[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 5, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1978-S2013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 301. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
that reimbursements for costs of using passenger automobiles for
charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation
today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for
volunteers.
Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable
purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for
their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either
the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization
reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information
return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the
amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the
mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 36
cents per mile.
At the time when government is asking volunteers and volunteer
organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential
services, the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship on
charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from
a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this
reimbursement limit.
At a listening session I held last summer, one organization, the
Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important
volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors
in that county. The Department on Aging reported that in 2001, 54
volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to
medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. The
Department noted that their volunteer drivers provided 4,676 rides, and
drove nearly 126,000 miles. They also delivered 9,385 home-delivered
meals, and nearly two-thirds of the drivers logged more than 100 miles
per month in providing these needed services. Together, volunteers
donated over 5,200 hours last year, and as the Department notes, at the
rate of minimum wage, that amounts to over $27,000, not including other
benefits.
As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the
most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and
ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be
taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program.
Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has
stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local
programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging
federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though,
increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage
County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer
their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be
found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a
provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come
directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other
services.
By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage
reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works
for a business is currently 36 cents per mile. This disparity means
that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers
for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount
permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.
This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer
reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional
Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents
per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not
increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents
per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I
introduced in the 107th Congress. It raises the limit on volunteer
mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is
essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax
bill passed in 1999 that was vetoed by President Clinton. At the time
of the 1999 measure, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimated
that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1
million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue
loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by
year basis.
Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything
we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have
included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make
it deficit neutral. The offset provision would impose a civil penalty
of up to $5,000 on failure to report interest in foreign financial
transactions. During the 107th Congress, that provision was included in
the CARE Act legislation by the Senate Finance Committee.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure
charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that
play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and
[[Page S1979]]
it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the
volunteers themselves.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 301
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS
EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.
(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
after section 139 the following new section:
``SEC. 139A. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS.
``(a) In General.--Gross income of an individual does not
include amounts received, from an organization described in
section 170(c), as reimbursement of operating expenses with
respect to use of a passenger automobile for the benefit of
such organization. The preceding sentence shall apply only to
the extent that such reimbursement would be deductible under
this chapter if section 274(d) were applied--
``(1) by using the standard business mileage rate
established under such section, and
``(2) as if the individual were an employee of an
organization not described in section 170(c).
``(b) No Double Benefit.--Subsection (a) shall not apply
with respect to any expenses if the individual claims a
deduction or credit for such expenses under any other
provision of this title.
``(c) Exemption From Reporting Requirements.--Section 6041
shall not apply with respect to reimbursements excluded from
income under subsection (a).''
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III
of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 139 and
inserting the following new item:
``Sec. 139A. Reimbursement for use of passenger automobile for
charity.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 2. PENALTY ON FAILURE TO REPORT INTERESTS IN FOREIGN
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS.
(a) In General.--Section 5321(a)(5) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(5) Foreign financial agency transaction violation.--
``(A) Penalty authorized.--The Secretary of the Treasury
may impose a civil money penalty on any person who violates,
or causes any violation of, any provision of section 5314.
``(B) Amount of penalty.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
the amount of any civil penalty imposed under subparagraph
(A) shall not exceed $5,000.
``(ii) Reasonable cause exception.--No penalty shall be
imposed under subparagraph (A) with respect to any violation
if--
``(I) such violation was due to reasonable cause, and
``(II) the amount of the transaction or the balance in the
account at the time of the transaction was properly reported.
``(C) Willful violations.--In the case of any person
willfully violating, or willfully causing any violation of,
any provision of section 5314--
``(i) the maximum penalty under subparagraph (B)(i) shall
be increased to the greater of--
``(I) $25,000, or
``(II) the amount (not exceeding $100,000) determined under
subparagraph (D), and
``(ii) subparagraph (B)(ii) shall not apply.
``(D) Amount.--The amount determined under this
subparagraph is--
``(i) in the case of a violation involving a transaction,
the amount of the transaction, or
``(ii) in the case of a violation involving a failure to
report the existence of an account or any identifying
information required to be provided with respect to an
account, the balance in the account at the time of the
violation.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to violations occurring after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 302. A bill to revise the boundaries of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area in the State of California, to restore and extend the
term of the advisory commission for the recreation area, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this
legislation today with Senator Boxer to allow the National Park Service
to extend the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
GGNRA, by acquiring critical natural landscapes and scenic vistas. Last
year, this bill was successfully passed out of the Senate, but was not
passed by the House before the 107th Congress adjourned.
This bill meets two distinct needs in California by adding 4,700
acres of pristine natural land to the boundary of the Golden Golden
Gate Recreation Area, GGNRA, and by extending the Golden Gate National
Recreational Area, GGNRA, Advisory Commission for ten more years.
A key component of this legislation is that about half of the total
cost of purchasing these lands will be donated by the local community.
This legislation specifically provides that all land transactions
involve a willing seller and willing buyer.
Furthermore, this bill has the strong support of the local
environmental and preservation groups, the Point Reyes National
Seashore Advisory Commission, and the National Park Service. I know of
no opposition to this bill.
The three Marin County properties lie in the Marin headlands.
Preservation of these lands will protect habitat, ridge-top trails and
scenic views of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
The city of San Francisco would like to donate to the Federal
Government the San Francisco land along the Pacific coastline, and has
authorized $100,000 for the restoration of the site.
The addition of the Rancho Corral de Tierra property will protect
sweeping views of the San Mateo Coast and ensure the protection of rich
farmland, several miles of public trails, and an incredible array of
wildlife and vegetation. All or part of four watersheds, and several
endangered species such as the peregrine falcon, San Bruno elfin
butterfly, San Francisco garter snake and the red-legged grog.
Moreover, due to the coastal marine influence and dramatic altitude
changes, plants grow on the property that are found nowhere else in the
world.
The second component of this bill extends the advisory commission of
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for ten more years.
This commission has an active committee that represents a wide range
of user groups from bicyclists to bird watchers to outdoor enthusiasts.
It provides a vital communications link between the Park Service and
the surrounding communities that enjoy the attractions that this
national site has to offer. Without this commission, the Park Service
would be hard pressed to provide the same level of service and
attention to the broad interests and diverse communities that it
serves.
I continue to be a strong advocate for public involvement in Park
Service decisions. I believe that this commission has been essential in
ensuring that the Park Service upholds its commitment to allow
community participation in its decision making process, particularly
when it comes to contentious issues.
California's national parks are truly invaluable and the park that
this bill supports offers an opportunity for visitors and residents to
enjoy unique national habitats and open spaces. This legislation
continues the legacy that enables the Park Service and the community to
work together, not only to protect the environment, but also the
interests of the nearby communities.
This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I
hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress,
as it did last Congress. Congressman Tom Lantos plans to introduce
companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his
leadership on this issue.
I urge my colleagues to support 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. 302
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 ``Rancho Corral de Tierra
Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment
Act''.
SEC. 2. GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Boundary Adjustment.--Section 2(a) of Public Law 92-589
(16 U.S.C. 460bb-1(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The recreation area shall comprise'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) Initial lands.--The recreation area shall comprise'';
and
[[Page S1980]]
(2) by striking ``The following additional lands are also''
and all that follows through the period at the end of the
subsection and inserting the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Additional lands.--In addition to the lands described
in paragraph (1), the recreation area shall include the
following:
``(A) The parcels numbered by the Assessor of Marin County,
California, 119-040-04, 119-040-05, 119-040-18, 166-202-03,
166-010-06, 166-010-07, 166-010-24, 166-010-25, 119-240-19,
166-010-10, 166-010-22, 119-240-03, 119-240-51, 119-240-52,
119-240-54, 166-010-12, 166-010-13, and 119-235-10.
``(B) Lands and waters in San Mateo County generally
depicted on the map entitled `Sweeney Ridge Addition, Golden
Gate National Recreation Area', numbered NRA GG-80,000-A, and
dated May 1980.
``(C) Lands acquired under the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area Addition Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 460bb-1 note;
Public Law 102-299).
``(D) Lands generally depicted on the map entitled
`Additions to Golden Gate National Recreation Area', numbered
NPS-80-076, and dated July 2000/PWR-PLRPC.
``(E) Lands generally depicted on the map entitled `Rancho
Corral de Tierra Additions to the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area', numbered NPS-80,079C and dated January
2003, except that lands and interests in lands constituting
the Devil's Slide Tunnel alternative are not included in the
recreation area. The Secretary shall modify the boundary map
referred to in this subparagraph to reflect the exclusion of
such lands and interests in lands.
``(3) Acquisition limitation.--The Secretary may acquire
land described in paragraph (2)(E) only from a willing
seller.''.
(b) Extension of Term of Advisory Commission.--Effective as
of October 26, 2002, section 5(g) of Public Law 92-589 (16
U.S.C. 460bb-4(g)) is amended by striking ``cease to exist
thirty years after the enactment of this Act'' and inserting
``terminate at the end of the 10-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of the Rancho Corral de Tierra Golden
Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act''.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Corzine, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton,
and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 304. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to
expand the scope of the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues
Senator Kennedy, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Senator Corzine,
Senator Murray, and Senator Mikulski, to introduce the Family and
Medical Leave Expansion Act. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the
enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This landmark
legislation was nearly a decade in the making, but today, a decade
after enactment, more than 35 million Americans have taken leave under
FMLA.
Despite the many Americans the Family and Medical Leave Act has
helped, too many continue to be left behind. Too many continue to have
to choose between job and family. The facts are clear: millions of
Americans remain uncovered by the Family and Medical Leave Act. And,
too many who are eligible for the Family and Medical Leave Act cannot
afford to take unpaid leave from work. The ``Family and Medical Leave
Expansion Act'', which we are introducing today addresses both these
problems.
The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' would expand the scope
and coverage of FMLA. It would fund pilot programs at the State level
to offer partial or full wage replacement programs to ensure that
employees do not have to choose between job and family.
Times have changed over the years. More and more mothers are working.
While only 27 percent of mothers with infants were in the labor force
in 1960, by 1999 that percentage rose to nearly 60 percent. Even as
employment rates within this group rises, family responsibilities
remain constant, a reality that lies at the core of the FMLA. According
to an employee survey by the Department of Labor, about one fifth of US
workers have a need for some form of leave covered under the FMLA, and
about 40 percent of all employees think they will need FMLA-covered
leave within the next five years.
According to a Department of Labor study in 2000, leave to care for
one's own health or for the health of a seriously ill child, spouse or
parent, together account for almost 80 percent of all FMLA leave.
Approximately 52 percent of the leave taken is due to employees' own
serious health problems, while 26 percent of the leave is taken by
young parents caring for their children at birth or adoption.
The FMLA requires that all public sector employers and private
employers of 50 or more employees provide up to twelve weeks of unpaid
leave for medical and family care reasons for eligible employees. About
77 percent of employees, in the private and public sector, currently
work in FMLA-covered sites, although only 62 percent of employees are
actually eligible for leave.
However, only 11 percent of private sector work sites are covered
under FMLA. Individuals working for small private employers deserve the
same work protections afforded to other employees. As a step toward
expanding protection to all hard-working Americans, this bill would
extend FMLA coverage to all private sector worksites with 25 or more
employees within a 75-mile radius. This would mean that an additional
13 million Americans would be eligible for leave under the Act, roughly
240,000 in my own State of Connecticut.
Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters have the same family
responsibilities and personal health problems, regardless of whether
they work for the government, a large private enterprise, or a small
private business. Expanding the FMLA to businesses with 25 or more
employees is a crucial acknowledgment of this reality.
The bill recognizes the enormous physical and emotional toll domestic
violence takes on victims. The bill expands the scope of FMLA to
include leave for individuals to care for themselves or to care for a
daughter, son, or parent suffering from domestic violence.
Expanding the scope and coverage of FMLA is a positive step for many
Americans. But, alone, it is not enough. According to a Department of
Labor study, 3.5 million covered Americans needed leave but, without
wage replacement, could not afford to take leave. Over four-fifths of
those who needed leave but did not take it said they could not afford
unpaid leave. Others cut their leave short, with the average duration
of FMLA leave being 10 days. Of those individuals taking leave under
the Family and Medical Leave Act, nearly three-quarters had incomes
above $30,000.
While the financial sacrifice is often enormous, the need for leave
can be even more so. Every year, many Americans bite the bullet and
accept unpaid leave. As a result, nine percent of leave takers go on
public assistance to cover their lost wages. Almost twelve percent of
female leave takers use public assistance for this reason. These
individuals are far from being unwilling to work. Instead, they are
trying to balance work with family, often during a crisis, too often
with inadequate means to get by.
Other major industrialized nations have implemented policies far more
family-friendly to promote early childhood development and family
caregiving. At least 128 countries provide paid and job-protected
maternity leave, with sixteen weeks the average basic paid leave. In
1992, before we enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act, the European
Union mandated a paid fourteen week maternity leave as a health and
safety measure. Among the 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, OECD, countries, the average childbirth-related leave is
44 weeks, while the average duration of paid leave is 36 weeks.
Compared to these other developed nations, the United States is far
behind in efforts to promote worker welfare and productivity. The
``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' builds on current law to
provide pilot programs for States and the Federal Government to provide
for partial or full wage replacement for 6 weeks. At a minimum, this
will ensure that parents can continue to make ends meet while taking
family and medical leave.
When we talk about a more compassionate America, no where is that
more evident than in our caregiving leave policies. No one should have
to choose between work and family. Women and men deserve to take leave
when family or health conditions require it without fear of losing
their job or livelihood. We must not simply pay lip service to family
integrity and the promotion of a healthy workplace. Instead, we must
actively work to reduce workplace barriers.
[[Page S1981]]
We talk often of our need to strengthen family values. We cite
studies about the importance of the first few months of a newborn's
life. This is our chance to offer more parents the opportunity to spend
more time with their families, to help fulfill the call to provide a
more compassionate America.
I urge my colleagues to support the ``Family and Medical Leave
Expansion Act'' to promote our family values and ensure the welfare and
health of hard-working Americans.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the summary of the Family and
Medical Leave Expansion Act be printed in the Record.
The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act
Brief Summary
Background: Since enactment in 1993, more than 35 million
employees have taken leave under the Family and Medical Leave
Act. Under current law, an employee is eligible for 12 weeks
of unpaid leave if she or he has worked for an employer for
at least 12 months; has worked for 1,250 hours over the 12
months before leave is needed; and works at a location with
50 or more employees within 75 miles. About 11 percent of
private sector businesses are covered under FMLA; 77 percent
of employees work in these covered businesses (although about
62 percent of employees are eligible for FMLA).
According to the most recent data, 52 percent of leave-
takers have taken time off to care for their own serious
illness; 26 percent of leave-takers have taken time off to
care for a new child or for maternity disability reasons; 13
percent have taken time off to care for a seriously ill
parent; 12 percent have taken time off to care for a
seriously ill child; and 6 percent have taken time off to
care for a seriously ill spouse. About 42 percent of leave
takers are men; about 58 percent of leave-takers are women.
The median length of leave is 10 days; 80% of leaves are for
40 days or fewer. About 73 percent of leave-takers earn
$30,000 or more.
The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act would expand the
scope and coverage of FMLA to ensure that even more American
workers do not have to choose between job and family. Too
many eligible individuals simply cannot afford unpaid leave.
Many forgo leave or take the shortest amount of time possible
because the current FMLA law requires only unpaid leave. The
Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act would:
Establish a pilot program to allocate grants to states to
provide paid leave for 6 weeks to eligible employees
responding to caregiving needs resulting from the birth or
adoption of a child or family illness. States may provide for
wage replacement directly or through an insurance program,
such as a state temporary disability program or a state
unemployment compensation program, or other mechanism. Such
paid leave shall count toward an eligible employee's 12 weeks
of leave under FMLA.
Expand the number of individuals eligible for FMLA by
covering employers with 25 or more employees (to enable 13
million more Americans to take FMLA).
Expand the reasons for leave to include eligible employees
addressing domestic violence and its effects, which make the
employee unable to perform the functions of the position of
such employee or, to care for the son, daughter, or parent of
the employee, if such individual is addressing domestic
violence and its effects.
Establish a pilot program within the federal government for
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to administer a
partial or full wage replacement for 6 weeks to eligible
employees responding to caregiving needs resulting from the
birth or adoption of a child or other family caregiving
needs. Such paid leave shall count toward an eligible
employee's 12 weeks of leave under FMLA.
Allows employees to use a total of 24 hours during any 12
month period to participate in a school activity of a son or
daughter, such as parent-teacher conference, or to
participate in literacy training under a family literacy
program.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Ensign, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Cantwell,
and Mrs. Murray):
S. 306. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to consolidate and restate the Federal laws relating to the social
health maintenance organization projects, to make such projects
permanent, to require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to
conduct a study on ways to expand such projects, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will
make Medicare's Social Health Maintenance Organization, SHMO,
demonstration a permanent part of the Medicare+Choice program. In this
effort, I am joined by my colleagues from Oregon, New York, Arizona,
California, and Washington.
The Social HMO demonstration was authorized 18 years ago to test
models for improving health care for frail seniors, expanding access to
social and supportive services, and integrating these expanded benefits
with medical services better. My colleagues and I feel that an
eighteen-year test is long enough, it is time for this successful
program to become a permanent choice for Medicare beneficiaries.
Close to 80 percent of national health care expenditures are for
people with chronic conditions. Medicare beneficiaries are
disproportionately affected by chronic illness. About 85 percent of
people who are 65 and older have one chronic condition, and two thirds
have two or more. Fully a third of Medicare beneficiaries have four or
more chronic conditions. This group accounts for more than three
quarters of all Medicare spending. Yet, despite the predominance of
chronic illness among seniors, Medicare continues to operate as an
acute care model. So many of the services that are central to the
health care needs of seniors are not covered by Medicare, including a
number of preventive services, care coordination and disease management
services, and home and community-based support services.
Social HMOs provide the care coordination and disease management
services so critically important to frail and at-risk seniors with
multiple chronic conditions and complex care needs. Social HMOs are
required to provide expanded care benefits such as prescription drugs,
ancillary services such as eyeglasses and hearing aids, and community-
based services such as personal care, homemaker services, adult day
care, meals, and transportation. These services meet the chronic health
care needs of seniors, helping them remain independent, while reducing
Medicaid expenditures by avoiding or delaying nursing home placement.
Several recent studies have shown that Social HMO members are 40
percent to 50 percent less likely to have long-term nursing home
placements than similar seniors. Further, in a recent survey of Social
HMO beneficiaries, over three-quarters of respondents indicated that
the special services offered by their Social HMO were critical in
allowing them to continue living at home. Enhanced Social HMO services,
such as early detection of illness, development of coordinated care
plans to address problems identified during routine assessments,
screening, and ongoing monitoring of care, has paid off in improved
health outcomes for beneficiaries. One study submitted to CMS by the
University of California at San Francisco and the University of
Minnesota showed that the Social HMO chronic care interventions
decreased inpatient hospital and emergency room use up to 57 percent
and 47 percent, respectively, while improving beneficiaries' functional
capacity.
Last year, Medicaid spending increased by over 13 percent. More than
half of this growth was in programs serving the elderly and disabled.
At a time when the Federal deficit is increasing and States are facing
unprecedented budget shortfalls, it is incumbent upon us to take
measures to reduce, not increase, the Medicaid burden, which
constitutes a major component of State expenditures.
My legislation provides a critical opportunity to address the States'
large and growing fiscal crises. In the short-term we can prevent an
exacerbation of States' budget woes by making the Social HMOs
permanent. Preliminary estimates of first year costs for terminating
the Social HMO program range from about $100 to $300 million for
increased nursing home and home care expenditures under Medicaid.
Remember that these estimates relate to only four existing plans
serving about 110,000 beneficiaries and do not even include
prescription drugs and other ancillary services provided by the plans.
Long-term cost savings associated with reduced health care expenditures
and keeping enrollees from spending down to Medicaid would be even more
significant--especially if the MedPAC study required by our bill
validates that these programs are cost-effective and recommends to
Congress that we expand this option. For states facing huge shortfalls,
the cost to absorb these SHMO beneficiaries if the program were to
terminate would be substantial.
[[Page S1982]]
I am fortunate that one of the four original Social HMOs is in
Oregon. Senior Advantage II, offered by Kaiser Permanente's Northwest
Division, currently serves about 4,300 Medicare beneficiaries from
Salem, OR to Longview, Washington, with its primary service area in
Portland, OR. Since Kaiser opened its Social HMO program, it has served
close to 15,000 beneficiaries with its enhanced benefits and special
geriatric programs, which have led to fewer overall nursing home care
days and a more consumer-oriented approach to care for frail or ill
seniors.
The legislation I am introducing with my distinguished colleagues
today would make permanent the existing Social HMO plans, like Kaiser,
and would lay the ground work for evaluating whether to expand and
replicate this model. Our bill requires the Secretary to conduct a
comparative study of beneficiary and family member satisfaction to see
how Social HMOs compare to Medicare + Choice and fee-for-service
Medicare. It also requires MedPAC to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
Social HMOs with respect to reduced nursing home admissions, reduced
incidence of Medicaid spend-down, and other aspects of the model that
represent potential cost-savings. If MedPAC finds that Social HMOs are
cost-effective, it must make recommendations to Congress on expanding
and replicating this model.
To ensure that beneficiaries continue to receive the value added they
have come to enjoy under this program, the Social HMOs must continue to
provide the expanded benefit package currently offered under this
legislation. Further, this benefit could not be changed by the
Secretary without notification of Congress. Finally, to ensure that
Social HMOs can continue to finance a high level of benefits, any
changes in plans' existing payments would need to go through a formal
rulemaking process.
The Social HMO demonstration project has been re-validated by six
acts of Congress since its creation. It is time to make this program
permanent and lend a measure of stability to the plans and
beneficiaries served by this innovative model. This program represents
a fiscally sound approach to helping manage the chronic health care
needs of our nation's seniors, and I urge all of my colleagues to join
with me and the rest of this bill's cosponsors in support of this
important legislation.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
S. 307. A bill to designate the Federal building and United States
courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the
``Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse''; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and
colleague from Ohio, Senator George Voinovich, to introduce a bill to
name the Federal building and United States courthouse in Dayton, Ohio,
after Congressman Tony Hall.
This bill is a fitting tribute to Tony Hall, a tireless and dedicated
public servant, who we greatly miss since his retirement from the
United States Congress. He is continuing his commitment to public
service as our U.S. Ambassador to the UN's food and agriculture
agencies.
The people of Ohio and the American people can be proud of and
thankful for the many years Tony Hall has served in the United States
Congress. I've had the privilege of working closely with him since my
early days in the House nearly 20 years ago. He has been a valuable
legislator and a real statesman. Over the years, he has worked
tirelessly on behalf of the people of Montgomery County and throughout
Ohio.
Tony Hall comes from a family rich in devotion to public service and
dedication to Ohio. His father, in fact, once served as Dayton's
Republican Mayor. A graduate of Fairmont High School in Kettering and
Denison University in Granville, where he was an all-star tailback on
the football team, Tony served in the Ohio House from 1969-1972, in the
Ohio Senate from 1973-1978, and as Dayton's Congressman since January
1979.
A devoted husband to his wife, Janet, and a dedicated father to Jyl
and Matt, the entire Hall family struggled valiantly alongside Matt as
he fought an unsuccessful battle against leukemia that ended in 1996.
My wife, Fran, and I are proud to have worked over two decades with
Tony and Janet on humanitarian efforts and other causes that bridge
across the political aisle. Tony, who served in the Peace Corps in 1966
and 1967, has been an unmatched advocate for the needy, the poor, the
hungry, and the oppressed across Ohio, our Nation, and the world.
Tony has been singularly responsible for much of the world's
continued, focused attention on the serious hunger issues worldwide.
His involvement in a 22-day hunger strike in 1989, forced the
Department of Agriculture and the World Bank to call conferences on
hunger, which ultimately resulted in the creation of the Congressional
Hunger Center. I'm proud to have worked with Tony on several
humanitarian initiatives through the years from Africa Seeds of Hope to
the Global Food for Education Act to the Microenterprise for Self-
Reliance Act to the Clean Diamond Act of 2001.
We also share a commitment to the yet unborn. A staunch pro-life
Democrat, Congressman Hall was responsible for language in the
Democratic National Committee platform respecting the beliefs of those
within his party who wished to protect the sanctity of life.
I also have had the pleasure of working with Tony Hall on several
projects important to the Miami Valley area of Ohio. We share a passion
for the aviation heritage of the Wright Brothers in Dayton and have
worked together to protect and preserve the monuments to the Wright
Brothers legacy. And, we've also worked together on issues to help
build the unique resources of Wright Patterson Air Force base.
Today, it is a pleasure to take this opportunity to join Senator
Voinovich to honor Tony Hall's many legislative efforts and
achievements and to thank him for his commitment to the people of Ohio
and this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to honor our
good friend and statesman, Tony Hall.
______
By Mr. LOTT:
S. 308. A bill to impose greater accountability on the Tennessee
Valley Authority with respect to capital investment decisions and
financing operations by increasing Congressional and Executive Branch
oversight; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Tennessee Valley Authority has long
served as an engine for economic development in my part of the country
and has enjoyed widespread support for its efforts to provide power
that is needed to fuel the economy and enhance the quality of life of
those it serves. It is my desire to assist the TVA in continuing its
legacy and carrying out its mission. To provide that assistance, the
Congress, the Administration, and the TVA itself must determine whether
TVA's policies, practices, and long-term strategies are consistent with
the realities of today's marketplace.
The TVA is at a crossroads in its illustrious history. The United
States taxpayer and the power consumers in the TVA service area have
provided the capital necessary to develop, finance, and operate one of
the largest, if not the largest, public power systems in history. The
TVA is now facing a number of challenges with respect to its existing
generating system in the form of environmental compliance, aging and
obsolete plants, and the urgent need to provide additional generating
capacity to meet the demands of the future. It is my belief that the
United States taxpayer is unwilling and unable to continue to bear the
financial burden and risks associated with addressing these challenges.
The reality of the marketplace for energy and the political
imperatives with which we are confronted mandate that any new financing
strategies and supplemental sources of capital be considered and
utilized by the TVA. Likewise, we need to review and analyze the short-
term and long-term financing and risk management strategies employed by
the TVA with respect to its almost $26 billion of debt.
Last year, we witnessed the results of risky and sometimes corrupt
corporate financing and management practices. Although I have no reason
to believe that TVA has been involved in any
[[Page S1983]]
such practices, I believe we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to
examine the financing and disclosure practices of the TVA to ensure
that their investment is being protected. I note that TVA has utilized
short-term financing facilities and derivative securities as hedging
and interest rate management techniques. We need to better understand
the risks and rewards associated with these strategies.
