care centers, most of which are non-profit. I
believe that a Pilot Program as proposed, will prove that
these are viable and valuable businesses. I would recommend
that all other standard criteria, proven track record, cash
flow, management expertise, etc. remain.
I look forward to any questions you may have, or any
further examples I can provide.
Sincerely,
Julie A. Cripe,
President and Chief Operating Officer.
____
Neighborhood Business Builders,
Boston, MA, July 10, 2002.
Senator John Kerry,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Washington DC.
Dear Chairman Senator Kerry, I am writing on behalf of
Neighborhood Business Builders and the Jewish Vocational
Service of Boston in support of legislation to expand
availability of SBA 504 loans to non-profit child care
centers.
I am currently the Director of Loan Funds at Neighborhood
Business Builders, which is an economic development program
and US SBA Intermediary Microlender. I have been lending and
consulting to small businesses for the past year after
fifteen years in the private sector as founder of three
different companies in Boston and Los Angeles. I have an MPA
from the Kennedy School at Harvard University.
I am on Senator Kerry's Child Care and Small Business
Advisory Committee, and am Co-chair of the Sub Committee on
Family Child Care.
I support legislative change to the 504 loan program
because our committee has uncovered a need for government
support of non-profit child care centers. The basic reason
for this is that, while we recognize a demand for child care
in every part of the country, we do not consider that the
market fails to profitably supply child care in every part of
the country.
For-profit entities are able to access the capital they
need by (1) Demonstrating demand for the service provided and
(2) Demonstrating ability to serve market rate debt with
acceptable risk. Non-profit centers emerge when (1)
Demonstrated demand for the service is evident but (2) The
market will not support the true cost of the service
provided. These non-profit centers are unable to access
traditional forms of capital because they cannot demonstrate
an ability to service debt at an acceptable risk.
The SBA 504 loan program would help mitigate the risk to
lenders who will then be able to provide the necessary
capital for the service that we know is in demand. The tax
status of a child care center should be irrelevant, since the
501(C)3 status is only granted when there is evidence of a
public good being provided.
Sincerely,
Eric Korsh,
Director of Loan Funds, Neighborhood Business Builders.
____
Western Massachusetts
Enterprise Fund Inc.,
Greenfield, MA, July 12, 2002.
Senator John Kerry,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing in strong support of the
legislation to expand the use of the SBA 504 program to
include the financing of non-profit children centers.
As a member of Senator Kerry's Childcare Advisory Committee
and the Executive Director of the Western Massachusetts
Enterprise Fund (which makes loans to non-profits), I have
seen a clear need for both more flexible and lower cost
financing.
The SBA 504 program meets both those needs. By providing up
to 40 percent financing, the SBA 504 program can help
children centers more easily leverage bank financing.
Additionally, the program offers highly competitive interest
rates.
Finally, allowing the SBA to make loans to non-profit
childcare centers is not new to the agency. The SBA is
already making working capital loans to non-profit childcare
centers through its Microenterprise Loan Fund Program.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Christopher Sikes,
Executive Director.
____
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Executive Office of Health and Human Services,
Boston, MA, July 11, 2002.
Hon. John Kerry,
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kerry:
The Massachusetts Office of Child Care Services (OCCS)
fully supports expansion of the SBA 504 loan program to
include non-profit child care programs. OCCS is the state's
licensing agency responsible for setting and enforcing strong
health, safety and education standards for child care
programs throughout the Commonwealth. OCCS is also the lead
state agency responsible for the administration and purchase
of all human services child care subsidies across the state.
As a result, this agency is greatly invested in the viability
of these child care programs and in increasing the capacity
of child care services to benefit more families in the
Commonwealth.
Currently there are approximately 17,000 licensed child
care facilities in the Commonwealth which can provide
services to over 200,000 children. Many of these facilities
are non-profit programs \1\ that serve low-income families
that are receiving child care subsidies to help them become
or remain employed, and families that are or were receiving
TANF. The availability and accessibility of child care is one
of the main reasons that families can continue to
successfully transition from welfare to work. There are
currently approximately 18,000 children on the waiting list
for a child care subsidy. The reauthorization of TANF may
further increase the number of families seeking subsidized
child care and Massachusetts must be ready to provide quality
care. Accordingly, current and future non-profit programs
will greatly benefit from the expansion of the SBA 504 loan
program, as will the families that they serve.
OCCS is a member of the Advisory Committee on Child Care
and Small Business and fully supports the Committee's mission
of uniting the small business and child care communities to
help providers maximize their income while providing quality
child care. Expansion of the SBA 504 loan program will
undoubtedly help expand the availability and accessibility of
quality child
[[Page S7957]]
care. Thank you for your support of this important
legislation. If I can be of further assistance please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ardith Wieworka,
Commissioner.
____
South Eastern Economic
Development Corporation,
Taunton, MA, July 10, 2002.
Re: Non Profit Child Care Center Eligibility Under the SBA
504 Program
Chairman John Kerry,
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: As a member of the Advisory Committee
on Child Care and Small Business as well as Vice President at
South Eastern Economic Development (SEED) Corporation, I am
writing in support of the idea of expanding the SBA 504
program to allow for non profit child care centers to be
eligible for financing under the program. SEED Corporation is
a Certified Development Company certified and accredited to
administer the SBA 504 program throughout southeastern
Massachusetts. Over the past 2 years, SEED has been the
number one SBA 504 lender in the State. SEED is also an
approved SBA Microenterprise Intermediary and we have enjoyed
and made use of the ability to provide micro loans to non-
profit child care businesses since the microenterprise
intermediary legislation made the special provision for non
profit child care providers to be eligible for SBA micro loan
funds. My primary responsibilities at SEED include
origination, underwriting and closing SBA 504 loans as well
as the oversight and development of SEED's micro loan and
business assistance activities.
Over the past five years, SEED has assisted over 10 FOR-
PROFIT child care businesses to obtain SBA 504 financing for
their start-up or expansion projects. However, we have also
had to turn away an equal number of non-profit child care
centers that were seeking similar assistance due to the fact
that non profit entities are not eligible under the SBA 504
program.
As we have learned from discussions and analysis within the
Advisory Committee on Child Care and Small Business, access
to long term, fixed market or below-market rate financing is
essential to any child care center. The slim margins that
characterize this industry limit any child care center's
ability to grow. The SBA 504 program offers the type of fixed
rate financing that not only assists the business to keep its
occupancy costs under control but also serves to stabilize
its operations over the long term. The program also provides
an incentive to a bank to provide fixed asset financing to a
business that might not otherwise be able to afford a
conventional commercial mortgage. The non-profit child care
centers provide the same quality of care as the for-profit
centers. Preventing non-profit child care center from making
use of the SBA 504 program when their for profit competitiors
are able to do results in discrimination against the children
they serve, and, in general, the majority of child care
centers operating in our state's neediest areas are non-
profit.
