[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4014-4026]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Hutchinson):
  S. 568. A bill to amend the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, to 
respond to the severe economic losses being incurred by crop producers, 
livestock and poultry producers, and greenhouse operators as a result 
of the sharp increase in energy costs or input

[[Page 4015]]

costs from energy sources; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. 568

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EMERGENCY RELIEF FROM HIGH ENERGY COSTS FOR CROP 
                   PRODUCERS, LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PRODUCERS, AND 
                   GREENHOUSE OPERATORS.

       Section 815 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001 (114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-55), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2) and subsection (c)(2)'';
       (2) in subsections (b)(2) and (d), by striking ``subsection 
     (c)(2)'' each place it appears and inserting ``subsection 
     (c)(1)(B)'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and indenting 
     appropriately;
       (B) by striking ``Assistance'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Losses due to damaging weather and related 
     conditions.--Assistance''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Economic losses due to higher energy costs.--The 
     Secretary shall also provide assistance under this section to 
     crop producers, livestock and poultry producers, and 
     greenhouse operators for any severe increased operating costs 
     that the producers and operators have experienced, or are 
     likely to experience, during calendar year 2000 or 2001 as 
     the result of an increase in energy costs or input costs from 
     energy sources.''; and
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking ``Assistance'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (c)(2), 
     assistance''.
                                 ______
                                 

                             By Mr. BURNS:

  S. 569. A bill entitled the ``Health Care Access Improvement Act''; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Health Care 
Access Improvement Act of 2001.'' This bill is designed to dramatically 
expand rural America's access to modern health care.
  The Health Care Access Improvement Act creates a significant tax 
incentive, which encourages doctors, dentists, physician assistants, 
licensed mental health providers, and nurse practitioners to establish 
practices in under-served areas. Until now, rural areas have not been 
able to compete with the financial draw of urban settings and therefore 
have had trouble attracting medical professionals to their communities. 
The $1,000 per month tax credit will allow health care workers to enjoy 
the advantages of rural life without drastic financial sacrifices. But 
the real winners in this bill are the thousands of Americans whose 
access to health care is almost impossible due to a lack of doctors and 
dentists in small town America.
  There are nine counties in the great state of Montana which do not 
have even one doctor. In these rural settings, agriculture is often the 
only employer. Farming and ranching is hard, dangerous work. Serious 
injuries can happen in an instant. And while Montanans have always been 
known as a heartier breed of people, we get sick too. It is 
unreasonable to expect the farmer who has had a run-in with an auger or 
the elderly rancher's widow to drive two hours or more to get stitched 
up or to have a crown on a tooth replaced. As doctors, dentists, 
physicians assistants, mental health providers, and nurse practitioners 
are attracted to the more urban areas, Montanans and others in isolated 
communities will suffer. We must do what we can to ensure that these 
health care providers come to rural America, we must give them some 
incentive to practice in these smaller communities so that citizens 
living in these areas can finally enjoy the medical treatment they 
deserve.
  This problem is not unique to my State of Montana, alone. In fact, 
throughout the United States, we continue to experience scarcity in all 
or parts of 2,692 counties. In rural areas, serious shortages exist in 
the supply of primary care practitioners and specialty care 
practitioners. This is precisely the reason why this bill is so 
important.
  Twenty-nine health care organizations believe strongly in this 
legislation, as well. They actively support the introduction of this 
legislation to provide a tax credit to health care providers 
establishing practices in underserved areas because they realize it 
will help thousands of health care providers make decisions to 
establish their practices in America's underserved communities. So many 
communities whose access to qualified health care professionals has 
been a constant ``revolving door'' will be greatly helped by this tax 
credit. Mr. President, I hold here in my hand a letter on behalf of 
these various groups which I ask to be inserted in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BURNS. It is important to note that less than 11 percent of the 
nation's physicians are practicing in non-metropolitan areas, less than 
11 percent. This is a significant number, folks. We owe it to the men, 
women, children, elderly and families living in these non-urban 
communities to take steps necessary to increase this percentage and get 
more health care providers to their communities.
  The Department of Health and Human Services uses a ratio of one 
primary care physician per 3,500 population as the standard for a 
primary care Health Professional Shortage Area, HPSA. More than 20 
million Americans live in rural and frontier HPSAs. Most of the State 
of Montana is beyond rural, it's frontier. As of 1997, more than 2,200 
physicians were needed nationwide to satisfy these non-metropolitan 
primary care HPSAs shortages. I think this bill is a step in the right 
direction.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to work with me and join in 
support of this legislation. Rural Montana, rural America, and health 
service providers all benefit from increased access, service and a 
better quality of life. In short, everyone wins with this legislation. 
I look forward to making this legislation work for so many of the men, 
women and children in need of quality health care.
  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. 569

       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 ``Health Care Access 
     Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. NONREFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR CERTAIN PRIMARY HEALTH 
                   SERVICES PROVIDERS SERVING HEALTH PROFESSIONAL 
                   SHORTAGE AREAS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 25A the following new section:

     ``SEC. 25B. PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS SERVING HEALTH 
                   PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREAS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual 
     who is a qualified primary health services provider for any 
     month during the taxable year, there shall be allowed as a 
     credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for such 
     taxable year an amount equal to $1,000 for each month during 
     such taxable year--
       ``(1) which is part of the eligible service period of such 
     individual, and
       ``(2) for which such individual is a qualified primary 
     health services provider.
       ``(b) Qualified Primary Health Services Provider.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `qualified primary health 
     services provider' means, with respect to any month, any 
     physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, who is 
     certified for such month by the Bureau to be a primary health 
     services provider or a mental health provider licensed under 
     applicable state law who--
       ``(1) is providing primary health services full time and 
     substantially all of whose primary health services are 
     provided in a health professional shortage area,
       ``(2) is not receiving during the calendar year which 
     includes such month a scholarship under the National Health 
     Service Corps Scholarship Program or the Indian health 
     professions scholarship program or a loan repayment under the 
     National Health Service

[[Page 4016]]

     Corps Loan Repayment Program or the Indian Health Service 
     Loan Repayment Program,
       ``(3) is not fulfilling service obligations under such 
     Programs, and
       ``(4) has not defaulted on such obligations.
     Such term shall not include any individual who is described 
     in paragraph (1) with respect to any of the 3 most recent 
     months ending before the date of the enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(c) Eligible Service Period.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `eligible service period' means the period 
     of 60 consecutive calendar months beginning with the first 
     month the taxpayer is a qualified primary health services 
     provider.
       ``(d) Other Definitions and Special Rule.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) Bureau.--The term `Bureau' means the Bureau of Health 
     Care Delivery and Assistance, Health Resources and Services 
     Administration of the United States Public Health Service.
       ``(2) Physician.--The term `physician' has the meaning 
     given to such term by section 1861(r) of the Social Security 
     Act.
       ``(3) Physician assistant.--The term `physician assistant' 
     has the meaning given to such term by section 1861(aa)(5)(A) 
     of the Social Security Act.
       ``(4) Nurse practitioner.--The term `nurse practitioner' 
     has the meaning given to such term by section 1861(aa)(5)(A) 
     of the Social Security Act.
       ``(5) Primary health services provider.--The term `primary 
     health services provider' means a provider of basic health 
     services (as described in section 330(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
     Public Health Service Act).
       ``(6) Health professional shortage area.--The term `health 
     professional shortage area' means any area which, as of the 
     beginning of the eligible service period, is a health 
     professional shortage area (as defined in section 332(a)(1) 
     of the Public Health Service Act) taking into account only 
     the category of health services provided by the qualified 
     primary health services provider.
       ``(7) Only 60 months taken into account.--In no event shall 
     more than 60 months be taken into account under subsection 
     (a) by any individual for all taxable years.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 25A the following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Primary health services providers serving health 
              professional shortage areas.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                             ADEA,


                        American Dental Education Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 2001.
     Hon. Conrad Burns,
     United States Senate,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Burns: The 29 undersigned organizations 
     actively support your introduction of legislation to provide 
     a tax credit to health care providers establishing practices 
     in underserved areas. This tax credit will not only help 
     thousands of health care providers make decisions to 
     establish their practices in America's underserved 
     communities, but also will provide sufficient time for them 
     to establish roots in these communities.
       Many communities whose access to qualified health care 
     professionals has been a constant ``revolving door'' will be 
     greatly helped by this tax credit. It is estimated that more 
     than 20,000 clinicians are needed to eliminate all of the 
     Primary Care Dental, Medical and Mental Health, Health 
     Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs) now designated across our 
     nation.
       Please accept our endorsement for this critical proposal 
     that will improve America's public health and access to 
     health care in underserved areas. Thank you for offering such 
     an important proposal at the outset of the legislative 
     session and for your continued leadership. Please let us know 
     how we may be helpful to you as we work together to improve 
     access to care. We are committed to provide sustained 
     assistance as you move this proposal forward.
           Sincerely,
                             Richard W. Valachovic, D.M.D., M.P.H.
                                               Executive Director.