The legislation that I am introducing today would require that the
TVA provide the Congress and the Administration with a 10-year business
outlook and strategic plan with respect to its development and
financing needs, as well as an analysis of its ongoing financing and
risk management strategies. During the period in which the TVA is
responding to this Congressional mandate, the TVA would be required to
cease and desist from incurring new obligations or entering into any
arrangements for the development or financing of new, additional, or
replacement plant, equipment, or capacity. Likewise, during this period
the TVA would be required to gain the concurrence of the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Senate and
House Committee leaders before undertaking any additional financing or
refinancing activities. The legislation specifically provides for the
necessary flexibility for the TVA to continue normal operations and
fund necessary maintenance activities while complying with this
Congressional mandate.
I strongly support the TVA and I recognize its importance to the
economic health of several States in the southeastern United States,
including my own. Indeed, the TVA is a critical component of the
infrastructure that supports the economy of the entire United States.
It is my desire in introducing this legislation that the TVA be
positioned to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Introduction of
this legislation is the first step to help the TVA achieve that goal.
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. 308
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Authority.--The term ``Authority'' means the Tennessee
Valley Authority.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors
of the Authority.
(3) Committee leader.--The term ``Committee leader'' means
the chairman and ranking member of each of the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on the Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
(4) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
(5) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the Ten-Year Business
Outlook and Strategic Plan submitted under subsection (b).
(b) Plan.--Not later than 90 days after the effective date
of this section, the Authority shall submit to the Director
and each of the Committee leaders, for their concurrence, a
Ten-Year Business Outlook and Strategic Plan for the
Authority that includes, at a minimum--
(1) estimates of--
(A) the power demand in the service area of the Authority
during the 10-year period following the date of the plan;
(B) the assets that the Authority anticipates will be
available to meet that demand; and
(C) capital expenditures that will be required to meet that
demand;
(2) a strategy and criteria for the development and
financing of new nuclear and nonnuclear power supply sources,
including a strategy for competitive sourcing and partnering
with the private sector for the development and financing of
new nuclear and nonnuclear power facilities; and
(3) a strategy for managing the financing, refinancing, and
repayment of the existing indebtedness of the Authority,
including a specific debt repayment schedule to which the
Board is specifically committed.
(c) Financing Strategies.--The provisions of the Plan
relating to financing strategies under subsection (b)(3)
shall include a recitation of the policies of the Board with
respect to--
(1) the use of short-term and long-term debt;
(2) the use of derivative or other financing instruments;
and
(3) risk management strategies.
(d) Limitations.--
(1) In general.--The Authority shall not, until the date,
if any, on which the Director and each of the Committee
leaders issue a written concurrence to the Plan--
(A) expend any internally generated capital or otherwise
undertake any investment in, or enter into any arrangement
that would result in the development or financing of, new,
additional, or replacement plant, equipment, or capacity; or
(B) without the written concurrence of the Director and
each of the Committee leaders, undertake any financing of
additional indebtedness or refinancing of debt of the
Authority in any public or private market.
(2) Effect.--This subsection does not preclude the
Authority from expending available funds, in the exercise of
the independent judgment of the Authority, for the repair,
maintenance, or necessary renovation to preserve the
operating capacity and efficiency of existing units and
related facilities.
(e) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on January
31, 2003.
______
By Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 309. A bill to enable the United States to maintain its leadership
in aeronautics and aviation by instituting an initiative to develop
technologies that will significantly lower noise, emissions, and fuel
consumption, to reinvigorate basic and applied research in aeronautics
and aviation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am most pleased to be joined by our
esteemed colleague, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, to introduce the
Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act. This
legislation is the foundation for ensuring that the United States
remains the preeminent Nation in the design, engineering and production
of military and civilian aircraft.
The last 5 years have seen the NASA budget for aeronautics research
and development literally cut in half from $1 billion to its current
level of $500 million. In making these cuts, the United States has been
rendered more vulnerable to foreign competition in the field of
aeronautics. The nations of Europe have moved in the exact opposite
direction--dramatically increasing such funding in an effort to control
the world's aviation market. A recent article in the Wall Street
Journal documents the rise of Airbus as the largest producer of
civilian aircraft in the world. If forecasts for this year hold true,
Airbus will deliver more aircraft than Boeing for the first time. In
light of these disturbing developments it is obvious that the U.S. is
in grave danger of losing its position as the world leader in
aeronautics and aviation.
It is important to note that throughout the history of aeronautics
and aviation that this country has been at the forefront of discovery
and innovation. It began with the First Flight of the Wright Brothers
on December 17, 1903 in Kitty Hawk, NC, followed by the historic flight
of Charles Lindbergh from New York to Paris in May of 1927. U.S.
companies have led the aviation and aeronautics industry from the
propeller era into the jet engine era. The research and innovation of
the U.S. has been the primary reason the world enjoys the convenience
and safety of air travel today.
Our military has seen the benefits from the progress made in
aeronautics research. The significant improvements made from World War
I to World War II directly impacted the Allies ability to establish air
superiority. The numerous advances made in U.S. aircraft design greatly
increased the top speed and altitude of bombers and fighters during
crucial years of the war. Since then, our country's aeronautics
research has made it the dominant air power in the world, with
technologies years in advance of its closest pursuers. As a result of
these advancements, U.S. troops are placed in far less harm and more
precise strikes against enemy targets can be made while avoiding non-
targeted civilians.
Fortunately NASA has recognized the emergence of international
competition and the need for the U.S. to re-assert itself as the lead
nation in aeronautics research technology and innovation. The recently
published ``The NASA Aeronautics Blueprint--Toward a Bold Era of
Aviation'' is an excellent report on the problems facing American
aviation and aeronautics. It also provides an exciting vision of what
can be achieved by investing in aeronautics research and development.
However NASA has not provided a program or plan for how to achieve this
vision nor funding levels that would be required
[[Page S1984]]
to attain the goals laid out in the Blueprint. Thus without a plan or
funding, it is unlikely this report would ever be acted upon.
In an effort to tackle the major initiatives of the NASA Blueprint
head-on, we are introducing the Aeronautics Research and Development
Revitalization Act. The legislation will provide aggressive funding
authorizations to provide the NASA aeronautics program with the
resources it needs to keep the United States on the cutting edge of all
aspects of aeronautics and aviation. Our complacency must change now to
prevent further damage to our competitiveness in aviation. The U.S.
aviation industry is the largest contributor to the U.S. balance of
trade and directly accounts for $343 billion to the U.S. economy and
4.2 million positions to our job market.
First, consider the impact of aviation on our communities. As air
travel becomes more commonplace, increased aircraft noise will place a
strain on both the citizens and businesses living and operating in the
areas surrounding our nation's airports. The effect on property values
and quality of life can be enormous, so it will be important to pursue
technologies that reduce the level of noise emitted from aircraft. We
also must acknowledge the rising emissions levels that are the result
of increased air travel as well as the fuel consumption required to
meet the growing number of planes in the air. The instability of oil
prices and the growing effect of fuel emission on our atmosphere make
it necessary to find improvement in fuel efficiency. These
environmental factors must be addressed, or the American people will
certainly face fewer choices and higher prices. To meet these needs,
our legislation provides significant funding to be used for research,
much of which will be designated for universities, industrial research
facilities and not-for-profit research entities. The impacts of
aviation are beginning to negatively impact the lives of many
Americans; this initiative will make aircraft more environmentally
friendly.
Additionally, strides also need to be made in rotorcraft technology.
This legislation authorizes funding for, and tasks NASA with, improving
the noise and vibration levels of helicopters, as well as improving the
predicted accident rate to make it equivalent to that of fixed-wing
aircraft. Helicopters are indispensable for our military and provide
great convenience for the civilians. Making them safer and quieter is a
worthwhile effort that should be pursued.
The promise of civil supersonic travel has been on the horizon for
some time. However it has been difficult to perfect the technology for
a civilian supersonic aircraft and the costs associated with such a
program are high. The legislation we have introduced would required
NASA to develop a road map for achieving the flight of a supersonic
civil transport aircraft that can reach a speed of Mach 1.6, travel at
least 4,000 nautical miles, and carry one hundred fifty passengers. If
these goals can be met over the next twenty years, the U.S. aviation
industry will be revolutionized. Achieving such speeds would change
business and personal travel as it is known today. To bring this
initiative forward, this legislation would authorize $110 million for
the next five years. This should provide a good start in the effort to
bring civilian air travel into the twenty-first century.
At the core of U.S. aeronautics and aviation superiority are men and
women performing the research and development necessary for
technological breakthroughs. The U.S. has seen a disturbing decline in
the number of aeronautical engineers graduating from its universities.
It is important to encourage American students to consider these
fields. We need to make sure the best and the brightest are properly
trained so they can make their creative ideas and theories a reality.
This current trend is a leading reason the U.S. is losing ground in
aeronautics research. To combat the dearth of aeronautics engineers,
this legislation would authorize NASA to establish a generous
scholarship program for those students seeking a Masters Degree in the
field of aeronautics.
As air travel becomes more prevalent, it becomes more important that
air traffic management and control are operating in the most effective
and safe manner. This bill includes a measure that requires the
Administrator of NASA to work with the Federal Aviation Association
Administrator to develop a national initiative with the objective of
defining and developing an air traffic management system designed to
meet the national long-term aviation security needs, along with safety,
security and capacity needs. These provisions will hopefully result in
a new, more streamlined method for directing air traffic around our
busiest airports and cities.
The measures and funding authorizations in this legislation are
aggressive. However when considering the state of both the aeronautics
and aviation industries. I believe it is time to take decisive action
to ensure the long-term competitive supremacy of both our military and
civilization aviation programs.
The majority of military aircraft technology was developed to some
degree by NASA's aeronautics program. To make sure those risking their
lives in the service of the country are afforded the best possible
equipment in performing their duties, the U.S. government has the
responsibility to make the necessary investments in research and
development. In recent years we have seen a drastic cuts in the
programs designed for this purpose. Technology and innovation are
always moving forward, the government needs to expend the resources to
keep the U.S. at the forefront of those efforts.
The civilian airline and aeronautics industry has largely been
dominated by the United States since its beginning. Recent news reports
have shown however that this phenomenon is changing. Countries around
the world are making great progress in building larger, more efficient
commuter airlines at a cheaper price. This new competition has
jeopardized the jobs of thousands of highly trained engineers and works
in this country. Keeping pace with the competition and working to
maintain the lead over other aircraft providers is essential if we want
to keep this important segment of the work force employed. Losing
global contracts means job cuts. To turn this trend around we must
commit to the research and development that leads to innovation in
commercial aviation. Only then will we secure the existing jobs in this
country and build the need for more jobs.
To make this legislation law we will have to make some difficult
choices and priorities. Current economic conditions dictate that we
cannot fund every desirable program. However, even in the face of the
circumstances, I feel strongly that we can no longer complacently wait
to make the changes outlined in this legislation. Making the United
States the unquestioned leader in aeronautics research and development
is in the best interest of our military, our civilian airline industry,
quality jobs and balance of trade. The aviation industry affects the
lives of almost all Americans. For these reasons, we ask our colleagues
to carefully review the current condition of U.S. aeronautics and the
implications of its continued decline. I am confident they will concur
that this legislation is needed now without delay. Our security,
competitive position, jobs and future are sitting on the runway needing
our fuel for the aeronautics industry to take off into the future.
Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 309
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 ``Aeronautics Research and
Development Revitalization Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) It is in the national interest to maintain leadership
in aeronautics and aviation.
(2) The United States is in danger of losing its leadership
in aeronautics and aviation to international competitors.
(3) Past Federal investments in aeronautics research and
development have benefited the economy and national security
of the United States and the quality of life of its citizens.
(4) Future growth in aviation increasingly will be
constrained by concerns related to aircraft noise, emissions,
fuel consumption, and air transportation system congestion.
[[Page S1985]]
(5) Current and projected levels of Federal investment in
aeronautics research and development are not sufficient to
address concerns related to the growth of aviation.
(6) International competitors have recognized the
importance of noise, emissions, fuel consumption, and air
transportation system congestion in limiting the future
growth of aviation and have established aggressive agendas
for addressing each of these concerns.
(7) An aggressive initiative by the Federal Government to
develop technologies that would significantly reduce aircraft
noise, harmful emissions, and fuel consumption would benefit
the United States by--
(A) improving the competitiveness of the United States
aviation industry through the development of new markets for
aviation services and the development of superior aircraft
for existing markets;
(B) improving the quality of life for our citizens by
drastically reducing the level of noise due to aircraft
operations;
(C) reducing the congestion of the air transportation
system by allowing departures and arrivals at currently under
utilized airports through the use of environmentally
compatible aircraft;
(D) reducing the rate at which fossil fuels are consumed;
(E) reducing the rate at which greenhouse gases and other
harmful gases and particulates are added to the atmosphere by
aircraft; and
(F) reinvigorating the human capital needed to maintain
international leadership in aeronautics and aviation by
providing a set of extremely challenging and socially
beneficial goals to the next generation of engineers and
scientists.
(8) Long-term progress in aeronautics and aviation will
require continued Federal investment in fundamental
aeronautical research.
(9) The European competitors of United States aircraft
companies have invested heavily in new wind tunnels. These
new tunnels are better than their older United States
counterparts and give European aircraft manufacturers an
advantage over United States aircraft manufacturers in the
highly competitive civil aircraft sales business. As a
result, United States aircraft companies are forced to
perform tests in Europe's superior wind tunnels. The security
of United States data obtained in these and other foreign
test facilities can easily be compromised. New and upgraded
United States aeronautical test facilities are needed to
support a revitalized aeronautics research and development
program, and should be a high national priority.
(10) Continued research is needed into the flight crew and
controller training needed to accommodate new aircraft and
air transportation system technologies and procedures.
(11) It is in the interest of the United States to maintain
a vigorous capability in basic and applied research and
development of technologies related to rotorcraft.
(12) Maintenance of United States leadership in aeronautics
and aviation will require the productive collaboration of
NASA, the Department of Defense, the FAA, the aviation
industry, and the Nation's universities.
(13) Improvements to our understanding of convective
weather phenomena and of aircraft wake turbulence would
significantly improve the performance of the Nation's air
transportation system.
(14) The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have
imposed new requirements for research on aviation security.
NASA's aviation safety research must be expanded to include
methods that provide for an air transportation system that is
both safe and secure from terrorist attacks.
(15) It is important for NASA to continue at a healthy
level its cooperative research efforts with the Department of
Defense regarding military aviation technologies. These
efforts have been all but eliminated in recent years and must
be restored. The Nation must take advantage of the synergy
between civil and military aviation research.
(16) The report entitled ``The NASA Aeronautics Blueprint--
Toward a Bold New Era of Aviation'' provides an excellent
statement of the problems facing aviation today, and presents
an exciting vision of what can be achieved by investments in
aeronautics research and technology. It does not, however,
provide a program plan to actually achieve the vision, nor
does it address the huge mismatch between current NASA
aeronautics funding and what is required to realize the
vision.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) FAA.--The term ``FAA'' means the Federal Aviation
Administration.
(2) FAA administrator.--The term ``FAA Administrator''
means the Administrator of the FAA.
(3) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given
that term by section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001).
(4) NASA.--The term ``NASA'' means the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
(5) NASA administrator.--The term ``NASA Administrator''
means the Administrator of NASA.
TITLE I--NASA AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 101. ENVIRONMENTAL AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE.
(a) Objective.--Not later than 10 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall develop
and demonstrate, in a relevant environment, technologies that
result in the following commercial aircraft performance
characteristics:
(1) Noise.--Noise levels on takeoff and on airport approach
and landing that do not exceed ambient noise levels in the
absence of flight operations in the vicinity of airports from
which such commercial aircraft would normally operate.
(2) Fuel efficiency.--A 10 percent improvement in fuel
efficiency, compared to aircraft in commercial service as of
the date of enactment of this Act, in each of the following:
(A) Specific fuel consumption.
(B) Lift to drag ratio.
(C) Structural weight fraction.
(3) Emissions.--Nitrogen oxides at less than 5 grams per
kilogram of fuel burned.
(b) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall
provide to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a plan for the implementation of
the initiative described in subsection (a). Such
implementation plan shall include--
(1) technological roadmaps for achieving each of the
performance characteristics specified in subsection (a);
(2) an estimate of the 10-year funding profile required to
achieve the objective specified in subsection (a);
(3) a plan for carrying out a formal quantification of the
estimated costs and benefits of each technological option
selected for development beyond the initial concept
definition phase; and
(4) a plan for transferring the technologies to industry,
including the identification of requirements for prototype
demonstrations, as appropriate.
(c) Review.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall enter
into an arrangement with the National Research Council to
review the adequacy of the implementation plan provided under
subsection (b) to achieve the objective described in
subsection (a). In addition, the NASA Administrator shall
enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council
for the review, every 3 years after the initial review under
this subsection, of NASA's progress in achieving the
objective described in subsection (a), including
recommendations for changes to NASA's research and
development program. The results of each review shall be
provided to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate within 30 days after the review
is completed.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under section 107, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the NASA Administrator to carry out this
section--
(A) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(B) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(C) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(D) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(E) $225,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(2) Amounts to certain entities.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated in paragraph (1), the percentage of the
annual appropriation that shall be used to fund research and
development conducted at universities, industrial research
entities, and not-for-profit research consortia is--
(A) 20 percent for fiscal year 2004;
(B) 30 percent for fiscal year 2005;
(C) 40 percent for fiscal year 2006; and
(D) 50 percent for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
SEC. 102. ROTORCRAFT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.
(a) Objective.--Not later than 10 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall develop
and demonstrate, in a relevant environment, technologies that
result in rotorcraft with the following improvements compared
to rotorcraft operating on the date of enactment of this Act:
(1) 80 percent reduction in noise levels on takeoff and on
approach and landing as perceived by a human observer.
(2) Factor of 10 percent reduction in vibration.
(3) 30 percent reduction in empty weight.
(4) Predicted accident rate equivalent to that of fixed-
wing aircraft in commercial service.
(5) Capability for zero-ceiling, zero-visibility
operations.
(b) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall
provide a plan to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate for the implementation of
the initiative described in subsection (a). The
implementation plan shall include--
(1) technological roadmaps for achieving each of the
improvements specified in subsection (a);
(2) an estimate of the 10-year funding profile required to
achieve the objective specified in subsection (a);
(3) a plan for carrying out a formal quantification of the
estimated costs and benefits of each technological option
selected for development beyond the initial concept
definition phase; and
(4) a plan for transferring the technologies to industry,
including the identification of requirements for prototype
demonstrations, as appropriate.
[[Page S1986]]
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under section 107, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the NASA Administrator to
carry out this section--
(1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(3) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(4) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(5) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
SEC. 103. CIVIL SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE.
(a) Objective.--Not later than 20 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall develop
and demonstrate, in a relevant environment, technologies to
enable overland flight of supersonic civil transport aircraft
with at least the following performance characteristics:
(1) Mach number of at least 1.6.
(2) Range of at least 4,000 nautical miles.
(3) Payload of at least 150 passengers.
(4) Lift to drag ratio of at least 9.0.
(5) Noise levels on takeoff and on airport approach and
landing that meet community noise standards in place at
airports from which such commercial supersonic aircraft would
normally operate at the time the aircraft would enter
commercial service.
(6) Shaped signature sonic boom overpressure of less than
1.0 pounds per square foot.
(7) Nitrogen oxide emissions of less than 15 grams per
kilogram of fuel burned.
(8) Water vapor emissions for stratospheric flight of no
greater than 1,400 grams per kilogram of fuel burned.
(b) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall
provide to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a plan for the
implementation of the initiative described in subsection (a).
Such implementation plan shall include--
(1) technological roadmaps for achieving each of the
performance characteristics specified in subsection (a);
(2) an estimate of the 10-year funding profile required to
achieve the objective specified in subsection (a);
(3) a plan for carrying out a formal quantification of the
estimated costs and benefits of each technological option
selected for development beyond the initial concept
definition phase;
(4) a plan for transferring the technologies to industry,
including the identification of requirements for prototype
demonstrations, as appropriate;
(5) a plan for research to quantify, within 3 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the limits on sonic boom
parameters, such as overpressure and rise time, that would be
acceptable to the general public; and
(6) a plan for adjusting the noise reduction research and
development activities as needed to accommodate changes in
community noise standards that may occur over the lifetime of
the initiative.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under section 107, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the NASA Administrator to
carry out this section--
(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(4) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(5) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
SEC. 104. NASA AERONAUTICS SCHOLARSHIPS.
(a) Objective.--The NASA Administrator shall establish a
program of scholarships for full-time graduate students who
are United States citizens and are enrolled in, or have been
accepted by and have indicated their intention to enroll in,
accredited Masters degree programs in aeronautical
engineering at institutions of higher education. Each such
scholarship shall cover the costs of room, board, tuition,
and fees, and may be provided for a maximum of 2 years.
(b) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall
publish regulations governing the scholarship program.
(c) Cooperative Training Opportunities.--Students who have
been awarded a scholarship under this section shall have the
opportunity for paid employment at one of the NASA Centers
engaged in aeronautics research and development during the
summer prior to the first year of the student's Masters
program, and between the first and second year, if
applicable.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under section 107, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the NASA Administrator to
carry out this section--
(1) $500,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $750,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(3) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(4) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(5) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
SEC. 105. AVIATION WEATHER RESEARCH.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the NASA
Administrator $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004
through 2008 for collaborative research with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on convective
weather events, with the goal of improving the reliability
of 2- to 6-hour aviation weather forecasts to a level of
at least 0.75.
SEC. 106. AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE.
(a) Objective.--The FAA Administrator and the NASA
Administrator shall participate in a national initiative with
the objective of defining and developing an air traffic
management system designed to meet national long-term
aviation security, safety, and capacity needs. The initiative
should result in a multiagency blueprint for acquisition and
implementation of an air traffic management system that
would--
(1) build upon current air traffic management and
infrastructure initiatives;
(2) improve the security, safety, quality, and
affordability of aviation services;
(3) utilize a system of systems approach;
(4) develop a highly integrated, secure common information
network to enable common situational awareness for all
appropriate system users; and
(5) ensure seamless global operations for system users.
(b) Implementation.--In implementing subsection (a), the
FAA Administrator and the NASA Administrator shall work with
other appropriate Government agencies and industry to--
(1) develop system performance requirements;
(2) determine an optimal operational concept and system
architecture to meet such requirements;
(3) utilize new modeling, simulation, and analysis tools to
quantify and validate system performance and benefits;
(4) ensure the readiness of enabling technologies; and
(5) develop a transition plan for successful implementation
into the National Airspace System.
(c) Authorization.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under section 107--
(1) there are authorized to be appropriated to the NASA
Aerospace Technology Program to carry out this section--
(A) $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2004;
(B) $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2005;
(C) $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2006;
(D) $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2007; and
(E) $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2008; and
(2) there are authorized to be appropriated to the FAA
Research, Engineering, and Development account to carry out
this section--
(A) $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2004;
(B) $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2005;
(C) $40,000,000 in fiscal year 2006;
(D) $40,000,000 in fiscal year 2007; and
(E) $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2008.
SEC. 107. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization.--The total amounts authorized to be
appropriated for aeronautics research, development, and
demonstration activities at NASA, including the amounts
authorized by sections 101 through 106 of this Act, are--
(1) $675,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(3) $900,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(4) $1,050,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(5) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(b) Limitation.--All amounts authorized to be appropriated
by this title are for research and development activities and
do not include amounts required to support the labor, travel,
environmental compliance, and nonprogrammatic construction of
facilities activities of the Office of Aeronautics.
TITLE II--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 201. UNIVERSITY-BASED CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON AVIATION
TRAINING.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 44921. Grants for university-based centers for
research on aviation training
``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall award grants to institutions of
higher education (or consortia thereof) to establish 1 or
more Centers for Research on Aviation Training.
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Centers for Research on
Aviation Training shall be to investigate the impact of new
technologies and procedures, particularly those related to
the aircraft flight deck and to the air traffic management
functions, on training requirements for pilots and air
traffic controllers.
``(c) Application.--An institution of higher education (or
a consortium of such institutions) seeking funding under this
section shall submit an application to the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Administrator
may require, including, at a minimum, a 5-year research plan.
``(d) Award Duration.--An award made by the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration under this section
shall be for a period of 5 years and may be renewed on the
basis of--
``(1) satisfactory performance in meeting the goals of the
research plan proposed by the Center for Research on Aviation
Training in its application under subsection (c); and
``(2) other requirements as specified by the Administrator.
``(e) Institution of Higher Education.--In this section,
the term `institution of higher education' has the meaning
given that term by section 101 of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).''.
(b) Chapter 449 Table of Sections.--The table of sections
at the beginning of subchapter I of chapter 449 of such title
is amended by adding at the end the following:
[[Page S1987]]
``44921. Grants for university-based centers for research on aviation
training.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the FAA Administrator to carry out this
section $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2008.
SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Amounts Authorized.--Section 48102(a) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) for fiscal year 2004, $366,100,000, including--
``(A) $25,500,000 for weather projects and activities;
``(B) $81,600,000 for aircraft safety technology projects
and activities;
``(C) $27,300,000 for human factors and aviation medicine
projects and activities; and
``(D) $30,000,000 for environment and energy projects and
activities;
``(10) for fiscal year 2005, $410,000,000, including--
``(A) $30,600,000 for weather projects and activities;
``(B) $90,100,000 for aircraft safety technology projects
and activities;
``(C) $30,200,000 for human factors and aviation medicine
projects and activities; and
``(D) $37,500,000 for environment and energy projects and
activities;
``(11) for fiscal year 2006, $462,000,000, including--
``(A) $37,000,000 for weather projects and activities;
``(B) $99,800,000 for aircraft safety technology projects
and activities;
``(C) $33,500,000 for human factors and aviation medicine
projects and activities; and
``(D) $47,000,000 for environment and energy projects and
activities;
``(12) for fiscal year 2007, $520,000,000; and
``(13) for fiscal year 2008, $550,000,000.''.
(b) Research Priorities.--Section 48102(b) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraphs:
``(4) Of the amount authorized under subsection (a)(9)--
``(A) $2,000,000 shall be made available for wake
turbulence research; and
``(B) $10,000,000 shall be made available for information
security research.
``(5) Of the amount authorized under subsection (a)(10)--
``(A) $3,000,000 shall be made available for wake
turbulence research; and
``(B) $12,000,000 shall be made available for information
security research.
``(6) Of the amount authorized under subsection (a)(11)--
``(A) $4,000,000 shall be made available for wake
turbulence research; and
``(B) $13,200,000 shall be made available for information
security research.
``(7) The Administrator is authorized to use amounts
authorized under subsection (a), regardless of the
appropriations account through which the amounts may be
provided, for making grant awards for support of research and
development activities.''.