For these reasons, I would like to support your efforts to
expand the SBA 504 program enabling non-profit child care
centers to be eligible for fixed asset financing under the
504 program. Thank you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Heather Danton,
Vice President.
____
ACCION USA,
Boston, MA, June 8, 2002.
Hon. John Kerry,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry:
My name is Erika Eurkus, and as a member of your Advisory
Committee on Child Care and Small Business, I writing to
voice my support of expanding the SBA 504 loan program to
include nonprofit child care centers.
I am the greater Boston program director for ACCION USA, a
nonprofit ``micro'' lender whose mission is to make access to
credit a permanent resource to low- and moderate-income small
business owners in the United States--helping to narrow the
income gap and provide economic opportunity to small business
owners throughout the country. Many of the struggling
entrepreneurs we serve are the owners of small, family-based
day care centers.
At ACCION, I regularly come into contact with women and men
whose dream is to operate a successful child care center--to
provide a service to the community while making a better life
from something they love to do. Often, what keeps these
hardworking entrepreneurs from fully realizing that dream is
a lack of working capital to begin and grow their businesses.
Microlenders like ACCION are the only place they can turn for
the crucial capital they need for their businesses. Mauro
Leija, an ACCION client in San Antonio, Texas, has tried--and
failed--to secure capital from commercial banks. ``The loan
officer at the bank said, `Be realistic--you'll never get a
loan. You have no college diploma, no capital, no history
with any bank,' '' Mauro remembers. This lack of economic
opportunity is too often the reality for countless child care
providers--most of whom earn an average of $3 per hour for
their services.
With increased access to capital through the expansion of
the SBA 504 loan program, small, nonprofit day care centers
can continue to provide their valuable services to the
community--and build a better life for their own families at
the same time. Suzanne Morris of Springfield, Massachusetts,
a longtime ACCION USA borrower, already illustrates the
potential successes that an expanded SBA 504--and an
opportunity for capital--will bring to day care owners across
the country. After years of hard work and several small loans
from ACCION, Suzanne has moved her day care out of the home
and has expanded her staff to include seven members of the
community. The business supports her family of four. She also
gives back by training other local home-based day care
providers in federal nutrition guidelines.
It is my hope that we can all witness more successes like
those of Suzanne by opening the door to funding for small day
care providers. Please include nonprofit child care centers
in the scope of SBA 504.
Sincerely,
Erika Eurkus,
Greater Boston Program Director.
____
Guild of St. Agnes,
Child Care Programs,
Worcester, MA, July 3, 2002.
Senator John Kerry,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry, It has come to my attention that your
committee is working on legislation that would expand the SBA
504 loan program to non-profit child care centers.
As the Executive Director of the Guild of St. Agnes Child
Care Agency and a member of The Advisory Committee on Child
Care and Small Business, I wholeheartedly support this
legislation. The Guild of St. Agnes is a non-profit child
care agency providing child care in Worcester, MA and its
surrounding towns. Presently we care for 1200 children aged
four weeks to twelve years in child care centers, family care
provider's home and public schools. Of our seven centers, we
currently own one.
Four of our centers are in old, worn-down buildings,
causing us difficulty in recruiting new clients. As we look
towards the future, the Guild of St. Agnes has set a goal of
replacing these centers with new buildings. In order to
accomplish this goal, we need to look for creative funding
sources to support our capital campaign. The SBA 504 loan
program would allow us to invest 10% of our own funds for
capital expenses, borrow 50% from the government and secure a
bank loan for 40%. Not only is this loan program attractive
to banking institutions, it allows child care agencies like
the Guild of St. Agnes to continue to grow during these
economically challenging times.
I urge you to support the SBA 504 loan program legislation.
The future of non-profit child care agencies such as the
Guild of St. Agnes depends on it!
Sincerely,
Edward P. Madaus,
Executive Director.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 2892. A bill to provide economic security for America's workers;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the U.S. is in the midst of another
``jobless recovery,'' similar to the early 1990s, with the unemployment
rate showing few signs of falling in the coming months. Over the past
three months, the jobless rate has hovered around 6 percent and long-
term unemployment levels now exceed those reached in any recent
recession. Last month, nearly one in five unemployed workers remained
out of work for six months or more. Some 150,000 jobs have been lost
since the beginning of this year and 8.4 million people are currently
unemployed.
The recent spate of corporate scandals has only made it worse. Sadly,
Enron and WorldCom were not isolated events of corporate greed that
hurt America's workers. Tens of thousands have lost their jobs because
of the disgrace and mistrust company leaders created, or because of
company mismanagement. At Lucent, 77,000 workers were laid off. At
Kmart, 22,000 workers were laid off. At Xerox, over 13,000 workers were
laid off. At Tyco, almost 10,000 workers were laid off. At Global
Crossing, over 9,000 workers were laid off. At Polaroid, over 4,000
workers were laid off.
As new corporate scandals lead to additional mass lay-offs and
Americans remain unemployed longer, workers are losing their
unemployment benefits with no hope for a new job in sight. Too many
low-wage and part-time workers remain without unemployment benefits.
And benefit levels remain too low to keep families out of poverty in
many states. Today, I along with Senators Clinton and Rockefeller, am
[[Page S7958]]
introducing the Economic Security Act 2002 to protect those unemployed
workers and reinvigorate the economy.
Last year, Senate Democrats responded to the recession with an
immediate plan to stimulate the economy and help laid-off workers get
back on their feet. In March, House Republicans finally relented and we
extended unemployment benefits for millions of workers. It was a
significant step forward, but it did not go far enough.
This week, economists confirmed that recovery is slow at best.
Economic growth fell from 5.0 percent in the first quarter of 2002 to
1.1 percent in the second quarter. Business investment still has not
recovered and continues to decline, while the trade deficit soared to
record highs. Job growth, the last area of the economy to recover after
a recession, continues to lag. As hundreds of thousands of workers
exhaust their extended benefits, it's time to close the gaps in the
extended benefit program. The Economic Security Act of 2002 will
provide additional extended benefits for millions of workers who remain
unemployed.
The bill will also help those workers currently left out of the
unemployment insurance system, part-time and low-wage workers. Part-
time work is a significant part of our modern economy and women and
low-wage workers disproportionately comprise the part-time workforce.
Yet, the majority of states do not provide benefits to unemployed
workers seeking part-time work. The twenty States that already provide
benefits to unemployed part-time workers have not found their inclusion
overly costly.
In addition, according to the GAO, low-wage workers are half as
likely to receive unemployment benefits than other unemployed workers,
even though low-wage workers as twice as likely to be unemployed. In
all but 12 States, most unemployed low-wage workers are not eligible
for benefits because their most recent earnings are not counted.
Failing to count a worker's most recent earnings not only denies
unemployed workers benefits, but also cuts down on the duration and
amount of benefits that some unemployed workers receive.
These part-time and low-wage workers pay into the unemployment
system, but fail to receive benefits. In January, Democratic Senators
were joined by ten of our Republican colleagues in a vote to provide
temporary benefits to part-time and low-wage workers, as well as
increasing benefit levels and extending benefits. The Economic Security
Act of 2002 incorporates these important provisions.