       On behalf of the: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry; 
     American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine; 
     American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; American 
     Association of Community Dental Programs; American 
     Association for Dental Research; American Association of 
     Public Health Dentistry; American College of Nurse-Midwives; 
     American College of Nurse Practitioners; American College of 
     Osteopathic Emergency Physicians; American College of 
     Osteopathic Family Physicians; American Dental Association; 
     American Dental Education Association; American Dental 
     Hygienists' Association; American Medical Student 
     Association; American Optometric Association; American 
     Osteopathic Association; American Psychological Association; 
     American Student Dental Association; Association of Academic 
     Health Centers; Association of American Medical Colleges; 
     Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges; 
     Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions; 
     Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry; Association 
     of Schools of Public Health; Clinical Social Work Federation; 
     Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations; 
     National Association of Graduate-Professional Students; 
     National League for Nursing and National Organization of 
     Nurse Practitioners Faculties.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Levin, Mr. Specter, 
        Mrs. Carnahan, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Miller, Ms. Collins, and Mr. 
        Carper):
  S. 570. A bill to establish a permanent Violence Against Women Office 
at the Department of Justice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I address once more the subject of 
violence against women. It is still a problem.
  According to the Justice Department statistics, violence against 
women by intimate partners is actually down, falling 21 percent from 
1993 to 1998. Luckily, we can thank the programs created by the 
Violence Against Women Act, which I introduced almost a decade ago, and 
the efforts of advocates all across this country, from Dover to Denver, 
in educating us to confront domestic violence head-on.
  Yet, unfortunately, we are far from eradicating this crime. It is a 
crime which harms women, leaving them battered and blue, sending them 
to the hospital, and causing them to miss work. We have also a crime 
that affects their children--children who cower while watching their 
mother get battered, children who too often then act out their own 
aggression.
  I would love to say that, in my lifetime, we will break this cycle of 
family violence. But, we are not there yet.
  One way of working towards this goal, however, is to preserve the 
Violence Against Women Office at the Justice Department. Today I, along 
with Senators DeWine, Levin, Specter, Carnahan, Hutchison, Miller, 
Collins, and Carper, have introduced a bill making the Office 
permanent.
  This office is vital because it has been instrumental in our efforts 
to help women harmed by domestic violence. Since its inception, the 
Violence Against Women Office has distributed over one billion dollars 
in its first five years to states, localities, tribal governments, and 
private organizations. These governments and groups, in turn, have used 
these precious funds to improve the investigation and prosecution of 
crimes of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault; to train 
prosecutors, police officers, and judges on the special aspects of 
cases involving violence against women; and to offer the needed 
services to victims and their families.
  In particular, this funding includes the incredibly successful STOP 
grants--grants which fund the Services for the Training of Officers and 
Prosecutors. These STOP grants--the largest grant program created by 
the Violence Against Women Act, are especially effective because each 
grant must be used to upgrade three vital areas: prosecution, law 
enforcement, and victim services.
  Likewise, the Violence Against Women Office has awarded grants to 
encourage arrest policies, which seek to educate our police officers 
that, when they answer a call for help by a woman being battered, they 
should not turn away. This battery is not a private matter, to be left 
behind closed doors--where a man as king of his castle can do as he 
pleases. No, not anymore. That woman's abuser is committing a crime and 
he is subject to arrest and prosecution.
  The Office has also distributed monies to our rural areas as part of 
the program for Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement. I 
am sorry to say but this problem is in every part of this nation, and 
the Violence Against Women Office has sent funds to every corner of 
America, all the way from Orem, UT to Waterbury, VT. Yet, despite its 
pervasiveness, domestic violence itself is under attack.

[[Page 4017]]

  And the Violence Against Women Office is leading the fight. Given the 
success of the many programs of the Violence Against Women Act as 
administered by the Office, I believe that the time has come to make 
the Violence Against Women Office permanent by statute. This Office is 
long overdue a strong foundation.
  Moreover, the Office is due the prestige it deserves. My bill 
realizes this aim in a couple of ways. First, my bill provides that the 
Office be separate from any division or component of the Justice 
Department. In this regard, with the Office's Director reporting 
directly to the Associate Attorney General, as my bill requires, the 
Office will be shielded from any attempts to undo the great work it has 
historically accomplished. Why mess with success?
  Second, my bill provides that the Director of the Office shall now be 
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This, too, 
raises the prestige of the work that the Violence Against Women Office 
seeks to accomplish day-in and day-out. It also subjects the selection 
of the Director, who performs the essential job of implementing the 
Violence Against Women Act, to the democratic process--thereby insuring 
that we attract the best candidates.
  Yes, indeed, we are far from solving the crime of domestic violence. 
But let us take a step in the right direction. Join me in making the 
Violence Against Women Office permanent. The safety of women and their 
families depends on it.
  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. 570

       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 ``Violence Against Women 
     Office Act''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

       (a) In General.--There is established in the Department of 
     Justice a Violence Against Women Office (in this Act referred 
     to as the ``Office'') under the general authority of the 
     Attorney General.
       (b) Separate Office.--The Office--
       (1) shall not be part of any division or component of the 
     Department of Justice; and
       (2) shall be a separate office headed by a Director who 
     shall report to the Attorney General through the Associate 
     Attorney General of the United States, and who shall also 
     serve as Counsel to the Attorney General.

     SEC. 3. JURISDICTION.

       The Office--
       (1) shall have jurisdiction over all matters related to 
     administration, enforcement, coordination, and implementation 
     of all responsibilities of the Attorney General or the 
     Department of Justice related to violence against women, 
     including formula and discretionary grant programs authorized 
     under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of 
     Public Law 103-322) and the Violence Against Women Act of 
     2000 (Division B of Public Law 106-386); and
       (2) shall be solely responsible for coordination with other 
     offices or agencies of administration, enforcement, and 
     implementation of the programs, grants, and activities 
     authorized or undertaken under the Violence Against Women Act 
     of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103-322) and the Violence 
     Against Women Act of 2000 (Division B of Public Law 106-386).

     SEC. 4. DIRECTOR OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

       (a) Appointment.--The President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, shall appoint a Director for the 
     Violence Against Women Office (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Director'') to be responsible for the administration, 
     coordination, and implementation of the programs and 
     activities of the office.
       (b) Other Employment.--The Director shall not--
       (1) engage in any employment other than that of serving as 
     Director; or
       (2) hold any office in, or act in any capacity for, any 
     organization, agency, or institution with which the Office 
     makes any contract or other agreement under the Violence 
     Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103-322) or 
     the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (Division B of Public 
     Law 106-386).
       (c) Vacancy.--In the case of a vacancy, the President may 
     designate an officer or employee who shall act as Director 
     during the vacancy.
       (d) Compensation.--The Director shall be compensated at a 
     rate of pay not to exceed the rate payable for level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 5. REGULATORY AUTHORIZATION.

       The Director may, after appropriate consultation with 
     representatives of States and units of local government, 
     establish such rules, regulations, and procedures as are 
     necessary to the exercise of the functions of the Office, and 
     are consistent with the stated purposes of this Act and those 
     of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public 
     Law 103-322) and the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 
     (Division B of Public Law 106-386).

     SEC. 6. OFFICE STAFF.

       The Attorney General shall ensure that there is adequate 
     staff to support the Director in carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the Director under this Act.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Allen):
  S. 571. A bill to provide for the location of the National Museum of 
the United States Army; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
create a National Museum for the United States Army. This endeavor is 
important to every American, every veteran, and all Members of 
Congress.
  I would be greatly pleased to have my colleagues join me in 
sponsoring this worthy legislation.
  Our great Capital City and its surrounding countryside host every 
kind of museum imaginable, but not one for one of this Nation's 
greatest institutions, the United States Army. Area museums serving the 
American public today are all worthy museums, but this great city and 
this great Nation are sadly without a museum for its citizen-soldiers 
who have sacrificed so much for their country.
  The purpose of the legislation which I introduce today is to 
designate a place for the Army Museum to be built to preserve, 
interpret, and display the important role the Army has played in the 
history of our Nation.
  What I propose is not new. Over the past two decades many sites have 
been suggested and most are unsatisfactory because they have 
unrealistic development requirements, because their locations are 
unsuitable for such an esteemed building, or they lacked an appropriate 
Army setting. Since 1983, the process of choosing a site for the Army 
Museum has been a long cumbersome undertaking. A site selection 
committee was organized and it developed a list of 17 criteria which 
any candidate site is required to possess before it was to be selected 
as home to the Army Museum. Among other requirements, these criteria 
required such things as: an area permitting movement of large military 
vehicles for exhibits and tractor trailer trucks for shipments, 
commanding and aesthetically pleasing vistas, positive impact on 
environment, closeness to public transportation, closeness to a 
Washington Tourmobile route, convenience to Fort Myer for support by 
the 3rd Infantry, The Old Guard, accessibility by private automobile, 
adequate parking for 150 staff and official visitors, adequate parking 
for a portion of the 1,000,000 visitors per year that do not use public 
transportation, food service for staff and visitors, area low in crime 
and safe for staff and visitors, suitable space, 300,000 square feet, 
for construction, a low water table, good drainage and no history of 
flooding and suitability for subterranean construction.
  Since 1984, more than 60 sites have been studied, yet only a handful 
has been worthy of any serious consideration.
  The most prominent recent site suggestions have included Carlisle, 
Pennsylvania; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; the Washington Navy Yard; and 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Of these sites, most clearly have 
characteristics which are directly contrary to the established criteria 
for site selection. The extraordinary distance of Carlisle from 
Washington speaks for itself. The suggestion that the Army locate its 
museum in Washington's Navy Yard is also directly contrary to 
prerequisites for site selection. The Washington Navy Yard is situated 
in a dangerous and difficult-to-get-to part of Washington, on the