TITLE III--STUDIES
SEC. 301. STUDY OF MARKETS ENABLED BY ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNOLOGIES FOR FUTURE AIRCRAFT.
(a) Objective.--The NASA Administrator shall conduct a
study to identify and quantify new markets that would be
created, as well as existing markets that would be expanded,
by the incorporation of the technologies developed pursuant
to section 101 into future commercial aircraft. As part of
the study, the NASA Administrator shall identify whether any
of the performance characteristics specified in section
101(a) would need to be made more stringent in order to
create new markets or expand existing markets. The NASA
Administrator shall seek input from at least the aircraft
manufacturing industry, academia, and the airlines in
carrying out the study.
(b) Report.--A report containing the results of the study
shall be provided to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate within 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the NASA Administrator $500,000 to
carry out this section.
SEC. 302. ASSESSMENT OF WAKE TURBULENCE RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Assessment.--The FAA Administrator shall enter into an
arrangement with the National Research Council for an
assessment of the FAA's proposed wake turbulence research and
development program. The assessment shall include--
(1) an evaluation of the research and development goals and
objectives of the program;
(2) a listing of any additional research and development
objectives should be included in the program;
(3) any modifications that will be necessary for the
program to achieve the program's goals and objectives on
schedule and within the proposed level of resources; and
(4) an evaluation of the roles, if any, that should be
played by other Federal agencies, such as NASA and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in wake
turbulence research and development, and how those efforts
could be coordinated.
(b) Report.--A report containing the results of the
assessment shall be provided to the Committee on Science of
the House of Representatives and to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the FAA Administrator for fiscal year
2004, $500,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 303. ASSESSMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
CAPABILITIES.
(a) Assessment.--In order to ensure that the Nation retains
needed capabilities in fundamental aerodynamics and other
areas of fundamental aeronautics research, the NASA
Administrator shall enter into an arrangement with the
National Research Council for an assessment of the Nation's
future requirements for fundamental aeronautics research and
the Nation's needs for a skilled research workforce and
research facilities commensurate with the requirements. The
assessment shall include an identification of any projected
gaps and recommendations for what steps should be taken by
the Federal Government to eliminate those gaps.
(b) Report.--The NASA Administrator shall transmit the
assessment described in subsection (a), along with NASA's
response to the assessment, to the Committee on Science of
the House of Representatives and to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later
than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the NASA Administrator $500,000 for
fiscal year 2004 to carry out this section.
______
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Inhofe, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Johnson, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 310. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for the coverage of marriage and family therapist services and
mental health counselor services under part B of the Medicare program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2003'' with my
distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. Specifically, the
``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2003'' permits mental
health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare
for services provided to seniors. This will result in an increased
choice of mental health providers for seniors and enhance their ability
to access mental health services in their communities.
This legislation is especially crucial to rural seniors who are often
forced to travel long distances to utilize the services of mental
health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. Rural
communities have difficulty recruiting and retaining providers,
especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a mental
health counselor or a marriage and family therapist is the only mental
health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today-
compounds the situation because only psychiatrists, clinical
psychologists, clinical social workers and clinical nurse specialists
are able to bill Medicare for their services.
It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of
mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists as well as
the critical role they play in the mental health care infrastructure.
These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum
of masters level social workers, and yet are excluded from the Medicare
program.
Particularly troubling to me is the fact that seniors have
disproportionately higher rates of depression and suicide than other
populations. Additionally, 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated
Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas
and one-fifth of all rural counties have ``no'' mental health services
of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95
percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a
psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. It is quite
obvious we have an enormous task ahead of us to reduce these staggering
statistics. providing mental health counselors and marriage and family
therapists the ability to bill Medicare for their services is a key
part of the solution.
Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional
shortage area and will greatly benefit from this legislation. Wyoming
has 174 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 263
[[Page S1988]]
clinical social workers for a total of 474 Medicare eligible mental
health providers. Enactment of the ``Seniors Mental Health Access
Improvement Act of 2001'' will more than double the number of mental
health providers available to seniors in my State with the addition of
528 mental health counselors and 61 marriage and family therapists
currently licensed in the state.
I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and
well-being of our Nation's seniors and I strongly urge all my
colleagues to become a cosponsor.
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. 310
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 ``Seniors Mental Health Access
Improvement Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST SERVICES
AND MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR SERVICES UNDER PART
B OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.
(a) Coverage of Services.--
(1) In general.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (U), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (V)(iii), by inserting ``and'' after
the semicolon at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(W) marriage and family therapist services (as defined in
subsection (ww)(1)) and mental health counselor services (as
defined in subsection (ww)(3));''.
(2) Definitions.--Section 1861 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``Marriage and Family Therapist Services; Marriage and Family
Therapist; Mental Health Counselor Services; Mental Health Counselor
``(ww)(1) The term `marriage and family therapist services'
means services performed by a marriage and family therapist
(as defined in paragraph (2)) for the diagnosis and treatment
of mental illnesses, which the marriage and family therapist
is legally authorized to perform under State law (or the
State regulatory mechanism provided by State law) of the
State in which such services are performed, as would
otherwise be covered if furnished by a physician or as an
incident to a physician's professional service, but only if
no facility or other provider charges or is paid any amounts
with respect to the furnishing of such services.
``(2) The term `marriage and family therapist' means an
individual who--
``(A) possesses a master's or doctoral degree which
qualifies for licensure or certification as a marriage and
family therapist pursuant to State law;
``(B) after obtaining such degree has performed at least 2
years of clinical supervised experience in marriage and
family therapy; and
``(C) in the case of an individual performing services in a
State that provides for licensure or certification of
marriage and family therapists, is licensed or certified as a
marriage and family therapist in such State.
``(3) The term `mental health counselor services' means
services performed by a mental health counselor (as defined
in paragraph (4)) for the diagnosis and treatment of mental
illnesses which the mental health counselor is legally
authorized to perform under State law (or the State
regulatory mechanism provided by the State law) of the State
in which such services are performed, as would otherwise be
covered if furnished by a physician or as incident to a
physician's professional service, but only if no facility or
other provider charges or is paid any amounts with respect to
the furnishing of such services.
``(4) The term `mental health counselor' means an
individual who--
``(A) possesses a master's or doctor's degree in mental
health counseling or a related field;
``(B) after obtaining such a degree has performed at least
2 years of supervised mental health counselor practice; and
``(C) in the case of an individual performing services in a
State that provides for licensure or certification of mental
health counselors or professional counselors, is licensed or
certified as a mental health counselor or professional
counselor in such State.''.
(3) Provision for payment under part b.--Section
1832(a)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395k(a)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``(v) marriage and family therapist services and mental
health counselor services;''.
(4) Amount of payment.--Section 1833(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and (U)'' and inserting ``(U)''; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, and (V) with respect to marriage and family
therapist services and mental health counselor services under
section 1861(s)(2)(W), the amounts paid shall be 80 percent
of the lesser of the actual charge for the services or 75
percent of the amount determined for payment of a
psychologist under subparagraph (L)''.
(5) Exclusion of marriage and family therapist services and
mental health counselor services from skilled nursing
facility prospective payment system.--Section
1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)), as amended in section 301(a), is
amended by inserting ``marriage and family therapist services
(as defined in subsection (ww)(1)), mental health counselor
services (as defined in section 1861(ww)(3)),'' after
``qualified psychologist services,''.
(6) Inclusion of marriage and family therapists and mental
health counselors as practitioners for assignment of
claims.--Section 1842(b)(18)(C) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(18)(C)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new clauses:
``(vii) A marriage and family therapist (as defined in
section 1861(ww)(2)).
``(viii) A mental health counselor (as defined in section
1861(ww)(4)).''.
(b) Coverage of Certain Mental Health Services Provided in
Certain Settings.--
(1) Rural health clinics and federally qualified health
centers.--Section 1861(aa)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``or by a
clinical social worker (as defined in subsection (hh)(1)),,''
and inserting ``, by a clinical social worker (as defined in
subsection (hh)(1)), by a marriage and family therapist (as
defined in subsection (ww)(2)), or by a mental health
counselor (as defined in subsection (ww)(4)),''.
(2) Hospice programs.--Section 1861(dd)(2)(B)(i)(III) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)(B)(i)(III))
is amended by inserting ``or a marriage and family therapist
(as defined in subsection (ww)(2))'' after ``social worker''.
(c) Authorization of Marriage and Family Therapists To
Develop Discharge Plans for Post-Hospital Services.--Section
1861(ee)(2)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(ee)(2)(G)) is amended by inserting ``marriage and
family therapist (as defined in subsection (ww)(2)),'' after
``social worker,''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to services furnished on or after
January 1, 2004.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague
Senator Craig Thomas today in introducing the ``Seniors Mental Health
Access Improvement Act of 2003.''
This bill would expand Medicare coverage to Licensed Professional
Counselors and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists. One result of
this expanded coverage will be to increase seniors' access to mental
health services, especially in rural and underserved areas.
Licensed Professional Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapist
are currently excluded from Medicare coverage even though they meet the
same education, training, and examination requirements that clinical
social workers do. The only difference is that clinical social workers
have been covered under Medicare for over a decade.
Why do we need this legislation? The mental health needs of older
Americans are not being met. Although the rate of suicide among older
Americans is higher than for any other age group, less than three
percent of older Americans report seeing mental health professionals
for treatment. And going to their primary care physician is simply not
enough. Research shows that most primary care providers receive
inadequate mental health training, particularly in geriatrics.
Lack of access to mental health providers is one of the primary
reasons why older Americans don't get the mental health treatment they
need. Not surprisingly, this problem is exacerbated in rural and
underserved areas.
Licensed Professional Counselors are often the only mental health
specialists available in rural and underserved communities. This is
true in my home state of Arkansas, where 91 percent of Arkansans reside
in a mental health professional shortage area.
Since there are more Licensed Professional Counselors practicing in
my state than any other mental health professional, this legislation
will significantly increase the number of Medicare-eligible mental
health providers in Arkansas. Licensed Professional Counselors are
already serving patients who have private insurance or Medicaid. It is
time for Medicare patients to also have access to these professionals.
[[Page S1989]]
The bill we are introducing today is an important first step in
expanding access to good mental health. By including Licensed
Professional Counselors and licensed Marriage and Family Therapists
among the list of providers who deliver mental health services to
Medicare beneficiaries, we will help ensure that all seniors, no matter
where they live, have the opportunity to receive mental health
treatment.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 311. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue
regulations requiring turbojet aircraft of air carriers to be equipped
with missile defense systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that could
have a significant impact on reducing the threat of terrorism towards
our commercial airlines.
Last November, two shoulder-fired SA-7 missiles were launched at an
Israeli airliner as it took off from a Kenyan airport. While these
missiles missed their target, they are a clear example of an ever-
growing threat to all air travel. A similar incident occurred last May
when a U.S. military aircraft in Saudi Arabia was believed to be fired
upon, also with an SA-7 missile. Saudi authorities later found an empty
launch tube near an airbase used by American aircraft. In both cases,
al Qaeda remains the primary suspect.
This is a very real and recognized threat. It is estimated that
thousands of shoulder-fired missiles are in the hands of non-state
actors, rebel groups, terrorists, and other armed non-military
factions. Last May, the FBI warned that given al Qaeda's targeting of
the U.S. airline industry and its access to these weapons, airlines and
law enforcement agencies should remain alert to the potential use of
shoulder-fired missiles against commercial aircraft in the United
States.
We all know that terrorists will continue to try to attack us at our
weakest points. As we continue to increase the screening and security
processes for those boarding our airplanes, it is becoming clear that
terrorists will need to find another avenue to attack us. These
shoulder-fired missiles may be that next avenue.
The bill I am introducing today would equip all turbojet aircraft
used by American aircarriers with missile defense systems. These
devices involve a series of sensors that identify an incoming missile
and a laser or lamp to fool the missile's guidance system. The work
automatically without any action by the pilot.
The U.S. government would pay for the devices for the current
turbojet fleet, approximately 6,800 aircraft, at an estimated cost of
$1 million per plane.
In the meantime, the bill directs the President to use the National
Guard and Coast Guard to patrol areas surrounding airports in order to
prevent attacks by shoulder-fired missiles. Because these are heat-
seeking missiles, aircraft are most vulnerable at lower levels and when
their engines are hottest.
Aircraft missile defense systems work. Countermeasures are already in
place on many U.S. military aircraft, where they have proven effective.
Shoulder-fired missiles are a serious threat to our airlines, our
economy, and the personal safety of every American airline passenger.
With a relatively small investment in proven technology to counter that
threat, we can provide further protection to air travellers.
I urge my colleagues to support 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. 311
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 ``Commercial Airline Missile
Defense Act''.
SEC. 2. REGULATIONS REQUIRING MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
issue regulations that require all turbojet aircraft used by
an air carrier for scheduled air service to be equipped with
a missile defense system.
(b) Schedule for Installation.--The regulations shall
establish a schedule for the purchase and installation of
such systems on turbojet aircraft currently in service and
turbojet aircraft contracted for before the date of issuance
of the regulations.
(c) New Aircraft.--The regulations shall also require that
all turbojet aircraft contracted for on or after the date of
issuance of the regulations by an air carrier for scheduled
air service be equipped with a missile defense system.
(d) Deadlines for Commencement of Installation.--The
regulations shall require that installation and operation of
missile defense systems under the regulations begin no later
than December 31, 2003.
SEC. 3. PURCHASE OF MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS BY THE SECRETARY.
The Secretary of Transportation shall purchase and make
available to an air carrier such missile defense systems as
may be necessary for the air carrier to comply with the
regulations issued under section 2 (other than subsection
(c)) with respect to turbojet aircraft used by the air
carrier for scheduled air service.
SEC. 4. RESPONSIBILITY OF AIR CARRIER.
Under the regulations issued under section 2, an air
carrier shall be responsible for installing and operating a
missile defense system purchased and made available by the
Secretary of Transportation under section 3.
SEC. 5. PROGRESS REPORTS.
Not later than January 1, 2004, and each July 1 and January
1 thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit
to Congress a report on the progress being made in
implementation of this Act, including the regulations issued
to carry out this Act.
SEC. 6. INTERIM SECURITY MEASURES
(a) In General.--In order to provide interim security
before the deployment of missile defense systems for turbojet
aircraft required under section 2, the President shall--
(1) exercise the President's authority under title 32,
United States Code, to elevate National Guard units to
Federal status for the purpose of patrolling areas
surrounding airports to protect against the threat posed by
missiles and other ordnance to commercial aircraft; and
(2) deploy units of the United States Coast Guard, in
coordination with the Secretary of Transportation and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, for the purpose of patrolling
areas surrounding airports to protect against the threat
posed by missiles and other ordnance to commercial aircraft.
(b) Progress Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to
Congress a report on the progress being made to implement
this section.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Aircraft and air carrier.--The terms ``aircraft'' and
``air carrier'' have the meaning such terms have under
section 40102 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) Missile defense system.--The term ``missile defense
system'' means an appropriate (as certified by the Secretary
of Transportation) electronic system that would
automatically--
(A) identify when the aircraft is threatened by an incoming
missile or other ordnance;
(B) detect the source of the threat; and
(C) disrupt the guidance system of the incoming missile or
other ordnance, which is intended to result in the incoming
missile or other ordnance being diverted off course and
missing the aircraft.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Grassley Mr. Corzine, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Clinton, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Bayh, Mr. DeWine, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lautenberg, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 312. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
extend the availability of allotments for fiscal years 1998 through
2001 under the State Children's Health Insurance Program; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that
would promote the health and well- being of America's children by
restoring funds to the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as
CHIP. CHIP has been an unqualified success, helping millions of
children. The program has the potential to help millions more. However,
it is only as effective as we make it.
In 1997, I was joined by Senator Chafee in introducing the Children's
Health Insurance Program as part of the Balanced Budget Act. At that
time, 10 million children were uninsured. Today, 4.6 million have
coverage; this includes over 21,000 children in the State of West
Virginia. I believe the families touched by this program would agree it
serves its purpose well.
Unfortunately, this purpose may be seriously undermined. On September
30, 2002, $1.2 billion in unspent CHIP funds reverted back to the
national treasury because of a budget compromise. On September 30,
2003, an additional $1.5 billion will be returned to
[[Page S1990]]
the treasury. This combined $2.7 billion loss will serve a huge blow to
the program. As a result of it, States may be forced to stop accepting
new children and may have to cut current participants from their rolls.
In the meanwhile, money intended for the care of children will be spent
on other initiatives. Healthy kids will go without preventative care,
and sick kids will go without treatment or medicine.
However, such a tragedy is preventable. Today, I am joined by
Senators Chafee, Kennedy, Snowe, and others in introducing a bill that
would restore full CHIP funding over 2 years and allow the program to
continue its enormously important work without cutting the benefits of
a single child.
I am pleased to tell you that our legislation enjoys bicameral,
bipartisan support and is endorsed by the National Governors
Association, NGA. Though it is not a permanent solution to the problems
faced by CHIP, this proposal would go far in addressing them. Most
notably, it would provide real relief to States struggling to cover
beneficiaries under Medicaid and would allow them to offer the care
that every child needs and deserves.
In order to achieve this, we must provide States with the resources
they need. Today, we have introduced a bill which will do just that.
However, this body must make its enactment a priority. The children we
serve deserve nothing less.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 312
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AVAILABILITY OF SCHIP ALLOTMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEARS 1998 THROUGH 2001.
(a) Extending Availability of SCHIP Allotments for Fiscal
Years 1998 Through 2001.--
(1) Retained and redistributed allotments for fiscal years
1998 and 1999.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i) and (2)(A)(ii) of
section 2104(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397dd(g)) are each amended by striking ``fiscal year 2002''
and inserting ``fiscal year 2004''.
(2) Extension and revision of retained and redistributed
allotments for fiscal year 2000.--
(A) Permitting and extending retention of portion of fiscal
year 2000 allotment.--Paragraph (2) of such section 2104(g)
is amended--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``and 1999'' and inserting
``through 2000''; and
(ii) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) 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, 50 percent of that amount shall remain available
for expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year
2004.''.
(B) Redistributed allotments.--Paragraph (1) of such
section 2104(g) is amended--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or for fiscal year
2000 by the end of fiscal year 2002,'' after ``fiscal year
2001,'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1998 or 1999'' and
inserting ``1998, 1999, or 2000'';
(iii) in subparagraph (A)(i)--
(I) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I),
(II) by striking the period at the end of subclause (II)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
``(III) the fiscal year 2000 allotment, the amount
specified in subparagraph (C)(i) (less the total of the
amounts under clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied
by the ratio of the amount specified in subparagraph (C)(ii)
for the State to the amount specified in subparagraph
(C)(iii).'';
(iv) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or 1999'' and
inserting ``, 1999, or 2000'';
(v) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``with respect to
fiscal year 1998 or 1999'';
(vi) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--
(I) by inserting ``with respect to fiscal year 1998, 1999,
or 2000,'' after ``subsection (e),''; and
(II) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''; and
(vii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal
year 2000.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(III)--
``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount
specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2000,
less the total amount remaining available pursuant to
paragraph (2)(A)(iii);
``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is
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); and
``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for
all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph
(A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2000, of the amounts
specified in clause (ii).''.
(C) Conforming amendments.--Such section 2104(g) is further
amended--
(i) in its heading, by striking ``and 1999'' and inserting
``, 1999, and 2000''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)--
(I) by striking ``or fiscal year 1999'' and inserting ``,
fiscal year 1999, or fiscal year 2000''; and
(II) by striking ``or November 30, 2001'' and inserting
``November 30, 2001, or November 30, 2002'', respectively.
(3) Extension and revision of retained and redistributed
allotments for fiscal year 2001.--
(A) Permitting and extending retention of portion of fiscal
year 2001 allotment.--Paragraph (2) of such section 2104(g),
as amended in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), is further amended--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``2000'' and inserting
``2001''; and
(ii) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the
following:
``(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, 50 percent of that amount shall remain available for
expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year
2005.''.
(B) Redistributed allotments.--Paragraph (1) of such
section 2104(g), as amended in paragraph (2)(B), is further
amended--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or for fiscal year
2001 by the end of fiscal year 2003,'' after ``fiscal year
2002,'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999, or 2000'' and
inserting ``1999, 2000, or 2001'';
(iii) in subparagraph (A)(i)--
(I) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (II),
(II) by striking the period at the end of subclause (III)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
``(IV) the fiscal year 2001 allotment, the amount specified
in subparagraph (D)(i) (less the total of the amounts under
clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied by the ratio of
the amount specified in subparagraph (D)(ii) for the State to
the amount specified in subparagraph (D)(iii).'';
(iv) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or 2000'' and
inserting ``2000, or 2001'';
(v) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
(II) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
(III) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) notwithstanding subsection (e), with respect to
fiscal year 2001, shall remain available for expenditure by
the State through the end of fiscal year 2005; and''; and
(vi) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal
year 2001.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(IV)--
``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount
specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2001,
less the total amount remaining available pursuant to
paragraph (2)(A)(iv);
``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is
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); and
``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for
all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph
(A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2001, of the amounts
specified in clause (ii).''.
(C) Conforming amendments.--Such section 2104(g) is further
amended--
(i) in its heading, by striking ``and 2000'' and inserting
``2000, and 2001''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)--
(I) by striking ``or fiscal year 2000'' and inserting
``fiscal year 2000, or fiscal year 2001''; and
(II) by striking ``or November 30, 2002,'' and inserting
``November 30, 2002, or November 30, 2003,'', respectively.
(4) Effective date.--This subsection, and the amendments
made by this subsection, shall be effective as if this
subsection had been enacted on September 30, 2002, and
amounts under title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397aa et seq.) from allotments for fiscal years 1998 through
2000 are available for expenditure on and after October 1,
2002, under the amendments made by this subsection as if this
subsection had been enacted on September 30, 2002.
(b) Authority for Qualifying States To Use Portion of SCHIP
Funds for Medicaid Expenditures.--Section 2105 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(g) Authority for Qualifying States To Use Certain Funds
for Medicaid Expenditures.--
``(1) State option.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, with respect to allotments for fiscal years 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, for fiscal years in which such allotments are
available under subsections (e) and (g) of section 2104, a
qualifying State (as defined in paragraph (2)) may elect to
use not more than 20 percent of such allotments (instead
[[Page S1991]]
of for expenditures under this title) for payments for such
fiscal year under title XIX in accordance with subparagraph
(B).
``(B) Payments to states.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a qualifying State that
has elected the option described in subparagraph (A), subject
to the total amount of funds described with respect to the
State in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall pay the State
an amount each quarter equal to the additional amount that
would have been paid to the State under title XIX for
expenditures of the State for the fiscal year described in
clause (ii) if the enhanced FMAP (as determined under
subsection (b)) had been substituted for the Federal medical
assistance percentage (as defined in section 1905(b)) of such
expenditures.
``(ii) Expenditures described.--For purposes of clause (i),
the expenditures described in this clause are expenditures
for such fiscal years for providing medical assistance under
title XIX to individuals who have not attained age 19 and
whose family income exceeds 150 percent of the poverty line.
``(iii) No impact on determination of budget neutrality for
waivers.--In the case of a qualifying State that uses amounts
paid under this subsection for expenditures described in
clause (ii) that are incurred under a waiver approved for the
State, any budget neutrality determinations with respect to
such waiver shall be determined without regard to such
amounts paid.
``(2) Qualifying state.--In this subsection, the term
`qualifying State' means a State that--
``(A) as of April 15, 1997, has an income eligibility
standard with respect to any 1 or more categories of children
(other than infants) who are eligible for medical assistance
under section 1902(a)(10)(A) or under a waiver under section
1115 implemented on January 1, 1994, that is up to 185
percent of the poverty line or above; and
``(B) satisfies the requirements described in paragraph
(3).
``(3) Requirements.--The requirements described in this
paragraph are the following:
``(A) SCHIP income eligibility.--The State has a State
child health plan that (whether implemented under title XIX
or this title)--
``(i) as of January 1, 2001, has an income eligibility
standard that is at least 200 percent of the poverty line or
has an income eligibility standard that exceeds 200 percent
of the poverty line under a waiver under section 1115 that is
based on a child's lack of health insurance;
``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), does not limit the
acceptance of applications for children; and
``(iii) provides benefits to all children in the State who
apply for and meet eligibility standards on a statewide
basis.
``(B) No waiting list imposed.--With respect to children
whose family income is at or below 200 percent of the poverty
line, the State does not impose any numerical limitation,
waiting list, or similar limitation on the eligibility of
such children for child health assistance under such State
plan.
``(C) Additional requirements.--The State has implemented
at least 3 of the following policies and procedures (relating
to coverage of children under title XIX and this title):
``(i) Uniform, simplified application form.--With respect
to children who are eligible for medical assistance under
section 1902(a)(10)(A), the State uses the same uniform,
simplified application form (including, if applicable,
permitting application other than in person) for purposes of
establishing eligibility for benefits under title XIX and
this title.
``(ii) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not apply
any asset test for eligibility under section 1902(l) or this
title with respect to children.
``(iii) Adoption of 12-month continuous enrollment.--The
State provides that eligibility shall not be regularly
redetermined more often than once every year under this title
or for children described in section 1902(a)(10)(A).
``(iv) Same verification and redetermination policies;
automatic reassessment of eligibility.--With respect to
children who are eligible for medical assistance under
section 1902(a)(10)(A), the State provides for initial
eligibility determinations and redeterminations of
eligibility using the same verification policies (including
with respect to face-to-face interviews), forms, and
frequency as the State uses for such purposes under this
title, and, as part of such redeterminations, provides for
the automatic reassessment of the eligibility of such
children for assistance under title XIX and this title.
``(v) Outstationing enrollment staff.--The State provides
for the receipt and initial processing of applications for
benefits under this title and for children under title XIX at
facilities defined as disproportionate share hospitals under
section 1923(a)(1)(A) and Federally-qualified health centers
described in section 1905(l)(2)(B) consistent with section
1902(a)(55).''.
Mr. CHAFFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Rockefeller
and others today in introducing a bipartisan compromise proposal to
extend expiring State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP,
funds. I am pleased that we recently secured the commitment of Budget
Chairman Nickles to include funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget
resolution for this important proposal, as well as the commitment of
Finance Chairman Grassley to address this issue quickly in the Finance
Committee.
This legislation will allow States to continue using $1.2 billion in
funds through fiscal year 2004 that were originally allocated for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and that reverted to the Federal Treasury
on September 30, 2002. This provision extends for one additional year
the availability of $1.5 billion in SCHIP funds that are scheduled to
expire by the end of fiscal year 2003. This legislation also applies a
redistribution formula to the unspent fiscal year 2000 and 2001
allotments, allowing 50 percent of each year's unspent money to be
retained by states that have not used their entire allotment, with the
remaining 50 percent of unspent money being redistributed to states
that have spent all of the respective year's allotment.