Too often, those who receive unemployment find that unemployment
checks are not sufficient to meet basic needs. In some states, the
maximum weekly benefit amount is less than the poverty level for a one-
parent, two-child family. Raising benefit levels helps families stay
out of poverty and invests more in the economy. After all, unemployed
workers immediately spend unemployment insurance benefits in their
communities, providing immediate economic stimulus. This bill would
give a boost to workers and the economy by raising temporary extended
benefit levels by the greater of 15 percent or $25 a week.
As Americans exhaust their benefits in greater numbers, we must
ensure that all workers can put food on their families' tables and keep
a roof over their heads when jobs are scarce. And we must ensure that
unemployment insurance serves the purpose for which it was created, to
serve as a safety net for all workers during tough economic times and
stimulate economic growth. The Economic Security Act of 2002 will be a
giant leap forward for America's workers.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, despite some signs of an improving
economy, for hard-working Americans, it is, unfortunately, a ``jobless
recovery.'' While we see some positive economic indicators, the
unemployment rate continues to rise and shows few signs of falling. For
working Americans, that is bad news. Too many people are finding
themselves without a job, and without a source of income.
The Labor Department reports that over the past few months, the
unemployment rate has hovered around 6 percent, with 8.4 million people
officially counted as unemployed. My home State of West Virginia
reported an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent in June, which is only
somewhat higher than the national average, but some of our counties are
struggling with unemployment rates in the double digits.
Not only are more people being laid off, they are also remaining
unemployed for longer. From January to May 2002, the proportion of
unemployed workers who were still looking for work after 27 weeks
increased by 41 percent, and unemployment levels now exceed those
reached in any recent recession. Workers are suffering unemployment for
longer periods, and are losing benefits before they can find new jobs.
In January 2002, a total of 373,000 workers exhausted their benefits, a
sizeable 11 percent increase from the same time last year.
We faced similar troubles in the early 1990s, when, amidst a
recession, Congress enacted an emergency Federal extended benefits
program designed to help unemployed workers and their families. Some
analysts suggest that without that program, approximately 70 percent of
unemployed families would have ended up with incomes below the federal
poverty line. When our Nation faces such an economic downturn, action
is essential to help hard-working Americans get back on their feet
after a devastating layoff. Now, in the midst of another economic
downturn, we must also act to provide American families with the
assistance they need.
I rise today in support of a bill to be introduced by my colleague,
Senator Kennedy, that would remedy several flaws in the current
unemployment benefits program. This is an enormously important piece of
legislation, one that should be enacted immediately for the sake of
working families who have been put out of jobs through no fault of
their own.
The measure would give States administrative funding so they can
distribute benefit checks punctually and accurately. It would ensure
that all unemployed workers receive a full 13 weeks of benefits. And it
would repeal the 20-weeks-of-work prerequisite to receiving benefits
that primarily punishes low-wage workers and newer entrants to the job
market.
Beginning in 1986, Federal and State governments began withholding
taxes from the benefit checks of all aid recipients. However, no
accommodations were made to offset these deductions, and recipients saw
a significant reduction in benefits. To ameliorate this problem,
Senator Kennedy's legislation would raise benefit levels by 15 percent
or $25 a week, whichever is higher.
Finally, a majority of States currently refuse benefits to unemployed
workers seeking part-time work. West Virginia does cover part-time
workers, but I believe every state should do this as well. Part-time
work is an enormously important component of our economy, particularly
as it involves large numbers of women and low-wage earners. Senator
Kennedy's bill would require states to base eligibility on a worker's
most recent earnings. This seemingly technical provision would greatly
expand eligibility to benefits for many workers, in my state, and
across the country.
Millions of Americans are still struggling, and they do not have a
steady source of income. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to
reform America's unemployment insurance program; it is urgently needed
and should be passed with great haste. This bill is the right thing to
do for working Americans, and it is an essential measure for those
still suffering from the effects of our uncertain economy.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2893. A bill to provide that certain Bureau of Land Management
land shall be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the
Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the State of New Mexico; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Bingaman in introducing legislation that declares the United States
holds certain public domain lands in trust for the Pueblos of San
Ildefonso and Santa Clara in New Mexico.
In 1988 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), pursuant to the Federal
Lands Policy and Management Act, declared approximately 4,484 acres
located in the eastern foothills of the Jemez Mountains in north
central New
[[Page S7959]]
Mexico, including portions of Garcia and Chupadero Canyons, to be
``disposal property.'' The Garcia Canyon surplus lands qualify for
disposal partially because the tract is an isolated tract of land
almost inaccessible to the general public. It is surrounded on three
sides by the reservations of Santa Clara Pueblo and the Pueblo of San
Ildefonso, and by U.S. Forest Service land on the remaining side. The
only road access consists of unimproved roads through the two Pueblo's
reservations. These factors have resulted in minimal or no public usage
of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands in recent decades.
I understand that currently there are no resource permits, leases,
patents or claims affecting these lands. It is unlikely that any
significant minerals exist with the Garcia Canyon transfer lands. The
Garcia Canyon transfer lands contain a limited amount of lesser quality
forage for livestock and have not been actively grazed for over a
decade. However, the Garcia Canyon surplus lands constitute an
important part of the ancestral homelands of the Pueblos of Santa Clara
and San Ildefonso.
Santa Clara and San Ildefonso are two of the Tewa-speaking federally-
recognized Indian Pueblos of New Mexico. Both Pueblos have occupied and
controlled the areas where they are presently located since many
centuries before the arrival of the first Europeans in the area in late
16th century. Their homelands are defined by geographical landmarks,
cultural sites, and other distinct places whose traditional Tewa names
and locations have been known and passed down in each Pueblo through
the generations. Based upon these boundaries, about 2,000 acres of the
Garcia Canyon surplus lands is within the aboriginal domain of the
Pueblo of San Ildefonso. The remaining lands, approximately 2,484 acres
are in Santa Clara's aboriginal lands.
The Bureau of Land Management currently seeks to dispose of the
Garcia Canyon surplus lands and the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San
Ildefonso seek to obtain these lands. In addition, the BLM and Interior
Department for years have supported the transfer of the land to the two
Pueblos, provided the Pueblos agree upon a division of the Garcia
Canyon surplus lands. In response, the two Pueblos signed a formal
agreement affirming the boundary between their respective parcels on
December 20, 2000.
The Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso have worked diligently
in arriving at this agreement. They have also worked collaboratively in
seeking community support and garnering supporting resolutions from Los
Alamos, Rio Arriba and Santa Fe Counties, the National Congress of
American Indians and supporting letters from the National Audubon
Society's New Mexico State Office, the Quivira Coalition and the Santa
Fe Group of the Sierra Club.