[[Page 4018]]

Anacostia River and on a precarious 50-year flood plain. Because this 
area floods so often, a ``Washington Navy Yard Army Museum'', let me 
pause to repeat this awkward location a ``Washington Navy Yard Army 
Museum'', might well suffer the embarrassment of being closed ``due to 
flooding.'' This would not be the way America should honor Army 
history. The Navy Yard over the years has become less military in 
character and a patchwork home to various government offices. To locate 
the Army Museum in an old Navy yard, which is sometimes under water, 
would send a clear signal to visitors that choosing a home to their 
history was nothing more than an afterthought.
  In 1991, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed that the site 
searches include the Mount Vernon Corridor as a possible location for 
the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir quickly became a very attractive 
location. Fort Belvoir offers a 48-acre site, only 5 minutes from 
Interstate 95, which is traveled by over 300 million vehicles annually, 
it is 3 minutes from the Fairfax County parkway, and is served by Metro 
Bus, the Fort Belvoir site fronts on US Route 1, Richmond Highway and 
is next to the main gate of Fort Belvoir.
  The Fort Belvoir site is also a winner historically. It is on a 
portion of General George Washington's properties when he was Commander 
in Chief of the Continental Army. It is located on the historical 
heritage trail of the Mount Vernon Estate, The Grist Mill, Woodlawn 
Plantation, Pohick Church, and Gunston Hall. Situating the Army Museum 
at Fort Belvoir is a natural tie to a long established military and 
historic installation that has already been approved by the National 
Capitol Planning Commission to be used for community activities, which 
includes museums, as a part of the Fort Belvoir Master Plan. The Fort 
Belvoir site meets all 17 criterions originally established by the 
Army.
  The bill I am introducing today names Fort Belvoir as the site for 
the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir is the best location in the Washington 
area to host an Army museum. Army veterans want to remember and show 
their contribution to history in an Army setting and culture in which 
they themselves once served. Fort Belvoir is the perfect place to do 
this and it qualifies on every criterion established in 1983 by the 
Army's Site Selection Committee. For Belvoir is Army and should host 
Army history. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues support this bill and 
bring the 18-year search for a home for the Army Museum to a close by 
selecting a worthy home for one of this Nation's greatest institutions.
  Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1817, ``A morsel of genuine 
history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' I am pleased to 
see that the National U.S. Army Museum is a task for this Congress at 
the beginning of a new century, at a time when all Americans are proud 
of their Nation's accomplishments and those who made it all possible. I 
am absolutely concerned that all our veterans are honored, and honored 
honorably. Every year Army veterans bring their families to Washington 
and are disappointed that no museum exists as a tribute to their 
service and sacrifice. Time is running out for many Army veterans, 
especially those of World War II. I urge my colleagues to review this 
important piece of legislation and support its passage. Mr. President, 
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill and the site 
selection criteria be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 571

       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 ``National Museum of the 
     United States Army Site Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Nation does not have adequate knowledge of the role 
     of the Army in the development and protection of the United 
     States.
       (2) The Army, the oldest United States military service, 
     lacks a primary museum with public exhibition space and is in 
     dire need of a permanent facility to house and display its 
     historical artifacts.
       (3) Such a museum would serve to enhance the preservation, 
     study, and interpretation of Army historical artifacts.
       (4) Many Army artifacts of historical significance and 
     national interest which are currently unavailable for public 
     display would be exhibited in such a museum.
       (5) While the Smithsonian Institution would be able to 
     assist the Army in developing programs of presentations 
     relating to the mission, values, and heritage of the Army, 
     such a museum would be a more appropriate institution for 
     such programs.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to provide for a permanent site for a museum to serve 
     as the National Museum of the United States Army;
       (2) to ensure the preservation, maintenance, and 
     interpretation of the artifacts and history collected by such 
     museum;
       (3) to enhance the knowledge of the American people of the 
     role of the Army in United States history; and
       (4) to provide a facility for the public display of the 
     artifacts and history of the Army.

     SEC. 3. LOCATION OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE UNITED STATES 
                   ARMY.

       The Secretary of the Army shall provide for the location of 
     the National Museum of the United States Army at Fort 
     Belvoir, Virginia.
                                  ____


                  Army's NMUSA Site Selection Criteria

       1. Site large enough for building of 300,000 square feet.
       2. Suitable soil and other physical properties.
       3. Low water table, good drainage, no history of flooding 
     and suitable for subterranean construction, if necessary.
       4. Topography of site permits building design to include 
     north light for labs and graphics branch.
       5. Area will permit movement of large military vehicles for 
     exhibits and tractor trailer trucks for shipments.
       6. Commanding and aesthetically pleasing vistas.
       7. Positive impact on environment.
       8. Close to public transportation.
       9. Close to Tourmobile route.
       10. Convenient to National Archives and Library of Congress 
     for staff use.
       11. Convenience to the Pentagon for staff coordination.
       12. Close enough to Fort Myer for support by the 3d 
     Infantry, The Old Guard.
       13. Accessible by private automobile.
       14. Adequate parking for 150 staff and official visitors or 
     space for same.
       15. Adequate parking for a portion of the 1,000,000 
     visitors per year that do not use public transportation or 
     space for same.
       16. Food service for staff and visitors, if not provided in 
     new building.
       17. Area low in crime and safe for staff and visitors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, 
        Mrs. Murray, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 573. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to allow 
children enrolled in the State children's health insurance program to 
be eligible for benefits under the pediatric vaccine distribution 
program; to the Committee on Finance.



  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues 
Senators Chafee, Durbin, Reed, Murray, and Boxer to introduce a bill to 
clarify that children receiving health insurance under the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, in States like California 
are eligible for free vaccines under the federal Vaccines for Children, 
VFC, program.
  Providing low-income children with access to immunizations is a high 
priority of mine. I believe that we must work to ensure that our 
nation's youngsters begin life protected against the diseases for which 
there are vaccinations available.
  The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, estimates that in many areas of 
the U.S. immunization rates continue to fall below 75 percent among 
children under 2 years old. This is unacceptable.
  In 1993, the U.S. experienced the largest outbreak of whooping cough 
in over 20 years. Additionally, from 1989 to 1991, a measles outbreak 
resulted in 123 deaths and 55,000 cases. These are diseases for which 
vaccinations are available.
  While we are doing a better job of educating families about the 
importance of receiving timely immunizations, we must now focus our 
efforts on ensuring access to immunizations for those most in need.
  The federal Vaccines for Children program, created by Congress in 
1993,

[[Page 4019]]

