[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 606-617]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
  S. 221. A bill to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to require energy 
commodities to be traded only on regulated markets, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the past half year, as the 
price of a barrel of oil has rocketed into the sky--all the way to $147 
a barrel and in 1 day the price escalating $25--there have been a 
number of Senators on this floor and in committee meetings and in 
private discussions saying: Why won't people wake up and realize it is 
not the economic marketplace of supply and demand that is determining 
the price of oil? Who wants us to believe that? The oil companies, of 
course. In fact, the price of oil has escalated not because there is a 
tightness on the world marketplace of demand for oil. Indeed, at the 
very time of a 6-month period from the last quarter of last year until 
the first quarter of 2008--that 6-month period when the demand for oil 
was going down and the supply was going up, which would indicate the 
price should be going down if supply is greater than demand--exactly 
the reverse was true. The price kept rocketing to the Moon.
  It defied the laws of supply and demand. Yet we had everybody running 
out saying, ``Oh, it is the tight world marketplace,'' and it was 
difficult to get people to listen to a group of Senators who said it 
was because the commodities futures exchanges had been deregulated and, 
therefore, unregulated oil futures contracts speculation was running 
wild.
  Then, once it got up to $147 a barrel, what happened? The liquidity 
crisis hit, the economic crisis of confidence hit--not only in America 
but across the world. A lot of this was precipitated by the faulty 
mortgages, the subprime mortgages we are now not

[[Page 607]]

paying off in the revenue stream because people weren't paying their 
mortgages. Those mortgages had been bundled into securities and then 
bought and sold, and a lot of financial institutions, hedge funds, 
mutual funds and, indeed, big investments for pension funds started 
dumping those because they needed cash, and they started dumping their 
positions on oil futures commodities that they had purchased in this 
speculative frenzy that ran the price up to $147 a barrel. What 
happened? The exact reverse. The price of oil starts coming down. So 
what should we do about this? Well, we ought to do what a number of us 
have been saying: We ought to go back and reregulate what we have 
jurisdiction over, which is the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.
  Now, why was it deregulated? It was deregulated in the dead of night 
before Christmas in the year 2000, and it was deregulated at the behest 
of the Enron Corporation. And once they deregulated that commodities 
futures trading market on energy, it allowed them to go out and 
speculate on energy contracts. What was the first result? In the early 
part of this decade we saw it happen in California. We saw the 
electricity contracts start a runup in speculative bidding, to which it 
went up--the cost of electricity--by as high as 300 percent in 
California. Once that started to unravel, then we know what happened: 
Enron started to unravel with all the shenanigans that had gone on 
there.
  But here we are 7 and 8 years later, after the law was changed, and 
we haven't been able to get it changed back because people come out 
here and say: Oh, it is supply and demand in the world market for oil, 
and they come up with a simple slogan, as if that was going to handle 
the price of oil when it was hitting $147 and translated into about $4-
gallon-gasoline. Their simple little slogan was ``drill baby, drill,'' 
as if that were going to solve the problem of the price of gasoline and 
the price of oil.
  But now we hear--and people are starting to pay attention--we ought 
to reregulate this futures commodities trading. Now, what do we mean by 
regulate? I am talking about simple little things, such as you would 
have to use the oil that you are bidding on, such as an airline does. 
It locks in a future price for fuel by bidding on these future oil 
contracts. An airline, in fact, does use oil. By taking away the 
regulation, they have removed that ability. Or to give another example 
of regulation: A Commodities Futures Trading Commission could say you 
have to put a certain amount of money down if you are going to buy a 
future oil contract. Instead of getting it with nothing down, you have 
to put some skin in the game. But if you completely deregulate it, what 
you leave it to is the speculator to go in and bid that price up and up 
and up.
  Now, this is what we have been saying on the floor of this Senate for 
the last 6 or 8 months, a number of us--Senator Dorgan, Senator 
Cantwell, this Senator, and several other Senators--but it has been 
hard to get an audience that would listen. Well, no less a respected 
institution than CBS News ``60 Minutes'' last Sunday night broke it 
open and put it about as clearly as I have ever heard in posing this 
question: Did speculation fuel oil price swings?
  And what they concluded was that 6 months ago, when oil hit its 
alltime high of $147, and gas was up around $4 a gallon, it created a 
frenzy that fed into irrational and false claims that the problem was 
just supply and demand and that the solution was to drill for more oil.
  Well, it looks a lot different now. That frenzy that got mixed up in 
Presidential politics as well, with those simplified mantras of ``drill 
baby, drill,'' fueled by a slick public relations campaign, that was 
funded by deep-pocket oil companies. Yet those same oil companies 
testified in the spring of 2008 that if supply and demand were the sole 
driver of oil prices, that oil should cost no more than $55 a barrel. 
We had executives of two of the big major oil companies say the normal 
laws of supply and demand would say that oil ought to be in the range 
of $55 to $65 a barrel, and they testified, this Senator thinks, 
correctly.
  So ask yourself: Could supply and demand justify the wild swings in 
prices? And in that one instance where oil jumped $25 in 1 day for a 
barrel of oil, ask yourself: Could the new oil demands by China and 
India, that have needs for new oil products, could that have suddenly 
caused that price to jump so much in a single day? And the answer, 
clearly, is: No. It was speculation that caused that bubble to grow. 
Wall Street investors shifted billions of dollars out of the stock 
market and into the commodities futures market and ultimately into oil, 
and that is what was the biggest driver of running up the price of oil 
and gasoline.
  What is even more powerful in demonstrating the influence of 
speculators on oil prices is examining what happened to those prices 
after we in the Senate, and down at the other end of the Capitol in the 
House, started threatening regulation again. Well, guess what happened. 
The prices went down. When Wall Street experienced a financial meltdown 
with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the near collapse of AIG, 
prices fell even more as the Wall Street speculators got out of the oil 
futures markets to the tune of $70 billion. The speculative bubble in 
commodities, which was not only energy but agricultural commodities, 
all of a sudden bubble popped.
  Demand for oil in the United States is down by 5 percent, but the 
price of oil is down 75 percent. So we shouldn't be fooled by the drop 
in prices. Some financial analysts, fortunately, are not fooled by the 
drop in prices. They are advising investors that low oil prices are a 
temporary phenomenon and that oil prices will average above $75 a 
barrel over the next 5 years.
  Well, a number of us, months ago, filed a bill to stop the trading of 
oil and other energy commodities on the unregulated exchanges, and what 
the bill does is it turns the clock back to a change in law that was 
pushed by the Enron Corporation, known as the Enron loophole, which 
opened the way for a flood of speculative money in these commodity 
markets. I am introducing that bill again today, and I seek our 
colleagues' support.
  We must be vigilant to ensure that Wall Street investors do not take 
advantage of the lax regulation to reap profits by driving up the price 
of oil and making driving a lot more expensive for the rest of us. Let 
us remember that we saw what happened with another form of unregulated 
financial instruments. That was those insurance policies that had a 
fancy name, called credit default swaps. They were unregulated. Look 
what happened: The collapse of AIG that had to come in to the tune of 
upward of a $100 billion rescue from the Federal Government. I don't 
believe it is simple coincidence that the same legislation that let 
those credit default swaps escape regulation also allowed energy 
traders to conduct their business in the shadows. We need to bring that 
industry out of the darkness and into the full light of day.
  Mr. President, I wish to quote a couple lines from this Sunday's 
interview on CBS News ``60 Minutes.'' A representative of the Petroleum 
Marketers Association is interviewed, a Mr. Gilligan, and he says:

       Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the oil contracts in the 
     futures markets are now held by speculative entities, not by 
     the companies that need oil, not by the airlines, not by the 
     oil companies, but by investors that are looking to make 
     money from their speculative positions.