This unique situation presents a win-win opportunity to support more
efficient management of public resources while restoring to tribal
control isolated tracts of federal disposal property. Upon transfer,
the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso intend to maintain these
lands in their natural state and use them for sustainable traditional
purposes including cultural resource gathering, hunting and possibly
livestock grazing. Where appropriate, both tribes are interested in
performing work to restore and improve ecosystem health, particularly
to support habitat for culturally significant animal and plant species.
Both Pueblos have experienced Natural Resource Management and
Environmental Protection programs and are capable of managing these
lands for both ecologic health and community benefits.
We want to secure Congressional authorization to transfer control of
these lands to the two Pueblos, with legal title being held in trust by
the Secretary of Interior for each of the Pueblos for their respective
portions of the property. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation. 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. 2893
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the agreement
entitled ``Agreement to Affirm Boundary Between Pueblo of
Santa Clara and Pueblo of San Ildefonso Aboriginal Lands
Within Garcia Canyon Tract'', entered into by the Governors
on December 20, 2000.
(2) Boundary line.--The term ``boundary line'' means the
boundary line established under section 4(a).
(3) Governors.--The term ``Governors'' means--
(A) the Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico;
and
(B) the Governor of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New
Mexico.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(5) Pueblos.--The term ``Pueblos'' means--
(A) the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; and
(B) the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(7) Trust land.--The term ``trust land'' means the land
held by the United States in trust under section 2(a) or
3(a).
SEC. 2. TRUST FOR THE PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA, NEW MEXICO.
(a) In General.--All right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the land described in subsection (b),
including improvements on, appurtenances to, and mineral
rights (including rights to oil and gas) to the land, shall
be held by the United States in trust for the Pueblo of Santa
Clara, New Mexico.
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) consists of approximately 2,484 acres of
Bureau of Land Management land located in Rio Arriba County,
New Mexico, and more particularly described as--
(1) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 22, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located north of the boundary
line;
(2) the southern half of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 23, New
Mexico Principal Meridian;
(3) the southern half of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 24, New
Mexico Principal Meridian;
(4) T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 25, excluding the 5-acre tract
in the southeast quarter owned by the Pueblo of San
Ildefonso;
(5) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 26, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located north and east of the
boundary line;
(6) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 27, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located north of the boundary
line;
(7) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 8 E., Sec. 19, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is not included in the Santa Clara
Pueblo Grant or the Santa Clara Indian Reservation; and
(8) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 8 E., Sec. 30, that is not
included in the Santa Clara Pueblo Grant or the San Ildefonso
Grant.
SEC. 3. TRUST FOR THE PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO, NEW MEXICO.
(a) In General.--All right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the land described in subsection (b),
including improvements on, appurtenances to, and mineral
rights (including rights to oil and gas) to the land, shall
be held by the United States in trust for the Pueblo of San
Ildefonso, New Mexico.
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) consists of approximately 2,000 acres of
Bureau of Land Management land located in Rio Arriba County
and Santa Fe County in the State of New Mexico, and more
particularly described as--
(1) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 22, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located south of the boundary
line;
(2) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 26, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located south and west of the
boundary line;
(3) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 27, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located south of the boundary
line;
(4) T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 34, New Mexico Principal
Meridian; and
(5) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 35, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is not included in the San Ildefonso
Pueblo Grant.
SEC. 4. SURVEY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.
(a) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Office of Cadastral Survey of the
Bureau of Land Management shall, in accordance with the
Agreement, complete a survey of the boundary line established
under the Agreement for the purpose of establishing, in
accordance with sections 2(b) and 3(b), the boundaries of the
trust land.
(b) Legal Descriptions.--
(1) Publication.--On approval by the Governors of the
survey completed under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register--
(A) a legal description of the boundary line; and
(B) legal descriptions of the trust land.
(2) Technical corrections.--Before the date on which the
legal descriptions are published under paragraph (1)(B), the
Secretary may correct any technical errors in the
descriptions of the trust land provided in sections 2(b) and
3(b) to ensure that the descriptions are consistent with the
terms of the Agreement.
(3) Effect.--Beginning on the date on which the legal
descriptions are published under paragraph (1)(B), the legal
descriptions
[[Page S7960]]
shall be the official legal descriptions of the trust land.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF TRUST LAND.
(a) In General.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act--
(1) the land held in trust under section 2(a) shall be
declared to be a part of the Santa Clara Indian Reservation;
and
(2) the land held in trust under section 3(a) shall be
declared to be a part of the San Ildefonso Indian
Reservation.
(b) Applicable Law.--
(1) In general.--The trust land shall be administered in
accordance with any law (including regulations) or court
order generally applicable to property held in trust by the
United States for Indian tribes.
(2) Pueblo lands act.--The following shall be subject to
section 17 of the Act of June 7, 1924 (commonly known as the
``Pueblo Lands Act'') (25 U.S.C. 331 note):
(A) The trust land.
(B) Any land owned as of the date of enactment of this Act
or acquired after the date of enactment of this Act by the
Pueblo of Santa Clara in the Santa Clara Pueblo Grant.
(C) Any land owned as of the date of enactment of this Act
or acquired after the date of enactment of this Act by the
Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the San Ildefonso Pueblo Grant.
(c) Use of Trust Land.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the criteria developed under
paragraph (2), the trust land may be used only for--
(A) traditional and customary uses; or
(B) stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Pueblo
for which the trust land is held in trust.
(2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall work with the Pueblos to
develop appropriate criteria for using the trust land in a
manner that preserves the trust land for traditional and
customary uses or stewardship conservation.
(3) Limitation.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act, the trust land shall not be used for any new commercial
developments.
SEC. 6. EFFECT.
Nothing in this Act--
(1) affects any valid right-of-way, lease, permit, mining
claim, grazing permit, water right, or other right or
interest of a person or entity (other than the United States)
that is--
(A) in or to the trust land; and
(B) in existence before the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) enlarges, impairs, or otherwise affects a right or
claim of the Pueblos to any land or interest in land that
is--
(A) based on Aboriginal or Indian title; and
(B) in existence before the date of enactment of this Act;
(3) constitutes an express or implied reservation of water
or water right with respect to the trust land; or
(4) affects any water right of the Pueblos in existence
before the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Hutchison, and Ms.
Snowe):
S. 2895. A bill to enhance the security of the United States by
protecting seaports, and for other purposes; to the Committee, Science,
and Transportation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002 to protect
against terrorist attacks on or through our Nation's seaports. I would
like to thank Senators Kyl, Hutchison, and Snowe for joining me in
sponsoring this bill.
Currently, our seaports are the gaping hole in our Nation's defense
against terrorism. Of the over 18 million shipping containers that
enter our ports each year, 6 million come from overseas. However, only
1 or 2 percent of these containers are inspected, and inspections
almost invariably occur after the containers arrive in the United
States.
The problem is that single container could contain 60,000 pounds of
explosives, 10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow
up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma city, and a single container
ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time. Containers
could easily be exploited to detonate a bomb that would destroy a
bridge, seaport, or other critical infrastructure, causing mass
destruction and killing thousands.