P.L. 105-33, is an excellent example of a program that provides 
vaccines at no cost to low-income children.
  To be eligible for the VFC program under current federal law, a child 
must be a Medicaid recipient, uninsured, or of American Indian or 
Alaskan Native heritage.
  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, argues that a 
child participating in SCHIP, called Healthy Families in California, is 
not eligible for the free immunizations provided by the VFC program 
because that child is ``insured.''
  I believe the interpretation of ``insured'' is not consistent with 
Congress's intent in establishing SCHIP. I believe that in defining the 
term ``insured'' at that time Congress clearly meant private health 
insurance plans.
  Children enrolled in SCHIP, or in my State the Healthy Families 
program, are participating in a federal-state, subsidized insurance 
plan. Healthy Families is a state-operated program. Families apply to 
the State for participation. They are not insured by a private, 
commercial plan, as traditionally defined or as defined in the Vaccine 
for Children's law (42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(2)(B).
  Several California based provider groups agree. For example, in 
February 1999 the California Medical Association wrote to then-HHS 
Secretary Donna Shalala: ``As they are participants in a federal and 
state-subsidized health program, these individuals are not ``insured'' 
for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(B).''
  HHS has interpreted the law so narrowly that as many as 630,000 
children in California under California's Healthy Families program have 
lost or will lose their eligibility to receive free vaccines. 
Approximately 428,641 kids have lost eligibility to date.
  The VFC program is particularly important to California in ensuring 
access to life-saving immunizations for two reasons.
  First, California ranks 40th overall among states having children 
fully immunized by the age of 19 to 35 months. In 1996, however, 
California ranked 32nd. Clearly the situation in California is getting 
worse rather than better. Allowing SCHIP children to access 
immunizations through the VFC program could increase the number of 
children receiving vaccinations in the State.
  Second, in creating SCHIP in California, the State chose to set up a 
program under which the State contracts with private insurers, rather 
than providing eligible children care through Medicaid, Medi-Cal in 
California.
  The California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which is 
administering the new program with the Department of Health Services, 
wrote to HHS in February 1999: ``It is imperative that states like 
California, who have implemented SCHIP using private health insurance, 
be given the same support and eligibility for the Vaccines for 
Children, VFC, program at no cost as States which have chosen to expand 
their Medicaid program.''
  A study conducted by the California Medical Association found that 
pediatric capitation rates for children ages 0-21 averages $24.24 per 
child per month. However, a 1998 Towers Perrin Study of physician costs 
for children ages 0-21 years found averages to be $47.00 per child per 
month. These numbers demonstrate the discrepancy between payment and 
costs for children enrolled in a capitation plan, which includes all 
children enrolled in California's Healthy Families program.
  Add to this discrepancy in payments the fact that children need 18 to 
22 immunizations before the age of 6. This process becomes quite 
costly!
  The discrepancy in payment and costs means that many California 
physicians cannot afford to provide patients with the necessary life-
saving immunizations, so children in my State are often going without 
vaccinations.
  This reality has caused serious problems for children in California.
  For example: From 1993 to 1997, Orange County California had 85 
hospitalizations and four deaths related to chicken pox. Across the 
State in 1996 there were 15 deaths and 1,172 hospitalizations related 
to chicken pox. The Immunization Branch in California reported over 
1,000 whooping cough cases, including 5 deaths, in 1998--the largest 
number of cases and deaths since the 1960s.
  Whooping cough and chicken pox are two examples of diseases for which 
there are vaccinations available.
  We must do more to increase access to vaccinations for our nation's 
children.
  In 1998, as many 743,000 poor children in California, who were 
uninsured or on Medicaid, received these vaccines. This number is down 
by approximately 32,000 children in comparison to the 1997 immunization 
figures for California's poor children.
  What can be so basic to public health than immunization against 
disease? Do we really want our children to get polio, measles, mumps, 
chicken pox, rubella, and whooping cough, diseases for which we have 
effective vaccines, diseases which we have practically eradicated by 
widespread immunization?
  Congress recognized the importance of immunizations in creating the 
VFC program, with many Congressional leaders at the time arguing that 
childhood immunization is one of the most cost-effective steps we can 
take to keep our children healthy.
  It makes no sense to me to withhold immunizations from children who 
1. have been getting them when they were uninsured and 2. have no other 
way to get them once they become insured.
  According to an Annie E. Casey Foundation report, 22 percent of 
California's two-year olds are not immunized. Add to that the fact that 
we have one of the highest uninsured rates in the country.
  Over 28 percent of California's children are without health 
insurance, compared to 25 percent nationally, according to the Annie E. 
Case Foundation. Clearly, there is a need.
  The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized on March 10, 1998: ``More 
than half a million California children should not be deprived of 
vaccinations or health insurance because of a technicality . . .,'' 
calling the denial of vaccines ``a game of semantics.''
  Children's health should not be a ``game of semantics.'' Proper 
childhood immunizations are fundamental to a lifetime of good health. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, to help 
me keep our children healthy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 574. A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act 
to allow States to provide health benefits coverage for parents of 
children eligible for child health assistance under the State 
children's health insurance program, to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. Today, I am introducing legislation to 
allow States, at their option, to enroll parents in the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, known as S- CHIP.
  This bill could provide insurance to 2.7 million uninsured parents 
nationwide and 356,000 parents in California at a time when the 
uninsured rate in the country and in California continues to rise.
  Congress has appropriated a total of $17.2 billion for SCHIP for 
Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, and 2000, or about $4.3 billion for each 
Fiscal Year.
  SCHIP is a low-cost health insurance program for low-income children 
up to age 19 that Congress created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. 
After three years, SCHIP covers approximately two million children 
across the country, out of the three to four million children estimated 
to be eligible.
  Congress created SCHIP as a way to provide affordable health 
insurance to uninsured children in families that cannot afford to buy 
private insurance. States can choose from three options when designing 
their SCHIP program: 1. expansion of their current Medicaid program; 2. 
creation of a separate State insurance program; or 3. a combination of 
both approaches.
  California's SCHIP is known as the Healthy Families program and is 
set up as a public-private program rather than a Medicaid expansion. 
Healthy

[[Page 4020]]

Families allows California families to use federal and State SCHIP 
funds to purchase private managed care insurance for their children.
  Under the federal law, States generally cover children in families 
with incomes up to 200 percent of poverty, although States can go 
higher if their Medicaid eligibility was higher than that when SCHIP 
was enacted in 1997 or through waivers by the Department of Health and 
Human Services. In California, eligibility was raised to 250 percent of 
poverty in November 1999, which increased the number of eligible 
children by 129,000.
  Basic benefits in the California SCHIP program include inpatient and 
outpatient hospital services, surgical and medical services, lab and x-
ray services, and well-baby and well-child care, including 
immunizations. Additional services which States are encouraged to 
provide, and which California has elected to include, are prescription 
drugs and mental health, vision, hearing, dental, and preventive care 
services such as prenatal care and routine physical examinations.
  In California, enrollees pay a $5.00 co-payment per visit which 
generally applies to inpatient services, selected outpatient services, 
and various other health care services.
  The United States faces a serious health care crisis that continues 
to grow as more and more people go without insurance. The U.S. has seen 
an increase in the uninsured by nearly five million since 1994.
  Currently, 42 million people, or 17 percent, of the non- elderly 
population in the country are uninsured. In California, 22 percent, or 
6.8 million, of the nonelderly are uninsured.
  A study cited in the May 2000 California Journal found that as many 
as 2,333 Californians lose health insurance every day. A May 29, 2000 
San Jose Mercury article cited California's emergency room doctors who 
``estimate that anywhere from 20 percent to 40 percent of their walk-in 
patients have no health coverage.''
  Among the 1.85 million uninsured children in California, nearly two-
thirds or 1.3 million are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, called 
Healthy Families in the state, according to the University of 
California at Los Angeles.
  Last year, we passed legislation enabling California to keep 
approximately $350 million of the $600 million unspent SCHIP funds. My 
state and others were at risk of losing funds because the law required 
states to use all their funds in three years and time was running out 
on the 1998 funds. Since my state and others still have these funds, as 
well as funds allotted in fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001, enrolling 
parents and more children could be a good way to increase enrollment.
  The bill we are introducing today would gives States the option to 
expand SCHIP coverage to parents whose children are eligible for the 
program at whatever income eligibility level the state sets. In my 
State, that would mean a family of four earning up to $42,625 would be 
eligible for coverage.
  This bill would retain current funding formulas, State allotments, 
benefits, eligibility rules, and cost-sharing requirements. The only 
change is to allow States the option to enroll parents.
  An SCHIP expansion should be accomplished without substituting SCHIP 
coverage for private insurance or other public health insurance that 
parents might already have. The current SCHIP law requires that State 
plans include adequate provisions preventing substitution and my bill 
retains that. For example, many States require that an enrollee be 
uninsured before he or she is eligible for the program. This bill does 
not change that requirement.
  This bill is important for several reasons. More than 75 percent of 
uninsured children live with parents who are uninsured. Many experts 
say that by covering parents of uninsured children we can actually 
cover more children.
  If an entire family is enrolled in a plan and seeing the same 
doctors, in other words, if the care is convenient for the whole 
family, all the members of the family are more likely to be insured and 
to stay healthy. This is a key reason for this legislation, bringing in 
more children by targeting the whole family.
  Private health insurance in the commercial market can be very 
expensive. The average annual cost of family coverage in private health 
plans is around $6,000. California has some of the lowest-priced health 
insurance, yet the State ranks fourth in uninsured.
  In California, high housing costs, high gas and electricity prices, 
expensive commutes, and a high cost-of-living make it difficult for 
many California families to buy health insurance. Over eight in ten of 
uninsured Californians are working, but they do not earn enough to buy 
private insurance. SCHIP is a practical and attractive alternative.
  Many low-income people work for employers who do not offer health 
insurance. In fact, forty percent of California small businesses, those 
employing between three and 50 employees, do not offer health 
insurance, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study in June 2000. 
Californians in 1999 were 6.6 percentage points less likely to receive 
health insurance through employers than the average American, 62.8 
percent versus 69.4 percent, according to UCLA experts.
  We need to give hard-working, lower income American families 
affordable, comprehensive health insurance, and this bill does that.
  The California Medical Association and Alliance of Catholic Health 
Care agree with us and support this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and passing this bill. 
By giving States the option to cover parents--whole families--we can 
reduce the number of uninsured, encourage the enrollment of more 
children, and help keep people healthy by maximizing this valuable, but 
currently under-utilized program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Ms. Snowe).
       S. 575. A bill entitled the ``Hospital Length of Stay Act 
     of 2001'', to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Olympia Snowe and I are 
introducing a bill to guarantee that the decision of how long a patient 
stays in the hospital is left to the attending physician. Our 
legislation would require health insurance plans to cover the length of 
hospital stay for any procedure or illness as determined by the 
physician to be medically appropriate, in consultation with the 
patient.
  The bill is endorsed by the American Medical Association, the 
American College of Surgeons, the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, and the American Psychological Association.
  We are introducing this bill because many people, patients and 
physicians, have told us that HMOs set limits on hospital stays that 
are shorter than what the attending physicians believe are medically 
necessary. In my view, only the physician who is taking care of the 
patient understands the patient's full medical history and the 
patient's medical condition and needs. Every patient's condition and 
course of illness varies. Patients respond differently to treatments. 
Complications arise. The doctor should decide when patients are 
medically ready to be discharged, not an insurance plan.
  The American Medical Association has developed patient-based 
discharge criteria which say: ``Patients should not be discharged from 
the hospital when their disease or symptoms cannot be adequately 
treated or monitored in the discharge setting.''
  A number of physicians have shared with me their great frustration 
with the health care climate, in which they feel they spend too much of 
time trying to get permission and justify their decisions on medical 
necessity to insurance companies.
  A California pediatrician told me of a child with very bad asthma. 
The insurance plan authorized 3 days in the hospital; the doctor wanted 
4-5 days. He told me about a baby with infant botulism (poisoning), a 
baby with a toxin that had spread from the intestine to the nervous 
system so that the child could not breathe. The doctor thought a 10-14 
day hospital stay was medically necessary for the baby; the insurance 
plan insisted on one week.