This compromise will prevent States from losing their unexpended
SCHIP allotments and will allow other States, such as Rhode Island, to
receive redistributed funds they need to continue providing health
insurance to children. Without this compromise, the result could be a
reduction of up to $2.7 billion for children's health programs
throughout the United States. This would undermine the overwhelming
success of state SCHIP programs in providing quality health coverage to
millions of uninsured children. Starting this year, States would have
no choice but to begin imposing severe enrollment cutbacks; eligible
children who are not yet enrolled in the program would continue to go
without health insurance.
Preserving the expiring funds is essential to guaranteeing that
nearly one million children will not lose their health insurance. The
Office of Management and Budget recently projected that the number of
children insured through SCHIP will fall by 900,000 between Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2006 unless appropriate congressional action is taken to
restore the expiring funds.
At a time when our Nation's uninsured rate continues to climb above
40 million, it makes little sense to take away Federal funding from
States that are desperately trying to find and enroll needy children.
This legislation is crucial to many States, including my state of Rhode
Island. Without this remedy, Rhode Island is set to run out of SCHIP
funds by fiscal year 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 toward ensuring that
our Nation's children will have long-term access to quality health
insurance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues
in introducing a bipartisan bill to extend the availability of the
unused funds in the Children's Health Insurance Program, so that
hundreds of thousands of children can retain their health coverage, and
so that the CHIP program can continue to grow.
We recently celebrated the fifth anniversary of the CHIP program.
Over its relatively short life, the program has served children across
America, providing health coverage for those who would be otherwise
uninsured. Last year, over 4.5 million children received health
insurance through CHIP or through Medicaid expansions under CHIP,
including 105,000 children in Massachusetts. Health insurance provides
children with a healthy start in life, and CHIP is important in
providing that healthy start for millions of children in moderate-
income working families.
Unfortunately, because of a technical provision in the law, $1.2
billion in unspent CHIP funds reverted to the Treasury last October.
Another $1.5 billion will revert to the Treasury this October if
Congress fails to act. We know that 20 States are projected to run out
of CHIP funds soon, including 5 States--Alaska, Arizona, Maryland, New
Jersey, and Rhode Island--that are projected to run out of money as
early as next year.
It makes no sense to allow funds to revert to the Treasury when there
is so much unmet need. Some States have not been able to use all their
CHIP
[[Page S1992]]
funds within the allotted period in current law. Yet some of these same
States will run short of funds in the very near future, forcing them to
drop children from their programs. One of our Nation's most fundamental
principles should be to give every child the opportunity to succeed in
life. But that principle rings hollow if children must fact a lifetime
of disability and illness because they did not have needed health care
in their early years.
That is why this bill we introduce today is so important. It enables
States to maintain and expand their CHIP programs. It lets States keep
a portion of their unspent funds that would otherwise expire. It
reallocates the rest of the funds to States that have already used
their original allocation to enroll children in their program and are
ready, willing, and able to enroll even more children. This
reallocation is vital to enrolling the highest possible number of
children in CHIP. The retention and reallocation of these funds will
prevent an unacceptable loss of coverage for the Nation's children.
Our legislation moves us one step closer to fulfilling the promise
that all children should have adequate health insurance coverage. I
urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, so that we
can give the Nation's children the healthy start they deserve.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues
today in introducing our legislation restoring funding for the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. I would like to thank my
colleagues for their willingness to work with me to secure the deal
that has led to the introduction of this legislation and ultimately its
signature into law. SCHIP is essential to ensuring continued health
care coverage for America's children.
During debate over the Omnibus appropriations bill, I worked with my
colleagues to secure an agreement that will restore $2.7 billion in
expired, or soon to expire, SCHIP funding. This compromise has the
support of our Nation's governors and will ensure that this funding
remains in the program and continues to provide children with access to
the care that is vital to their healthy development.
I especially appreciate the willingness of Majority Leader Frist,
Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Budget Committee Chairman
Nickles to work with us during the omnibus debate to develop the
agreement. Because of their commitment to finding a solution, we are
able to move forward with this important policy, the first step being
introduction of this bill.
I believe the agreement that I was able to craft with my colleagues
is the most appropriate way to restore the SCHIP funding. Because the
budget resolution adopted by the House of Representatives does not
include adequate budget authority to restore this funding, the floor
amendment that I planned to offer to the omnibus appropriations bill
would have been subject to a budget point of order in the House. Given
that this point of order would have laid against the provision, the
likelihood that the House would have stripped the provision during
conference was great. In light of those circumstances, I believe that
the agreement I negotiated is the most appropriate way to ensure that
this funding is restored.
The agreement that was struck would, in exchange for withdrawing the
amendment that filed to the omnibus appropriations bill to restore
SCHIP funding, provide the support of the Majority Leader and Chairmen
Grassley and Nickels to make necessary changes to remove the budget
hurdles that have prevented this legislation from being enacted.
Specifically, Senator Nickles has provided his commitment to
reallocate through the Fiscal Year 04 budget process additional budget
authority for SCHIP in Fiscal Year 03 and Fiscal Year 04. I am
confident that under Senator Nickles' leadership, the budget process
will move smoothly and expeditiously and that we will be able to speed
the adoption of this proposal in both the Senate and House and
Representatives.
Further, Chairman Grassley has agreed that as soon as the necessary
budget adjustments are made he will move this bill through his
committee. Again, under his strong leadership I am confident that we
will get this done.
Finally, Majority Leader Frist has agreed to place the legislation on
the Senate calendar as soon as it is reported from the Finance
Committee.
I might add that while I am aware that this agreement was forged in
the Senate, the underlying policy contained in this bill was developed
through a bipartisan, bicameral process led by Senators Grassley and
Baucus last fall. I hope that the House of Representatives will work
with us to make the necessary changes to the Fiscal Year 03 and Fiscal
Year 04 budget allocations and to see this legislation enacted into law
in a timely manner.
How it works is this, once passed, our legislation will restore $2.7
billion in SCHIP funding that has either reverted to the treasury or is
scheduled to revert to HHS for redistribution. On October 1, 2002, $1.2
billion reverted to the treasury in unspent SCHIP funding from 1998 and
1999. If we do not recapture this funding, it will be lost to the
program. Our agreement allows the states to reclaim this unspent money
and provides until the end of Fiscal Year 04 to spend it on health
insurance provided by SCHIP.
The policy contained in this legislation also strikes a compromise
between States that have spent all of their 2000 and 2001 allotments,
and those that have not, by dividing the funding evenly between them.
Those States that have not spent all of their allocations will be able
to retain half of their funding, while the remaining States will
receive additional allotments from the redistributed funding.
It also rewards those States that used Medicaid to expand access to
health care for low income children prior to the creation of SCHIP, by
allowing them to access 20 percent of their SCHIP funding to serve this
population. this compromise has the endorsement of the National
Governors Association and children's health advocates from across the
country.
In my home State of Maine, where we are using SCHIP to insure over
14,500 children, this proposal will allow the State to keep $13.24
million in SCHIP funding and will provide until the end of Fiscal Year
04 to spend it. In Maine, $13.24 million will help provide health care
assistance to a lot of children, children who otherwise would not have
access to immunizations, well-baby visits and yearly check-ups.
While I agreed to forgo the appropriations process to enact this
policy change, I certainly have not abandoned my effort to restore the
funding. If in fact, the introduction of this legislation should
demonstrate that I am more committed than ever to seeing the SCHIP
funding restored. What's more, the Majority Leader and Chairs of the
Finance and Budget Committees have provided their support to see this
important legislation enacted into law. Adding their endorsement to
this effort, which already has garnered strong bipartisan support,
certainly will speed its passage.
Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and look forward to
working together to advance this critical policy.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, we need to address the impending
crisis that may leave thousands of children in New York and around the
country without health insurance or access to health care.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, has been
remarkably successful in providing for the health of needy children
whose parents would otherwise be unable to afford health insurance. New
York has been on the frontlines of this effort, implementing its Child
Health Plus program even before the Federal Government recognized the
promise of CHIP and began committing Federal funds. Thanks to those
Federal funds, New York has been able to expand its program. I'm proud
to say that as of November 2002, we have been able to enroll 475,000
children and thereby make a significant dent in the number of uninsured
children in my State.
Those accomplishments aside, we still have much work to do. Estimates
of the number of SCHIP or Medicaid eligible children in New York who
are not currently enrolled range from 200,000 to 400,000. As the
economy continues to slip, and more hardworking Americans lose their
jobs or their benefits, I fear that these numbers will only increase.
Now more than ever, children across our Nation depend on SCHIP to
[[Page S1993]]
help them obtain the health care they need.
I had hoped that the recent Senate passed omnibus appropriations bill
would act to preserve SCHIP. Incredibly, just when the uninsured are
increasing, SCHIP funding is being cut. Just when State budgets are
disintegrating, $2.7 billion of previously allocated SCHIP money is
flowing out of states and back to the Federal treasury. Indeed, the
Office of Management and Budget projected earlier this year that the
number of children insured through SCHIP will fall by 900,000 between
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2006 unless appropriate congressional action is
taken to restore the expiring funds.
This is why I support the bill introduced by my colleagues, Senator
Rockefeller and Senator Chafee. Their legislation would sustain SCHIP
programs throughout the country, and save New York from losing $526
million in unspent 1998/1999 funds. This bill extends the deadline for
States set to return funds to the Federal treasury another two years. I
also support the measure to redistribute the portion of unspent funds
to States. This year, New York's annual allotment will not cover one-
half of the Federal share of its program expenditures. New York is
counting on those redistributed funds to make up the shortfall.
In the last Congress, I had supported measures to fix SCHIP so that
States could continue to take care of their children. I was proud to
co-sponor Senate bill 2860, also introduced by Senator Rockefeller. And
in the waning days of the last session, we were very close to a
solution. We had a good proposal supported by members of both parties,
in both houses of Congress, to help States in their efforts to insure
their children. Unfortunately, because of the objections of a few, we
were unable to accomplish our goal before the session ended. Without
changes in the SCHIP program, I fear that many children in New York and
around the country will be left without adequate health care.
Our support of SCHIP will make a critical difference in the health of
our children, and that support must come now. Already, nearly $1.2
billion in Federal funds have expired and reverted to the treasury on
September 30. What's more, CMS is delaying redistribution of unspent
2000 funds because it is unsure of what formula we in Congress will
ultimately set. State governments are being forced to draft their
budgets without knowing what Federal funds will be available. The time
has come to fix this problem, and I strongly urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Additionally, in the long term, we must make a commitment to
strengthen SCHIP which has already proven so effective in insuring so
many of our Nation's children. The initial formula that set each
State's annual allotment has left many States with money that they will
never spend, while short-changing States that have a higher burden of
uninsured children. While the redistribution of funds has helped
mitigate this inequity somewhat, we need to improve the primary
allocation formula to more accurately account for each State's
uninsured populations.
Looking further ahead, as SCHIP enrollment increases, more States
will exhaust their yearly allotments, as New York does now. This will
mean smaller amounts of unspent funds to be distributed to a larger
pool of States. Without significant changes, the long-term health of
the program is in jeopardy. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in the future to address these fundamental issues, but until
then, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Rockefeller,
Chafee and a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing a bill to
restore funding which was previously allocated to the State Children's
Health Insurance Program, SCHIP.
Established in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act, SCHIP was
developed as a means for states to provide basic health coverage for
uninsured children of low income families, who are not eligible for
coverage under Medicaid. Through the Fedeal-State matching program,
SCHIP has provided coverage for millions of uninsured children. In
fiscal year 2001, 4.4 million children were enrolled in SCHIP. Today
every State in the country, five territories, and the District of
Columbia are using SCHIP to develop innovative programs to expand
health coverage to even more children.
In my home State of Arizona, our SCHIP program, KidsCare, was
developed to provide low income children with medical, dental, and
vision coverage. KidsCare has successfully enrolled almost 50,000
uninsured children and is anticipating reaching 60,000 by fiscal year
2004. When Arizona found that children are more likely to received
health care if their parents also have access, and the flexibility of
SCHIP enabled Arizona to expand its program. Last October Arizona began
covering not just children, but also their parents. Arizona now
provides health coverage to almost 8,000 uninsured parents. Although a
substantial number of eligible children and parents still need
coverage, I believe this relatively young program is nothing short of a
success.
Due to Congressional inaction, approximately $2.7 billion of unspent
SCHIP funding reverted to the Treasury at the end of last year. The
bill we are introducing today would return that money to SCHIP,
ensuring that funds are allocated to States that need more funding to
continue existing programs, while allowing other States to develop new
and innovative programs to help our Nation's children get access to
health care.
The number of uninsured Americans reached 41 million in 2001 and
continues to rise. However SCHIP is successfully reducing those numbers
for one of the most vulnerable populations in our Nation, our children.
I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation
to return the funds that belong in SCHIP and to ensure that we are
expanding, not reducing, the number of children covered through this
innovative program.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Frist, and Mr.
Bingaman):
S. 314. A bill to make improvements in the Foundation for the
National Institutes of Health; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Gregg,
Senator Frist, and Senator Bingaman in introducing legislation to
improve the role of the Foundation for the National Institutes of
Health.
The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Improvement Act
that we introduce today makes several improvements in the 1990 law that
established the Foundation. Most significantly, the bill assures that
the Foundation will receive $500,000 from the NIH to support its
administrative and operating expenses. These funds will enable the
Foundation to use its resources for the actual support of projects to
strengthen NIH programs, rather than raise money for its own expenses.
In addition, the bill makes clear that the NIH Director and the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs are ex officio members of the
Foundation's board of directors.
Congress established the Foundation to raise private funds to support
the research of the NIH. Since its incorporation as a private,
nonprofit organization in Maryland 7 years ago, for every $1 that the
Foundation has received in support from the NIH, it has raised $13 in
private funds to support the work of NIH.
By last fall, the Foundation was managing 20 programs with multi-year
revenue and funding goals of over $45 million. For example, the Edmond
J. Safra Family Lodge on the NIH campus will be completed in the summer
of 2004 using private funds donated through the Foundation, with
services and land donated by the NIH. Families of patients receiving
in-patient cancer treatment at the NIH Clinical Center will have the
Lodge as a place to stay, at no cost to them.
In addition, the Foundation has formed partnerships with the NIH to
develop new cancer treatments, to identify biomarkers for
osteoarthritis, and to build on the promise of genomics. Through a
public-private partnership, the Foundation helped accelerate the
sequencing of the mouse genome. The Foundation is also collecting
private funds to study drugs in children. On January 26, 2003, Bill
Gates announced a gift to the NIH through the Foundation of $200
million
[[Page S1994]]
over the next 10 years to support research on global health priorities.
Clearly, the Foundation's role with the NIH will grow productively in
the coming years.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, so
that the Foundation can continue its effective support of the work and
mission of the NIH. 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. 314
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 ``Foundation for the National
Institutes of Health Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH ESTABLISHMENT AND
DUTIES.
Section 499 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by amending subparagraph (D)(ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) Upon the appointment of the appointed members of the
Board under clause (i)(II), the terms of service as members
of the Board of the ex officio members of the Board described
in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) shall terminate.
The ex officio members of the Board described in clauses
(iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) shall continue to serve as
ex officio members of the Board.''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (G), by inserting ``appointed'' after
``that the number of'';
(B) by amending paragraph (3)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) Any vacancy in the membership of the appointed
members of the Board shall be filled in accordance with the
bylaws of the Foundation established in accordance with
paragraph (6), and shall not affect the power of the
remaining appointed members to execute the duties of the
Board.''; and
(C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``appointed'' after
``majority of the'';
(2) in subsection (j)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(d)(2)(B)(i)(II)'' and
inserting ``(d)(6)''; and
(B) in paragraph (10), by striking ``of Health.'' and
inserting ``of Health and the National Institutes of Health
may accept transfers of funds from the Foundation.''; and
(3) by striking subsection (l) and inserting the following:
``(l) Funding.--From amounts appropriated to the National
Institutes of Health, for each fiscal year, the Director of
NIH shall transfer $500,000 to the Foundation.''.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Reid):
S. 315. A bill to support first responders to protect homeland
security and prevent and respond to acts of terrorism; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the First
Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003. I thank the Democratic
Leader, Senator Daschle, and Assistant Democratic Leader, Senator Reid,
for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation that will
supply our nation's first responders with the support they so
desperately need to protect homeland security and prevent and respond
to acts of terrorism.
I want to begin by thanking each of our Nation's brave firefighters,
emergency rescuers, law enforcement officers, and other first responder
personnel for the jobs they do for the American public day in and day
out. Our public safety officers are often the first to respond to any
crime or emergency situation. On September 11, the Nation saw that the
first on the scene at the World Trade Center were the heroic
firefighters, police officers and emergency personnel of New York City.
These real-life heroes, many of whom gave the ultimate sacrifice,
remind us of how important it is to support our State and local public
safety partners.
But while we ask our Nation's first responders to defend us as never
before on the front lines against the dark menace of domestic
terrorism, we have failed to supply them with the Federal support they
need and deserve to protect us, as we expect and need them to protect
us.
Since March 12, 2002, the Federal Homeland Security Advisory System
has kept State and local first responders on Yellow Alert, an
``elevated'' threat level declared when there is a significant risk of
terrorist attacks, requiring increased surveillance of critical
locations. On top of this, from September 10 to September 24 last year,
Attorney General Ashcroft declared our country at Orange Threat level,
a ``high'' condition indicating a high probability of a terrorist
attack and when additional precautions by first responders are
necessary at public events. Only hours ago, in fact, counterterrorism
officials warned that the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is
at a higher level than in previous months due to the possibility of
impending military action against Iraq. Debate has already begun at the
new Department of Homeland Defense on whether to put out an alert
warning or to actually raise the national threat level to Orange again.
Counties, cities and towns in my home state of Vermont and across the
U.S. find themselves overwhelmed by increasing homeland security costs
required by the Federal government. Indeed, the National Governors
Association estimates that states incurred around $7 billion in
security costs over the past year alone. As a result, the national
threat alerts and other Federal homeland security requirements have
become unfunded Federal mandates on our State and local governments.
Rutland County Sheriff R.J. Elrick, President of the Vermont Sheriffs'
Association, recently wrote to me, ``We are in dire need of financial
support to keep our personnel trained and equipped to meet the
challenges here at home as we continue our vigilant commitment to fight
terrorism.''
I will ask unanimous consent to place after my remarks in the Record
the letter from the Vermont Sheriffs' Association, as well as letters
from the Professional Firefighters of Vermont, the Vermont Ambulance
Association, and the Vermont Association of Police Chiefs, and Chief
Doug Hoyt of Montpelier, Chief Anthony Bossi of Rutland City, Chief
David Demag of Essex, and Chief Jeffery Whitesell of Winhall.
When terrorists strike, first responders are and will always be the
first people we turn to for help. We place our lives and the lives of
our families and friends in the hands of these officers, trusting that
when called upon they will protect and save us.
Just how, without supplying them with the necessary resources, do we
expect our Nation's first responders to realistically carry out their
duties?
Our State and local law enforcement officers, firefighters and
emergency personnel are full partners in preventing, investigating and
responding to terrorist acts. They need and deserve the full
collaboration of the Federal government to meet these new national
responsibilities.
Washington is buzzing about the literally hundreds of billions of
additional dollars the President plans to ask Congress to provide for
our military services to fight the war on terrorism abroad. The same
cannot be said for helping security here at home, which is shamefully
overlooked. For a year and a half I have been working hard to remedy
that, with allies like our distinguished Democratic Leader and
Assistant Democratic Leader, and New York Senators Schumer and Clinton.
As former chair and now ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I
have made it a high priority to evaluate and meet the needs of our
first responders.
For these reasons, I am proud to introduce the First Responders
Partnership Grant Act to give our nation's law enforcement officers,
firefighters and emergency personnel the resources they need to do
their jobs. Our legislation will establish a grant program at the
Department of Justice to provide $4 billion nationwide in annual
Federal funds to support State and local public safety officers in
their efforts to protect homeland security and prevent and respond to
acts of terrorism.
Similar to the highly successful Department of Justice Community
Oriented Policing Services and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Programs, the First Responder Grants will be made directly to State and
local government units for overtime, equipment, training and facility
expenses to support our law enforcement officers, firefighters and
emergency personnel.
The First Responder Grants may be used to pay up to 90 percent of the
cost of the overtime, equipment, training or facility. In cases of
fiscal hardship, the Justice Department can waive the local match
requirement of 10 percent to provide federal funds for communities that
cannot afford the local match.
[[Page S1995]]
In a world shaped by the violent events of September 11, day after
day we call upon our public safety officers to remain vigilant. We not
only ask them to put their lives at risk in the line of duty, but also,
if need be, give their lives to protect us.
If we take time to listen to our Nation's State and local public
safety partners, they will tell us that they welcome the challenge to
join in our national mission to protect our homeland security. But we
cannot ask our firefighters, emergency personnel, and law enforcement
officers to assume these new national responsibilities without also
providing new federal support.
The First Responders Partnership Grant Program will provide the
necessary federal support for our state and public safety officers to
serve as full partners in the fight to protect our homeland security.
We need our first responders for the security and the life-saving help
they bring to our communities. All they ask is for the tools they need
to do their jobs for us. And for the sake of our own security, that is
not too much to ask.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letters was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Rutland County
Sheriff's Department,
Rutland, VT, January 31, 2003.
Senator Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Leahy: I am responding on behalf of the Vermont
Sheriffs' Association, having reviewed your current proposed
bill entitled, ``First Responders Partnership Grant
Program''.
The Vermont Sheriffs have unanimously voted to endorse your
proposed bill as written. As you know all too well, we are
being asked to perform on the front lines at a level never
before seen, and with fewer resources at the local level. We
are in dire need of financial support to keep our personnel
trained and equipped to meet the challenges here at home as
we continue our vigilant commitment to fight terrorism.
Your continued commitment to the men and women in the
trenches is applauded and appreciated. We remain supportive
of your efforts and look forward to hearing more as the bill
progresses in Congress.
Sincerely,
R.J. Elrick,
Sheriff,
President--Vermont Sheriffs' Association.
____
Professional Firefighters
of Vermont,
White River Jct., VT, January 17, 2003.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Federal Building,
Montpelier, VT.
Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to express my support for
the proposed First Responder Partnership Grant Act of 2003.
As you are well aware it is the local public safety
officers who are our Nations first line of defense whenever
tragedy strikes. Since we are this vital link in protecting
homeland security it is extremely important that we have the
resources needed to safely complete this task. The First
Responders Grant Act provides the financial assistance that
local public safety officers need so greatly.
In closing I wish to thank you for your efforts, and once
again express my support and gratitude for the First
Responders Grant Act of 2003. If I can be of any further
assistance please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Steven Locke,
President.
____
Vermont Ambulance Association,
Rutland, VT, January 29, 2003.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate, Russell Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: The Vermont Ambulance Association and
it's membership strongly support The First Responders
Partnership Grant Act to be introduced in the United States
Senate.
This legislation will bring much needed dollars into local
emergency response systems to be better prepared to respond
to acts of terrorism and serve our communities in homeland
security. We very much appreciate your support of Emergency
Services. Particularly important in this bill is the fact
that it recognizes there are multiple types of public and
private departments and services that protect and serve
communities and they all will be eligible for funding.
Again, we support and thank you for your commitment to
Vermont's Emergency Services and to the safety and security
of the citizens we serve.
Sincerely,
James A. Finger,
President V.A.A.
____
Vermont Association of
Chiefs of Police,
January 31, 2003.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: Having been informed of ``The Leahy
First Responders Partnership Grant Act'', I would like you to
know that Vermont Chief's of Police Association
wholeheartedly supports the concept. Public safety officials
throughout the nation have been required to address a whole
new set of issues since September 11, 2001. These issues have
required the need for new training, changes in priorities and
thoughts towards security and safety of first responders,
often without the addition of any new resources. A grant
program of this nature will greatly enhance the ability of
law enforcement, and other first responders, to continue to
pursue their individual missions and to preserve the
individual freedom and security that everyone deserves.
I must add that I feel that it would be beneficial to
afford local entities the opportunity to apply directly to
the government for these grants due to the fact each entity
would have the best knowledge of what their individual needs
are.
If the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police can be of
any assistance in this endeavor, please feel free to contact
me at anytime.
Sincerely,
Brett R. Van Noordt,
President.
____
Montpelier Police Department,
Montpelier, VT, January 22, 2003.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: Thank you for your staff's notification
of the First Responder Partnership Grant Program For Public
Safety Officers. Jessica has been very helpful in providing
details of your introduction of this legislation.
I know that you are keenly aware of the need for local
government to be able to access funding in the area of
homeland security. Montpelier as well as select larger
communities based on location and function have greater
responsibilities in this new age of defense. At the same time
the State of Vermont is no different from many other states
in the country that are experiencing critical financial
decisions to meet the ``normal'' demands of government.
Shouldering the burden for national defense only adds to the
critical needs.
The current administration cannot realistically believe
that a DOJ funding program that goes to the State of Vermont
which result in a trickle of $3,000 to the Montpelier Police
Department for a radio actually meets the response needs for
government in the Capital City of Vermont.
In support of this legislative initiative I would encourage
your office to advocate strongly for the local units of
government to have a larger role and voice in the
distribution of these funds. In Vermont, as you well know,
the State Government generally controls what occurs on the
local level and the temptation with such a large amount of
money is too great to have local communities excluded.
Again, thank you for your efforts and those of your staff
on behalf of law enforcement and the City of Montpelier. It
is always a pleasure when I call your office. I hope to be in
the Washington area between March 29 and April 1 and hope
that I will be able to stop and visit and perhaps we can talk
about this and other matters important to Montpelier and the
State of Vermont.
Sincerely,
Douglas S. Hoyt,
Chief of Police.
____
Rutland Police Department,
Rutland, VT, January 30, 2003.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: As the Chief of Policy of The City of
Rutland, Vermont and the immediate past president of the
Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police I am writing this
letter to support your efforts to introduce and pass the
``First Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003.''
This grant program will help us at a local level to be able
to have the resources we need to do our jobs in protecting
the citizens of Rutland and Vermont.
Thank you for your strong support of Law Enforcement and
everything you have done for Rutland Police Department. As
always please feel free to contact me if there is anything
more I can do to help you.
Sincerely,
Anthony L. Bossi,
Chief of Police.
____
Essex Police Department,
Essex Junction, VT, January 23, 2003.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: Having been informed of ``The Leahy
First Responders Partnership Grant Act'', I would like you to
know that I wholeheartedly support the concept. Public safety
officials throughout the nation have been required to address
a whole new set of issues since September 11, 2001. These
issues have required the need for new training, changes in
priorities and thoughts towards security and safety of first
responders, often without the addition of any new resources.