  Now, that is a representative of the oil companies that said that. 
Furthermore, the investigative reporter, Steve Kroft, quotes a fellow 
named Michael Masters, and he states:

       In a five-year period, Masters said the amount of money 
     institutional investors, hedge funds and the big Wall Street 
     banks had placed in the commodities markets went from $13 
     billion to $300 billion. Last year, 27 barrels of crude were 
     being traded every day on the New York Mercantile Exchange 
     for every 1 barrel of oil that was actually being consumed in 
     the United States.

  That is Mr. Kroft's analysis on ``60 Minutes,'' and he was referring 
to a former Wall Street trader named Michael Masters.
  I wish to end by further quoting Mr. Kroft from 60 Minutes:


[[Page 608]]

       A recent report out of MIT analyzing world oil production 
     and consumption also concluded that the basic fundamentals of 
     supply and demand could not have been responsible for last 
     year's runup in oil prices.

  Another quote from an interviewee: ``From quarter four of '07 until 
the second quarter of '08''--that is a 6-month period--``the Energy 
Information Administration said that supply went up, worldwide supply 
went up, and worldwide demand went down . . . This was the period of 
the spike'' in oil prices ``so you had the largest price increase in 
history during a time when actual demand was going down and actual 
supply was going up during that same period. The only thing that makes 
sense that lifted the price was investor demand''--in other words, the 
speculators making an artificial demand.
  I think it is clear. That is why I am introducing this legislation. I 
look forward with great optimism to the passage of this kind of 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a ``60 Minutes'' transcript be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 221

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

     SECTION 1. REGULATION OF ENERGY COMMODITIES.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (13) through (34) as 
     paragraphs (14) through (35), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
       ``(13) Energy commodity.--The term `energy commodity' 
     includes--
       ``(A) crude oil;
       ``(B) natural gas;
       ``(C) heating oil;
       ``(D) gasoline;
       ``(E) metals;
       ``(F) construction materials;
       ``(G) propane; and
       ``(H) other fuel oils.''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (15) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) and inserting the following:
       ``(15) Exempt commodity.--The term `exempt commodity' means 
     a commodity that is not--
       ``(A) an agricultural commodity;
       ``(B) an energy commodity; or
       ``(C) an excluded commodity.''.
       (b) Current Agricultural Commodities.--Section 5(e)(1) of 
     the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7(e)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``agricultural commodity enumerated in section 
     1a(4)'' and inserting ``agricultural commodity or an energy 
     commodity''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II)(cc) of the Commodity Exchange 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II)(cc)) is amended--
       (A) in subitem (AA), by striking ``section 1a(20)'' and 
     inserting ``section 1a(21)''; and
       (B) in subitem (BB), by striking ``section 1a(20)'' and 
     inserting ``section 1a(21)''.
       (2) Section 13106(b)(1) of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 is amended by striking ``section 1a(32)'' 
     and inserting ``section 1a''.
       (3) Section 402 of the Legal Certainty for Bank Products 
     Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 27) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(7), by striking ``section 1a(20)'' 
     and inserting ``section 1a''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``section 1a(33)'' and 
     inserting ``section 1a''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)(D), by striking ``section 1a(13)'' 
     and inserting ``section 1a''.
                                  ____


    The Price of Oil--Historic Oil Prices Were Result of Financial 
         Speculation From Wall Street and Not Supply and Demand

       Steve Kroft: About the only economic break most Americans 
     have gotten in the last six months has been the drastic drop 
     in the price of oil, which has fallen even more precipitously 
     than it rose. In a year's time, a commodity that was 
     theoretically priced according to supply and demand, doubled 
     from $69 a barrel to nearly $150. And then, in a period of 
     just three months, crashed along with the stock market. So 
     what happened? It's a complicated question, and there are 
     lots of theories. But many people believe it was a 
     speculative bubble, not unlike the one that caused the 
     housing crisis, and that it had more to do with traders and 
     speculators on Wall Street than with oil company executives 
     or sheiks in Saudi Arabia.
       (Oil refinery; workers at refinery; stock market traders on 
     floor; New York Mercantile Exchange; trading screen; farmer 
     working field; corn; airplane; trading screen; oil refinery)
       (Voiceover) To understand what happened to the price of 
     oil, you first have to understand the way it's traded. For 
     years it's been bought and sold on something called the 
     commodities futures market. Here at the New York Mercantile 
     Exchange, it's traded alongside cotton and coffee, copper and 
     steel by brokers who buy and sell contracts to deliver those 
     goods at a certain price at some date in the future. It was 
     created so that farmers could gauge what their unharvested 
     crops would be worth months in advance so that factories 
     could lock in the best price for raw materials, and airlines 
     could manage their fuel costs. But more than a year ago, that 
     market started to behave erratically. And when oil doubled to 
     more than $147 a barrel, no one was more suspicious than Dan 
     Gilligan.
       Mr. Dan Gilligan: We have to make sure that the futures 
     market is an honest market.
       (Dan Gilligan speaking; men listening to Gilligan; oil 
     tanker; Gilligan; crowd talking to Gilligan; stock market 
     traders)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) As the president of the Petroleum 
     Marketers Association, he represents more than 8,000 retail 
     and wholesale suppliers, everyone from home heating oil 
     companies to gas station owners. When we talked to him last 
     summer, his members were getting blamed for gouging the 
     public, even though their costs had also gone through the 
     roof. He told us the problem was in the commodities markets, 
     which had been invaded by a new breed of investor.
       Mr. Gillian: Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the oil 
     contracts in the futures markets are now held by speculative 
     entities, not by companies that need oil, not by the 
     airlines, not by the oil companies, but by investors that are 
     looking to make money from the speculative positions.
       Kroft: They don't actually take delivery of the oil?
       Mr. Gilligan: No, no.
       Kroft: All they do is----
       Mr. Gilligan: All they do is buy the paper and hope that 
     they can sell it for more than they paid for it before they 
     have to take delivery.
       Kroft: They're trying to make money on the market for oil?
       Mr. Gilligan: Absolutely, on the volatility that exists in 
     the market. They make it going up and down.
       (Sean Cota unhooking hose from truck; Cota filling tank; 
     calculator)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) He says his members in the home heating 
     oil business, like Sean Cota of Bellows Falls, Vermont, were 
     the first to notice the effects a few years ago, when prices 
     seemed to disconnect from the basic fundamentals of supply 
     and demand. Cota says there was plenty of product at the 
     supply terminals, but the prices kept going up and up.
       Mr. Sean Cota: We've had three price changes during the day 
     where we pick up products, actually don't know what we paid 
     for, and we'll go out and we'll sell that to the retail 
     customer, guessing at what the price was. The volatility is 
     being driven by the huge amounts of money and the huge 
     amounts of leverage that is going into these markets.
       (Michael Masters at desk; computer screen)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) About the same time hedge fund manager 
     Michael Masters reached the same conclusion. Masters' 
     expertise is in tracking the flow of investments into and out 
     of financial markets, and he noticed huge amounts of money 
     leaving stocks for commodities and oil futures, most of it 
     going into index funds, betting that the price of oil was 
     going to go up.
       Who was buying this paper oil, pension fund?
       Mr. Michael Masters: California pension fund, Harvard 
     endowment, lots of large institutional investors. And by the 
     way, other investors, hedge funds, Wall Street trading desk, 
     were following right behind them putting money, sovereign 
     wealth funds were putting money in the futures markets, as 
     well. So you had all these investors putting money in the 
     futures markets, and that was driving the price up.
       (New York Stock Exchange; stock traders; oil refinery)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) In a five-year period, Masters said the 
     amount of money institutional, investors, hedge funds and the 
     big Wall Street banks had placed in the commodities markets 
     went from $13 billion to 300 billion. Last year, 27 barrels 
     of crude were being traded every day on the New York 
     Mercantile Exchange for every one barrel of oil that was 
     actually being consumed in the United States.
       Mr. Masters: We talked to the largest physical trader of 
     crude oil, and they told us that, compared to the size of the 
     investment inflows--and remember, this is the largest 
     physical crude oil trader in the United States--they said 
     that, ``We are basically a flea on an elephant,'' that that's 
     how big these flows were.
       (Senate hearings; Lawrence Eagles)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) Yet when Congress began holding hearings 
     last summer and asked Wall Street banker Lawrence Eagles of 
     JPMorgan what role excessive speculation played in rising oil 
     prices, the answer was little to none.
       Mr. Lawrence Eagles: We believe that high energy prices are 
     fundamentally a result of supply and demand.
       (JPMorgan building; e-mail; oil refinery; oil tank; oil 
     register)