[[Page 4021]]

  A California neurologist told my staff about a seven-year-old girl 
with an ear infection and a fever who went to the doctor. When her 
illness developed into pneumonia, she was admitted to the hospital. 
After two days she was sent home, but she then returned to the hospital 
three times because her insurance plan only covered a certain number of 
days. The third time she returned she had meningitis, which can be life 
threatening. The doctor said that if this girl had stayed in the 
hospital the first time for five to seven days, the antibiotics would 
have killed the infection and the meningitis would never have 
developed.
  Another California physician told my office about a patient who 
needed total hip replacement because her hip had failed. The doctor 
believed a seven-day stay was warranted; the plan would only authorize 
five.
  A Chico, California, maternity ward nurse put it this way: ``People's 
treatment depends on the type of insurance they have rather than what's 
best for them.'' A Laguna Niguel, California woman, Gwen Placko, wrote 
this to me: ``. . . doctors have become mere employees of for-profit 
insurance companies. They are no longer captains of their own `ships' 
so to speak. . . Only doctors should be the ones to make decisions for 
the direct treatment and benefit of their patients.''
  Physicians say they have to wage a battle with insurance companies to 
give patients the hospital care they need and to justify their 
decisions about patient care.
  A study by the American Academy of Neurology found that the Milliman 
and Robertson guidelines used by many insurance companies on length of 
stay are ``extraordinarily short in comparison to a large National 
Library of Medicine database . .. And that [the guidelines] do not 
relate to anything resembling the average hospital patient or attending 
physician. . . .'' The neurologists found that these guidelines were 
``statistically developed'' and not scientifically sound or clinically 
relevant.
  The arbitrary limits HMOs and insurance plans have set are resulting 
in unintended consequences. Some 7 in 10 physicians said that in 
dealing with managed care plans, they have exaggerated the severity of 
a patient's condition to ``prevent him or her from being sent home from 
a hospital prematurely.''
  The American College of Surgeons said it all when this prestigious 
organization wrote: ``We believe very strongly that any health care 
system or plan that removes the surgeon and the patient from the 
medical decision-making process only undermines the quality of that 
patient's care and his or her health and well being. . . . 
specifically, single numbers [of days] cannot and should not be used to 
represent a length of stay for a given procedure'', April 24, 1997. ACS 
wrote, ``We believe very strongly that any health care system or plan 
that removes the surgeon and the patient from the medical decision 
making process only undermines the quality of that patient's care and 
his or her health and well being.''
  The American Medical Association wrote, ``We are gratified that this 
bill would promote the fundamental concept, which the AMA has always 
endorsed, that medical decisions should be made by patients and their 
physicians, rather than by insurers or legislators. . . We appreciate 
your initiative and ongoing efforts to protect patients by ensuring 
that physicians may identify medically appropriate lengths of stay, 
unfettered by third party payers.''
  The American Psychological Association wrote me, ``We are pleased to 
support this legislation, which will require all health plans to follow 
the best judgment of the patient and attending provider when 
determining length of stay for inpatient treatment.''
  Americans are disenchanted with the health insurance system in this 
country, as HMO hassles never seem to end and physicians are 
effectively overruled by insurance companies. Doctors and patients feel 
that patient care is compromised in a climate in which anonymous 
insurance clerks interfere with medical decision-making.
  This bill is one step toward returning medical decision-making to 
those medical professionals trained to make medical decisions.
  To summarize, the Hospital Length of Stay Act of 2001:
  Requires plans to cover hospital lengths of stay for all illnesses 
and conditions as determined by the physician, in consultation with the 
patient, to be medically appropriate;
  Prohibits plans from requiring providers (physicians) to obtain a 
plan's prior authorization for a hospital length of stay;
  Prohibits plans from denying eligibility or renewal for the purpose 
of avoiding these requirements;
  Prohibits plans from penalizing or otherwise reducing or limiting 
reimbursement of the attending physician because the physician provided 
care in accordance with the requirements of the bill; and
  Prohibits plans from providing monetary or other incentives to induce 
a physician to provide care inconsistent with these requirements.
  It includes language clarifying that: nothing in the bill requires 
individuals to stay in the hospital for a fixed period of time for any 
procedure; plans may require copayments but copayments for a hospital 
stay determined by the physician cannot exceed copayments for any 
preceding portion of the stay.
  It does not pre-empt state laws that provide greater protection.
  It applies to private insurance plans, Medicare, Medicaid, Medigap, 
federal employees' plans, Children's Health Insurance Plan, the Indian 
Health Service.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 576. A bill to require health insurance coverage for certain 
reconstructive surgery; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to 
require health insurance plans to cover medically necessary 
reconstructive surgery for congenital defects, developmental 
abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease.
  This bill is modeled on a California law and responds to reports that 
insurance plans are denying coverage for reconstructive surgery that 
doctors say is medically necessary. Too many plans are too quick to 
label it ``cosmetic surgery.'' The American Medical News has called the 
HMOs stance, ``a classic health plan word game. . . .''
  Dr. Henry Kawamoto, testifying before the California Assembly 
Committee on Insurance stated:

       It used to be that if you were born with something 
     deforming, or were in an accident and had bad scars, the 
     surgery performed to fix the problem was considered 
     reconstructive surgery. Now, insurers of many kinds are 
     calling it cosmetic surgery and refusing to pay for it.

  Many doctors have told me that before the heavy penetration of 
managed care, repairing a person's abnormalities was considered 
reconstructive surgery and insurance companies reimbursed for the 
medical, hospital, and surgical costs. But today, many insurance 
companies and managed care organizations will not pay for 
reconstruction of many deformities because they deem them to be 
``cosmetic'' and not a ``functional'' repair.
  This bill is endorsed by the March of Dimes, Easter Seals, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Organization for Rare 
Disorders, the American College of Surgeons, the American Society of 
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the American Association of 
Pediatric Plastic Surgeons and the American Society of Maxillofacial 
Surgeons.
  The children who face refusals to pay for surgery are the true 
evidence that this bill is needed. Here are some of the examples that 
were brought to the California legislature:
  Hanna Gremp, a 6-year old from California, was born with a congenital 
birth defect, called bilateral microtia, the absence of an inner ear. 
Once the first stage of the surgery was complete, the Gremp's HMO 
denied the next surgery for Hanna. They called the other surgeries 
``cosmetic'' and not medically necessary.
  Michael Hatfield, a 19-year old from Texas, has gone through similar 
struggles. He was born with a congenital

[[Page 4022]]