A grant program of this nature will greatly enhance the
ability of law enforcement, and other first responders, to
continue to pursue their individual missions
[[Page S1996]]
and to preserve the individual freedom and security that
everyone deserves.
I must add that I feel that it would be beneficial to
afford local entities the opportunity to apply directly to
the government for these grants due to the fact each entity
would have the best knowledge of what their individual needs
are.
If I can be of any assistance in the endeavor, please feel
free to contact me at anytime.
Sincerely,
David E. Demag,
Chief of Police.
____
Winhall Police & Rescue,
Bondville, VT, January 22, 2003.
Senator Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: I have read and understand the ``Leahy First
Responders Partnership Grant Program.'' The legislation as
proposed will greatly assist local and state agencies combat
terrorism and educate our citizens. I am in support of this
legislative initiative. Local first responders are a very
valuable entity in this war on terrorism. Thank you for not
forgetting us.
Sincerely,
Jeffery L. Whitesell,
Chief of Police & Rescue.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 316. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
to include efforts to address barriers to employment as a work activity
under the temporary assistance to needy families program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am honored and pleased to introduce
legislation today that Senator Kennedy and I introduced with Senator
Wellstone in the 107th Congress. Today, Senator Kennedy and I
reintroduce the Chance to Succeed Act, legislation that will give TANF
recipients with barriers to employment the tools they need to address
these issues and move into employment.
Studies show that between 44 and 64 percent of TANF recipients have
multiple barriers to employment. These barriers range from mental
health issues and substance abuse problems to learning disabilities,
limited English proficiency and homelessness. We must assist TANF
families in meeting their work and parenting obligations, while at the
same time addressing the multiple barriers undermining their economic
security.
The Chance to Succeed Act encourages states to better serve the needs
of TANF recipients with barriers to employment by giving States broad
flexibility to place TANF recipients in barrier-removal activities and
count recipients participating in such activities toward Federal work
participation rates for at least six months. In addition to providing
families the time they need to seek services, the legislation would
assist States in developing a screening, assessment and service
delivery system. This includes providing funding for State-level
advisory panels to improve state policies and procedures for assisting
families with barriers to work.
Additionally, under the Chance to Succeed Act, States would create
personal responsibility plans, a proposal endorsed by the Senate
Finance Committee in the 107th Congress, that outline an employment
goal for moving an individual into stable employment, the obligations
of the individual to work toward becoming and remaining employed in the
private sector, the individual's long-term career goals and the
specific work experience, education, or training needed to reach them,
and the services the State will offer based on screening and
assessment.
Finally, the Chance to Succeed Act would bar States from
inappropriately sanctioning families with barriers to work. As many as
one-half of parents who were sanctioned off of welfare for failure to
comply with state welfare rules, were unable to comply because of their
disability, health condition or illness. Under this legislation, states
would be prohibited from imposing sanctions on individuals for whom the
appropriate screening, assessment, or services are unavailable.
Some States, including New Jersey, have already taken many of these
steps, however, they have done so at their own expense. Last November,
New Jersey granted an extension of benefits to 900 TANF recipients
whose benefits were about to expire. Most of these families are too
sick or disabled to work. Rather than forcing them off assistance, the
state has recognized that these recipients need help. The Chance to
Succeed Act will help states like New Jersey to identify these
recipients and provide them supportive services to give them the tools
they need to live independently. Ultimately, this will help states move
this hard-to-serve group one step closer to self-sufficiency. Simply
ignoring the needs of these families and sanctioning them off
assistance will neither help them achieve independence, nor will it
reduce their burden on the states or federal government.
Thank you, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 316
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 ``Chance to Succeed Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF EFFORTS TO ADDRESS BARRIERS TO
EMPLOYMENT AS A WORK ACTIVITY UNDER TANF.
Section 407 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 607) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (c), by
striking ``or (12)'' each place it appears and inserting
``(12), or (13)'';
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) subject to subsection (j), 6 months of satisfactory
participation (as determined by the State) in services to
address barriers that are designed to improve future
employment opportunities, including substance abuse
treatment, occupational therapy, and physical rehabilitation,
mental health, and mental retardation and developmental
disabilities services.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) State Option To Extend Period for Participation in
Services To Address Barriers.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to an individual, a State
may extend the 6-month period referred to in subsection
(d)(13) for an additional period determined by the State so
long as the State periodically reassesses the appropriateness
of the activities referred to in such subsection for the
individual.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) or
subsection (d)(13) shall be construed to limit the amount of
time an individual may require, or a State may provide,
services to address barriers that are designed to improve
future employment opportunities.''.
SEC. 3. CREATION OF A SCREENING, ASSESSMENT, AND SERVICES
PROCESS TO ADDRESS BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT.
(a) Assessments.--Section 408(b) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 608(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Assessment provided for each individual who receives
assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The State agency responsible for
administering the State program funded under this part shall
make an initial assessment of each adult individual who
receives assistance under the program (and, in the case of a
State program that requires an individual who is a caretaker
for an individual who receives such assistance to engage in
work, an initial assessment of the caretaker individual) to
determine whether the individual has any barriers to
employment or program compliance.
``(B) 2-part process.--The assessment under subparagraph
(A) shall consist of the following 2 parts:
``(i) Initial screening.--
``(I) In general.--An initial screening which shall
evaluate an individual's employability, educational capacity,
and other related circumstances, such as the child support
status, housing needs, and transportation needs of the
individual and the individual's family.
``(II) Required factors to be assessed.--A trained
caseworker shall screen the individual for conditions such as
physical or mental impairments, substance abuse, domestic or
sexual violence, learning disabilities, limited English
proficiency, limited literacy in a primary language, and need
to care for a child with a disability or health condition
which may interfere with work or other program requirements.
``(III) Optional assessment of child care needs.--At the
option of the individual, the State shall, before assigning
the individual to a work activity under the State program
funded under this part, perform an assessment of the
individual's child care needs, and guarantee safe,
appropriate, affordable quality child care to any such
individual who needs child care.
``(IV) Optional assessment of job preparation.--At the
option of the individual, the State shall, before assigning
the individual to a work activity under the State program
funded under this part, perform an individual assessment for
the preparation that is needed for the individual to obtain
and maintain a job at a monthly wage that is at least 200
percent of the poverty line applicable to the family of the
individual.
[[Page S1997]]
``(ii) Comprehensive assessment.--If an initial screening
under clause (i) suggests the existence of potential barriers
to work or program compliance, the individual may elect to
participate in a comprehensive assessment conducted by a
qualified professional to confirm the existence of the
barriers, determine the extent of the barriers, and develop
recommendations about appropriate services and activities for
the individual.
``(C) Family members.--At the discretion of an individual
who receives assistance under the State program funded under
this part, a member of the individual's family also may be
afforded an assessment in accordance with this paragraph.
``(D) Not considered a program requirement.--Participation
by an individual or by a member of the individual's family in
an assessment under this paragraph shall not be considered a
program requirement for the individual or the individual's
family.
``(E) Inclusion of caseworkers.--Nothing in subparagraph
(B)(ii) shall be construed as prohibiting a caseworker from
being a qualified professional for purposes of that
subparagraph if the caseworker satisfies the requirements for
being considered a qualified professional.''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (4).
(b) Review and Conciliation Process.--Section 408(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(12) Review and conciliation process.--
``(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403 shall not impose a sanction against an individual
or family under the State program funded under this part on
the basis of noncompliance by an individual or family with a
program requirement, unless the State satisfies the following
requirements:
``(i) Notice.--The State has attempted, at least twice
(using at least 2 different communication methods, 1 of which
shall be in writing) to notify the individual or family, in
the individual's or family's native language, of--
``(I) the impending imposition of the sanction;
``(II) the reason for the proposed sanction;
``(III) the amount of the sanction;
``(IV) the length of time during which the proposed
sanction would be in effect; and
``(V) the steps required to come into compliance or to show
good cause for noncompliance.
``(ii) Review.--The State has afforded the individual or
family an opportunity to meet with personnel outside the
agency that administers the State program funded under this
part who the State has contracted with to make a
determination regarding why the individual or family did not
comply with the program requirement, that is to be the basis
on which the sanction is to be imposed, and that includes--
``(I) consideration of whether certain barriers to
compliance exist that contributed to the noncompliance of the
individual or family, such as a physical or mental
impairment, including a mental health or substance abuse
disorder or mental retardation, a learning disability,
domestic or sexual violence, limited proficiency in English,
limited literacy, or the need to care for a child with a
disability or health condition;
``(II) consideration of whether the individual or family
has good cause for failing to meet program requirements;
``(III) consideration of whether an additional assessment
would assist in identifying reasons for noncompliance;
``(IV) consideration of whether support services or changes
to the program requirements or activities to which the
individual or family has been assigned are necessary in order
for the individual or family to comply with program
requirements; and
``(V) ensuring that the State's sanction policies have been
applied properly.
``(B) Sanction limitations.--
``(i) Ban on imposition of sanction if needed screening,
assessment, or services were unavailable.--A State may not
impose a sanction against an individual or family under the
State program funded under this part on the basis of
noncompliance by an individual or family with a program
requirement if the individual whose conduct is the basis of
the sanction is in the process of being screened or assessed
for a mental health problem, disability, substance abuse
problem, or sexual or domestic violence situation but the
screening or assessment has not been completed, or if
services outlined in the service plan developed for the
individual or family were not offered, available, and
accessible to the individual or family at the time of the
noncompliance.
``(ii) No ban on sanction if individual or family fails to
take advantage of assessment or services and does not comply
with work requirements.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed as prohibiting a State that has complied with the
requirements of this paragraph and section 408(b)(1) from
imposing a sanction for noncompliance with work requirements
against an individual or family who opts to not take full
advantage of the opportunity for assessment or the services
and supports made available to ensure that the individual or
family can comply with program requirements if such an
individual or family is not complying with the State's work
requirements.
``(C) Sanction follow-up requirements.--
``(i) In general.--If a State imposes a sanction on an
individual or family for failing to comply with program
requirements, the State shall--
``(I) provide, at the time the sanction is imposed and
periodically thereafter for at least 6 months, notice (in at
least 2 different forms) to the individual or family of the
reason for the sanction and the steps the individual or
family must take to end the sanction;
``(II) reinstate the individual's or family's full benefits
if the individual or family member who failed to meet the
program requirements that led to the sanction complies with
program requirements for a reasonable period of time and the
individual or family is otherwise eligible; and
``(III) if the sanction is time-limited, notify the
individual or family at least 10 days before the expiration
of the sanction of the date when the individual or family
will no longer be in sanction status and inform the
individual or family how assistance will be reinstated.
``(ii) Outreach to individuals and families sanctioned who
have not resumed receiving cash assistance.--If, during the
5-year period that ended on the date of enactment of the
Chance to Succeed Act of 2003, a State imposed a sanction
against an individual or family that resulted in the
individual or family losing all cash assistance under the
State program funded under this part, and the individual or
family did not resume receiving cash assistance at the end of
the sanction period, the State shall make reasonable efforts
to identify such individuals and families and notify them,
using at least 2 methods of communication, 1 of which is
written, of the assistance, services, and support they may be
eligible to receive.
``(D) Confidentiality.--The State, and any individuals or
entities acting as agents of the State, shall not disclose
any identifying information obtained through any process or
procedure instituted pursuant to this paragraph unless
required or permitted to do so by law.
``(E) Development of standards, procedures, training, and
screening tools.--States and local governments shall, in
consultation with Federal, State, tribal, or local experts in
the different barriers to employment, develop standards,
procedures, training, and screening tools for use in carrying
out this paragraph.''.
(c) Plan Requirements for Individual Responsibility
Plans.--Section 408(b)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 608(b)(2)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) Requirements.--
``(i) In general.--From the assessment described in
paragraph (1), the State, in consultation with the individual
who is the subject of the assessment, shall develop a
personal responsibility plan, that--
``(I) sets forth an employment goal to move the individual
into stable employment;
``(II) sets forth the obligations of the individual that
will help the individual become and remain employed in the
private sector;
``(III) describes the individual's long-term career goals
and the specific work experience, education, or training
needed to reach them; and
``(IV) identifies the services the State will offer the
individual's family based upon the assessment and evaluation
described in this section.
``(ii) Modification.--If the State is unable to provide
needed services to the individual or the individual's family,
the State shall modify the personal responsibility plan to be
consistent with the needs of the individual, the family, and
the capacity of the State.''.
(d) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall coordinate
with Federal, State, and tribal experts and qualified
professionals to determine, develop, and disseminate to
States, and provide technical assistance with respect to,
model practices, standards, and procedures for screening,
assessment, addressing barriers, including multiple barriers,
in a comprehensive manner, and moving individuals and
families with barriers into employment, as well as model
training materials for caseworkers.
(e) State Plan Requirement.--Section 402(a)(1)(A) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(vii) Identify and serve individuals and families with
barriers to employment as described in section 408(b)(1).''.
(f) Coordinating Exemptions From Work Requirements.--
Section 408(a)(7)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
608(a)(7)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) Families exempted from work requirements by reason
of barrier to work by family member.--The State shall exempt
a family from the application of subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph if the State permits a member of the family (or, in
the case of a State that requires a caretaker for an
individual who receives assistance to engage in work, a
caretaker) to engage in activities to address barriers,
pursuant to section 407(d)(13), so long as the State
determines that the individual is satisfactorily
participating in such activities.''.
(g) Advisory Panel To Improve State Policies and Procedures
for Assisting Individuals and Families With Barriers To
Work.--
(1) Membership; chair.--
(A) Membership.--Each State that receives a State family
assistance grant under section 403(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)) shall establish an
advisory panel consisting of representatives of the
following:
(i) The State agency responsible for administering the
temporary assistance to needy
[[Page S1998]]
families program established under part A of title IV of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (in this
subsection referred to as the ``TANF program'').
(ii) Professionals from other State agencies with expertise
in barriers that interfere with an individual's or family's
ability to work, such as physical or mental impairments,
substance abuse, domestic or sexual violence, learning
disabilities, limited English proficiency, limited literacy
in a primary language, and need to care for a child with a
disability or health condition.
(iii) Organizations representing individuals and families
with such barriers.
(iv) Professionals with expertise in designing and
implementing policies and programs to successfully serve
individuals and families with such barriers.
(v) Individuals and families with such barriers who are
recipients of cash assistance or support services under the
TANF program.
(B) Chair.--The chief executive officer of the State shall
appoint an individual who is not a State employee to serve as
chair of the advisory panel.
(2) Duties.--
(A) In general.--The advisory panel shall review the
efficacy of each program described in subparagraph (B) to
determine--
(i) the amount of funds spent on services under the
program;
(ii) the referral process for participation in the program,
including whether individuals and families received referrals
and services;
(iii) the effect services provided under the program had on
an individual's and family's economic status; and
(iv) ways in which the State can improve the effectiveness
of its policies and procedures to serve individuals and
families with barriers to work or program compliance.
(B) Programs described.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
a program described in this subparagraph, is a program that--
(i) is funded under the TANF program;
(ii) receives funding from amounts made available under the
State family assistance grant made under section 403(a)(1) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)); or
(iii) is funded with qualified State expenditures (as
defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
609(a)(7)(B)(i))).
(C) Development of mechanism for review and reports by
local units of government.--In the case of a State in which
significant policy or spending decisions are made in the
State with respect to a program described in subparagraph (B)
at the county or other local unit of government, then the
advisory panel shall develop a mechanism that requires each
county or other local unit of government to--
(i) review its policies and procedures with respect to that
program and file a written report with the advisory panel
regarding how the policies and procedures for the program are
designed to assist individuals and families with barriers to
work; and
(ii) respond to any other requests for information from the
advisory panel regarding the TANF program.
(D) Additional authority.--In order to carry out the duties
described in this paragraph, the advisory panel may hold such
meetings (in addition to the regular meetings required under
paragraph (3)(C)) and such public hearings, hire such staff,
enter into the contract required under paragraph (4)(B), and
travel to such locations of programs described in
subparagraph (B), as the panel determines to be appropriate.
(3) Duration; meetings.--
(A) Duration.--An advisory panel established in accordance
with this subsection shall remain in effect for at least 3
years from the date of the initial meeting of the panel.
(B) Deadline for initial meeting.--Not later than the end
of the first Federal fiscal year quarter that begins on or
after the date of enactment of this Act, the advisory panel
shall meet for its initial meeting.
(C) Regular meetings.--The advisory panel shall meet on a
regular basis.
(4) Reports.--
(A) In general.--Each advisory panel established in
accordance with this subsection shall file the following
reports with the Secretary of Health and Human Services:
(i) Not later than 12 months after the initial meeting of
the advisory panel, an interim report identifying areas where
improvement is needed with respect to State policies and
procedures to serve individuals with barriers to work and the
steps the State is taking or plans to take to make those
improvements.
(ii) Not later than 24 months after such initial meeting, a
progress report on how the improvements identified in the
report required under clause (i) are being made, whether
additional improvements are needed, including plans to make
those improvements, and that includes the report of the
independent evaluation entity required under subparagraph
(B).
(iii) Not later than 36 months after such initial meeting,
a final report that describes how the programs described in
subparagraph (B) have been improved to assist individuals and
families with barriers to work and identifies ongoing work
that will be needed to maintain the improvements made.
(B) Requirements for progress report.--In preparation for
the progress report required under subparagraph (A)(ii), the
advisory panel shall hire an independent evaluation entity to
assess the State's progress in meeting the goals set forth by
the advisory panel. In States described in paragraph (2)(C),
the independent evaluation entity shall also assess the
progress being made at the county level or appropriate other
unit of local government.
(C) Reports to congress.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall compile the reports submitted under
subparagraph (A) and shall submit such compilations to
Congress as part of any annual report to Congress on the TANF
program.
(5) Public access.--
(A) In general.--All materials collected by or provided to
the advisory panel and all reports submitted by the advisory
panel to the State or the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall be publicly available.
(B) Opportunity for public comment.--The advisory panel
shall create opportunities to secure public comments on a
draft of each report to be submitted to the State or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and shall submit a
summary of such comments with the final draft of the report.
(6) Funding.--Out of funds made available to carry out this
subsection, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
pay each State that establishes an advisory panel in
accordance with this subsection, $1,500,000, for the period
of fiscal years 2004 through 2006.
(7) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall
be construed as authorizing an advisory review panel
established under this paragraph to resolve complaints filed
by individuals or entities related to possible violations of
laws protecting civil rights.
(8) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to carry out this subsection, such sums as are
necessary for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Corzine
in introducing the Chance to Succeed Act, which will benefit the most
vulnerable families across the Nation. I'm concerned that the
Administration's proposal on welfare reform fails to give States the
flexibility needed to assist families who face serious barriers to
employment. The Chance to Succeed Act provides this essential
flexibility.
Many of the individuals still remaining on welfare face significant
and real barriers to finding and keeping jobs. These barriers include
physical or mental disabilities, substance abuse, domestic or sexual
violence, learning disabilities, problems with literacy or English
proficiency, or the need to care for a sick or disabled child. These
recipients are less likely to find jobs or earn adequate wages, and
they are more likely to lose public assistance due to sanctions for
noncompliance.
It makes sense to assist these families on the road to self-
sufficiency by enabling states to do what is necessary to provide them
with adequate work supports and needed services. This approach works,
I've seen it in Massachusetts, which has been highly successful in
serving its neediest families. In fact, even before the 1996 welfare
reform, the state had developed a welfare program in which all
recipients are screened for barriers to employment. We've successfully
helped families without major barriers to obtain employment, and we've
reduced our caseload by over 64 percent in five years. We've also been
able, consistently and effectively, to serve families facing barriers
and provide educational, rehabilitative, and other services appropriate
for their situations. We have a socially and fiscally responsible
welfare policy.
The Chance to Succeed Act will encourage all states to take such
steps. It will facilitate the development of screening, assessment, and
service delivery procedures that enable states to identify these
individuals and provide appropriate support and services. It will
provide funding and technical assistance for state advisory panels,
model practices, and more effective standards and procedures to help
individuals find employment.
This bill also helps the many persons who are unable to comply with
current work requirements because of previously unidentified barriers
to employment. It will enable each family to develop its own plan that
includes career goals and private sector employment. It provides
flexibility to states to design plans that meet families' unique needs.
Activities essential to reducing and eliminating barriers can be
counted as work. It will enable states to establish conciliation and
follow-up procedures to remove barriers and improve compliance, so that
fewer families are needlessly penalized and left vulnerable.
Individuals with barriers to employment are an important part of
genuine welfare reform, and it is long past time for Congress to
include them. The Chance to Succeed Act is a first step in
[[Page S1999]]
helping the many families who face barriers to become more self-
sufficient.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 317. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
provide to private sector employees the same opportunities for time-
and-a-half compensatory time off, biweekly work programs, and flexible
credit hour programs as Federal employees currently enjoy to help
balance the demands and needs for work and family, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that,
if enacted, could have a monumental impact on the lives of thousands of
working men, women and families in America. Today, along with Senators
Enzi, and Sessions, I am pleased to reintroduce the Family Time and
Workplace Flexibility Act. The primary purpose of this legislation is
to give families and employers greater flexibility in meeting and
balancing the demands of work and family.
The demand for family time is evident. Let me give you some of the
latest statistics. Seventy percent of employees don't think there is a
healthy balance between work and personal life. Seventy percent of
employees today say that family is their most important priority. This
compares to 54 percent in 2000. Forty six percent of employees either
feel overworked, overwhelmed by the quantity of their work, or lack the
time to step back and reflect on their work. Sixty one percent of
adults say they would give up some of their pay for more time with
their family. Employees say that finding time for family is a more
pressing concern than layoffs, 32 percent vs 22 percent. This compares
to 25 percent in 1999.
In light of the cry of America's workers for more family time, and in
honor of today's 10-year anniversary of the Family Medical Leave Act, I
am introducing the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act, which
will build upon the spirit of the FMLA, by updating federal law to
allow a more flexible workplace. This legislation is not a total
solution: there are many other provisions under the 64-year-old Fair
Labor Standards Act that need our attention. But the legislation I am
introducing today is an important part of the solution. It gives
working families a choice.
The Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act in a nutshell consists
of three main provisions. The first allows employees the option of
taking time off in lieu of overtime pay. The second gives employees the
option of ``flexing'' their schedules over a two week period. In other
words, employees would have 10 ``flexible'' hours that they could work
in one week in order to take 10 hours off in the next week. The third
provision gives employees the option of a ``flexible credit hour
program,'' under which the employer and employee can agree to allow the
employee to work excess hours in his schedule in order to accrue hours
to be taken off at a later time. The flexible credit hour option is for
employees who do not get the opportunity to work overtime, but still
want a way to build up hours to take off later.
Flexible work arrangements have been available in the Federal
Government since 1978. For over three decades, federal workers have had
this special privilege. The federal program was so successful in fact,
that in 1994 President Clinton issued an Executive Order extending it
to parts of the Federal government that had not yet had the benefits of
the program. The President stated that: ``Broad use of flexible
arrangements to enable Federal employees to better balance their work
and family responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job
satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.'' I
couldn't agree more.
While Federal employees enjoy the benefits of flexible workplace
arrangements, members of the private sector do not have such options.
The Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act corrects this and extends
this option to all businesses covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
So, who are these workers who are currently covered by the FLSA but
do not have the ability to exercise workplace flexibility? They are
some of the hardest working Americans. Sixty percent of these workers
have only a high school education. Eighty percent of them make less
than $28,000. A great percentage of them are single mothers with
children. They are working hard to meet their family's economic needs
as well as their emotional needs. And while government can't mandate
love and nurture, it can get out of the way and eliminate barriers to
opportunities for love and nurture. That is what the Family Time and
Workplace Flexibility Act does.
In the subsequent weeks and months we will undoubtedly hear from some
that what working families really need is more money. They need their
overtime pay. That may well be true for some families, and this bill
does not affect them in any way. But for other families, for families
who want to choose to take time off with pay to attend a child's school
play or PTA meeting, the issue is time, not money. The point is this
the family should have the right to choose. Washington should not
decide for them which priority is important for their family.
I am one who believes in the working men and women of America and in
their ability to know what is best for their families. It is time for
Congress to give families what they want, and not what Congress thinks
they need. It's time to give working families what Federal employees
have already--workplace flexibility.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, a bill
summary, and an article from the Washington Post be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 317
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 ``Family Time and Workplace
Flexibility Act''.
SEC. 2. WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY OPTIONS.
(a) Compensatory Time Off.--Section 7 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(r)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no
employee may be required under this subsection to receive
compensatory time off in lieu of monetary overtime
compensation. The acceptance of compensatory time off in lieu
of monetary overtime compensation may not be a condition of
employment or of working overtime.
``(B) In a case in which a valid collective bargaining
agreement exists between an employer and the labor
organization that has been certified or recognized as the
representative of the employees of the employer under
applicable law, an employee may only be required under this
subsection to receive compensatory time off in lieu of
monetary overtime compensation in accordance with the
agreement.
``(2)(A) An employee may receive, in accordance with this
subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime compensation,
compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-
half hours for each hour of employment for which monetary
overtime compensation is required by this section.
``(B) In this subsection:
``(i) The term `employee' means an individual--
``(I) who is an employee (as defined in section 3);
``(II) who is not an employee of a public agency; and
``(III) to whom subsection (a) applies.
``(ii) The term `employer' does not include a public
agency.
``(3) An employer may provide compensatory time off to
employees under paragraph (2)(A) only pursuant to the
following:
``(A) The compensatory time off may be provided only in
accordance with--
``(i) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining
agreement between the employer and the labor organization
that has been certified or recognized as the representative
of the employees under applicable law; or
``(ii) in the case of an employee who is not represented by
a labor organization described in clause (i), a written
agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before
the performance of the work involved if the agreement was
entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and
was not a condition of employment.
``(B) The compensatory time off may only be provided to an
employee described in subparagraph (A)(ii) if such employee
has affirmed, in a written statement that is made, kept, and
preserved in accordance with section 11(c), that the employee
has chosen to receive compensatory time off in lieu of
monetary overtime compensation.
``(C) No employee may receive, or agree to receive, the
compensatory time off unless the employee has been employed
for at least 12 months by the employer, and for at least
1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous
12-month period.
[[Page S2000]]
``(D) An employee shall be eligible to accrue compensatory
time off if such employee has not accrued compensatory time
off in excess of the limit applicable to the employee
prescribed by paragraph (4).
``(4)(A) An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of
compensatory time off.
``(B) Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the
employer of the employee shall provide monetary compensation
for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the
preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December
31 of the preceding calendar year at the rate prescribed by
paragraph (8). An employer may designate and communicate
to the employees of the employer a 12-month period other
than the calendar year, in which case the compensation
shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of
the 12-month period.