[[Page 609]]

       Kroft: (Voiceover) As it turns out, not even JPMorgan's 
     chief global investment officer agreed with him. The same day 
     that Eagles testified, this e-mail went out to clients, 
     saying ``an enormous amount of speculation'' ran up the 
     price, and ``$140 in July was ridiculous.'' If anyone had any 
     doubts, they were dispelled a few days after that hearing, 
     when the price of oil jumped $25 in a single day.
       September 22nd.
       Mr. Michael Greenberger: September 22nd.
       (Michael Greenberger; CFTC building; oil pipelines)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) Michael Greenberger, a former director 
     of trading for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the 
     federal agency that oversees oil futures, says there were no 
     supply disruptions that could have justified such a big 
     increase.
       Mr. Greenberger: Did China and India suddenly have gigantic 
     needs for new oil products in a single day? No. Everybody 
     agrees supply-demand could not drive the price up $25, which 
     was a record increase in the price of oil. The price of oil 
     went from somewhere in the 60s to $147 in a--less than a 
     year. And we were being told on that runup, it's supply-
     demand, supply-demand, supply-demand.
       (Oil refinery; Masters; woman talking; Masters)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) A recent report out of MIT analyzing 
     world oil production and consumption also concluded that the 
     basic fundamentals of supply and demand could not have been 
     responsible for last year's runup in oil prices. And Michael 
     Masters says the US Department of Energy's own statistics 
     showed that if the markets had been working properly the 
     price of oil should have been going down, not up.
       Mr. Masters: From quarter four of '07 until the second 
     quarter of '08, the EIA, the Energy Information 
     Administration said that supply went up, worldwide supply 
     went up, and worldwide demand went down. So you have supply 
     going up and demand going down, which generally means that 
     price is going down.
       Kroft: And this was the period of the spike?
       Mr. Masters: This was the period of the spike. So you had 
     the largest price increase in history during a time when 
     actual demand was going down and actual supply was going up 
     during the same period. However, the only thing that makes 
     sense that lifted the price was investor demand.
       (Oil refinery; buildings)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) Masters believes the investor demand for 
     commodities and oil futures in particular, was created on 
     Wall Street by hedge funds and the big Wall Street investment 
     banks like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Barclays and 
     JPMorgan, who made billions investing hundreds of billions of 
     dollars of their clients' money.
       Mr. Masters: The investment banks facilitated it. You know, 
     they found folks to write papers espousing the benefits of 
     investing in commodities. And then they promoted commodities 
     as a, quote-unquote, ``asset class.'' Like, you could invest 
     in commodities just like you could in stocks or bonds or 
     anything else, like they were suitable for long-term 
     investment.
       (Gilligan)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) Dan Gilligan of the Petroleum Marketers 
     Association agreed.
       Are you saying that companies like Goldman Sachs and Morgan 
     Stanley and Barclays have as much to do with the price of oil 
     going up as Exxon or Shell?
       Mr. Gilligan: Oh, absolutely. Yes. I tease people sometimes 
     that, you know, people say, ``Well, who's the largest oil 
     company in America?'' And they'll always say ``Well, 
     ExxonMobil or Chevron or BP.'' But I'll say, ``no, Morgan 
     Stanley.''
       (Morgan Stanley building; flow chart of Morgan Stanley 
     ownerships)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) Morgan Stanley isn't an oil company in 
     the traditional sense of the word. It doesn't own or control 
     oil wells or refineries or gas stations. But according to 
     documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
     Morgan Stanley is a significant player in the wholesale 
     market through various entities controlled by the 
     corporation.
       It not only buys and sells the physical product through 
     subsidiaries and companies that it controls, Morgan Stanley 
     has the capacity to store and hold 20 million barrels. These 
     storage tanks behind me in New Haven, Connecticut, hold 
     Morgan Stanley heating oil bound for homes in New England, 
     where it controls nearly 15 percent of the market.
       (Building; oil refinery; pipeline; storage terminals; men 
     walking; buildings; barge; oil storage tank)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) The Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs also 
     has huge stakes in companies that own a refinery in 
     Coffeyville, Kansas, and control 43,000 miles of pipeline and 
     more than 150 storage terminals. And analysts at both 
     investment banks contributed to the oil frenzy that drove 
     prices to record highs. Goldman's top oil analyst predicted 
     last March that the price of a barrel was going to $200. 
     Morgan Stanley predicted $150 a barrel. Both companies 
     declined our requests for an interview, but maintain that 
     their oil businesses are completely separate from their 
     trading activities, and that neither influence the 
     independent opinions of their analysts. There is no evidence 
     that either company has done anything illegal.
       Is there price manipulation going on?
       Mr. Gilligan: I can't say. And the reason I can't say is 
     because nobody knows. Our federal regulators don't have 
     access to the data. They don't know who holds what positions.
       Kroft: Why don't they know?
       Mr. Gilligan: Why don't they know?
       Kroft: Yeah.
       Mr. Gilligan: Because federal law doesn't give them the 
     jurisdiction to find out.
       (Oil storage; oil refinery; pipeline; Wall Street sign; 
     American flags; Capitol building; stock exchange)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) It's impossible to tell exactly who is 
     buying and selling all those oil contracts because most of 
     the trading is now conducted in secret, with no public 
     scrutiny or government oversight. Over time, the big Wall 
     Street banks were allowed to buy and sell as many oil 
     contracts as they wanted for their clients, circumventing 
     regulations intended to limit speculation. And in 2000, 
     Congress effectively deregulated the futures market, granting 
     exemptions for complicated derivative investments called oil 
     swaps, as well as electronic trading on private exchanges.
       Who is responsible for deregulating the oil future market?
       Mr. Greenberger: You'd have to say Enron. This was 
     something they desperately wanted and they got.
       (Greenberger; CFTC building; Enron; people at desks)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) Michael Greenberger, who wanted more 
     regulation while he was at the Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission, not less, says it all happened when Enron was the 
     seventh largest corporation in the United States.
       Mr. Greenberger: (Voiceover) This was when Enron was riding 
     high, and what Enron wanted, Enron got.
       Kroft: Why did they want a deregulated market in oil 
     futures?
       (Traders at desks; spreadsheet; man at computer)
       Mr. Greenberger: Because they wanted to establish their own 
     little energy futures exchange through computerized trading.
       (Voiceover) They knew that if they could get this trading 
     engine established without the controls that had been placed 
     on speculators, they would have the ability to drive the 
     price of energy products in any way they wanted to take it.
       When Enron failed, we learned that Enron and its 
     conspirators who used their trading engine were able to drive 
     the price of electricity up, some say by as much as 300 
     percent, on the West Coast.
       Kroft: Is the same thing going on right now in the oil 
     business?
       Mr. Greenberger: Every Enron trader who knew how to do 
     these manipulations became the most valuable employee on Wall 
     Street.
       (Oil rig; stock market ticker; oil rig in ocean)
       Kroft: (Voiceover) But some of them may now be looking for 
     work. The oil bubble began to deflate early last fall when 
     Congress threatened new regulations and federal agencies 
     announced they were beginning major investigations. It 
     finally popped with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the 
     near collapse of AIG, who were both heavily invested in the 
     oil markets. With hedge funds and investment houses facing 
     margin calls, the speculators headed for the exits.
       Mr. MASTERS: From July 15th until the end of November, 
     roughly $70 billion came out of commodities futures from 
     these index funds. In fact, gasoline demand went down by 
     roughly 5 percent over that same period of time. Yet the 
     price of crude oil dropped more than $100 a barrel. It 
     dropped 75 percent.
       Kroft: How do you explain it?
       Mr. Masters: By looking at investors. That's the only way 
     you can explain it.
       Kroft: The regulatory lapses in the commodities market that 
     many believe fomented the rapid speculation in oil have still 
     not been addressed, although the incoming Obama 
     administration has promised to do so.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 222. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the national limitation on qualified energy conservation bonds and to 
clarify that certain programs constitute a qualified conservation 
purpose, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over the past few days I have introduced 
a series of bills that are part of my E4 Initiative, dubbed E4 because 
of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy. Today I am 
introducing two bills that are part of this effort: the Community 
Revitalization Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009 and the Energy 
and Technology Advancement, ETA, Act of 2009.
  The newest among my E4 bills is the Community Revitalization Energy 
Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009. This