birth defect that is known as a midline facial cleft. The self-insured 
plan his parents had only paid for a small portion of the surgery which 
reconstructed his nose. The HMO also refused to pay any part of the 
surgery that reconstructed his cheekbones and eye sockets. The HMO 
considered some of these surgeries to be ``cosmetic.''
  Cigna Health Care denied coverage for surgery to construct an ear for 
a little California girl born without one and only after adverse press 
coverage reversed its position saying that, ``It was determined that 
studies have shown some functional improvement following surgery.''
  Qual-Med, another California HMO, initially denied coverage for 
reconstructive surgery for a little boy who also had microtia, 
authorizing it only after many appeals and two years delay.
  The bill uses medically-recognized terms to distinguish between 
medically necessary surgery and cosmetic surgery. It defines medically 
necessary reconstructive surgery as surgery ``performed to correct or 
repair abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, 
developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease to 
(1) improve functions; or (2) give the patient a normal appearance, to 
the extent possible, in the judgment of the physician performing the 
surgery.'' The bill specifically excludes cosmetic surgery, defined as 
``surgery that is performed to alter or reshape normal structures of 
the body in order to improve appearance.''
  Examples of conditions for which surgery might be medically necessary 
are the following: cleft lips and palates, burns, skull deformities, 
benign tumors, vascular lesions, missing pectoral muscles that cause 
chest deformities, Crouson's syndrome (failure of the mid-face to 
develop normally), and injuries from accidents.
  This bill is an effort to address the arbitrariness of insurance 
plans that create hassles and question physicians' judgments when 
people try to get coverage under the plan they pay premiums for every 
month.
  We need our body parts to function and, fortunately, modern medicine 
today can often make that happen. We can restore, repair, and make 
whole parts which by fate, accident, genes, or whatever, do not perform 
as they should. I hope this bill can make that happen.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 577. A bill to limit the administrative expenses and profits of 
managed care entities to not more than 15 percent of premium revenues; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Health 
Benefits Integrity Act to make sure that most health care dollars that 
people and employers pay into a managed care health insurance plan get 
spent on health care and not on overhead.
  Under my bill, managed care plans would be limited to spending 15 
percent of their premium revenues on administration. This means that if 
they spend 15 percent on administration, they could spend 85 percent of 
premiums revenues on health care benefits or services.
  This bill was prompted by a study by the Inspector General (IG) for 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported under a USA 
Today headline in February, ``Medicare HMOs Hit for Lavish Spending.'' 
The IG reviewed 232 managed care plans that contract with Medicare and 
found that in 1999 the average amount allocated for administration 
ranged from a high of 32 percent to a low of three percent. The IG 
recommended that the Department establish a ceiling on the amount of 
administrative expenditures of plans, noting that if a 15 percent 
ceiling had been in place in 1998, an additional $1 billion could have 
been passed on to Medicare beneficiaries in the form of additional 
benefits or reduce deductibles and copayments.
  The report said, ``This review, similar OIG reviews, and other 
studies have shown that MCOs' [managed care organizations'] exorbitant 
administrative costs have been problematic and can be the source for 
abusive behavior.'' Here are some examples cited by the Inspector 
General on page 7 of the January 18, 2000 report: $249,283 for food, 
gifts and alcoholic beverages for meetings by one plan; $190,417 for a 
sales award meeting in Puerto Rico for one plan; $157,688 for a party 
by one plan; $25,057 for a luxury box at a sports arena by one plan; 
$106,490 for sporting events and/or theater tickets at four plans; 
$69,700 for holiday parties at three plans; $37,303 for wine gift 
baskets, flowers, gifts and gift certificates at one plan.
  It is no wonder that people today are angry at HMOs. When our hard-
earned premium dollars are frittered away on purchases like these, we 
have to ask whether HMOs are really providing the best care possible. 
Furthermore, in the case of Medicare, we are also talking about wasted 
taxpayer dollars since Part B of Medicare is funded in part by the 
general treasury. One dollar wasted in Medicare is one dollar too much. 
Medicare needs all the funds it can muster to stay solvent and to be 
there for beneficiaries when they need it.
  I was also encouraged to introduce the bill because of annual studies 
prepared by the California Medical Association, CMA, called the ``Knox-
Keene Health Plan Expenditures Summary.'' The March 2001 CMA report 
covering Fiscal Years 1999 to 2000 found a range of administrative 
expenditures from plans in my state from a low of 2.7 percent, Kaiser 
Foundation Health Plan, Southern California, to a high of 22.1 percent, 
OMNI Healthcare, Inc.
  If HMOs are to be credible, they must be more prudent in how they 
spend enrollees' dollars. Administrative expenses must be limited to 
reasonable expenses.
  An October 1999 report by Interstudy found that for private HMO 
plans, administrative expenses range from 11 percent to 21 percent and 
that for-profit HMOs spend proportionately more on administrative cost 
than not-for-profit HMOs. This study found the lowest rate to be 3.6 
percent and the highest 38 percent in California! In some states the 
maximums were even higher.
  The shift from fee-for-service to managed care as a form of health 
insurance has been rapid in recent years. Nationally, 86 percent of 
people who have employment-based health insurance (81.3 million 
Americans) are in some form of managed care. Around 16 percent of 
Medicare beneficiaries are in managed care nationally (40 percent in 
California), a figure that doubled between 1994 and 1997. By 2010, the 
Congressional Budget Office predicts that 31 percent of Medicare 
beneficiaries will be in managed care. Between 1987 and 1999, the 
number of health plans contracting with Medicare went from 161 to 299. 
As for Medicaid, in 1993, 4.8 million people (14 percent of Medicaid 
beneficiaries) were in managed care. Today, 17.8 million (55.6 percent) 
are in managed care, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In 
California, 52 percent or 2.6 million out of 5 million Medicaid 
beneficiaries are in managed care.
  In California, the state which pioneered managed care for the nation, 
an estimated 88 percent of the insured are in some form of managed 
care. Of the 3.7 million Californians who are in Medicare, 40 percent, 
1.4 million, are in managed care, the highest rate in the U.S. As for 
Medicaid in California, 2.5 million people, 50 percent, of 
beneficiaries are in managed care.
  And so managed care is growing and most people think it is here to 
stay.
  I am pleased to say that in California we already have a regulation 
along the lines of the bill I am proposing. We have in place a 
regulatory limit of 15 percent on commercial HMO plans' administrative 
expenses. This was established in my state for commercial plans because 
of questionable expenses like those the HHS IG found in Medicare HMO 
plans and because prior to the regulation, some plans had 
administrative expense as high as 30 percent of premium revenues.
  This bill will never begin to address all the problems patients 
experience with managed care in this country. That is why we also need 
a strong Patients Bill of Rights Bill. I hope, however, this bill will 
discourage abuses like those the HHS Inspector General

[[Page 4023]]

found and will help assure people that their health care dollars are 
spent on health care and are not wasted on outings, parties, and other 
activities totally unrelated to providing health care services.
  I call on my colleagues to join me in enacting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 578. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from 
amending or otherwise modifying the operating certificates of major air 
carriers in connection with a merger or acquisition for a period of 2 
years, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the current 
state of affairs in our nation's airline industry. The way airlines 
have remade themselves since deregulation is very troubling to me and 
should be very troubling to most of the traveling public in this 
country.
  Since deregulation we have seen an unprecedented number of mergers in 
the airline industry. What used to be 11 airlines is now 7, and now 
with United wanting to buy US Airways, and American wanting to buy TWA 
out of bankruptcy, there is a very high risk that we will quickly be 
reduced to three mega-carriers in this country. I am afraid of what 
this will mean to competition which is already almost non-existent in 
so many parts of the country.
  That is because the major carriers have spent the last 20 years 
retreating into regional hubs, such as Minneapolis, Denver, and 
Atlanta, where one airline will control 50 percent, 70 percent, 80 
percent of the hub traffic. The result has been that a dominant airline 
controlling the hub traffic sets its own prices, and it is the people 
in sparsely populated areas in the country that end up paying for it 
with outrageously high prices.
  These proposed mergers fly directly in the face of public interest 
and ought not to be allowed. We need more than three airlines. 
Increased consolidation would be moving in the wrong direction. We need 
more competition, not more concentration.
  That is why I am introducing legislation today to place a moratorium 
on airline mergers above a certain size for a couple years so we can 
take a breath and evaluate what kind of air transportation system we 
want in this country.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing loudly that we must 
avoid having this country go to three major airline carriers. It would 
be a step backward, not forward.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 579. A bill to amend the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
Act of 1961 to authorize the Secretary of State to provide for the 
establishment of nonprofit entities for the Department of State's 
international educational, cultural, and arts programs; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to 
authorize the establishment of nonprofit entities to provide grants and 
other assistance for international educational, cultural and arts 
programs through the Department of State. This is an initiative that 
was developed last year in discussions with officials of the Department 
of State. I am pleased to be joined by Representative Jim Leach of the 
other body, who is introducing the same bill today.
  We are in an era in which cultural issues are increasingly central to 
international issues and diplomacy. Trade disputes, ethnic and regional 
conflicts, and issues such as biotechnology all have cultural and 
intellectual underpinnings.
  Cultural programs are increasingly necessary to promoting 
international understanding and achieving U.S. national objectives. 
American multinational companies and other Americans doing business 
overseas welcome opportunities to support the unique cultures of 
nations in which they do business, as well as telling the story of 
America's diversity in other countries.
  One way they could do this is by helping to sponsor cultural exchange 
programs arranged through the Department of State. Department officials 
tells us, however, that there is apparently no easy way to do that. 
Moreover, many people in our own government are uncertain whether they 
should engage in presenting the creative, intellectual and cultural 
side of our nation.
  Under this legislation Congress would authorize the Secretary of 
State to provide for the establishment of private nonprofit 
organizations to assist in supporting international cultural programs, 
making it both easy and attractive for private organizations to support 
cultural programs in cooperation with the Department of State. In so 
doing, we would affirm support for the promotion and presentation of 
the nation's intellectual and creative best as part of American 
diplomacy.
  This initiative would support a broad range of cultural exchange 
programs. Its priority would be to support the organization and 
promotion of major, high-profile presentations of art exhibitions, 
musical and theatrical performances which represent the finest quality 
of creativity our nation produces. These should be presentations that 
reach large numbers of people, which contribute to achieving our 
national interests and which represent the diversity of American 
culture.
  The bill would provide authority to solicit support for specific 
cultural endeavors, offering individuals, foundations, corporations and 
other American businesses engaged overseas the opportunity to publicly 
support cross-cultural understanding in countries where they do 
business.
  The non-profit entity would work with the Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs as well as the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy at 
the Department of State.
  I understand that the House International Relations Committee is 
planning to consider a version of this bill later this week. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this legislation 
in the coming weeks.
  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. 579

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) It is in the national interest of the United States to 
     promote mutual understanding between the people of the United 
     States and other nations.
       (2) Among the means to be used in achieving this objective 
     are a wide range of international educational and cultural 
     exchange programs, including the J. William Fulbright 
     Educational Exchange Program and the International Visitors 
     Program.
       (3) Cultural diplomacy, especially the presentation abroad 
     of the finest of the creative, visual, and performing arts of 
     the United States, is an especially effective means of 
     advancing the United States national interest.
       (4) The financial support available for international 
     cultural and scholarly exchanges has declined by 
     approximately 10 percent in recent years.
       (5) There has been a dramatic decline in the amount of 
     funds available for the purpose of ensuring that the 
     excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts in the United 
     States are presented to foreign audiences by and in 
     cooperation with United States diplomatic and consular 
     representatives.
       (6) One of the ways to deepen and expand cultural and 
     educational exchange programs is through the establishment of 
     nonprofit entities to encourage the participation and 
     financial support of multinational companies and other 
     private sector contributors.
       (7) The United States private sector should be encouraged 
     to cooperate closely with the Secretary of State and the 
     Secretary's representatives to expand and spread appreciation 
     of United States cultural and artistic accomplishments.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH NONPROFIT ENTITIES.