Worse, a suitcase-sized nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb''
could also be installed in a container and shipped to the United
States. The odds that the container would never be inspected. And, even
if the container was inspected, it would be too late. The weapon would
already be in the United States--most likely near a major population
center.
There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are seeking to exploit
vulnerabilities at our seaports right now.
For example, a recent article in the Bangkok Post notes that ``Al-
Qaeda is among international terrorist organisations responsible for an
increase in piracy against ships carrying radioactive materials through
the Malacca Straits. . . . The terrorist groups' main aims were to
obtain substances such as uranium and plutonium oxide for use in so-
called dirty bombs.''
In addition, any attack on or through a seaport could have
devastating economic consequences. Every year U.S. ports handle over
800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion.
Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95
percent of U.S. trade. Two of the busiest ports in the world are in my
home State of California: Los Angeles/Long Beach and at Oakland.
We cannot inspect every container coming into the United States, but
we can do a better job devoting our attention to cargo that could put
our national security at risk. The legislation we introduce today will
ensure that we devote the limited resources we do have to inspect cargo
in the most efficient and effective manner. It will allow us to reduce
the size of the haystack to make it easier to find the needle.
Since September 11th, the Federal Government has taken steps to
secure our airports and our borders, however, we still have not adopted
a blueprint for helping protect America's 361 seaports. While the
Senate passed S. 1214, a bill written by Senator Hollings last
December, and the House has also passed a port security bill,
conference negotiations are still ongoing.
I hope the conferees will adopt the provisions in this bill before
they complete their work in conference because I believe that this bill
is the only legislation that thoroughly addresses the issue of port
security from the point cargo is loaded in a foreign country to its
arrival on land in the United States.
We have known for a long time that America's ports needed an
extensive security strategy and upgrade. In the fall of 2000, a
comprehensive report was issued by the Interagency Commission on Crime
and Security in U.S. Seaports. I testified before the commission and I
believe its report makes a number of sensible suggestions on how we can
improve security and fight crime at seaports.
Before the September 11 terrorist attacks, S. 1214 was drafted to try
to implement many of the commission's recommendations. Before the bill
passed the Senate in December 2001, the sponsors made some additional
changes to help prevent a terrorist attack. However, I believe that
there is much more Congress can do to prevent terrorists from launching
a terrorist attack through our seaports.
The legislation I am introducing today will complement the Hollings
bill and the seaport security legislation passed by the House.
Together, I believe the provisions in these three bills will erect a
formidable security barrier at our seaports.
I believe that Al Qaeda is planning to attack the United States again
soon and that it may well try to do so through a U.S. seaport. Indeed,
the Al Qaeda training manual specifically mentions seaports as a point
of vulnerability in our security.
In addition, we know that Al Qaeda has succeeded in attacking
American interests at and through seaports in the past. Let me mention
some examples.
In June, the FBI issued a warning for Americans to be on the lookout
for suspicious people wanting training in scuba diving or trying to
rent underwater gear. Law enforcement officials fear that Al Qaeda
operatives could try to blow up ships at anchor or other waterfront
targets.
In May the FBI received reports that Al Qaeda terrorists may be
making their way toward Southern California from a Middle Eastern port
via merchant ships. Catalina Island--22 miles off the coast of Los
Angles, was mentioned as a possible destination for about 40 Al Qaeda
terrorists.
In October 2001, Italian authorities found an Egyptian man suspected
for having ties to Al Qaeda in a container bound for Canada. He had
false identifications, maps of airports, a computer, a satellite
phones, cameras, and plenty of cash on hand.
[[Page S7961]]
In October 2000, Al Qaeda operatives successfully carried out a
deadly bombing attack against the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Yemen.
In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed the American Embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania. Evidence suggests that the explosives the terrorists used
were shipped to them by sea. And the investigation of the embassy
bombings concluded that Bin Laden has close financial tries to various
shipping companies.
I believe that this legislation would go far to make the United
States less vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The main provisions will:
1. Establish a risk profiling plan for the Customs Service to focus
their limited inspection capabilities on high-risk cargo and
containers, and 2. Push U.S. security scrutiny beyond our Nation's
borders to monitor and inspect cargo and containers before they arrive
near America's shores.
These provisions complement and extend a strategy Customs
Commissioner Robert C. Bonner is already in the process of
implementing. To prevent a weapon of mass destruction from getting to
the U.S. in the first place, Customs has entered into formal agreements
with a handful of foreign governments to station U.S. inspectors at
ports overseas to profile high risk cargo and target suspicious
shipments for inspection.
The Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act will also:
Designate an official at each U.S. port as the primary authority
responsible for security. This will enable all parties involved in
business at a port to understand who has final say on all security
matters.
Require the FBI to collect and make available data relating to crime
at and affecting seaports. With more data, law enforcement agencies
will be able to better identify patterns and weaknesses at particular
ports.
Require ports to provide space to Customs so that the agency is able
to use its non-intrusive inspection technology. In many cases, Customs
has to keep this technology outside the port and bring it in every day,
which prevents some of the best inspection technology, which is not
portable, from being used.
Give Customs responsibility of licensing and overseeing regulated
intermediaries in the international trade process, these intermediaries
handle over 80 percent of all cargo in international trade. Currently,
the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission oversees most of these
intermediaries, but Customs will have more resources to oversee this
regulation.
Require shippers bound for U.S. ports to transmit their cargo
manifests with more detailed information at least 24 hours prior to
departing from a foreign port.
Impose steep monetary sanctions for failure to comply with
information filing requirements, including filing incorrect
information, the current penalty is only a maximum of $1000 or $5000,
depending on the offense. The Seaport Commission found that about half
of the information on ship manifests was inaccurate.
Require all port employees to have biometric smart identification
cards.
Restrict private vehicle access to ports.
Prohibit guns and explosives at ports, except when authorized.
Mandate that radiation detection pagers be issued to each inspector.
Requires the Transportation Security Administration to set standards
to ensure each port has a secure port perimeter, secure parking
facilities, controlled points of access into the port, sufficient
lighting, buildings with secure doors and windows and an alarm.
Require all ports to keep sensitive information on the port secure
and protected. Such information would include, but not be limited to
maps, blueprints, and information on the Internet.
Require the use of high security seals on all containers coming into
the U.S.
Require that each container to be transported through U.S. ports
receive a universal transaction number that could be used to track
container movement from origin to destination. Require shippers to have
similar universal numbers.
Require all empty containers destined for U.S. ports to be secured.
Fund pilot programs to develop high-tech seals and sensors, including
those that would provide real-time evidence of container tampering to a
monitor at a terminal.
I believe that Congress should act quickly on this legislation. This
bill could very well prevent the arrival or detonation of a nuclear
``suitcase bomb'' or radiological ``dirty bomb'' at a U.S. seaport-an
attack that could bring U.S. seaborne commerce to a grinding halt,
leaving our economy and national security in shambles.