``(C) The employer may provide monetary compensation for an
employee's unused compensatory time off in excess of 80 hours
at any time after providing the employee with at least 30
days' written notice. The compensation shall be provided at
the rate prescribed by paragraph (8).
``(5)(A) An employer that has adopted a policy offering
compensatory time off to employees may discontinue the policy
for employees described in paragraph (3)(A)(ii) after
providing 30 days' written notice to the employees who are
subject to an agreement described in paragraph (3)(A)(ii).
``(B) An employee may withdraw an agreement described in
paragraph (3)(A)(ii) at any time, by submitting a written
notice of withdrawal to the employer of the employee. An
employee may also request in writing that monetary
compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory
time off accrued that has not been used. Within 30 days after
receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the
employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with
paragraph (8).
``(6)(A)(i) An employer that provides compensatory time off
under paragraph (2) to an employee shall not directly or
indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to
intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any employee for the purpose
of--
``(I) interfering with the rights of the employee under
this subsection to request or not request compensatory time
off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for
overtime hours;
``(II) interfering with the rights of the employee to use
accrued compensatory time off in accordance with paragraph
(9); or
``(III) requiring the employee to use the compensatory time
off.
``(ii) In clause (i), the term `intimidate, threaten, or
coerce' has the meaning given the term in section 13A(d)(2).
``(B) An agreement that is entered into by an employee and
employer under paragraph (3)(A)(ii) shall permit the employee
to elect, for an applicable workweek--
``(i) the payment of monetary overtime compensation for the
workweek; or
``(ii) the accrual of compensatory time off in lieu of the
payment of monetary overtime compensation for the
workweek.''.
(b) Remedies and Sanctions.--Section 16 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(f)(1) In addition to any amount that an employer is
liable under subsection (b) for a violation of a provision of
section 7, an employer that violates section 7(r)(6)(A) shall
be liable to the employee affected in an amount equal to--
``(A) the product of--
``(i) the rate of compensation (determined in accordance
with section 7(r)(8)(A)); and
``(ii)(I) the number of hours of compensatory time off
involved in the violation that was initially accrued by the
employee; minus
``(II) the number of such hours used by the employee; and
``(B) as liquidated damages, the product of--
``(i) such rate of compensation; and
``(ii) the number of hours of compensatory time off
involved in the violation that was initially accrued by the
employee.
``(2) The employer shall be subject to such liability in
addition to any other remedy available for such violation
under this section or section 17, including a criminal
penalty under subsection (a) and a civil penalty under
subsection (e).''.
(c) Calculations and Special Rules.--Section 7(r) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(r)), as added
by subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(7) An employee who has accrued compensatory time off
authorized to be provided under paragraph (2) shall, upon the
voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, be paid
for the unused compensatory time off in accordance with
paragraph (8).
``(8)(A) If compensation is to be paid to an employee for
accrued compensatory time off, the compensation shall be paid
at a rate of compensation not less than--
``(i) the regular rate received by such employee when the
compensatory time off was earned; or
``(ii) the final regular rate received by such employee;
whichever is higher.
``(B) Any payment owed to an employee under this subsection
for unused compensatory time off shall be considered unpaid
monetary overtime compensation.
``(9) An employee--
``(A) who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to
be provided under paragraph (2); and
``(B) who has requested the use of the accrued compensatory
time off;
shall be permitted by the employer of the employee to use the
accrued compensatory time off within a reasonable period
after making the request if the use of the accrued
compensatory time off does not unduly disrupt the operations
of the employer.
``(10) The terms `monetary overtime compensation' and
`compensatory time off' shall have the meanings given the
terms `overtime compensation' and `compensatory time',
respectively, by subsection (o)(7).''.
(d) Notice to Employees.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall
revise the materials the Secretary provides, under
regulations contained in section 516.4 of title 29, Code of
Federal Regulations, to employers for purposes of a notice
explaining the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.
201 et seq.) to employees so that the notice reflects the
amendments made to the Act by this section.
SEC. 3. BIWEEKLY WORK PROGRAMS AND FLEXIBLE CREDIT HOUR
PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is
amended by inserting after section 13 (29 U.S.C. 213) the
following:
``SEC. 13A. BIWEEKLY WORK PROGRAMS AND FLEXIBLE CREDIT HOUR
PROGRAMS.
``(a) Voluntary Participation.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
employee may be required to participate in a program
described in this section. Participation in a program
described in this section may not be a condition of
employment.
``(2) Collective bargaining agreement.--In a case in which
a valid collective bargaining agreement exists between an
employer and the labor organization that has been certified
or recognized as the representative of the employees of the
employer under applicable law, an employee may only be
required to participate in such a program in accordance with
the agreement.
``(b) Biweekly Work Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 7, an employer
may establish biweekly work programs that allow the use of a
biweekly work schedule--
``(A) that consists of a basic work requirement of not more
than 80 hours, over a 2-week period; and
``(B) in which more than 40 hours of the work requirement
may occur in a week of the period, except that no more than
10 hours may be shifted between the 2 weeks involved.
``(2) Conditions.--An employer may carry out a biweekly
work program described in paragraph (1) for employees only
pursuant to the following:
``(A) Agreement.--The program may be carried out only in
accordance with--
``(i) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining
agreement between the employer and the labor organization
that has been certified or recognized as the representative
of the employees under applicable law; or
``(ii) in the case of an employee who is not represented by
a labor organization described in clause (i), a written
agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before
the performance of the work involved if the agreement was
entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and
was not a condition of employment.
``(B) Statement.--The program shall apply to an employee
described in subparagraph (A)(ii) if such employee has
affirmed, in a written statement that is made, kept, and
preserved in accordance with section 11(c), that the employee
has chosen to participate in the program.
``(C) Minimum service.--No employee may participate, or
agree to participate, in the program unless the employee has
been employed for at least 12 months by the employer, and for
at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the
previous 12-month period.
``(3) Compensation for hours in schedule.--Notwithstanding
section 7, in the case of an employee participating in such a
biweekly work program, the employee shall be compensated for
each hour in such a biweekly work schedule at a rate not less
than the regular rate at which the employee is employed.
``(4) Computation of overtime.--All hours worked by the
employee in excess of such a biweekly work schedule or in
excess of 80 hours in the 2-week period, that are requested
in advance by the employer, shall be overtime hours.
``(5) Overtime compensation provision.--The employee shall
be compensated for each such overtime hour at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which the
employee is employed, in accordance with section 7(a)(1), or
receive compensatory time off in accordance with section 7(r)
for each such overtime hour.
``(6) Discontinuance of program or withdrawal.--
``(A) Discontinuance of program.--An employer that has
established a biweekly work program under paragraph (1) may
discontinue the program for employees described in paragraph
(2)(A)(ii) after providing 30 days' written notice to the
employees who are subject to an agreement described in
paragraph (2)(A)(ii).
[[Page S2001]]
``(B) Withdrawal.--An employee may withdraw an agreement
described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) at the end of any 2-week
period described in paragraph (1)(A), by submitting a written
notice of withdrawal to the employer of the employee.
``(c) Flexible Credit Hour Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 7, an employer
may establish flexible credit hour programs, under which, at
the election of an employee, the employer and the employee
jointly designate hours for the employee to work that are in
excess of the basic work requirement of the employee so that
the employee can accrue flexible credit hours to reduce the
hours worked in a week or a day subsequent to the day on
which the flexible credit hours are worked.
``(2) Conditions.--An employer may carry out a flexible
credit hour program described in paragraph (1) for employees
only pursuant to the following:
``(A) Agreement.--The program may be carried out only in
accordance with--
``(i) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining
agreement between the employer and the labor organization
that has been certified or recognized as the representative
of the employees under applicable law; or
``(ii) in the case of an employee who is not represented by
a labor organization described in clause (i), a written
agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before
the performance of the work involved if the agreement was
entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and
was not a condition of employment.
``(B) Statement.--The program shall apply to an employee
described in subparagraph (A)(ii) if such employee has
affirmed, in a written statement that is made, kept, and
preserved in accordance with section 11(c), that the employee
has chosen to participate in the program.
``(C) Minimum service.--No employee may participate, or
agree to participate, in the program unless the employee has
been employed for at least 12 months by the employer, and for
at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the
previous 12-month period.
``(D) Hours.--An agreement that is entered into under
subparagraph (A) shall provide that, at the election of an
employee, the employer and the employee will jointly
designate, for an applicable workweek, flexible credit hours
for the employee to work.
``(E) Limit.--An employee shall be eligible to accrue
flexible credit hours if the employee has not accrued
flexible credit hours in excess of the limit applicable to
the employee prescribed by paragraph (3).
``(3) Hour limit.--
``(A) Maximum hours.--An employee who is participating in
such a flexible credit hour program may accrue not more than
50 flexible credit hours.
``(B) Compensation date.--Not later than January 31 of each
calendar year, the employer of an employee who is
participating in such a flexible credit hour program shall
provide monetary compensation for any flexible credit hours
accrued during the preceding calendar year that were not used
prior to December 31 of the preceding calendar year at a rate
not less than the regular rate at which the employee is
employed on the date the employee receives the compensation.
An employer may designate and communicate to the employees of
the employer a 12-month period other than the calendar year,
in which case the compensation shall be provided not later
than 31 days after the end of the 12-month period.
``(4) Compensation for flexible credit hours.--
Notwithstanding section 7, in the case of an employee
participating in such a flexible credit hour program, the
employee shall be compensated for each flexible credit hour
at a rate not less than the regular rate at which the
employee is employed.
``(5) Computation of overtime.--All hours worked by the
employee in excess of 40 hours in a week that are requested
in advance by the employer, other than flexible credit hours,
shall be overtime hours.
``(6) Overtime compensation provision.--The employee shall
be compensated for each such overtime hour at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which the
employee is employed, in accordance with section 7(a)(1), or
receive compensatory time off in accordance with section 7(r)
for each such overtime hour.
``(7) Use of time.--An employee--
``(A) who has accrued flexible credit hours; and
``(B) who has requested the use of the accrued flexible
credit hours,
shall be permitted by the employer of the employee to use the
accrued flexible credit hours within a reasonable period
after making the request if the use of the accrued flexible
credit hours does not unduly disrupt the operations of the
employer.
``(8) Discontinuance of program or withdrawal.--
``(A) Discontinuance of program.--An employer that has
established a flexible credit hour program under paragraph
(1) may discontinue the program for employees described in
paragraph (2)(A)(ii) after providing 30 days' written notice
to the employees who are subject to an agreement described in
paragraph (2)(A)(ii).
``(B) Withdrawal.--An employee may withdraw an agreement
described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) at any time, by submitting
a written notice of withdrawal to the employer of the
employee. An employee may also request in writing that
monetary compensation be provided, at any time, for all
flexible credit hours accrued that have not been used. Within
30 days after receiving the written request, the employer
shall provide the employee the monetary compensation due at a
rate not less than the regular rate at which the employee is
employed on the date the employee receives the compensation.
``(d) Prohibition of Coercion.--
``(1) In general.--An employer shall not directly or
indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to
intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any employee for the purpose
of--
``(A) interfering with the rights of the employee under
this section to elect or not to elect to work a biweekly work
schedule;
``(B) interfering with the rights of the employee under
this section to elect or not to elect to participate in a
flexible credit hour program, or to elect or not to elect to
work flexible credit hours (including working flexible credit
hours in lieu of overtime hours);
``(C) interfering with the rights of the employee under
this section to use accrued flexible credit hours in
accordance with subsection (c)(7); or
``(D) requiring the employee to use the flexible credit
hours.
``(2) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the term `intimidate,
threaten, or coerce' includes promising to confer or
conferring any benefit (such as appointment, promotion, or
compensation) or effecting or threatening to effect any
reprisal (such as deprivation of appointment, promotion, or
compensation).
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Basic work requirement.--The term `basic work
requirement' means the number of hours, excluding overtime
hours, that an employee is required to work or is required to
account for by leave or otherwise.
``(2) Collective bargaining.--The term `collective
bargaining' means the performance of the mutual obligation of
the representative of an employer and the labor organization
that has been certified or recognized as the representative
of the employees of the employer under applicable law to meet
at reasonable times and to consult and bargain in a good-
faith effort to reach agreement with respect to the
conditions of employment affecting such employees and to
execute, if requested by either party, a written document
incorporating any collective bargaining agreement reached,
but the obligation referred to in this paragraph shall not
compel either party to agree to a proposal or to make a
concession.
``(3) Collective bargaining agreement.--The term
`collective bargaining agreement' means an agreement entered
into as a result of collective bargaining.
``(4) Election.--The term `at the election of', used with
respect to an employee, means at the initiative of, and at
the request of, the employee.
``(5) Employee.--The term `employee' means an individual--
``(A) who is an employee (as defined in section 3);
``(B) who is not an employee of a public agency; and
``(C) to whom section 7(a) applies.
``(6) Employer.--The term `employer' does not include a
public agency.
``(7) Flexible credit hours.--The term `flexible credit
hours' means any hours, within a flexible credit hour program
established under subsection (c), that are in excess of the
basic work requirement of an employee and that, at the
election of the employee, the employer and the employee
jointly designate for the employee to work so as to reduce
the hours worked in a week on a day subsequent to the day on
which the flexible credit hours are worked.
``(8) Overtime hours.--The term `overtime hours'--
``(A) when used with respect to biweekly work programs
under subsection (b), means all hours worked in excess of the
biweekly work schedule involved or in excess of 80 hours in
the 2-week period involved, that are requested in advance by
an employer; or
``(B) when used with respect to flexible credit hour
programs under subsection (c), means all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week that are requested in advance by
an employer, but does not include flexible credit hours.
``(9) Regular rate.--The term `regular rate' has the
meaning given the term in section 7(e).''.
(b) Remedies.--
(1) Prohibitions.--Section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)'';
(B) by adding ``or'' after the semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) to violate any of the provisions of section 13A;''.
(2) Remedies and sanctions.--Section 16 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216), as amended in section
2(b), is further amended--
(A) in subsection (c)--
(i) in the first sentence--
(I) by inserting after ``7 of this Act'' the following: ``,
or of the appropriate legal or monetary equitable relief
owing to any employee or employees under section 13A''; and
(II) by striking ``wages or unpaid overtime compensation
and'' and inserting ``wages, unpaid overtime compensation, or
legal or monetary equitable relief, as appropriate, and'';
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``wages or
overtime compensation and'' and
[[Page S2002]]
inserting ``wages, unpaid overtime compensation, or legal or
monetary equitable relief, as appropriate, and''; and
(iii) in the third sentence--
(I) by inserting after ``first sentence of such
subsection'' the following: ``, or the second sentence of
such subsection in the event of a violation of section
13A,''; and
(II) by striking ``wages or unpaid overtime compensation
under sections 6 and 7 or'' and inserting ``wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, or legal or monetary equitable relief,
as appropriate, or'';
(B) in subsection (e)--
(i) in the second sentence, by striking ``section 6 or 7''
and inserting ``section 6, 7, or 13A''; and
(ii) in the fourth sentence, in paragraph (3), by striking
``15(a)(4) or'' and inserting ``15(a)(4), a violation of
section 15(a)(3)(B), or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(g)(1) In addition to any amount that an employer is
liable under the second sentence of subsection (b) for a
violation of a provision of section 13A, an employer that
violates section 13A(d) shall be liable to the employee
affected for an additional sum equal to that amount.
``(2) The employer shall be subject to such liability in
addition to any other remedy available for such violation
under this section or section 17.''.
(c) Notice to Employees.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall
revise the materials the Secretary provides, under
regulations contained in section 516.4 of title 29, Code of
Federal Regulations, to employers for purposes of a notice
explaining the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.
201 et seq.) to employees so that the notice reflects the
amendments made to the Act by this section.
SEC. 4. PROTECTIONS FOR CLAIMS RELATING TO COMPENSATORY TIME
OFF IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.
Section 507(a)(3) of title 11, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``for--'' and inserting the following: ``on
the condition that all accrued compensatory time off (as
defined in section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(29 U.S.C. 207)) shall be deemed to have been earned within
90 days before the date of the filing of the petition or the
date of the cessation of the debtor's business, whichever
occurs first, for--''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``or the value of unused, accrued compensatory
time off (as defined in section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207))''.
SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL COVERAGE.
Section 203 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1313) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and section 12(c)'' and
inserting ``section 12(c), and section 13A''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (3);
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``The remedy'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the remedy''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Compensatory time.--The remedy for a violation of
subsection (a) relating to the requirements of section 7(r)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(r))
shall be such remedy as would be appropriate if awarded under
subsection (b) or (f) of section 16 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
216).
``(3) Biweekly work programs and flexible credit hours
programs.--The remedy for a violation of subsection (a)
relating to the requirements of section 13A of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 shall be such remedy as would be
appropriate if awarded under sections 16 and 17 of such Act
(29 U.S.C. 216, 217) for such a violation.''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (4).
SEC. 6. TERMINATION.
The authority provided by this Act and the amendments made
by this Act terminates 5 years after the date of enactment of
this Act.
____
Legislative Summary
the family time and workplace flexibility act
Section 2, Comp Time
Gives employers and employees (who have been employed for
at least 12 months by the employer, and for at least 1,250
hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-
month period) the option of comp time in lieu of monetary
overtime compensation, at the rate of 1 and \1/2\ hours of
comp time for each hour of overtime worked.
Where a collective bargaining agreement is in place, an
employer would have to work within that context in shaping
any comp time program.
Where there is no collective bargaining agreement in place,
the employer and the individual employee would be allowed to
enter into a ``written agreement'' with respect to comp time.
Such an agreement must be completely voluntary and must be
arrived at before the performance of the work.
The employer is prohibited from directly or indirectly
intimidating, threatening, coercing or attempting to
intimidate, threaten or coerce any employee in agreeing to
the comp time option nor may acceptance of comp time be a
condition of employment or of working overtime.
Employees may not accrue more than 160 hours of comp time.
If unused, such hours must be cashed out at the end of the
preceding calendar year or not later than 31 days after the
end of an alternative 12-month period designated by the
employer. An employer may, upon 30 days written notice to the
employee, cash-out all hours banked in excess of 80.
Employees who terminate their employment either voluntarily
or involuntarily must be paid for any unused comp time.
An employee may withdraw an agreement at any time by
submitting a written notice of withdrawal to the employer and
an employer must, within 30 days after receiving the written
request, provide the employee the monetary compensation due.
An employer may discontinue offering comp time after
providing 30 days' notice.
Comp time may be used upon request by a worker within a
reasonable period after making the request if it does not
unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.
Section 3, Bi-Weekly Work and Flexible Credit Hour Programs
Gives employers and employees the option of a 2-week 80
hour work period during which, without incurring an overtime
penalty, up to 10 hours could be ``flexed'' between the two
week period. Employees could, if agreed upon by their
employers, choose to work 2 weeks of 40 hours each, 50 hours
in one week and 30 in another, etc. Employers would not be
required to pay overtime rates (time-and-a-half) until 80
hours had been worked in 2 calendar weeks. For hours worked
in excess of 80 in a 2 week period, a worker would have to be
compensated either in cash or in paid comp time (if the
employer has agreed to a comp time option)--each at not less
than a time-and-a-half-basis.
Gives employers and employees the option of a ``flexible
credit hour program,'' under which the employer and employee
can agree to allow the employee to work excess hours in his
schedule in order to accrue hours to be taken off at a later
time. The employee would receive one hour of time off for
every excess hour worked.
The flexible credit hour option is for employees who do not
get the opportunity to work overtime, but still want a way to
build up hours to take off later.
Employees may accrue up to 50 flexible credit hours.
Like comp time, these programs are completely voluntary and
may not affect collective bargaining agreements that are in
force.
Discontinuance rules for these programs are similar to
rules for comp time.
Section 4, Protections in Cases of Bankruptcy
Amends the Federal bankruptcy code to grant third priority
(allowed unsecured claims for wages, salaries, or
commissions) in bankruptcy proceedings to claims relating to
compensatory time off.
Section 5, Congressional Coverage
Congressional employees would have access to comp time,
biweekly work programs, and flexible credit hours.
Section 6, Termination
The provisions sunset after 5 years.
____
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 4, 2003]
The Regulators
(By Cindy Skrzycki)
Businesses Sore About Medical Leave
It was the Labor Department's 1996 ruling that counted the
common cold, flu, earaches, headaches and other routine
ailments as ``serious health conditions'' that put many
employers in a swivet over benefits offered under the Family
and Medical Leave Act.
The business community, fearing employees would be absent
from work for minor ailments, geared up almost immediately to
press Congress and the Labor Department for ``technical
corrections'' to the rules.
The law, passed a decade ago, provides workers at companies
with more than 50 employees up to 12 weeks or unpaid leave
and job protection for the birth or adoption of a child, to
care for an immediate family member, or to tend to a serious
health condition. Businesses felt so strongly about the need
to ``fix'' some of the rules that they created the FMLA
Technical Corrections Coalition in 1997, and about 300
companies and trade associations joined. They testified,
lobbied and complained about problems with the rules,
especially the guidance on what constitutes a serious health
condition. The Clinton administration, which viewed the law
as a signature piece of legislation, was not disposed to
change the rules. In surveys done for the Labor Department,
Clinton regulators insisted that companies were not finding
it onerous to comply. A Labor survey in 2000, for example,
said millions of workers have taken the leave, using it
``infrequently and for relatively short periods of time.''
The Bush administration has been more receptive to industry
complaints and is talking to business groups, AARP, unions
and women's advocacy groups about what works and doesn't work
with the regulations.
``The employer community has come in with very specific,
very targeted issues in very specific areas of the
regulations,'' said Victoria A. Lipnic, assistant secretary
for the Employment Standards Administration. ``These are
listening sessions on our part. The biggest thing we hear is
the chronic use of unforeseen, intermittent leave.''
Lipnic said the department hopes to reorganize the rules
and eliminate some of the
[[Page S2003]]
complexity to make them more efficient for employers and
employees alike. She added that the department has to change
some of the notification requirements that employers have to
abide by because a recent Supreme Court decision found
employers did not have to offer 12 weeks of family leave on
top of other, more generous leave policies.
``No one debates the 12-week leave or the family-leave part
of the legislation,'' said Randel Johnson, vice president of
labor, immigration and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce. ``It's the medical leave part that causes the
problem.''
Johnson, who was the staff aide who wrote the minority
views when the original legislation passed the House,
predicted at the time that administration would be unworkable
and lead to extensive litigation. For some companies, those
problems have come to pass and so has the litigation. There
have been some 1,300 federal cases dealing with various
aspects of the law, according to the Labor Department.
Though Congress made it clear that the leave was to be
applied to ``serious medical conditions,'' such as cancer,
surgeries and pregnancy-related issues, the rules were
interpreted otherwise.
The 1996 opinion letter that triggered business outrage
said an employee is eligible for leave if he is out for more
than three days and is receiving treatment, such as
antibiotics for the flu. That interpretation followed an
opinion from the department the year before that said exactly
the opposite.
``Whenever we have seminar or a breakout session [on the
law] at a conference, it's packed to capacity,'' said Deron
Zeppelin, director of governmental affairs for the Society
for Human Resource Management, a group of business benefits
managers. ``When you're dealing with the realities of the
workplace, the law becomes more difficult. No one thought
when it was passed that people would get [medical]
certification to take off time whenever they want.''
One large corporation, which asked not to be named, said 90
percent of the leave its workers take falls into the
``serious medical condition'' category, not the care of
family members. Company officials said the leave has been
taken for pinkeye, poison ivy, stress and tooth extraction.
``People use this as a way to get additional sick leave
without any repercussions,'' said a company official.
Business lobbyists want to tighten the definition of what
constitutes a serious health condition. The also want to
restrict employees to taking the leave in half-day chunks--
now, it can be taken in the smallest increments their payroll
systems can track, and that can be minutes. They also want
employees to be responsible for requesting leave under the
act, instead of requiring that companies tell them about it.
Labor unions and women's groups who fought for passage of
the law have been watching warily, especially since the Bush
administration recently threw out a Clinton-era rule that
allowed states to pay for family leave through their
unemployment funds. They would like to see the law expanded
to cover other absences, such as teacher conferences or to
allow employees to take a sick parent to a doctor's
appointment. They also would like the leave to be paid, which
would require new legislation, and cover more employees.
Christine Owens, director of public policy for the AFL-CIO,
said business is overstating the seriousness of the problems
and they probably could be fixed with ``modest tinkering.''
Judith L. Lichtman, president of the National Partnership for
Women & Families, said the problems employers are complaining
about are of ``questionable merit.''
``If the Bush administration wants to think of itself as
family-friendly, it should put its policies where its
rhetoric is--expand on existing FMLA rights,'' Lichtman said.
``It's an incredibly popular program that has made a
difference in the lives of working people.''
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Bond, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Edwards,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Warner, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Harkin,
and Mr Reid):
S. 318. A bill to provide emergency assistance to nonfarm-related
small business concerns that have suffered substantial economic harm
from drought; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, drought continues to be a serious problem
for many States in this country, and I rise to re-introduce legislation
to help small businesses that need disaster assistance but can't get it
through the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program.
You see, the SBA doesn't treat all drought victims the same. The
Agency only helps those small businesses whose income is tied to
farming and agriculture. However, farmers and ranchers are not the only
small businesses owners whose livelihoods are at risk when drought hits
their communities. The impact can be just as devastating to the owners
of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and tackle shops. Sadly, these
small businesses cannot get help through the SBA's disaster loan
program because of something taxpayers hate about government,
bureaucracy.
The SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its
lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a
disaster by definition. However, contrary to the Agency's position that
drought is not a disaster, as of July 16, 2002, the day this
legislation was introduced last year, the SBA had in effect drought
disaster declarations in 36 States. And adding insult to injury, in
those States where the Agency declared drought disasters, it limited
assistance to only farm-related small businesses.
My friends, the SBA has the authority to help all small businesses
hurt by drought in declared disaster areas, but the Agency won't do it.
For years the Agency has been applying the law unfairly, helping some
and not others, and it is out of compliance with the law. The Small
Business Drought Relief Act of 2003 would force SBA to comply with
existing law, restoring fairness to an unfair system, and get help to
small business drought victims that need it.
This bill deserves quick consideration. Time is of the essence for
drought victims. This legislation has been through a thorough review,
and there is no reason to duplicate our efforts. The Committee
considered virtually identical legislation last year and voted
unanimously to pass it. In addition to approval by the committee of
jurisdiction, OMB approved identical legislation last year. The bill I
am introducing today includes those changes we worked out with the
Administration, and I see no reason to delay passage.
Senator Bond has been a real champion on this issue, and I thank him.