[[Page 610]]

bill will increase the amount of funding available to State and local 
governments for the rehabilitation and revitalization of the fledgling 
green economy, and also expand the types of eligible projects to cover 
energy efficiency improvements to privately owned buildings. While our 
country is facing its greatest economic challenge since the Great 
Depression, we have a tremendous opportunity to create jobs critical to 
addressing the energy challenges we face. The CREC Act amends the 
recently authorized Qualified Energy Conservation Bond, QECB, program 
to increase funding for important public-private partnerships to 
significantly invest in energy efficiency and conservation, a key 
national priority. It also offers States and local governments the 
opportunity to create jobs and stimulate their local economies.
  First, my bill will more than quadruple the amount of bonds that can 
be issued under the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program--
increasing the program from $800 million to $3.6 billion. This will 
provide the opportunity for private investors to partner with State and 
local governments to fund energy investments through State and locally 
issued tax credit bonds. As we give private investors the opportunity 
to participate in the green economy through Qualified Energy 
Conservation Bonds, we signal to the market that the Federal Government 
will continue to affirm the importance of investment in energy 
efficiency and conservation, as well as the development of new energy 
technologies. Helping these new energy technologies thrive is not only 
a promising way to develop the next generation of energy technology to 
reduce our energy consumption, it will also help to spur job creation 
as State and local governments embark on capital improvements.
  Increasing the size of the program will support funding for eligible 
projects including energy efficiency improvements of publicly owned 
buildings; rural development of electricity from renewable sources; 
research facilities or grants for renewable technologies such as 
advanced automobile battery technology and nonfossil fuels; mass 
commuting facilities that reduce energy consumption; or financing 
qualified energy production projects such as wind, biomass, geothermal, 
landfill gas, and solar.
  Secondly, my bill expands the types of eligible programs to ones that 
reduce energy consumption in privately owned buildings. It would allow 
States and local governments to help homeowners and businesses make 
improvements such as heating-fuel saving measures; electricity-saving 
measures; on-site renewable energy generating devices; or water-saving 
measures that reduce the energy use of the owner, renter or water 
provider. Gains in efficiency savings between 20-30 percent are easily 
achievable through improving lighting, insulation, HVAC equipment and 
controls for these items. These measures are often one-time and low 
maintenance or maintenance free once they have been installed. In terms 
of costs, implementing efficiency measures only costs about 3 cents per 
kWh of energy saved while implementing wind and solar projects can cost 
at least two to three times more.
  Importantly, my bill will increase the success of these energy 
efficiency and conservation programs by ensuring the Qualified Energy 
Conservation Bond program can be used to promote novel payment 
structures in order to reduce the prohibitive upfront costs that 
homeowners and businesses must pay for energy efficiency and 
conservation upgrades. By eliminating expensive up-front costs for 
homeowners and businesses, we can eliminate one of the main obstacles 
to making significant energy efficiency gains. Furthermore, we can 
virtually eliminate what homeowners and businesses have to pay for the 
efficiency and conservation upgrades by not increasing their out-of-
pocket expenses. For example, States and local governments can work 
with electric and water utilities to bill individuals or businesses 
monthly for the cost of the efficiency improvements based on the 
savings they receive. The payment for the efficiency improvements each 
month will be no more than the monthly energy-savings realized by the 
improvements, thereby keeping their monthly payments the same as before 
the energy improvements.
  The Center on Wisconsin Strategy states that buildings account for 40 
percent of total U.S. energy consumption, 70 percent of U.S. 
electricity consumption, and 43 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, a 
larger share than either transportation or industry. It is possible 
that the U.S. could realize more than $200 billion in annual savings 
from improved building efficiency alone. However, one of the challenges 
associated with implementing building efficiency measures is its 
prohibitive cost. Unfortunately, poor households devote a 
disproportionate share of income to home energy costs, often upwards of 
10 percent, because they have less income and tend to live in less 
efficient buildings and use less efficient appliances. Through building 
retrofits we have the potential to generate about 10 person years of 
employment in direct installation of efficiency measures and another 3-
4 person years in the production of relevant materials for every $1 
million spent on retrofits
  Large cities and counties with populations over 100,000 would be 
eligible for Wisconsin's share, $65.7 million, that my bill would allow 
for. Eligible local governments in Wisconsin include: Milwaukee, 
Madison, Green Bay, and the counties of Milwaukee, Dane, Waukesha, 
Brown, Racine, Outagamie, Kenosha, Winnebago, Rock, Marathon, 
Washington, Sheboygan, La Crosse, and Walworth.
  I commend the city of Milwaukee and the Center on Wisconsin 
Strategy--they have already begun to develop a program to address 
retrofitting residential buildings with energy efficiency measures 
through Me2--Milwaukee Energy Efficiency. COWS' initial estimates 
suggest if you could retrofit nearly all of the existing housing stock 
in Milwaukee, an initial investment of just under $250 million could 
result in annual energy savings of over $80 million. Examples of other 
cities that are tackling the issue of energy efficiency in residential 
buildings include Berkeley, CA; Babylon, NY; and Brookhaven, NY.
  All of these efforts to conserve energy require investments in time 
and money. By combining efforts on two of the challenges that we 
currently face--energy and employment--we can create great 
opportunities. Energy efficiency and conservation are in our national 
interest for our long term economic well-being, for the health and 
safety of our citizens and the world as we mitigate the effects of 
climate change, and for our independence and security.
  I have urged the Treasury Department to quickly issue regulations for 
the Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds so the initial program can get 
up and running. Once regulations are finalized, States and local 
governments can begin applying to receive an allotment of the bonds to 
pursue projects that may have been shelved in our struggling economy.
  The second energy bill I am introducing as part of my E4 Initiative 
is the Energy and Technology Advancement Act. This bill will increase 
partnerships between the Federal Government and businesses to help spur 
the commercialization of energy, forestry, and other technologies--in 
other words, to increase the ETA, or estimated time of arrival, for 
bringing new technologies to market.
  Particularly in the area of energy, we must do more to make new 
energy solutions, like next generation biofuels, a reality. My bill 
will help make the Federal Government a better business partner for the 
many businesses that are researching and developing innovative 
technology solutions our country needs. We are squandering the Federal 
investment of billions into research and development by not doing 
enough to prevent new technologies from sitting on the shelf or being 
shipped to another country. Helping these new energy technologies get 
off the ground is not only a promising way to develop the next 
generation of energy technology that will help break our addition to 
oil, it will also help to spur job creation and enhance rural 
development.