       Section 105(f) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f)) is further amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(f)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) The Secretary of State is authorized to provide for 
     the establishment of private, nonprofit entities to assist in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Act. Any such entity shall 
     not be considered an agency or instrumentality of the United 
     States Government,

[[Page 4024]]

     nor shall its employees be considered employees of the United 
     States Government for any purposes.
       ``(3) The entities may, among other functions--
       ``(A) encourage United States multinational companies and 
     other elements of the private sector to participate in, and 
     support, cultural, arts, and educational exchange programs, 
     including those programs that will enhance international 
     appreciation of the cultural and artistic accomplishments of 
     the United States;
       ``(B) solicit and receive contributions from the private 
     sector to support these cultural arts and educational 
     exchange programs; and
       ``(C) provide grants and other assistance for these 
     programs.
       ``(4) The Secretary of State is authorized to make such 
     arrangements as are necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     these entities, including--
       ``(A) the solicitation and receipt of funds for the entity;
       ``(B) designation of a program in recognition of such 
     contributions; and
       ``(C) designation of members, including employees of the 
     United States Government, on any board or other body 
     established to administer the entity.
       ``(5) Any funds available to the Department of State may be 
     made available to such entities to cover administrative and 
     other costs for their establishment. Any such entity is 
     authorized to invest any amount provided to it by the 
     Department of State, and such amount, as well as any interest 
     or earnings on such amount, may be used by the entity to 
     carry out its purposes.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 580. A bill to expedite the construction of the World War II 
memorial in the District of Columbia; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would expedite construction of the World War II Memorial. Some of 
our colleagues may not be aware that even after having had the 
opportunity to argue their case before the twenty-two public hearings 
over the last five years regarding the site and design of the memorial, 
opponents have now turned to the courts to overturn the Memorial's 
approval.
  Regrettably, it is now clear that legislation will be needed if the 
World War II Memorial is to be constructed before all the patriots who 
fought in defense of liberty have passed on. The ugly truth is that 
every day we lose more than a thousand members of our greatest 
generation. How many more will be deprived of the joy of seeing this 
richly deserved tribute to their heroic service completed?
  According to the American Battle Monuments Commission, the World War 
II Memorial will be the first national memorial dedicated to all who 
served in the armed forces and Merchant Marine of the United States 
during World War II and acknowledging the commitment and achievement of 
the entire nation. All military veterans of the war, the citizens of 
the home front, the nation at large, and the high moral purpose and 
idealism that motivated the nation's call to arms will be honored.
  Symbolic of the defining event of the 20th century in American 
history, the memorial will be a monument to the spirit, sacrifice, and 
commitment of the American people, to the common defense of the nation 
and to the broader causes of peace and freedom from tyranny throughout 
the world. It will inspire future generations of Americans, deepening 
their appreciation of what the World War II generation accomplished in 
securing freedom and democracy. Above all, the memorial will stand for 
all time as an important symbol of American national unity, a timeless 
reminder of the moral strength and awesome power that can flow when a 
free people are at once united and bonded together in a common and just 
cause.
  Construction of this memorial is long overdue. Opponents have had 
ample opportunity to make their case, and while I respect their 
opinions, the simple truth is that the site has been selected and the 
time to begin to move dirt has arrived. I hope all of my colleagues 
will join me in sponsoring this resolution. Let us, as a nation, 
prevent the cheapening of this tribute by putting a stop to frivolous 
legal challenges. Let us say thanks to those who fought to save the 
babes of humanity from the wolves of tyranny. Let's build the World War 
II memorial, let's build it upon the National Mall, and let's build it 
now.
  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. 580

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXPEDITED COMMENCEMENT BY AMERICAN BATTLE 
                   MONUMENTS COMMISSION OF CONSTRUCTION OF WORLD 
                   WAR II MEMORIAL.

       Section 2113 of title 36, United States Code, as added by 
     section 601(a) of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and 
     Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117; 113 Stat. 1576), is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Congressional Direction to Commence Construction.--
     (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Commission shall 
     expeditiously proceed with the construction of the World War 
     II memorial at the dedicated Rainbow Pool site in the 
     District of Columbia without regard to the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
     the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), or any 
     other law pertaining to the siting or design for the World 
     War II memorial.
       ``(2) The construction of the World War II memorial by the 
     Commission shall be consistent with--
       ``(A) the final architectural submission made to the 
     Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning 
     Commission on June 30, 2000, as supplemented on November 2, 
     2000; and
       ``(B) such reasonable construction permit requirements as 
     may be required by the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the National Park Service.
       ``(3) The decision to construct the World War II memorial 
     at the dedicated Rainbow Pool site, and the decisions 
     regarding the design for the World War II memorial, are final 
     and conclusive and shall not be subject to further 
     administrative or judicial review.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 581. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
Army arsenals to undertake to fulfill orders or contracts for articles 
or services in advance of the receipt of payment under certain 
circumstances; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 581, a 
bill that will help United States Army arsenals remain competitive and 
productive in the 21st century. The Army arsenals have long been an 
important military resource. They have not only served as a cost-
effective supplier of high-quality military equipment, they have also 
proven to be an invaluable supplier of last resort, providing mission-
critical parts when private contractors have lacked the capacity to 
meet emergency needs or have breached their contracts with the 
government. This bill will help ensure that these important facilities 
do not fall into disuse during the periods between national emergencies 
and heightened military needs.
  Rock Island Arsenal, in my home state of Illinois, was acquired by 
the United States in 1804. Located on an island in the Mississippi 
River, the area was converted to its current function, and named Rock 
Island Arsenal, in 1862. Since then, Rock Island Arsenal has built 
weapons and military equipment for all of our nation's wars, developing 
a specialty in the manufacture of howitzers.
  Today, Rock Island Arsenal is the Department of Defense's only 
general-purpose metal-manufacturing facility, performing forging, sheet 
metal, and welding and heat-treating operations that cover the entire 
range of technologically feasible processes. Rock Island Arsenal also 
contains a machine shop that is capable of such specialized operations 
as gear cutting, die sinking, and tool making; a paint shop certified 
to apply Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings to items as large as tanks; 
and a plating shop that can apply chrome, nickel, cadmium, and copper, 
and can galvanize, parkerize, anodize, and apply oxide finishes.
  These capabilities have proven essential to the functioning of the 
United States military. In recent years, Rock Island Arsenal has been 
called on to produce M16 gun bolts when a private contractor defaulted 
on a contract. It has also produced mission-critical pins and shims for 
Apache helicopters when

[[Page 4025]]

outside suppliers have proven unresponsive to the Army's needs.
  S. 581 will help guarantee that United States arsenals will be there 
again when the military needs them in an emergency, by helping to 
ensure that arsenals have an adequate workload in normal times. During 
the 1990s, the Department of Defense shifted away from direct funding 
of arsenals to the Working Capital Fund, ``W.C.F.'', system, under 
which private companies compete with the arsenals for government 
service and production contracts. This system has improved the 
efficiency of the military by promoting cost transparency and 
discouraging the overconsumption of arsenal goods and services.
  Unfortunately, implementation of the W.C.F. system has also produced 
some unintended consequences. As arsenals have been placed in 
competition with private firms, they have remained tied down by 
government rules that place the arsenals at a competitive 
disadvantage--and that hamper their efforts to secure a full workload. 
One of these rules is the requirement that arsenals be paid in advance 
for all services and products that they provide. Private firms are not 
required to operate under such conditions, they routinely receive 
payment only once they have delivered on their contract. As a result, a 
military department seeking goods or services, or a private contractor 
seeking help in supplying the government--is discouraged from 
contracting with an arsenal. Even when an arsenal can provide higher 
quality or at lower cost, the requirement of up-front payment may prove 
burdensome enough to convince purchasers to meet their needs elsewhere.
  The legislation that I introduce today will place United States Army 
arsenals on a more equal footing with their private competitors. It 
will limit the advance-payment requirement to only those circumstances 
where payment is less than certain, and will otherwise allow arsenals 
to accept payment after performance. Specifically, arsenals will be 
allowed to accept later payment when the United States purchases 
directly from an arsenal, when an arsenal supplies a contractor serving 
the United States, or when payment for foreign military purchases is 
guaranteed by the United States. In these cases, an advance-payment 
requirement is unnecessary--it serves only to put the arsenals at a 
competitive disadvantage. Application of the requirement in these 
circumstances should be ended.
  S. 581 will help ensure that Army arsenals will be able to secure an 
adequate workload in periods between supply emergencies. This bill will 
also serve taxpayers' money by encouraging efficient use of reserve 
resources, which must be maintained regardless of whether or not they 
are fully in use. Therefore, in the interest of encouraging optimal 
utilization of an invaluable national resource, and to help integrate 
the Army arsenals into the private-competition system of the Working 
Capital Fund, I today introduce s. 581.
  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. 581

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PERFORMANCE OF ORDERS FOR ARTICLES OR SERVICES BY 
                   ARMY ARSENALS BEFORE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT.