I look forward to having a similar partnership with Senator Snowe. I
thank all my colleagues who are cosponsors, Senators Bond, Landrieu,
Edwards, Johnson, Bingaman, Levin, Baucus, Daschle, Hollings,
Lieberman, Warner, Crapo, Harkin, and Reid.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and letters of
support from governors who advocated prompt passage of this legislation
last year, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 318
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS DAMAGED BY
DROUGHT.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Small
Business Drought Relief Act of 2003''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) as of July 2002, more than 36 States (including
Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Louisiana) have suffered
from continuing drought conditions;
(2) droughts have a negative effect on State and regional
economies;
(3) many small businesses in the United States sell,
distribute, market, or otherwise engage in commerce related
to water and water sources, such as lakes, rivers, and
streams;
(4) many small businesses in the United States suffer
economic injury from drought conditions, leading to revenue
losses, job layoffs, and bankruptcies;
(5) these small businesses need access to low-interest
loans for business-related purposes, including paying their
bills and making payroll until business returns to normal;
(6) absent a legislative change, the practice of the Small
Business Administration of permitting only agriculture and
agriculture-related businesses to be eligible for Federal
disaster loan assistance as a result of drought conditions
would likely continue;
(7) during the past several years small businesses that
rely on the Great Lakes have suffered economic injury as a
result of lower than average water levels, resulting from low
precipitation and increased evaporation, and there are
concerns that small businesses in other regions could suffer
similar hardships beyond their control and that they should
also be eligible for assistance; and
(8) it is necessary to amend the Small Business Act to
clarify that nonfarm-related small businesses that have
suffered economic injury from drought are eligible to receive
financial assistance through Small Business Administration
Economic Injury Disaster Loans.
(c) Drought Disaster Authority.--
(1) Definition of disaster.--Section 3(k) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(k)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(k)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For purposes of section 7(b)(2), the term `disaster'
includes--
``(A) drought; and
``(B) below average water levels in the Great Lakes, or on
any body of water in the
[[Page S2004]]
United States that supports commerce by small business
concerns.''.
(2) Drought disaster relief authority.--Section 7(b)(2) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``including drought, with respect to both
farm-related and nonfarm-related small business concerns
affected by drought,'' before ``if the Administration''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Consolidated
Farmers Home Administration Act of 1961 (7 U.S.C. 1961)'' and
inserting the following: ``section 321 of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961), in which
case, assistance under this paragraph may be provided to
farm-related and nonfarm-related small business concerns,
subject to the other applicable requirements of this
paragraph''.
(d) Prompt Response to Disaster Requests.--Section
7(b)(2)(D) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2)(D))
is amended by striking ``Upon receipt of such certification,
the Administration may'' and inserting ``Not later than 30
days after the date of receipt of such certification by a
Governor of a State, the Administration shall respond in
writing to that Governor on its determination and the reasons
therefore, and may''.
(e) Limitation on Loans.--From funds otherwise appropriated
for loans under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(b)), not more than $9,000,000 may be used during
fiscal year 2003 to provide drought disaster loans to non-
farm related small business concerns.
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration shall promulgate final rules to carry
out this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
____
Southern Governors' Association,
August 19, 2002.
Hon. John Kerry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: We are deeply concerned that small
businesses in states experiencing drought are being
devastated by drought conditions that are expected to
continue through the end of the summer. We urge you to
support legislation that would allow small businesses to
protect themselves against the detrimental effects of
drought.
Much like other natural disasters, the effects of drought
on local economies can be crippling. Farmers and farm-related
businesses can turn in times of drought to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. However, non-farm small businesses
have nowhere to go, not even the Small Business
Administration (SBA), because their disaster loans are not
made available for damage due to drought.
To remedy this omission, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
introduced the Small Business Drought Relief Act (S. 2734) on
July 16, 2002, to make SBA disaster loans available to those
small businesses debilitated by prolonged drought conditions.
This bill was passed by the Senate Small Business Committee
just eight days later. Also, the companion legislation (H.R.
5197) was introduced by Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) on July 24,
2002. Both bills are gaining bipartisan support, and we hope
you will cosponsor this important legislation and push for
its rapid enactment in the 107th Congress.
As 11 southern states are presently experiencing moderate
to exceptional drought conditions this summer, we cannot
afford to wait to act. We urge you to cosponsor the Small
Business Drought Relief Act and push for its consideration as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama; Gov. Mike Huckabee of
Arkansas; Gov. Roy E. Barnes of Georgia; Gov. M.J.
``Mike'' Foster, Jr. of Louisiana; Gov. Ronnie Musgrove
of Mississippi; Gov. Michael F. Easley of North
Carolina; Gov. Jim Hodges of South Carolina; Gov. Rick
Perry of Texas; Gov. Bob Wise of West Virginia; Gov.
Paul E. Patton of Kentucky; Gov. Parris N. Glendening
of Maryland; Gov. Bob Holden of Missouri; Gov. Frank
Keating of Oklahoma; Gov. Don Sundquist of Tennessee;
and Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia.
____
Ofice of the Governor,
July 23, 2002.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Bond,
Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Kerry and Bond: Much of Nevada and the Nation
have been experiencing extreme drought over the past several
years. In Nevada we have seen the effects of this situation
through catastrophic range and forest fires, insect
infestations and loss of crops and livestock.
Prolonged drought causes a drastic reduction in stream and
river flow levels. This can cause the level of lakes to drop
so significantly that existing docks and boat ramps cannot
provide access to boats. In the case of range and forest
fires we have seen small innkeepers and hunting and fishing
related businesses that have their entire season wiped out in
a matter of a few hours.
Unfortunately for some small businesses, drought assistance
is available only for agriculture related small businesses,
such as feed and seed stores. For businesses that are based
on tourism around lakes and rivers, there is currently no
drought assistance available.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is not currently
authorized to help these businesses because a drought is not
a sudden occurrence. Nonetheless, a drought is an ongoing
natural disaster that causes great damage to these small
businesses.
I would like to lend my support to S. 2734, The Small
Business Drought Relief Act. This bill would amend the
guidelines and authorize the SBA to offer assistance to small
businesses affected by prolonged drought. With passage of
this bill, Governors would be allowed to ask SBA for an
administrative declarations of economic injury because of
drought. The low interest loans SBA can offer these
businesses would allow many of them to weather the drought
and remain economically viable for future operation.
Sincerely,
Kenny C. Guinn,
Governor.
____
State of North Carolina, Office of the Governor,
Raleigh, NC, July 18, 2002.
Hon. John Edwards,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Edwards: I am writing to thank you for your
support for legislation introduced in the Senate to add
drought as a condition for which small businesses may apply
for Small Business Administration Economic Injury Disaster
Loans.
The Small Business Drought Relief Act (S. 2734) will
correct the current situation facing our small businesses in
North Carolina. SBA disaster assistance is not available
despite a historic drought that is impacting not just our
agriculture sector, but causing real business and revenue
losses, which threaten some firms with job layoffs or even
bankruptcy.
These businesses need help, and access to low-interest SBA
loans can offer a lifeline to allow paying bills and making
payrolls until business returns to normal.
I urge you to push for rapid action on this important
enhancement to SBA's ability to help our people through this
time of trouble.
With kindest regards, I remain
Very truly yours,
Michael F. Easley,
Governor.
____
State of South Carolina,
Office of the Governor,
Columbia, SC, July 9, 2002.
Hon. John Kerry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: The State of South Carolina is in its
fifth year of drought status, the worst in over fifty years.
Some parts of the state are in extreme drought status and the
rest if in severe drought status.
Ninety-nine percent of our streams are flowing at less than
10 percent of their average flow for this time of year. 60
percent of those same streams are running at lowest flow on
record for this date. The levels of South Carolina's lakes
have dropped anywhere from five feet to twenty feet. Some
lakes have experienced a drop in water level so significant
that tourist and recreational use has diminished.
State and national climatologists are not hopeful that we
will receive any significant rainfall in the near future. To
end our current drought, we would need an extended period of
average to above average rainfall.
Droughts, particularly prolonged ones such as we are
experiencing now, have extensive economic effects. For
farmers who experience the economic effects of such a
drought, assistance is available through the USDA. For small
businesses, assistance is available only for agriculture
related small businesses, i.e., feed and seed stores. For
businesses that are based on tourism around Lakes and Rivers,
there is currently no assistance available.
We have reports of lake and river tourism dependent
businesses experiencing 17 percent to 80 percent declines in
revenue. The average decline in revenue is probably near 50
percent across the board.
My staff has contacted Small Business Administration and
they are not authorized to offer assistance to these
businesses because a drought is not defined as a sudden
occurrence. Nonetheless, a drought is an ongoing natural
disaster that is causing great economic damage to these small
business owners.
I am requesting that you assist us in this situation by
proposing that the Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Committee take action to at least temporarily amend the SBA
authorizing language and allow them to offer assistance to
small businesses affected by prolonged drought. This would
allow Governors to ask SBA for an administrative declaration
of economic injury because of drought. The low interest loans
SBA can offer these businesses would allow many of them to
weather the drought and remain in business for the long run.
My staff has also been in contact with Senator Hollings'
legislative staff. I hope together, we can find an expedient
solution to the plight of these small business owners. Short
of finding a way to control the weather, this may be our only
option to help their dire situation.
Sincerely,
Jim Hodges,
Governor.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Sarbanes):
[[Page S2005]]
S. 319. A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to
increase the Government contribution for Federal employee health
insurance; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 along with my
colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes. This bill would reduce the
employee portion of premiums costs under the Federal Employee Health
Benefits Plan.
Our Federal employees work hard for the American people and they
deserve quality benefits.
Why is this legislation important?
Health insurance premiums for Federal employees and retirees rose an
average of 11.2 percent this year. In contrast, Federal worker's wages
are expected to rise by 4.1 percent in the Washington-Baltimore area
once the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill is approved. This
follows a 13.3 percent increase last year, and an increase of 10.5
percent for 2001. As a result, premiums are nearly 50 percent greater
than they were just 5 years ago.
The Federal program provides health insurance coverage to about 9
million government workers, retirees and family members. More than
800,000 of these workers live in the DC metro area.
Health insurance costs are skyrocketing, and Federal employees are
paying a greater share of their take home pay for health care each
year. Currently, Federal employees pay anywhere between 28 percent to
30 percent of premiums. In the private sector, other large employers
pay at least 80 percent of premiums and employees pay 20 percent,
according to recent data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and the Kaiser Family Foundation.
How would this bill help solve this problem?
This bill would change the financing formula for Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program, FEHBP. Under this approach, the federal
agencies would pay 80 percent of the weighted average for premiums.
This would help reduce the out-of-pocket health care costs for federal
employees and improve the affordability of FEHBP immensely.
What would this mean to Federal employees?
My bill would help improve the affordability of health care insurance
for all 9 million. Currently, about 250,000 federal employees do not
have health insurance. Many of them cannot afford health care insurance
at the current rates. My proposal would improve the affordability of
health care insurance so that many of these workers would be able to
afford coverage.
For example, under Blue Cross Blue Shield's Standard Option Plan, an
individual would save almost $400, and a family would save about $925
this year.
Providing quality benefits for federal employees is also an important
tool in helping recruit and retain a high quality workforce and compete
with the private sector and other State and local governments.
This bill would have an enormous impact in my State, Maryland, but
would also benefit Federal workers nationally. Under this proposal, the
percent that a Federal employee pays in health insurance premiums would
decline, putting more money into Federal employees pockets each pay
period.
This bill improves benefits for our hardworking Federal Employees.
I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill.
______
By Mr. GREGG.
S. 320. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to
clarify the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Family and Medical Leave Act was
intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the
birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or
one's own ``serious medical condition.''
Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a
significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies.
According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave, two-thirds of
covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order
to comply with the Act.
Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain
provisions of the Act has resulted in significant unintended
administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers
when the Act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers
to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members
when employees plan to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace
due to increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record
keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing
policies. These problems have been well documented in six separate
congressional hearings, including one I chaired and a House hearing
where I testified.
Problems with the FMLA implementation have been documented in the
courts. The validity of 13 different Department of Labor regulations
relating to the Act has been challenged in 64 reported court decisions.
Included in this, of course, is the Supreme Court's invalidation of one
of the Department's regulations in the 2002 case of Ragsdale v.
Wolverine Worldwide Inc. And, yesterday's Washington Post reported that
there have been some 1,300 Federal cases dealing with various aspects
of the law, according to the Department of Labor.
The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing
regulations and interpretations have resulted in the FMLA being
misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure
if situations like pink eye, ingrown toenails and even the common cold
will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious
health conditions. Because of these concerns and well-documented
problems with the Act, today I am introducing the Family and Medical
Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed technical
corrections to the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore it to its
original congressional intent.
The need for FMLA technical corrections has been confirmed and
strengthened by six congressional hearings and by the recent release of
key surveys. Conclusive evidence of the need for corrections has now
been established. The Congressional hearings demonstrated that the
FMLA's definition of serious health condition is vague and overly broad
due to the Department of Labor's interpretations. Additionally, the
hearings documented that the intermittent leave provisions,
notification, and certification problems are causing many serious
workplace problems. In addition, some companies testified that Congress
should consider allowing employers to permit employees to take either a
paid leave package under an existing collective bargaining agreement or
the 12 weeks of FMLA protected leave, whichever is greater.
I am concerned that a recent decrease in paid leave for employees has
been attributed to the administration's problematic FMLA
interpretations. Some research shows a decline in voluntarily provided
paid sick leave and vacation leave by the private sector. The 2000
Society for Human Resource Management Benefits Survey found that paid
vacation was provided by 87 percent of companies in the year 2000 while
the year before it was 94 percent. Paid sick leave was at 85 percent in
1999, and decreased to 74 percent the following year.
A recent survey conducted by former President Clinton's Department of
Labor confirmed FMLA implementation problems. The Labor Department
report found that the share of covered establishments reporting that it
was somewhat or very easy to comply with the FMLA has declined 21.5
percent from 1995 to 2000.
The recent release of the Society for Human Resource Management,
SHRM, 2003 FMLA Survey strongly reinforces the need for FMLA technical
corrections. Respondents to the SHRM survey stated that, on average,
more than half, or 52 percent, of employees who take FMLA leave do not
schedule the leave in advance. Consequently, managers often do not have
the ability to plan for work disruptions. Yesterday's Washington Post
article reported that the biggest thing the Department of Labor hears
about is the ``chronic use of unforseen, intermittent leave.''
Respondents to the SHRM survey also reported that, in most cases, the
burden of the workload from the employee on leave falls to employees
who are not on
[[Page S2006]]
leave. When asked whether they have had to grant FMLA requests they
felt were not legitimate, 50 percent said they had. Additionally, more
than one-third, or 34 percent, of respondents said they were aware of
employee complaints over the past year regarding a co-worker's
questionable use of FMLA leave.
The issue of intermittent leave also continues to be extremely
difficult. SHRM's 2000 FMLA survey showed that three-quarters, or 76
percent, of respondents said they would find compliance easier if the
Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to be offered and tracked in
half-day increments rather than by minutes.
I am very concerned that both the SHRM and the Labor Department
surveys show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not
easier, ten years after it has been in place. I am hopeful that the
Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act will advance in the 108th
Congress on a bipartisan basis to address this problem.
The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of the Society for
Human Resource Management, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the American Society of Healthcare Human
Resources Professionals, and close to 300 other leading companies and
associations that make up the Family and Medical Leave Act Technical
Corrections Coalition. This broad-based coalition shares my belief that
both employers and employees would benefit from making certain
technical corrections to the FMLA, corrections that are needed to
restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and
compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good
faith effort to comply with the Act.
The bill I am introducing today does several important things:
First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for
``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats'
own original Committee Report on what types of medical conditions, such
as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc., were intended to be
covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious
health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions, for
which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is
expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick
leave policies.''
On the other hand, the Department of Labor's current regulations are
extremely confusing and expansive, defining the term ``serious health
condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than
3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives
any type of continuing treatment, including a second doctor's visit, or
a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist. Such a broad
definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a
health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is
instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not
improve. The regulations also define as a ``serious health condition''
any absence for a chronic health problem, such as arthritis, asthma,
diabetes, etc., even if the employee does not see a doctor for that
absence and is absent for less than three days.
Second, the bill amends the act's provisions relating to intermittent
leave to allow employers to require that intermittent leave be taken in
minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by
employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine
justification for early departures.
Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request
that leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to
provide written application within 5 working days of providing notice
to the employer for foreseeable leave.
With respect to unforeseeable leave, the bill requires the employee
to provide, at a minimum, oral notification of the need for the leave
not later than the date the leave commences unless the employee is
physically or mentally incapable of providing notice or submitting the
application. Under that circumstance the employee is provided such
additional time as necessary to provide notice.
Shifting the burden to the employee to request that leave be
designated as FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to
question the employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's
family's private matters, as required under current law, and helps
eliminate personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be
expected to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even
attorneys have a difficult time understanding.
Under current law, it is the employer's responsibility in all
circumstances to designate leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying.
Failure to do so in a timely manner or to inform an employee that a
specific event does not qualify as FMLA leave may result in that
unqualified leave becoming qualified leave under FMLA. In addition, the
courts have held that there is personal liability for employers under
the FMLA and that an individual manager may be sued and held
individually liable for acts taken based upon or relating to the FMLA.
For example, in the 1995 case of Freemon v. Foley, in the Northern
District of Illinois, the court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends
to all those who controlled `in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability
to take leave of absence and return to her position.''
Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious
health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee
to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid
absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other
sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the
employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue
their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to
employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans,
including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union
representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal
work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules
and procedures dealing with attendance requirements.
The FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the concerns
that have been raised about the Act. It leaves in place the fundamental
protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to
restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very
legitimate concerns that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to
restore the FMLA to its original Congressional intent.
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. 320
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Family and
Medical Leave Clarification Act''.
(b) 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 reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Family and Medical Leave
Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (referred to
in this section as the ``Act'') is not working as Congress
intended when Congress passed the Act in 1993. Many
employers, including those employers that are nationally
recognized as having generous family-friendly benefit and
leave programs, are experiencing serious problems complying
with the Act.
(2) The Department of Labor's overly broad regulations and
interpretations have caused many of those problems by greatly
expanding the Act's coverage to apply to many nonserious
health conditions.
(3) Those problems are also documented in a review of
litigation under the Act. The validity of 13 different
Department of Labor regulations relating to the Act has been
challenged in 64 reported court decisions.
(4) From 1996 through 2002, 6 congressional hearings (2 in
the Senate and 4 in the House of Representatives) documented
numerous implementation problems with the Act due to the
Department of Labor's misapplication of the Act through some
of its regulations and interpretations.
(5) Documented problems generated by the Act include
significant new administrative and personnel costs, loss of
productivity,
[[Page S2007]]
scheduling difficulties, unnecessary paperwork and
recordkeeping, and other compliance problems.
(6) The Act often conflicts with employers' paid sick leave
policies, prevents employers from managing absences through
their absence control plans, and results in most leave under
the Act becoming paid leave.
(7) Administrative problems associated with the use of
intermittent leave under the Act are a well-documented issue.
Approximately \3/4\ (76 percent) of the respondents to a 2000
survey by the Society for Human Resource Management said they
would find compliance easier if the Department of Labor
allowed covered leave to be offered and tracked in increments
of half days rather than minutes.
(8) The Commission on Leave, established in title III of
the Act (29 U.S.C. 2631 et seq.) which in 1996 reported few
difficulties with compliance with the Act, failed to identify
many of the problems with compliance because the survey on
which the report was based was conducted too soon after the
date of enactment of the Act and the most significant
problems with compliance arose only when employers later
sought to comply with the Act's final regulations and
interpretations.
(9) A more recent Department of Labor survey, released in
January 2001 as an update requested by Congress to the 1996
Commission on Leave report, found that between 1995 and 2000,
there had been a 21.5 percent decline in the share of covered
establishments reporting that it was somewhat easy or very
easy to comply with the Act.
(10) According to the Society for Human Resource Management
2003 FMLA Survey, 50 percent of human resource professionals
indicated that they have had to grant leave requests under
the Act that they did not believe were legitimate because of
the Department of Labor's interpretations, and 34 percent of
human resource professionals were aware of employee
complaints in the past 12 months due to coworkers'
questionable use of leave under the Act.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION.
Section 101(11) (29 U.S.C. 2611(11)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(2) by aligning the margins of those clauses with the
margins of clause (i) of paragraph (4)(A);
(3) by inserting before ``The'' the following:
``(A) In general.--''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Exclusions.--The term does not include a short-term
illness, injury, impairment, or condition, for which
treatment and recovery are very brief.
``(C) Examples.--The term includes an illness, injury,
impairment, or physical or mental condition such as a heart
attack, a heart condition requiring a heart bypass or valve
operation, a back condition requiring extensive therapy or a
surgical procedure, a stroke, a severe respiratory condition,
a spinal injury, appendicitis, pneumonia, emphysema, severe
arthritis, a severe nervous disorder, an injury caused by a
serious accident on or off the job, an ongoing pregnancy, a
miscarriage, a complication or illness related to pregnancy
(such as severe morning sickness), a need for prenatal care,
childbirth, and recovery from childbirth, that involves care
or treatment described in subparagraph (A).''.
SEC. 4. INTERMITTENT LEAVE.
Section 102(b)(1) (29 U.S.C. 2612(b)(1)) is amended by
striking the period at the end of the second sentence and
inserting the following: ``, as certified under section 103
by the health care provider involved after each leave
occurrence. An employer may require an employee to take
intermittent leave under this Act in increments of up to (and
including) \1/2\ of a workday. An employer may require an
employee who travels as part of the normal day-to-day work or
duty assignment of the employee and who requests intermittent
leave or leave on a reduced leave schedule under this Act to
take leave for the duration of the work or assignment
involved, if the employer cannot reasonably accommodate the
employee's request.''.
SEC. 5. REQUEST FOR LEAVE.
Section 102(e) (29 U.S.C. 2612(e)) is amended by inserting
after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Request for leave.--If an employer does not exercise,
under subsection (d)(2), the right to require an employee to
substitute other employer-provided leave for leave under this
title, the employer may require the employee who wants leave
under this title to request the leave in a timely manner. If
an employer requires a timely request under this paragraph,
an employee who fails to make a timely request may be denied
leave under this title.
``(4) Timeliness of request for leave.--For purposes of
paragraph (3), a request for leave shall be considered to be
timely if--
``(A) in the case of foreseeable leave, the employee--
``(i) provides the applicable advance notice required by
paragraphs (1) and (2); and
``(ii) submits any written application required by the
employer for the leave not later than 5 working days after
providing the notice to the employer; and
``(B) in the case of unforeseeable leave, the employee--
``(i) notifies the employer orally of the need for the
leave--
``(I) not later than the date the leave commences; or
``(II) during such additional period as may be necessary,
if the employer is physically or mentally incapable of
providing the notification; and
``(ii) submits any written application required by the
employer for the leave--
``(I) not later than 5 working days after providing the
notice to the employer; or
``(II) during such additional period as may be necessary,
if the employee is physically or mentally incapable of
submitting the application.''.
SEC. 6. SUBSTITUTION OF PAID LEAVE.
Section 102(d)(2) (29 U.S.C. 2612(d)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(C) Paid absence.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B), with respect to leave provided under subsection
(a)(1)(D), if an employer provides a paid absence under the
employer's collective bargaining agreement, an employee
welfare benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), or under any
other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or
policy of the employer, the employer may require the employee
to choose between the paid absence and unpaid leave provided
under this title.''.
SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.
(a) Existing Regulations.--
(1) Review.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall review
all regulations issued before that date to implement the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.), including the regulations published in sections
825.114 and 825.115 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.
(2) Termination.--The regulations described in paragraph
(1), and opinions letters promulgated under the regulations,
cease to be effective on the effective date of final
regulations issued under subsection (b)(2)(B), except as
described in subsection (c).
(b) Revised Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall issue revised
regulations implementing the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993 that reflect the amendments made by this Act.
(2) New regulations.--The Secretary of Labor shall issue--
(A) proposed regulations described in paragraph (1) not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act;
and
(B) final regulations described in paragraph (1) not later
than 180 days after that date of enactment.
(3) Effective date.--The final regulations take effect 90
days after the date on which the regulations are issued.
(c) Transition.--The regulations described in subsection
(a) shall apply to actions taken by an employer prior to the
effective date of final regulations issued under subsection
(b)(2)(B), with respect to leave under the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act take effect 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Biden, Mr. DeWine,
and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 321. 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, Biden, DeWine, and Cantwell in introducing the Firefighting
Research and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the
establishment of a 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. Representatives Camp, Deutsch, Israel,
Etheridge, and Weldon are introducing companion legislation. Similar
legislation was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee last
September.
The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons
learned from the tragic terrorist attacks, and also address other
problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the New York City
firefighters 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 to respond to any
future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition,
[[Page S2008]]
we must recognize that many of the preparations we make to improve the
response to national emergencies also will aid 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 for Fiscal
Year 2004 to assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech
equipment. It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used
to buy equipment that will effectively protect our local communities
and the responders.
Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for new
equipment used in combating fires. Without such standards, local fire
companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or
even purchase faulty equipment. A January 2003 Consumer Reports article
states that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested or
certified by the government or independent labs. The article states
that ``the confusion will get worse, emergency departments say, as new
equipment floods the market in response to increased government
funding.'' The lives of professional and volunteer emergency personnel,
and the citizens they protect, are at risk from untested 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, other federal, state,
and local agencies, national voluntary consensus standards development
organizations, 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 work with the private sector in
developing the basic uniform performance criteria and technical
standards to ensure the effectiveness and compatibility of these new
technologies. The bill would authorize $2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004
for these efforts.
As my colleagues know, 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 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, GAO, have
highlighted the duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the
need for better coordination between Federal, State, and local
officials.
The bill seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S. Fire
Administrator to provide technical assistance and training for 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. The
bill also 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. This legislation also would authorize
the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to update the
Federal Response Plan to incorporate plans for responding to terrorist
attacks, especially events in urban areas. This update would include
fire detection, suppression, and related emergency services.
The bill would improve the training of State and local firefighters.
It would authorize the National Fire Academy to offer courses in
building collapse rescue; the use of technology in response to fires
caused by 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.
Finally, 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 and eliminate the duplication in training
programs that has been identified by the GAO.
In 2001, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a
result. While we will never be able to prevent firefighter deaths
because of the risks involved, it is our obligation to help ensure that
future firefighters are adequately equipped and trained, and are
working in coordination to respond to any future national emergencies.
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;
International Society of Fire Service Instructors; North American Fire
Training Directors and the International Fire Service Training
Association. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of endorsement be
printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill also be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 321
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.