[[Page 611]]

  One obstacle identified by the Forest Service's Wisconsin-based 
Forest Products Lab which conducts forestry and energy technology 
research with businesses and others, is lack of Federal support for 
moving technologies from the research and development phase to 
commercialization. My bill will bridge this gap by authorizing the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, USDA, which includes the Forest Service, to 
work with businesses and provide access to resources to assist with 
getting technologies to market.
  By encouraging the USDA to act as a ``business incubator,'' we can 
increase the rate of success and reduce the length of time for bringing 
technologies to the market. By providing a bridge to move new 
technologies beyond the research and development phase to 
commercialization, the Federal Government will accelerate the 
development of new technologies and create increased opportunities for 
small businesses, local and State government, and others.
  All energy, forestry, and other technologies will benefit from my ETA 
Act because it will help new technologies come to the market. It does 
so by promoting the Federal Government as a better business incubator, 
encouraging the USDA to provide business support services, and 
authorizing USDA employees and private-sector employees to work 
together in Federal or private experimental or product facilities. My 
bill will also increase cooperation between the Federal Government and 
innovative businesses by encouraging the USDA to allow rental of 
Federal equipment and property for the development of new technology.
  Lastly, a specific partnership encouraged by my Energy and Technology 
Advancement Act will spur the commercialization of biofuels. My bill 
requires the USDA to pursue a biorefinery pilot plant that will allow 
businesses to partner with the Federal Government to test various 
biofuels technologies derived from a variety of feedstocks, including 
woody and agriculture waste.
  Certainly one of today's greatest challenges--energy--is also one of 
tomorrow's greatest opportunities. Today, the transportation sector 
accounts for 70% of our oil consumption. However, there are promising 
efforts to significantly lessen our dependence on oil by reducing fuel 
consumption through increased efficiency and by aggressively pursuing 
renewable fuels, or biofuels. The commercialization of biofuels will 
also create job opportunities, support rural development and industries 
such as forestry, and develop the next generation of fuels that are 
sustainable and from diverse sources.
  Given our current dire fiscal situation, it is more important then 
ever that we are careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. Not only are 
both of these new bills fully offset, so as not to worsen our current 
Federal deficit; they actually provide over a billion dollars in 
deficit reduction. That's yet another reason to pass them, and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr TESTER (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 226. A bill to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs 
outpatient clinic in Havre, Montana, as the Merrill Lundman Department 
of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator 
Baucus to introduce legislation honoring a Montana veteran named 
Merrill Lundman.
  Merrill was not a general officer. He did not become famous in 
battle, or wealthy in his civilian life. After serving in the Army, he 
came home to north-central Montana to work on the family farm and, 
later, for 20 years for the BNSF railroad. Some people might say he was 
just an ordinary man who served his country in the Army for three 
years, and then came home to work to live most of his days on the Hi-
Line, a strip of U.S. Highway 2 in Montana that cuts across the prairie 
near the northern border.
  But because of Merrill Lundman, thousands of veterans in and around 
Havre, Montana, can expect to get their VA medical care a little bit 
closer to home. You see, for the last several years of his life, 
Merrill devoted his time and his energy to pushing the VA to open a new 
community based outpatient clinic in Havre. And today, his dream has 
become a reality.
  I am sorry that Merrill Lundman is not with us today to celebrate 
this day. He died just over one year ago, on December 22, 2007. Less 
than a month later, the VA announced its intention to establish a 
clinic in Havre.
  The data says that veterans who live in rural areas don't live as 
long--or as well--as their urban peers. That's because it's harder to 
get to the VA facility that may be hundreds of miles away--especially 
this time of year when snow and ice can make travel in Montana 
treacherous. I don't know if Merrill knew this, but he sensed that his 
fellow veterans were getting a raw deal, and he didn't hesitate to tell 
the VA and his congressional delegation.
  The story of this clinic is a grassroots effort led by one man who 
stood up for his fellow band of brothers to make sure that they can get 
the care that they have earned. And to honor that effort, Senator 
Baucus and I are proud to introduce this legislation, and I look 
forward to working with Chairman Akaka to move this bill quickly 
through the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 227. A bill to establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical 
Park in Auburn, New York, and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad 
National Historical Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, 
Maryland, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce The Harriet 
Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground 
Railroad National Historical Park Act. I am joined by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. 
Mikulski, and Mr. Schumer as original co-sponsors. We originally 
introduced nearly identical legislation last summer, but the press of 
legislative business did not allow for consideration of this important 
legislation. This year we will work for its prompt consideration and 
enactment.
  The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born Araminta 
``Minty'' Ross approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, Maryland. She 
spent nearly 30 years of her life as a slave on Maryland's Eastern 
Shore. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 
she married John Tubman.
  Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She did so in the dead 
of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that are a 
hallmark of Maryland's Eastern Shore. She did so alone, demonstrating 
courage, strength and fortitude that became her hallmarks. Not 
satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for 
more than 10 years to the places of her enslavement in Dorchester and 
Caroline counties where, under the most adverse conditions, she led 
away many family members and other slaves to their freedom. Tubman 
became known as ``Moses'' by African-Americans and white abolitionists. 
She was perhaps the most famous and most important conductor in the 
network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad.
  During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a spy, a 
scout and a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina. 
She is credited with leading hundreds of slaves from those slave States 
to freedom during those years.
  Following the Civil War, Tubman settled in Auburn, NY. There she was 
active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also established the 
one of the first incorporated homes for aged African-Americans. In 1903 
she bequeathed the home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 
in Auburn. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried 
there in the Fort Hill Cemetery.
  Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many 
were