       (a) Authority.--(1) Chapter 433 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 4541 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 4541a. Army arsenals: performance before receipt of 
       payment

       ``(a) Authority.--Regulations under section 2208(h) of this 
     title shall authorize the Army arsenals to undertake, with 
     working-capital funds, to fulfill orders or contracts of 
     customers referred to in subsection (b) for articles or 
     services in advance of the receipt of payment for the 
     articles or services.
       ``(b) Transactions to Which Applicable.--The authority 
     provided in subsection (a) applies with respect to an order 
     or contract for articles or services that is placed or 
     entered into, respectively, with an arsenal by a customer 
     that--
       ``(1) is--
       ``(A) a department or agency of the United States;
       ``(B) a person using the articles or services in 
     fulfillment of a contract of a department or agency of the 
     United States; or
       ``(C) a person supplying the articles or services to a 
     foreign government under sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2762, 2763, 2764); and
       ``(2) is eligible under any other provision of law to 
     obtain the articles or services from the arsenal.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     4541 the following new item:

``4541a. Army arsenals: performance before receipt of payment.''.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
     the regulations to carry out section 4541a of title 10, 
     United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), not later 
     than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S.J. Res. 8. A joint resolution designating 2002 as the ``Year of the 
Rose''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention 
of the Senate, the continuing beauty and appeal that flowers bring to 
our nation. Americans have always loved the flowers which God has 
chosen to decorate our land. In particular, we hold the rose dear as 
symbols of life, love, devotion, beauty, and eternity. For the love of 
man and woman, for the love of mankind and God as well as for the love 
of country, Americans who would speak the language of the heart do so 
with a rose.
  We see evidence of this everywhere. The study of fossils reveals that 
the rose has existed in America for ages. We have always cultivated 
roses in our gardens. Our first President, George Washington bred roses 
and a variety he named after his mother is still grown today. The White 
House itself boasts of a beautiful Rose Garden. We find roses in our 
art, music, and literature. We decorate our celebrations and parades 
with roses. Most of all, we present roses to those we love, and we 
lavish them on our altars, our civil shrines, and the final resting 
places of our honored dead. In 1986, in recognition of the high esteem 
roses are held, President Ronald Reagan and the Congress of the United 
States proclaimed the rose as the National Floral Emblem of the United 
States of America.
  This proclamation was as a result of the handiwork and dedication of 
the American Rose Society. The American Rose Society is the premier 
organization dedicated exclusively to the cultivation of roses. Since 
1892, the American Rose Society has strived to enhance the enjoyment 
and promotion of roses to gardeners of all skill levels. In 2001, the 
American Rose Society, in conjunction with the 37 member countries that 
make up the World Federation of Rose Societies, the National Council of 
State Garden Clubs, and the American Nursery and Landscape Association 
began waging a campaign to honor our national floral emblem, the Rose.
  In an effort to increase support for public rose gardens in the 
United States; recognize the beauty and inspiration roses add to the 
environment and landscapes of cities, and communities around the 
country; to introduce the therapeutic benefits of roses to people of 
all ages and background; to provide educational programs designed to 
stimulate and teach about the joys of gardening, especially rose 
gardening; and to teach the great history and diversity the genus 
offers, the American Rose Society, whose national headquarters is 
located in Shreveport, Louisiana, is requesting a joint congressional 
resolution proclaiming the year 2002 as the Year of the Rose.
  The American people have long held a special place in their hearts 
for roses. Let us continue to cherish them, honor the love and devotion 
they represent and to bestow them upon all we love just as God has 
bestowed them on us.
  I ask unanimous that the text of this resolution be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 8

       Whereas the study of fossils has shown that the rose has 
     been a native wild flower in the United States for over 
     35,000,000 years;

[[Page 4026]]

       Whereas the rose is grown today in every State;
       Whereas the rose has long represented love, friendship, 
     beauty, peace, and the devotion of the American people to 
     their country;
       Whereas the rose has been cultivated and grown in gardens 
     for over 5,000 years and is referred to in both the Old and 
     New Testaments;
       Whereas the rose has for many years been the favorite 
     flower of the American people, has captivated the affection 
     of humankind, and has been revered and renowned in art, 
     music, and literature;
       Whereas our first President was also our first rose 
     breeder, 1 of his varieties being named after his mother and 
     still being grown today; and
       Whereas in 1986 the rose was designated and adopted as the 
     national floral emblem of the United States: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     Congress--
       (1) designates the year of 2002 as the ``Year of the 
     Rose''; and
       (2) requests the President to issue a proclamation calling 
     on the people of the United States to observe the year with 
     appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Reid, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Jeffords, 
        Ms. Collins, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Chafee):
  S.J. Res. 9. A joint resolution providing for congressional 
disapproval of the rule submitted by the United States Agency for 
International Development relating to the restoration of the Mexico 
City Policy; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on February 15, the United States Agency 
for International Development issued Contract Information Bulletin 01-
03 regarding the ``Restoration of the Mexico City Policy.''
  This bulletin reinstates the international gag rule, which prohibits 
international family planning organizations that receive federal 
funding from using their own privately-raised funds to counsel women 
about abortion, provide abortion services, and lobby on reproductive 
rights.
  Today, I am introducing, along with Senators Reid, Snowe, Jeffords, 
Collins, Specter, and Chafee, a joint resolution of disapproval under 
the Congressional Review Act.
  As my colleagues know, the CRA establishes a procedure for the 
expedited consideration of a resolution disapproving an agency rule.
  I can think of no other case where expedited procedures are more 
appropriate. Women's lives are at stake.
  Approximately 78,000 women throughout the world die each year as a 
result of unsafe abortions. At least one-fourth of all unsafe abortions 
in the world are to girls aged 15-19. By 2015, contraceptive needs in 
developing countries will grow by more than 40 percent.
  As a result of the gag rule, the organizations that are reducing 
unsafe abortions and providing contraceptives will be forced either to 
limit their services or to simply close their doors to women across the 
world. And this will cause women and families increased misery and 
death.
  Make no mistake, the international gag rule will restrict family 
planning, not abortions. In fact, no United States funds can be used 
for abortion services. That is already law, and has been since 1973. 
This gag rule does, however, restrict foreign organizations in ways 
that would be unconstitutional here at home and that is why we seek to 
reverse it in an expedited fashion under the CRA.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 9

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the United States Agency 
     for International Development relating to the restoration of 
     the Mexico City Policy (contained in Contract Information 
     Bulletin 01-03, dated February 15, 2001), and such rule shall 
     have no force or effect.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Boxer in 
submitting a joint resolution of congressional disapproval relating to 
the restoration of the Mexico City Policy.
  We are taking this step because the global gag rule--which denies 
funding to any organization that uses its own funds to provide or 
promote abortion services overseas--is an ill-conceived, anti-woman, 
and anti-American policy.
  The President's rationale for reimposing the gag rule was that he 
wanted to make abortions more rare. Yet the last time the Mexico City 
Policy was in effect, there was no reduction in the number of 
abortions, only reduced access to quality health care services, more 
unintended pregnancies and more abortions. Research shows that the only 
way to reduce the need for abortion is to improve family planning 
efforts that will decrease the number of unintended pregnancies. Access 
to contraception reduces the probability of having an abortion by 85 
percent.
  It the only reason to repeal the Mexico City Policy was to decrease 
the need for abortions then that would be enough. But our support of 
international family planning programs literally means the difference 
between life or death for women in developing countries. At least one 
woman dies every minute of every day from causes related to pregnancy 
and child birth in developing nations. This means that almost 600,000 
women die every year from causes related to pregnancy. Family planning 
efforts that prevent unintended pregnancies save the lives of thousands 
of women and infants each year.
  In addition to reducing maternal and infant mortality rates, family 
planning helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. 
This effort is particularly critical considering that the World Health 
Organization has estimated that 5.9 million individuals, the majority 
of whom live in developing nations, become infected with HIV almost 
every year.
  Let me be clear: We are not asking to use one single taxpayer dollar 
to perform or promote abortion overseas. The law has explicitly 
prohibited such activities since 1973. Instead, the Mexico City Policy 
would restrict foreign organizations in a way that would be 
unconstitutional in the United States. The Mexico City Policy violates 
a fundamental tenet of our democracy--freedom of speech. Exporting a 
policy that is unconstitutional at home is the ultimate act of 
hypocrisy. Surely this is not the message we want to send to struggling 
democracies who are looking to the United States for guidance.
  When President Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy, he turned the 
clock back on women around the world by almost two decades. Today, 
Senator Boxer and I are looking toward the future and taking the first 
step to repeal this antiquated, anti-woman policy.

                          ____________________