(a) In General.--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, interested
Federal, State, and local agencies, and other interested
parties, shall--
``(A) develop new, and utilize existing, measurement
techniques and testing methodologies for evaluating new
firefighting technologies, including--
``(i) personal protection equipment;
``(ii) devices for advance warning of extreme hazard;
``(iii) equipment for enhanced vision;
``(iv) devices to locate victims, firefighters, and other
rescue personnel in above-ground and below-ground structures;
``(v) equipment and methods to provide information for
incident command, including the monitoring and reporting of
individual personnel welfare;
``(vi) equipment and methods for training, especially for
virtual reality training; and
``(vii) robotics and other remote-controlled devices;
``(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.--For equipment for
which applicable voluntary consensus standards have been
established, the Administrator shall, by regulation, require
that equipment or systems purchased through the assistance
program established by section 33 meet or exceed applicable
voluntary consensus standards.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 17 of the
Federal Fire Prevention
[[Page S2009]]
and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2216) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(i) Development of New Technology.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out section
8(e) $2,200,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
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) Mutual Aid Systems.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator, after consultation
with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
shall provide technical assistance and training to State and
local fire service officials to establish 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 Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Federal Response Plan.
``(2) Model mutual aid plans.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, shall develop and make available to State
and local fire service officials model mutual aid plans for
both intrastate and interstate assistance.''.
(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.
(c) Update of Federal Response Plan.--Within 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall--
(1) revise that Agency's Federal Response Plan to
incorporate plans for responding to terrorist attacks,
particularly in urban areas, including fire detection and
suppression and related emergency services; and
(2) transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Science describing the action taken to comply
with paragraph (1).
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 Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Federal Response Plan;
``(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) Consultation on Fire Academy Classes.--The
Superintendent of the National Fire Academy may consult with
other Federal, State, and local agency officials in
developing curricula for classes offered by the Academy.
(c) 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--
(1) to ensure that such training does not duplicate
existing courses available to fire service personnel; and
(2) to establish a mechanism for eliminating duplicative
training programs.
____
Statement of Senator John McCain, Chairman, Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation on the Firefighting Research and
Coordination Act
Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Hollings, Biden, DeWine and Cantwell in introducing the
Firefighting Research and Coordination Act. This legislation
would provide for the establishment of a 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. Representatives Camp,
Deutsch, Israel, Etheridge and Weldon are introducing
companion legislation. Similar legislation was approved by
the Senate Commerce Committee last September.
The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the
lessons learned from the tragic terrorist attacks, and also
address other problems faced by the fire services. On
September 11, the New York City firefighters 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 to respond to 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 also will aid 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 for
Fiscal Year 2004 to assist local fire departments in
purchasing this high-tech equipment. It is important that the
American taxpayers' money is used to buy equipment that will
effectively protect our local communities and the responders.
Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for
new equipment used in combating fires. Without such
standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that
does not satisfy their needs, or even purchase faulty
equipment. A January 2003 Consumer Reports article states
that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested
or certified by the government or independent labs. The
article states that ``the confusion will get worse,
emergency departments say, as new equipment floods the
market in response to increase government funding.'' The
lives of professional and volunteer emergency personnel--
and the citizens they protect--are at risk from untested
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, other
federal, state, and local agencies, national voluntary
consensus standards development organizations, 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 work with the
private sector in developing the basic uniform performance
criteria and technical standards to ensure the effectiveness
and compatibility of these new technologies. The bill would
authorize $2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for these efforts.
As my colleagues know, 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, Virginia, which highlighted
problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and
Arlington County fire departments. The report 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 (GAO) have highlighted the
duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for
better coordination between federal, state, and local
officials.
The bill seeks to address these problems by directing the
U.S. Fire Administrator to provide technical assistance and
training for 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. The bill also 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. This legislation also would authorize
the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
update the Federal Response Plan to incorporate plans for
responding to terrorist
[[Page S2010]]
attacks, especially events in urban areas. This update would
include fire detection, suppression, and related emergency
services.
The bill would improve the training of state and local
firefighters. It would authorize the National Fire Academy to
offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of
technology in response to fires caused by 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.
Finally, 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 and eliminate the duplication in training programs
that has been identified by the GAO.
In 2001, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible
price as a result. While we will never be able to prevent
firefighter deaths because of the risks involved, it is our
obligation to help ensure that future firefighters are
adequately equipped and trained, and are working in
coordination to respond to any future national emergencies.
Mr. President, 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; International Society of Fire Service
Instructors; North American Fire Training Directors and the
International Fire Service Training Association.
____
January 31, 2003.
Hon. John McCain,
Russell Senate Office Building,
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. Many of these new technologies have the potential
to improve the capabilities of our first responders, however
we must ensure that these technologies serve their intended
purpose and protect our firefighters and emergency medical
personnel. What's most important is to ensure local response
agencies quick access to new technologies while guaranteeing
that they meet minimum safety standards.
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.
The legislation directs certain federal agencies and other
interested parties, including the National Fire Protection
Association, to 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 sections of your legislation
calling for coordination of response to national emergencies
and for increased training. These are critical to the
effective deployment and safety of first responders at major
incidents. By calling upon the United States Fire
Administration to provide technical assistance and training
to state and local jurisdictions in developing state,
regional and national mutual aide agreements, the legislation
addresses the appropriate role for USFA in this process. In
addition, we certainly support authorizing the National Fire
Academy more latitude in the types of terrorism training
programs it conducts for our nation's first responders. And
lastly, we express our full support for authorizing USFA to
address the issue of a national credentialing system. It is
imperative that we establish the most effective credentialing
process to improve the accountability of firefighter skill
levels at major events.
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 of Fire Chiefs, International Association
of Fire Fighters, International Fire Service Training
Association, International Society of Fire Service
Instructors, National Fire Protection Association,
National Volunteer Fire Council, North American Fire
Training Directors.
______
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 322. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt
certain sightseeing flights from taxes on air transportation; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing
flights from the air transportation excise tax. A clarifying amendment
to the tax code is needed due to a problem that exists in the
application of the excise tax.
In 1986, the Internal Revenue Services, IRS, issued a Private Letter
Ruling in which it exempted one Hawaii-based air tour operator from
paying the air passenger transportation excise tax, but has not applied
equal treatment to other similarly situated aerial sightseeing tour
operators. It is my belief that the IRS should be consistent in its
application of this excise tax.
Under current law, a variety of excise taxes on air transportation
are imposed to finance the Airport and Airway Trust Funds program that
is administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. For example, an
air passenger transportation excise tax is imposed on users of our
nation's airports and airways. The Congress intended that the tax be
levied on passengers traveling on scheduled commercial airlines. In
addition, for the most part, the tax is imposed on each flight segment.
The Congress did not intend to have the tax applied to air tour
operators, who utilize our system of airways differently. Our national
transportation system receives little or no benefit from aerial
sightseeing operations. Air tour operations are not scheduled
commercial airlines. They are for entertainment purposes and are
circular, in that they begin and end at the same destination point.
Hawaii is among a small handful of States where our citizens can
enjoy aerial tours of sights that are remote or difficult to reach by
land. Aerial sightseeing tours are also enjoyed in Alaska, California,
Washington, Arizona, and even New York City. The imposition of the air
transportation excise tax on aerial sightseeing flights will
significantly raise the consumer price on air tours. Doing so will
cause many small aerial sightseeing tour operators, especially in my
home state, to lose customers. Many of these small companies have
struggled to stay in business after incurring significant losses in the
months following September 11, 2001, when our government imposed flight
restrictions across the nation. Those flight restrictions prevented
many flight operations in all segments of the general aviation industry
for many months into early 2002.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support my bill, which would
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing
trips from the air transportation excise tax. Under my bill, air tour
operations would still be subject to the aviation fuel excise tax.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 322
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CERTAIN SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS EXEMPT FROM TAXES ON
AIR TRANSPORTATION.
(a) In General.--Section 4281 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to small aircraft on nonestablished lines)
is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``For purposes of this section, an aircraft shall not be
considered as operated on an established line if such
aircraft is operated on a flight the sole purpose of which is
sightseeing.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to transportation beginning on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act, but shall not
apply to any amount paid before such date.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Breaux
to introduce a bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area
in Louisiana. This legislation has particularly special meaning to
those of us from Louisiana because of the importance of the cultural
and natural resources of the Atchafalaya region to the Nation.
[[Page S2011]]
This legislation, reported by the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee and unanimously passed by the full Senate during the 107th
Congress, would establish a framework to help protect, conserve, and
promote these unique natural, cultural, historical, and recreational
resources of the region.
Specifically, the legislation would establish a National Heritage
Area in Louisiana that encompasses thirteen parishes in and around the
Atchafalaya Basin swamp, America's largest river swamp. The heritage
area in south-central Louisiana stretches from Concordia parish to the
north, where the Mississippi River begins to partially flow into the
Atchafalaya River, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico in the south. The
thirteen parishes are: St. Mary, Iberia, St. Martin, St. Landry,
Avoyelles, Pointe Coupee, Iberville, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafayette,
West Baton Rouge, Concordia, and East Baton Rouge. This boundary is the
same area covered by the existing Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage
Area.
This measure will appoint the existing Atchafalaya Trace Commission
as the federally recognized ``local coordinating entity.'' The
commission is composed of thirteen members with one representative
appointed by each parish in the heritage area. Both the Atchafalaya
Trace Commission and the Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area were
created by the Louisiana Legislature a number of years ago. The
Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area program currently receives some
State funding, and already has staff working at the Louisiana
Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, DCRT, under Lieutenant
Governor Kathleen Blanco. State funds were used to create the
management plan for the heritage area, which followed ``feasibility
analysis'' guidelines as recommended by the National Park Service.
Therefore, the recently-completed management plan need only be
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval as this
legislation would recognize an existing local coordinating entity that
will oversee the implementation of this plan. We are very proud that
this state heritage area has already completed the complicated planning
process, with participation of local National Park Service
representatives, while using a standard of planning quality equal to
that of existing national heritage areas. All at no cost to the Federal
Government.
Please let me also emphasize that this legislation protects existing
private property rights. It will not interfere with local land use
ordinances or regulations, as it is specifically prohibited from doing
so. Nor does this legislation grant any powers of real property
acquisition to the local coordinating entity or heritage area program.
In addition, the legislation does not impose any environmental rule or
process or cause any change in Federal environmental quality standards
different from those already in effect.
Heritage areas are based on cooperation and collaboration at all
levels. This legislation remains true to the core concept behind
heritage areas. The heritage area concept has been used successfully in
various parts of our Nation to promote historic preservation, natural
and cultural resource protection, heritage tourism and sustainable
economic revitalization for both urban and rural areas. Heritage areas
provide a flexible framework for government agencies, private
organizations and businesses and landowners to work together on a
coordinated regional basis. The Atchafalaya National Heritage Area will
join the Cane River National Heritage Area to become the second
National Heritage Area in Louisiana, ultimately joining the 23 existing
National Heritage Areas around the Nation.
The initiative to develop the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area is
an outgrowth of a grassroots effort to achieve multiple goals of this
region. Most important among these is providing opportunities for the
future, while at the same time not losing anything that makes this
place so special. Residents from all over the region, local tourism
agencies, State agencies such as the DCRT and the Department of Natural
Resources, the State legislature, Federal agencies including the
National Park Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, parish
governments, conservation and preservation groups, local businesses and
local landowners have all participated in this endeavor to make it the
strong initiative it is today. These groups have been very supportive
of the heritage area effort, and as time moves on, the heritage area
will continue to involve more and more of the area's most important
resource, its people.
I would also like to give you a brief overview of the resources that
make this place significant to the entire country. Not only is it
important to our Nation's history, but it is also critical to
understanding America's future. The name of the place itself,
Atchafalaya, comes from the American Indians and means ``long river.''
This name signifies the first settlers of the region, descendants of
whom still live there today.
Other words come to mind in describing the Atchafalaya: mysterious,
dynamic, multi-cultural, enchanting, bountiful, threatened and
undiscovered. This region is one of the most complex and least
understood places in Louisiana and the Nation. Yet, the stories of the
Atchafalaya Heritage Area are emblematic of the broader American
experience. Here there are opportunities to understand and witness the
complicated, sometimes harmonious, sometimes adversarial interplay
between nature and culture. The history of the United States has
been shaped by the complex dance of its people working with, against,
and for, nature. Within the Atchafalaya a penchant for adventure,
adaptation, ingenuity, and exploitation has created a cultural legacy
unlike anywhere else in the world.
The heart of the heritage area is the Atchafalaya Basin. It is the
largest river swamp in the United States, larger than the more widely
known Everglades or Okefenokee Swamp. The Atchafalaya is characterized
by a maze of streams, and at one time was thickly forested with old-
growth cypress and tupelo trees. The Basin provides outstanding habitat
for a remarkably diverse array of wildlife, including the endangered
American bald eagle and Louisiana black bear. The region's unique
ecology teems with life. More than 85 species of fish; crustaceans,
such as crawfish; wildlife, including alligators; an astonishing array
of well over 200 species of birds, from waterfowl to songbirds; forest-
dwelling mammals such as deer, squirrel, beaver and other commercially
important furbearers all make their home here. Bottomland hardwood-
dependent bird species breed here in some of the highest densities ever
recorded in annual North American Breeding Bird Surveys. The Basin also
forms part of the Mississippi Valley Flyway for migratory waterfowl and
is a major wintering ground for thousands of these geese and ducks. In
general, the Atchafalaya Basin has a significant proportion of North
America's breeding wading birds, such as herons, egrets, ibises, and
spoonbills. Some of the largest flocks of Wood Storks in North America
summer here, and the southern part of the Basin has a healthy
population of Bald Eagles nesting every winter.
The region's dynamic system of waterways, geology, and massive
earthen guide levees reveals a landscape that is at once fragile and
awesome. The geology and natural systems of the Atchafalaya Heritage
Area have fueled the economy of the region for centuries. For decades
the harvest of cypress, cotton, sugar cane, crawfish, salt, oil, gas,
and Spanish moss, have been important sources of income for the
region's residents. The crawfish industry has been particularly
important to the lives of Atchafalaya residents and Louisiana has
become the largest crawfish producer in the United States. Sport
fishing and other forms of commercial fishing are important here, too,
but unfortunately, natural resource extraction and a changing
environment have drastically depleted many of these resources and
forced residents to find new ways to make a living.
Over the past century, the Atchafalaya Basin has become a study of
man's monumental effort to control nature. After the catastrophic
Mississippi River flood of 1927 left thousands dead and millions
displaced, the U.S. Congress decreed that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers should develop an intricate system of levees to
[[Page S2012]]
protect human settlements, particularly New Orleans. Today, the
Mississippi River is caged within the walls of earthen and concrete
levees and manipulated with a complex system of locks, barrages and
floodgates. The Atchafalaya River runs parallel to the Mississippi and
through the center of the Basin. In times of flooding the river basin
serves as the key floodway in controlling floodwaters headed for the
large population centers of Baton Rouge and New Orleans by diverting
water from the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. This system was
sorely tested in 1973 when floodwaters threatened to break through the
floodgates and permanently divert the Mississippi River into the
Atchafalaya. However, after this massive flood event, new land started
forming off the coast. These new land formations make up the
Atchafalaya Delta, and is the only significant area of new land being
built in the United States. These vast amounts of Mississippi River
sediment are also rapidly filling in the Basin itself, raising the
level of land in certain areas of the basin and filling in lakes and
waterways. And to demonstrate just how complex this ecosystem is, one
only needs to realize that just to the East of the Delta, Terrebonne
parish, also in the heritage area, is experiencing some of the most
significant coastal land loss in the country.
Over the centuries, the ever-changing natural environment has shaped
the lives of the people living in the Basin. Residents have profited
from and been imperiled by nature. The popular cultural identity of the
region is strongly associated with the Cajuns, descendants of the
French-speaking Acadians who settled in south Louisiana after being
deported by the British from Nova Scotia, formerly known as Acadia.
Twenty-five hundred to three thousand exiled Acadians repatriated in
Louisiana where they proceeded to re-establish their former society.
Today, in spite of complex social, cultural, and demographic
transformations, Cajuns maintain a sense of group identity and continue
to display a distinctive set of cultural expressions nearly two-
hundred-and-fifty years after their exile from Acadia. Cajun culture
has become increasingly popular outside of Louisiana. Culinary
specialties adapted from France and Acadia such as etouffee, boudin,
andouille, crepes, beignets and sauces thickened with roux, delight
food lovers well beyond Louisiana's borders. Cajun music has also
``gone mainstream'' with its blend of French folk songs and ballads and
instrumental dance music, and more recently popular country, rhythm-
and-blues, and rock music influences. While the growing interest in
Cajun culture has raised appreciation for its unique traditions, many
of the region's residents are concerned about the growing
commercialization and stereotyping that threatens to diminish the
authentic Cajun ways of life.
While the Atchafalaya Heritage Area may be well known for its Cajun
culture, there is an astonishing array of other cultures within these
parishes. Outside of New Orleans, the Atchafalaya Heritage Area is the
most racially and ethnically complex region of Louisiana, and has been
so for many years. A long legacy of multiculturalism presents
interesting opportunities to examine how so many distinct cultures have
survived in relative harmony. There may be interesting lessons to learn
from here as our Nation becomes increasingly heterogeneous. The
cultural complexity of this region has created a rich tapestry of
history and traditions, evidenced by the architecture, music, language,
food and festivals unlike any place else. Ethnic groups of the
Atchafalaya include: African-Americans, Black Creoles, Asians, Chinese,
Filipinos, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Cajuns, Spanish Islenos, Italians,
Scotch-Irish, and American Indian tribes such as the Attakapa,
Chitimacha, Coushatta, Houma, Opelousa and Tunica-Biloxi.
This heritage area has a wealth of existing cultural, historic,
natural, scenic, recreational and visitor resources on which to build.
Scenic resources include numerous State Wildlife Management Areas and
National Wildlife Refuges, as well as ten designated state scenic
byways that fall partially or entirely within the heritage area. The
Office of State Parks operates three historic sites in the heritage
area, and numerous historic districts and buildings can be found in the
region. There are also nine Main Street communities in the heritage
area. Outdoor recreational resources include two State Parks and a
multitude of waterways and bayous. Hunting, fishing, boating, and
canoeing, and more recently birdwatching and cycling, are popular ways
to experience the region. Various visitor attractions, interpretive
centers and visitor information centers exist to help residents and
tourists alike better understand and navigate many of the resources in
the heritage area. Major roads link the heritage area's central visitor
entrance points and large population centers, especially New Orleans.
Much of the hospitality industry servicing the Atchafalaya exists
around the larger cities of Baton Rouge, Lafayette and Houma. However,
more and more bed and breakfasts and heritage accommodations, such as
houseboat rentals, are becoming more numerous in the smaller towns and
rural areas.
These are just some of the examples of the richness and significance
of this region. This legislation will assist communities throughout
this heritage area who are committed to the conservation and
appropriate development of these assets. Furthermore, this legislation
will bring a level of prestige and national and international
recognition that this most special of places certainly deserves.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux):
S. 323. A bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area,
Louisiana; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 323
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 ``Atchafalaya National
Heritage Area Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Atchafalaya Basin area of Louisiana, designated by
the Louisiana Legislature as the ``Atchafalaya Trace State
Heritage Area'' and consisting of the area described in
section 5(b), is an area in which natural, scenic, cultural,
and historic resources form a cohesive and nationally
distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity
shaped by geography;
(2) the significance of the area is enhanced by the
continued use of the area by people whose traditions have
helped shape the landscape;
(3) there is a national interest in protecting, conserving,
restoring, promoting, and interpreting the benefits of the
area for the residents of, and visitors to, the area;
(4) the area represents an assemblage of rich and varied
resources forming a unique aspect of the heritage of the
United States;
(5) the area reflects a complex mixture of people and their
origins, traditions, customs, beliefs, and folkways of
interest to the public;
(6) the land and water of the area offer outstanding
recreational opportunities, educational experiences, and
potential for interpretation and scientific research; and
(7) local governments of the area support the establishment
of a national heritage area.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to protect, preserve, conserve, restore, promote, and
interpret the significant resource values and functions of
the Atchafalaya Basin area and advance sustainable economic
development of the area;
(2) to foster a close working relationship with all levels
of government, the private sector, and the local communities
in the area so as to enable those communities to conserve
their heritage while continuing to pursue economic
opportunities; and
(3) to establish, in partnership with the State, local
communities, preservation organizations, private
corporations, and landowners in the Heritage Area, the
Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area, as designated by the
Louisiana Legislature, as the Atchafalaya National Heritage
Area.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Atchafalaya National Heritage Area established by section
5(a).
(2) Local coordinating entity.--The term ``local
coordinating entity'' means the local coordinating entity for
the Heritage Area designated by section 5(c).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area developed under
section 7.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
Louisiana.
[[Page S2013]]
SEC. 5. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the State the
Atchafalaya National Heritage Area.
(b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall consist of the
whole of the following parishes in the State: St. Mary,
Iberia, St. Martin, St. Landry, Avoyelles, Pointe Coupee,
Iberville, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafayette, West Baton
Rouge, Concordia, and East Baton Rouge.
(c) Local Coordinating Entity.--
(1) In general.--The Atchafalaya Trace Commission shall be
the local coordinating entity for the Heritage Area.
(2) Composition.--The local coordinating entity shall be
composed of 13 members appointed by the governing authority
of each parish within the Heritage Area.
SEC. 6. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE LOCAL COORDINATING
ENTITY.
(a) Authorities.--For the purposes of developing and
implementing the management plan and otherwise carrying out
this Act, the local coordinating entity may--
(1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, the State, units of local government, and private
organizations;
(2) hire and compensate staff; and
(3) enter into contracts for goods and services.
(b) Duties.--The local coordinating entity shall--
(1) submit to the Secretary for approval a management plan;
(2) implement the management plan, including providing
assistance to units of government and others in--
(A) carrying out programs that recognize important resource
values within the Heritage Area;
(B) encouraging sustainable economic development within the
Heritage Area;
(C) establishing and maintaining interpretive sites within
the Heritage Area; and
(D) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for
the natural, historic, and cultural resources of, the
Heritage Area;
(3) adopt bylaws governing the conduct of the local
coordinating entity; and
(4) for any year for which Federal funds are received under
this Act, submit to the Secretary a report that describes,
for the year--
(A) the accomplishments of the local coordinating entity;
and
(B) the expenses and income of the local coordinating
entity.
(c) Acquisition of Real Property.--The local coordinating
entity shall not use Federal funds received under this Act to
acquire real property or an interest in real property.
(d) Public Meetings.--The local coordinating entity shall
conduct public meetings at least quarterly.
SEC. 7. MANAGEMENT PLAN.
(a) In General.--The local coordinating entity shall
develop a management plan for the Heritage Area that
incorporates an integrated and cooperative approach to
protect, interpret, and enhance the natural, scenic,
cultural, historic, and recreational resources of the
Heritage Area.
(b) Consideration of Other Plans and Actions.--In
developing the management plan, the local coordinating entity
shall--
(1) take into consideration State and local plans; and
(2) invite the participation of residents, public agencies,
and private organizations in the Heritage Area.
(c) Contents.--The management plan shall include--
(1) an inventory of the resources in the Heritage Area,
including--
(A) a list of property in the Heritage Area that--
(i) relates to the purposes of the Heritage Area; and
(ii) should be preserved, restored, managed, or maintained
because of the significance of the property; and
(B) an assessment of cultural landscapes within the
Heritage Area;
(2) provisions for the protection, interpretation, and
enjoyment of the resources of the Heritage Area consistent
with this Act;
(3) an interpretation plan for the Heritage Area; and
(4) a program for implementation of the management plan
that includes--
(A) actions to be carried out by units of government,
private organizations, and public-private partnerships to
protect the resources of the Heritage Area; and
(B) the identification of existing and potential sources of
funding for implementing the plan.
(d) Submission to Secretary for Approval.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the local coordinating entity shall
submit the management plan to the Secretary for approval.
(2) Effect of failure to submit.--If a management plan is
not submitted to the Secretary by the date specified in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not provide any additional
funding under this Act until a management plan for the
Heritage Area is submitted to the Secretary.
(e) Approval.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receiving the
management plan submitted under subsection (d)(1), the
Secretary, in consultation with the State, shall approve or
disapprove the management plan.
(2) Action following disapproval.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary disapproves a management
plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
(i) advise the local coordinating entity in writing of the
reasons for the disapproval;
(ii) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(iii) allow the local coordinating entity to submit to the
Secretary revisions to the management plan.
(B) Deadline for approval of revision.--Not later than 90
days after the date on which a revision is submitted under
subparagraph (A)(iii), the Secretary shall approve or
disapprove the revision.
(f) Revision.--
(1) In general.--After approval by the Secretary of a
management plan, the local coordinating entity shall
periodically--
(A) review the management plan; and
(B) submit to the Secretary, for review and approval by the
Secretary, the recommendations of the local coordinating
entity for any revisions to the management plan that the
local coordinating entity considers to be appropriate.
(2) Expenditure of funds.--No funds made available under
this Act shall be used to implement any revision proposed by
the local coordinating entity under paragraph (1)(B) until
the Secretary approves the revision.
SEC. 8. EFFECT OF ACT.
Nothing in this Act or in establishment of the Heritage
Area--
(1) grants any Federal agency regulatory authority over any
interest in the Heritage Area, unless cooperatively agreed on
by all involved parties;
(2) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the
Federal Government or a State or local government to regulate
any use of land as provided for by law (including
regulations) in existence on the date of enactment of this
Act;
(3) grants any power of zoning or land use to the local
coordinating entity;
(4) imposes any environmental, occupational, safety, or
other rule, standard, or permitting process that is different
from those in effect on the date of enactment of this Act
that would be applicable had the Heritage Area not been
established;
(5)(A) imposes any change in Federal environmental quality
standards; or
(B) authorizes designation of any portion of the Heritage
Area that is subject to part C of title I of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq.) as class 1 for the purposes of
that part solely by reason of the establishment of the
Heritage Area;
(6) authorizes any Federal or State agency to impose more
restrictive water use designations, or water quality
standards on uses of or discharges to, waters of the United
States or waters of the State within or adjacent to the
Heritage Area solely by reason of the establishment of the
Heritage Area;
(7) abridges, restricts, or alters any applicable rule,
standard, or review procedure for permitting of facilities
within or adjacent to the Heritage Area; or
(8) affects the continuing use and operation, where located
on the date of enactment of this Act, of any public utility
or common carrier.
SEC. 9. REPORTS.
For any year in which Federal funds have been made
available under this Act, the local coordinating entity shall
submit to the Secretary a report that describes--
(1) the accomplishments of the local coordinating entity;
and
(2) the expenses and income of the local coordinating
entity.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $10,000,000, of which not more than $1,000,000 shall be
made available for any fiscal year.
SEC. 11. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
The Secretary shall not provide any assistance under this
Act after September 30, 2017.
____________________