[[Page 612]]

skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their 
owners. Not surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the 
early years of Tubman's life still stand. The landscapes of the Eastern 
Shore of Maryland, however, remain evocative of the time that Tubman 
lived there. Farm fields and forests dot the landscape, which is also 
notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands. In 
particular, a number of properties including the homestead of Ben Ross, 
her father, Stewart's Canal, where he worked, the Brodess Farm, where 
she worked as a slave, and others are within the boundaries of the 
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.
  Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to 
freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in 
Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the 
plantation, are today protected by various conservation easements. Were 
she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she 
knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to 
their freedom.
  In New York, on the other hand, many of the buildings associated with 
Tubman's life remain intact. Her personal home, as well as the Tubman 
Home for the Aged, the church and rectory of the Thompson Memorial AME 
Zion Episcopal Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery are all extant.
  In 1999, the Congress approved legislation authorizing a Special 
Resource Study to determine the appropriateness of establishing a unit 
of the National Park Service to honor Harriet Tubman. The Study has 
taken an exceptionally long time to complete, in part because of the 
lack of remaining structures on Maryland's Eastern Shore. There has 
never been any doubt that Tubman led an extraordinary life. Her 
contributions to American history are surpassed by few. Determining the 
most appropriate way to recognize that life and her contributions, 
however, as been more difficult. Eventually, the Park Service came to 
realize that determined that a Park that would include two 
geographically separate units would be appropriate. The New York unit 
would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings in Auburn. The 
Maryland portion would include large sections of landscapes that are 
evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant. The Harriet 
Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground 
Railroad National Historical Park Act, S. 3383, was first introduced on 
July 31, 2008. The Special Resource Study will be finalized and 
released in the near future.
  The legislation I am introducing today establishes two parks. The 
Harriet Tubman National Historical Park includes important historical 
structures in Auburn, New York. They include Tubman's home, the Home 
for the Aged that she established, the African Methodist Episcopal AME 
Zion Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery where she is buried.
  The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park 
includes historically important landscapes in Dorchester, Caroline, and 
Talbot counties, Maryland, that are evocative of the life of Harriet 
Tubman. The Maryland properties include about 2,200 acres in Caroline 
County that comprise the Poplar Neck plantation that Tubman escaped 
from in 1849. The 725 acres of viewshed across the Choptank River in 
Talbot County would also be included in the Park. In Dorchester County, 
the parcels would not be contiguous, but would include about 2,775 
acres. All of them are included within the Blackwater National Wildlife 
Refuge boundaries or abut that resource land. The National Park Service 
would not own any of these lands.
  The bill authorizes $11 million in grants for the New York properties 
for their preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of those 
resources.
  The bill authorizes an additional $11 million in grants for the 
Maryland section. Funds can be used for the construction of the State 
Harriet Tubman Park Visitors Center and/or for easements or acquisition 
of properties inside or adjacent to the Historical Park boundaries.
  Finally, the bill also authorizes a new grants program. Under the 
program, the National Park Service would award competitive grants to 
historically Black colleges and universities, predominately Black 
institutions, and minority serving institutions for research into the 
life of Harriet Tubman and the African-American experience during the 
years that coincide with the life of Harriet Tubman. The legislation 
authorizes $200,000 annually for this scholarship program.
  Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom 
liberty and freedom were not just concepts. She lived those principles 
and shared that freedom with hundreds of others. In doing so, she has 
earned a nation's respect and honor. That is why I am so proud to 
introduce this legislation, establishing the Harriet Tubman National 
Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National 
Historical Park.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 227

       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 ``Harriet Tubman National 
     Historical Park and Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad 
     National Historical Park Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Harriet Tubman (born Araminta ``Minty'' Ross)--
       (A) was born into slavery in Maryland around 1822;
       (B) married John Tubman at age 25;
       (C) endured through her youth and young adulthood the 
     hardships of enslaved African-Americans; and
       (D) boldly emancipated herself from bondage in 1849;
       (2) not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, Harriet 
     Tubman--
       (A) returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to the 
     places of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline 
     Counties, Maryland; and
       (B) under the most adverse circumstances led away many 
     family members and acquaintances to freedom in the northern 
     region of the United States and Canada;
       (3) Harriet Tubman was--
       (A) called ``Moses'' by African-Americans and white 
     abolitionists; and
       (B) acknowledged as 1 of the most prominent ``conductors'' 
     of the resistance that came to be known as the ``Underground 
     Railroad'';
       (4) in 1868, Frederick Douglass wrote that, with the 
     exception of John Brown, Douglass knew of ``no one who has 
     willingly encountered more perils and hardships to serve our 
     enslaved people'' than Harriet Tubman;
       (5) during the Civil War, Harriet Tubman--
       (A) was recruited to assist Union troops as a nurse, a 
     scout, and a spy; and
       (B) served in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina, where 
     she is credited with facilitating the rescue of hundreds of 
     enslaved people;
       (6) Harriet Tubman established in Auburn, New York, 1 of 
     the first incorporated homes for aged African-Americans in 
     the United States, which, 10 years before her death, she 
     bequeathed to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church;
       (7) there are nationally significant resources comprised of 
     relatively unchanged landscapes associated with the early 
     life of Harriet Tubman in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot 
     Counties, Maryland;
       (8) there are nationally significant resources relating to 
     Harriet Tubman in Auburn, New York, including--
       (A) the residence of Harriet Tubman;
       (B) the Tubman Home for the Aged;
       (C) the Thompson Memorial AME Zion Church; and
       (D) the final resting place of Harriet Tubman in Fort Hill 
     Cemetery;
       (9) in developing interpretive programs, the National Park 
     Service would benefit from increased scholarship of the 
     African-American experience during the decades preceding the 
     Civil War and throughout the remainder of the 19th century;
       (10) it is fitting and proper that the nationally 
     significant resources relating to Harriet Tubman be preserved 
     for future generations as units of the National Park System 
     so that people may understand and appreciate the 
     contributions of Harriet Tubman to the history and culture of 
     the United States; and
       (11) in addition to the properties and resources within the 
     boundary of the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National 
     Historical Park, other associated land within the Blackwater 
     National Wildlife Refuge and proposed additions to the Refuge 
     are--
       (A) components of the nationally significant Harriet Tubman 
     landscape; and

[[Page 613]]