In closing, I want to thank staff at the Customs Service,
Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, and various ports
for their helpful comments on this legislation. I also want to thank a
``working group'' of experts I assembled for their suggestions
regarding the bill. These experts included former government officials,
industry executives, and security consultants.
I also want to thank Senator Hollings and the other members of the
Commerce Committee for the work they have done on the port security
issue. I have spoken to Senator Hollings about the bill I am
introducing today, and my staff is working with his staff and with the
staff of other conferees to come up with comprehensive seaport security
legislation.
I hope that the legislation ultimately adopted by the conference
includes the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002.
I would urge the conferees to work quickly to draft a final bill that
we can send to the President's desk before September 11.
Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2895
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 ``Comprehensive Seaport and
Container Security Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Captain-of-the-port.--The term ``Captain-of-the-Port''
means the United States Coast Guard's Captain-of-the-Port.
(2) Common carrier.--The term ``common carrier'' means any
person that holds itself out to the general public to provide
transportation by water, land, or air of merchandise, whether
or not the person actually operates the vessel, vehicle, or
aircraft by which the transportation is provided, between a
port or place and a port or place in the United States.
(3) Container.--The term ``container'' means a container
which is used or designed for use for the international
transportation of merchandise by vessel, vehicle, or
aircraft.
(4) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means a person
who fabricates or assembles merchandise for sale in commerce.
(5) Merchandise.--The term ``merchandise'' has the meaning
given that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1401).
(6) Ocean transportation intermediary.--The term ``ocean
transportation intermediary'' has the meaning given that term
in section 515.2 of title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(7) Shipment.--The term ``shipment'' means cargo traveling
in international commerce under a bill of lading.
(8) Shipper.--The term ``shipper'' means--
(A) a cargo owner;
(B) the person for whose account the ocean transportation
is provided;
(C) the person to whom delivery of the merchandise is to be
made; or
(D) a common carrier that accepts responsibility for
payment of all charges applicable under a tariff or service
contract.
(9) United states seaport.--The term ``United States
seaport'' means a place in the United States on a waterway
with shoreside facilities for the intermodal transfer of
cargo containers that are used in international trade.
(10) Vessel.--The term ``vessel'' has the meaning given
that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1401).
TITLE I--LAW ENFORCEMENT AT SEAPORTS
SEC. 101. DESIGNATED SECURITY AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security, after consultation with the Director of the
Office of Homeland Security, shall designate a Director of
the Port who will be the primary authority responsible for
security at each United States seaport to--
(1) coordinate security at such seaport; and
(2) be the point of contact on seaport security issues for
civilian and commercial port entities at such seaport.
(b) Delegation.--A Director of the Port may delegate the
responsibilities described in subsection (a) to the Captain-
of-the-Port.
[[Page S7962]]
SEC. 102. FBI CRIME DATA COLLECTION.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
shall implement a data collection system to compile data
related to crimes at or affecting United States seaports.
Such data collection system shall be designed to--
(1) identify patterns of criminal activity at particular
seaports; and
(2) allow law enforcement authorities, including the
designated law enforcement authority for each seaport
described in section 101, to retrieve reliable data regarding
such crimes.
SEC. 103. CUSTOMS SERVICE FACILITIES.
(a) Operational Space in Seaports.--Each entity that owns
or operates a United States seaport that receives cargo from
a foreign country, whether governmental, quasi-governmental,
or private, shall allow the use of permanent suitable office
and inspection space within the seaport by United States
Customs Service officers at no cost to the Customs Service.
(b) Inspection Technology.--The Commissioner of Customs
shall maintain permanent inspection facilities that utilize
available inspection technology in the space provided at each
United States seaport pursuant to subsection (a).
SEC. 104. REGULATION OF OCEAN TRANSPORT INTERMEDIARIES.
(a) Transfer of Authority.--The responsibility to license,
and revoke or suspend a license, as an ocean transportation
intermediary of a person who carries on or wishes to carry on
the business of providing intermediary services is
transferred from the Federal Maritime Commission to the
Commissioner of Customs.
(b) Rulemaking Authority.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Customs
shall issue final regulations to carry out the requirements
of subsection (a). Such regulations shall require that ocean
transportation intermediaries assist the Commissioner of
Customs in collecting data that can be used to prevent
terrorist attacks in the United States.
(c) Interim Rules.--The Commissioner of Customs shall
enforce the regulations in part 515 of title 46, Code of
Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act, until the final regulations required by subsection
(b) are issued, except that any reference to the Federal
Maritime Commission in such regulations shall be deemed to be
a reference to the Commissioner of Customs.
(d) Continuing Effect of Legal Documents.--All orders,
determinations, rules, regulations, permits, agreements,
grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, registrations,
privileges, and other administrative actions relating to
ocean transportation intermediary--
(1) which have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to
become effective by the President, any Federal agency or
official thereof, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, in
the performance of functions which are transferred under
subsection (a), and
(2) which are in effect at the time this Act takes effect,
or were final before the effective date of this Act and are
to become effective on or after the effective date of this
Act,
shall continue in effect according to their terms until
modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in
accordance with law by the President, the head of the Federal
agency to which such functions are transferred under this Act
or other authorized official, a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(e) Proceedings Not Affected.--
(1) In general.--The provisions of this Act shall not
affect any proceedings, including notices of proposed rule
making, or any application for any license, permit,
certificate, or financial assistance pending on the effective
date of this Act before the Federal Maritime Commission with
respect to functions transferred by this Act, but such
proceedings or applications, to the extent that they relate
to functions transferred, shall be continued. Orders shall be
issued in such proceedings, appeals shall be taken therefrom,
and payments shall be made under such orders, as if this Act
had not been enacted, and orders issued in any such
proceedings shall continue in effect until modified,
terminated, superseded, or revoked by the head of the Federal
agency to which such functions are transferred by this Act,
by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
Nothing in this subsection prohibits the discontinuance or
modification of any such proceeding under the same terms and
conditions and to the same extent that such proceeding could
have been discontinued or modified if this Act had not been
enacted.
(2) Regulations.--The Commissioner of Customs is authorized
to issue regulations providing for the orderly transfer of
proceedings continued under paragraph (1).
TITLE II--PUSHING OUT THE BORDER
SEC. 201. INSPECTION OF MERCHANDISE AT FOREIGN FACILITIES.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Commissioner of Customs, in consultation with the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, shall submit
to Congress a plan to--
(1) station inspectors from the Customs Service, other
Federal agencies, or the private sector at the foreign
facilities of manufacturers or common carriers to profile and
inspect merchandise and the containers or other means by
which such merchandise is transported as they are prepared
for shipment on a vessel that will arrive at any port or
place in the United States;
(2) develop procedures to ensure the security of
merchandise inspected as described in paragraph (1) until it
reaches the United States; and
(3) permit merchandise inspected as described in paragraph
(1) to receive expedited inspection upon arrival in the
United States.
SEC. 202. MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS.
Section 431(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1431(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Any manifest'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Any manifest''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Required information.--
``(A) Requirement.--In addition to any other requirement
under this section, the pilot, master, operator, or owner (or
the authorized agent of such owner or operator) of every
vessel required to make entry or obtain clearance under the
customs laws of the United States shall, not later than 24
hours prior to departing from any foreign port or place for a
port or place in the United States, transmit electronically
the cargo manifest information described in subparagraph (B)
in such manner and form as the Secretary shall prescribe. The
Secretary shall ensure the electronic information is
maintained securely, and is available only to individuals
with Federal Government security responsibilities.
``(B) Content.--The cargo manifest required by subparagraph
(A) shall consist of the following information--
``(i) The port of arrival and departure.
``(ii) The carrier code assigned to the shipper.
``(iii) The flight, voyage, or trip number.
``(iv) The date of scheduled arrival and departure.
``(v) A request for a permit to proceed to the destination,
if such permit is required.
``(vi) The numbers and quantities from the carrier's master
air waybill, bills of lading, or ocean bills of lading.
``(vii) The first port of lading of the cargo and the city
in which the carrier took receipt of the cargo.
``(viii) A description and weight of the cargo (including
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States number
under which the cargo is classified) or, for a sealed
container, the shipper's declared description and weight of
the cargo.
``(ix) The shipper's name and address, or an identification
number, from all air waybills and bills of lading.
``(x) The consignee's name and address, or an
identification number, from all air waybills and bills of
lading.
``(xi) Notice of any discrepancy between actual boarded
quantities and air waybill or bills of lading quantities,
except that a carrier is not required by this clause to
verify boarded quantities of cargo in sealed containers.
``(xii) Transfer or transit information for the cargo while
it has been under the control of the carrier.
``(xiii) The location of the warehouse or other facility
where the cargo was stored while under the control of the
carrier.
``(xiv) The name and address, or identification number of
the carrier's customer including the forwarder, nonvessel
operating common carrier, and consolidator.
``(xv) The conveyance name, national flag, and tail number,
vessel number, or train number.
``(xvi) Country of origin and ultimate destination.
``(xvii) Carrier's reference number including the booking
or bill number.
``(xviii) Shipper's commercial invoice number and purchase
order number.
``(xix) Information regarding any hazardous material
contained in the cargo.
``(xx) License information including the license code,
license number, or exemption code.
``(xxi) Container number for containerized shipments.
``(xxii) Certification of any empty containers.
``(xxiii) Any additional information that the Secretary by
regulation determines is reasonably necessary to ensure
aviation, maritime, and surface transportation safety
pursuant to those laws enforced and administered by the
Customs Service.''.
SEC. 203. PENALTIES FOR INACCURATE MANIFEST.
(a) Falsity or Lack of Manifest.--Section 584 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1584) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``$1,000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``$50,000''; and
(B) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$50,000''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Criminal Penalties.--Any person who ships or prepares
for shipment any merchandise bound for the United States who
intentionally provides inaccurate or false information,
whether inside or outside the United States, with respect to
such merchandise for the purpose of introducing such
merchandise into the United States in violation of the
customs laws of the United States, is liable, upon conviction
of a violation of this subsection, for a fine of not more
than $50,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both; except that
if the importation of such merchandise into the United States
is prohibited, such person
[[Page S7963]]
is liable for an additional fine of not more than $50,000 or
imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.''.
(b) Penalties for Violations of the Arrival, Reporting,
Entry, and Clearance Requirements.--Subsections (b) and (c)
of section 436 of Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1436 (b) and
(c)) are amended to read as follows:
``(b) Civil Penalty.--Any master, person in charge of a
vessel, vehicle, or aircraft pilot who commits any violation
listed in subsection (a) is liable for a civil penalty of
$25,000 for the first violation, and $50,000 for each
subsequent violation, and any conveyance used in connection
with any such violation is subject to seizure and forfeiture.
``(c) Criminal Penalty.--In addition to being liable for a
civil penalty under subsection (b), any master, person in
charge of a vessel, vehicle, or aircraft pilot who
intentionally commits or causes another to commit any
violation listed in subsection (a) is, upon conviction,
liable for a fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment
for 1 year, or both; except that if the conveyance has, or is
discovered to have had, on board any merchandise (other than
sea stores or the equivalent for conveyances other than
vessels) the importation of which into the United States is
prohibited, such individual is liable for an additional fine
of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5
years, or both.''.
SEC. 204. SHIPMENT PROFILING PLAN.
(a) In General.--The Commissioner of Customs, after
consultation with the Director of the Office of Homeland
Security and the Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security, shall develop a shipment profiling plan to track
containers and shipments of merchandise that will be imported
into the United States for the purpose of identifying any
shipment that is a threat to the security of the United
States before such shipment is transported to a United States
seaport.
(b) Information Requirements.--The shipment profiling plan
described in subsection (a) shall at a minimum--
(1) require common carriers, shippers, and ocean
transportation intermediaries to provide appropriate
information regarding each shipment of merchandise, including
the information required under section 431(b) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1431(b)) as amended by this Act, to
the Commissioner of Customs; and
(2) require shippers to use a standard international bill
of lading for each shipment that includes--
(A) the weight of the cargo;
(B) the value of the cargo;
(C) the vessel name;
(D) the voyage number;
(E) a description of each container;
(F) a description of the nature, type, and contents of the
shipment;
(G) the code number from Harmonized Tariff Schedule;
(H) the port of destination;
(I) the final destination of the cargo;
(J) the means of conveyance of the cargo;
(K) the origin of the cargo;
(L) the name of the precarriage deliverer or agent;
(M) the port at which the cargo was loaded;
(N) the name of formatting agent;
(O) the bill of lading number;
(P) the name of the shipper;
(Q) the name of the consignee;
(R) the universal transaction number or carrier code
assigned to the shipper by the Commissioner of Customs; and
(S) any additional information that the Commissioner of
Customs by regulation determines is reasonably necessary to
ensure seaport safety.
(c) Creation of Profile.--The Commissioner of Customs shall
combine the information described in subsection (b) with
other law enforcement and national security information that
the Commissioner believes will assist in locating containers
and shipments that could pose a threat to the security of the
United States to create a profile of every container and
every shipment within the container that will enter the
United States.
(d) Cargo Screening.--
(1) In general.--Customs Service officers shall review the
profile of a shipment that a shipper desires to transport
into the United States to determine if the shipment or the
container in which it is carried should be subjected to
additional inspection by the Customs Service. In making that
determination, the Customs Service officers shall consider in
addition to any other relevant factors--
(A) whether the shipper has regularly shipped cargo to the
United States in the past; and
(B) the specificity of the description of the shipment's
contents.
(2) Notification.--The Commissioner of Customs shall notify
the shipper and the person in charge of the vessel on which a
shipment is located if the shipment will be subject to
additional inspection as described in paragraph (1).