       (B) essential to the visual, historical, and cultural 
     experiences of the Historical Park.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to preserve and promote stewardship of the resources in 
     Auburn, New York, and Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot 
     Counties, Maryland, relating to the life and contributions of 
     Harriet Tubman;
       (2) to provide for partnerships with the African Methodist 
     Episcopal Zion Church, the States of New York and Maryland, 
     political subdivisions of the States, the Federal Government, 
     local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private 
     property owners for resource protection, research, 
     interpretation, education, and public understanding and 
     appreciation of the life and contributions of Harriet Tubman;
       (3) to sustain agricultural and forestry land uses in 
     Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, Maryland, that 
     remain evocative of the landscape during the life of Harriet 
     Tubman; and
       (4) to establish a competitive grants program for scholars 
     of African-American history relating to Harriet Tubman, the 
     Harriet Tubman historic landscape, and the Underground 
     Railroad.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Church.--The term ``Church'' means the Harriet Tubman 
     Home, Inc., of the AME Zion Church located in Auburn, New 
     York, which owns and manages--
       (A) the Thompson Memorial AME Zion Church;
       (B) the Harriet Tubman home;
       (C) the Tubman Home for the Aged; and
       (D) the land on which those facilities are located.
       (2) Historically black college or university.--The term 
     ``historically Black college or university'' has the meaning 
     given the term ``part B institution'' in section 322 of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061)).
       (3) Predominantly black institution.--The term 
     ``Predominantly Black Institution'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 499A(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1099e(c)).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) Visitor center.--The term ``Visitor Center'' means the 
     Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad State Park Visitor Center 
     to be constructed under section 5(d).

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF HARRIET TUBMAN NATIONAL HISTORICAL 
                   PARK.

       (a) Establishment.--On the execution of easements with the 
     Church, the Secretary shall--
       (1) establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Historical Park'') in 
     the City of Auburn, New York, as a unit of the National Park 
     System; and
       (2) publish notice of the establishment of the Historical 
     Park in the Federal Register.
       (b) Boundary.--
       (1) In general.--The Historical Park shall be comprised of 
     structures and properties associated with the Harriet Tubman 
     home, the Tubman Home for the Aged, the Church, and the 
     Rectory, as generally depicted on the map entitled ``Harriet 
     Tubman National Historical Park--Proposed Boundary'', 
     numbered [____], and dated [___].
       (2) Availability of map.--The map described in paragraph 
     (1) shall be available for public inspection in the 
     appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
       (c) Acquisition of Land.--The Secretary may acquire from 
     willing sellers, by donation, purchase with donated or 
     appropriated funds, or exchange, land or interests in land 
     within the boundary of the Historical Park.
       (d) Financial Assistance and Cooperative Agreements.--The 
     Secretary may provide grants to, and enter into cooperative 
     agreements with--
       (1) the Church for--
       (A) historic preservation of, rehabilitation of, research 
     on, and maintenance of properties within the boundary of the 
     Historical Park; and
       (B) interpretation of the Historical Park;
       (2) the Fort Hill Cemetery Association for maintenance and 
     interpretation of the gravesite of Harriet Tubman; and
       (3) the State of New York, any political subdivisions of 
     the State, the City of Auburn, the Church, colleges and 
     universities, and nonprofit organizations for--
       (A) preservation and interpretation of resources relating 
     to Harriet Tubman in the City of Auburn, New York;
       (B) conducting research, including archaeological research; 
     and
       (C) providing for stewardship programs, education, public 
     access, signage, and other interpretive devices at the 
     Historical Park for interpretive purposes.
       (e) Interpretation.--The Secretary may provide interpretive 
     tours to sites located outside the boundaries of the 
     Historical Park in Auburn, New York, that include resources 
     relating to Harriet Tubman.
       (f) General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this subsection, 
     the Secretary, in cooperation with the Church, shall complete 
     a general management plan for the Historical Park in 
     accordance with section 12(b) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 
     1a-7(b)).
       (2) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     preparation and implementation of the general management plan 
     for the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park with--
       (A) the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National 
     Historical Park in Maryland; and
       (B) the National Underground Railroad: Network to Freedom.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HARRIET TUBMAN UNDERGROUND 
                   RAILROAD NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established as a unit of the 
     National Park System the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad 
     National Historical Park (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Historical Park'') in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot 
     Counties, Maryland.
       (b) Boundary.--
       (1) In general.--The boundary of the Historical Park shall 
     consist of certain landscapes and associated resources 
     relating to the early life and enslavement of Harriet Tubman 
     and the Underground Railroad, as generally depicted on the 
     map entitled ``Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National 
     Historical Park--Proposed Boundary'', numbered [____], and 
     dated [_____].
       (2) Additional sites.--The Secretary, after consultation 
     with landowners, the State of Maryland, and units of local 
     government, may modify the boundary of the Historical Park to 
     include additional resources relating to Harriet Tubman 
     that--
       (A) are located within the vicinity of the Historical Park; 
     and
       (B) are identified in the general management plan prepared 
     under subsection (g) as appropriate for interpreting the life 
     of Harriet Tubman.
       (3) Availability of map.--On modification of the boundary 
     of the Historical Park under paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall make available for public inspection in the appropriate 
     offices of the National Park Service a revised map of the 
     Historical Park.
       (c) Acquisition of Land.--The Secretary may acquire from 
     willing sellers, by donation, purchase with donated or 
     appropriated funds, or exchange, land or an interest in land 
     within the boundaries of the Historical Park.
       (d) Grants.--In accordance with section 7(b)(2), the 
     Secretary may provide grants--
       (1) to the State of Maryland, political subdivisions of the 
     State, and nonprofit organizations for the acquisition of 
     less than fee title (including easements) or fee title to 
     land in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, Maryland, 
     within the boundary of the Historical Park; and
       (2) on execution of a memorandum of understanding between 
     the State of Maryland and the Director of the National Park 
     Service, to the State of Maryland for the construction of the 
     Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad State Park Visitor Center 
     on land owned by the State of Maryland in Dorchester County, 
     Maryland, subject to the condition that the State of Maryland 
     provide the Director of the National Park Service, at no 
     additional cost, sufficient office space and exhibition areas 
     in the Visitor Center to carry out the purposes of the 
     Historical Park.
       (e) Financial Assistance and Cooperative Agreements.--The 
     Secretary may provide grants to, and enter into cooperative 
     agreements with, the State of Maryland, political 
     subdivisions of the State, nonprofit organizations, colleges 
     and universities, and private property owners for--
       (1) the restoration or rehabilitation, public use, and 
     interpretation of sites and resources relating to Harriet 
     Tubman;
       (2) the conduct of research, including archaeological 
     research;
       (3) providing stewardship programs, education, signage, and 
     other interpretive devices at the sites and resources for 
     interpretive purposes; and
       (4)(A) the design and construction of the Visitor Center; 
     and
       (B) the operation and maintenance of the Visitor Center.
       (f) Interpretation.--The Secretary may provide interpretive 
     tours to sites and resources located outside the boundary of 
     the Historical Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot 
     Counties, Maryland, relating to the life of Harriet Tubman 
     and the Underground Railroad.
       (g)  General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this subsection, 
     the Secretary, in coordination with the State of Maryland, 
     political subdivisions of the State, and the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, shall complete a general 
     management plan for the Historical Park in accordance with 
     section 12(b) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-7(b)).
       (2) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     preparation and implementation of the general management plan 
     for the Historical Park with--
       (A) the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, 
     New York;
       (B) the National Underground Railroad: Network to Freedom;
       (C) the Maryland Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad State 
     Park; and

[[Page 614]]