(e) Consistency With the Automated Commercial Environment
Project.--The Commissioner of Customs shall ensure that the
automated commercial environment project developed pursuant
to section 411 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1411) is
compatible with the shipment profile plan described under
this section.
TITLE III--SECURITY OF CARGO CONTAINERS AND SEAPORTS
SEC. 301. SEAPORT SECURITY CARDS.
(a) Requirement for Cards.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, a covered individual described
in subsection (b) shall not be permitted to enter a United
States seaport unless the covered individual holds a seaport
security card as described in this section.
(b) Covered Individual.--A ``covered individual'' means an
individual who is regularly employed at a United States
seaport or who is employed by a common carrier that
transports merchandise to or from a United States seaport.
(c) Issuance.--
(1) In general.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security shall issue a seaport security card under this
section to a covered individual unless the Under Secretary
determines that the individual--
(A) poses a terrorism security risk;
(B) poses a security risk under section 5103a of title 49,
United States Code;
(C) has been convicted of a violation of chapter 27 of
title 18, United States Code; or
(D) has not provided sufficient information to allow the
Under Secretary to make the determinations described in
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
(2) Determination of terrorism security risk.--The Under
Secretary shall determine that a person poses a terrorism
security risk under paragraph (1)(A) if the individual--
(A) has been convicted of a felony that the Under Secretary
believes could be a terrorism security risk to the United
States;
(B) may be denied admission to the United States or removed
from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); or
(C) otherwise poses a terrorism security risk to the United
States.
(3) Considerations.--In making a determination under
paragraph (2), the Under Secretary shall give consideration
to the circumstances of any disqualifying act or offense,
restitution made by the individual, Federal and State
mitigation remedies, and other factors from which it may be
concluded that the individual does not pose a terrorism
security risk sufficient to warrant denial of the card.
(d) Appeals.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security shall establish an appeals process under this
section for individuals found to be ineligible for a seaport
security card that includes notice and an opportunity for a
hearing.
(e) Data on Card.--The seaport identification cards
required by subsection (a) shall--
(1) be tamper resistant; and
(2) contain--
(A) the number of the individual's commercial driver's
license issued under chapter 313 of title 49, United States
Code, if any;
(B) the State-issued vehicle registration number of any
vehicle that the individual desires to bring into the
seaport, if any;
(C) the work permit number issued to the individual, if
any;
(D) a unique biometric identifier to identify the license
holder; and
(E) a safety rating assigned to the individual by the Under
Secretary of Transportation for Security.
SEC. 302. SEAPORT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security, after consultation with the Commissioner of
Customs, shall issue final regulations setting forth minimum
security requirements including security performance
standards at United States seaports. The regulations shall--
(1) limit private vehicle access to United States seaports
to vehicles that are registered at the seaport and display a
seaport registration pass;
(2) prohibit individuals, other than law enforcement
officers, from carrying firearms or explosives inside a
United States seaport without written authorization from the
Director of the Port described in section 101(a) or, if
authority is delegated under section 101(b), the Captain-of-
the-Port;
(3) prohibit individuals from physically accessing a United
States seaport without a seaport specific access pass;
(4) require that Customs Service officers, and other
appropriate law enforcement officers, at United States
seaports be provided and utilize personal radiation detection
pagers to increase the ability of the Customs Service to
accurately detect radioactive materials that could be used to
commit terrorist acts in the United States;
(5) require that each United States seaport maintain--
(A) a secure perimeter;
(B) secure parking facilities;
(C) monitored or locked access points;
(D) sufficient lighting; and
(E) secure buildings within the seaport; and
(6) include any additional security requirement that the
Under Secretary determines is reasonably necessary to ensure
seaport security.
(b) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (c), any
United States seaport that does not meet the minimum security
requirements described in subsection (a) is prohibited from--
(1) handling, storing, stowing, loading, discharging, or
transporting dangerous cargo; and
(2) transferring passengers to or from a passenger vessel
that--
(A) weighs more than 100 gross tons;
(B) carries more than 12 passengers for hire; and
(C) has a planned voyage of more than 24 hours, part of
which is on the high seas.
[[Page S7964]]
(c) Exception.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security may waive 1 or more of the minimum requirements
described in subsection (a) for a United States seaport if
the Secretary determines that it is not appropriate for such
seaport to implement the requirement.
SEC. 303. SECURING SENSITIVE INFORMATION.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Port described in
section 101(a) or, if authority is delegated under section
101(b), the Captain-of-the-Port of each United States seaport
shall secure and protect all sensitive information, including
information that is currently available to the public,
related to the seaport.
(b) Sensitive Information.--In this section, the term
``sensitive information'' means--
(1) maps of the seaport;
(2) blueprints of structures located within the seaport;
and
(3) any other information related to the security of the
seaport that the Director of the Port described in section
101(a) or, if authority is delegated under section 101(b),
the Captain-of-the-Port determines is appropriate to secure
and protect.
SEC. 304. CONTAINER SECURITY.
(a) Container Seals.--
(1) Approval.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security and the Commissioner of Customs shall jointly
approve minimum standards for high security container seals
that--
(A) meet or exceed the American Society for Testing
Materials Level D seals;
(B) permit each seal to have a unique identification
number; and
(C) contain an electronic tag that can be read
electronically at a seaport.
(2) Requirement for use.--Within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security shall deny entry by a vessel into the United
States if the containers carried by the vessel are not sealed
with a high security container seal approved under paragraph
(1).
(b) Identification Number.--
(1) Requirement.--A shipment that is shipped to or from the
United States either directly or via a foreign port shall
have a designated universal transaction number.
(2) Tracking.--The person responsible for the security of a
container shall record the universal transaction number
assigned to the shipment under subparagraph (1), as well as
any seal identification number on the container, at every
port of entry and point at which the container is transferred
from one conveyance to another conveyance.
(c) Pilot Program.--
(1) Grants.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security is authorized to award grants to eligible entities
to develop improved seals for cargo containers that are able
to--
(A) immediately detect tampering with the seal;
(B) immediately detect tampering with the walls, ceiling,
or floor of the container that indicates a person is
attempting to improperly access the container; and
(C) transmit information regarding tampering with the seal,
walls, ceiling, or floor of the container in real time to the
appropriate authorities at a remote location.
(2) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant
under this subsection shall submit an application to the
Under Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied
by such information as the Under Secretary may reasonably
require.
(3) Eligible entity.--In this subsection, the term
``eligible entity'' means any national laboratory, nonprofit
private organization, institution of higher education, or
other entity that the Under Secretary determines is eligible
to receive a grant authorized by paragraph (1).
(d) Empty Containers.--
(1) Certification.--The Commissioner of Customs shall issue
regulations that set out requirements for certification of
empty containers that will be shipped to or from the United
States either directly or via a foreign port. Such
regulations shall require that an empty container--
(A) be inspected and certified as empty prior to being
loaded onto a vessel for transportation to a United States
seaport; and
(B) be sealed with a high security container seal approved
under subsection (a)(1) to enhance the security of United
States seaports.
____________________