       (D) the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Byway in 
     Dorchester and Caroline Counties, Maryland.
       (3) Priority treatment.--The general management plan for 
     the Historical Park shall give priority to, with the 
     concurrence of the owner of the property, the adequate 
     protection of, interpretation of, public appreciation for, 
     archaeological investigation of, and research on Stewart's 
     Canal, the Jacob Jackson home site, the Brodess Farm, the Ben 
     Ross and Anthony Thompson properties on Harrisville Road, and 
     the James Cook site, all of which are privately owned and 
     located in the area identified as the ``Harriet Tubman 
     Historic Area'' on the map described in subsection (b)(1).
       (h) Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.--
       (1) Interagency agreement.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the National Park Service and the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service enter into an interagency agreement 
     that--
       (A) promotes and mutually supports the compatible 
     stewardship and interpretation of Harriet Tubman resources at 
     the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge; and
       (B) provides for the maximum level of cooperation between 
     those Federal agencies to further the purposes of this Act.
       (2) Effect of act.--Nothing in this Act modifies, alters, 
     or amends the authorities of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service in the administration and management of the 
     Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.
       (i) Duties of Other Federal Entities.--Any Federal entity 
     conducting, supporting, permitting, or licensing activities 
     directly affecting nationally significant land within the 
     area identified as the ``Harriet Tubman Historic Area'' on 
     the map described in subsection (b)(1) shall--
       (1) consult and cooperate with the Secretary with respect 
     to the activities;
       (2) identify any alternatives with regard to the proposed 
     activity affecting the Harriet Tubman Historic Area; and
       (3) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct, support, 
     permit, or license the activities in a manner that the 
     Secretary determines would not have an adverse effect on the 
     Harriet Tubman Historic Area.

     SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the Harriet 
     Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman 
     Underground Railroad National Historical Park in accordance 
     with this Act and the laws generally applicable to units of 
     the National Park System including--
       (1) the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et 
     seq.); and
       (2) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
       (b) Park Regulations.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
     regulations and policies applicable to units of the National 
     Park System shall apply only to Federal land administered by 
     the National Park Service that is located within the boundary 
     of the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National 
     Historical Park.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act (other than 
     subsection (b)), including the provision of National Park 
     Service personnel and National Park Service management funds 
     for the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the 
     Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park.
       (b) Grants.--There are authorized to be appropriated not 
     more than--
       (1) $11,000,000 to provide grants to the Church for--
       (A) historic preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration 
     of resources within the boundary of the Harriet Tubman 
     National Historical Park; and
       (B) the costs of design, construction, installation, and 
     maintenance of exhibits and other interpretive devices 
     authorized under section 4(d)(1)(B);
       (2) $11,000,000 for grants to the State of Maryland, 
     political subdivisions of the State of Maryland, and 
     nonprofit organizations for activities authorized under 
     subsections (d)(1) and (e)(4)(A) of section 5; and
       (3) $200,000 for fiscal year 2010 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter for competitive grants to historically Black 
     colleges and universities, Predominately Black Institutions, 
     and minority serving institutions for research into the life 
     of Harriet Tubman and the African-American experience during 
     the years that coincide with the life of Harriet Tubman.
       (c) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
       (1) Church and visitor center grants.--The Federal share of 
     the cost of activities provided grants under paragraph (1) or 
     (2) of subsection (b) and any maintenance, construction, or 
     utility costs incurred pursuant to a cooperative agreement 
     entered into under section 4(d)(1)(A) or section 5(e) shall 
     not be more than 50 percent.
       (2) Historically black colleges and universities.--The 
     Federal share of the cost of activities provided assistance 
     under subsection (b)(3) shall be not more than 75 percent.
       (3) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share 
     required under this subsection may be in the form of in-kind 
     contributions of goods or services fairly valued.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 228. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
permit States, at their option, to require certain individuals to 
present satisfactory documentary evidence of proof of citizenship or 
nationality for purposes of eligibility for Medicaid, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague Senator 
Akaka to introduce legislation today designed to make several very 
important changes to current law to ensure that U.S. citizens receive 
the Medicaid to which they are entitled.
  Since July 1, 2006, most U.S. citizens and nationals applying for or 
renewing their Medicaid coverage face a new Federal requirement to 
provide documentation of their citizenship status. Recent reports 
indicate that tens-of-thousands of U.S. citizens, and in particular 
children, inappropriately are being denied Medicaid benefits simply 
because they don't have access to newly required documentation. The 
articles below and report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 
highlight this very serious problem. Hospitals, physicians, and 
pharmacies may not be willing to treat these individuals until they 
have a source of payment, but they cannot qualify for Medicaid until 
they produce a birth certificate and ID.
  This new Federal requirement was added to Medicaid by the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005, DRA, enacted February 8, 2006. The Tax Relief 
and Health Care Act of 2006, TRHCA, signed into law December 20, 2006, 
included some amendments to the DRA citizenship documentation 
requirement, primarily to exempt certain groups. Prior to enactment of 
the DRA, states were permitted to use their discretion in requiring 
such citizenship documentation.
  Under Section 6036 of the DRA, citizens applying for or renewing 
their Medicaid coverage must provide ``satisfactory documentary 
evidence of citizenship or nationality.'' The DRA specifies documents 
that are acceptable for this purpose and authorizes the HHS Secretary 
to designate additional acceptable documents. No Federal matching funds 
are available for services provided to individuals who declare they are 
citizens or nationals unless the state obtains satisfactory evidence of 
their citizenship or determines that they are subject to a statutory 
exemption.
  According to a CRS Report for Congress updated April 15, 2008, 
``Based on a recent survey by the Government Accountability Office, 
GAO, 22 of 44 states report declines in enrollment due to the new 
citizenship documentation requirement. Based on another survey by the 
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 13 states report a 
significant negative impact on enrollment and another 24 states report 
a modest impact. Among seven states detailed in an earlier report from 
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, only Wisconsin has a data 
system that can identify denials and terminations due to a lack of 
citizenship documentation, and it reports that about 19,000 people had 
their Medicaid eligibility denied or terminated for this reason between 
July 31, 2006, and March 1, 2007.''
  A second wave study conducted from September 2007-March 2008 by the 
Department of Health Policy at the George Washington University School 
of Public Health published October 2008, ``Another distressing finding 
is the impact the citizenship documentation requirements appear to be 
having on SCHIP. Many states, for important reasons, use joint 
applications for both Medicaid and separate SCHIP programs. The effect, 
however, is to apply the citizenship documentation requirements to both 
programs, thereby delaying coverage for both groups of children.''
  ``Even if most or all of the reported Medicaid enrollment declines 
are due to the citizenship documentation requirement, a key question is 
whether the people who are being denied, terminated, or deterred from 
applying are

[[Page 615]]

U.S. citizens, rather than unauthorized aliens or other ineligible 
noncitizens. Of the 22 states reporting enrollment declines to GAO, a 
majority (16 states) attribute them to Medicaid coverage delays or 
losses for people who appear to be U.S. citizens.''
  It is important to note that citizenship documentation requirements 
do not affect Medicaid rules relating to immigrants--they apply to 
individuals claiming to be citizens. Most new legal immigrants are 
excluded from Medicaid during their first five years in the U.S. and 
undocumented immigrants remain eligible for Medicaid emergency services 
only.
  The legislation I am introducing would make several very important 
changes to current law to ensure that U.S. citizens receive the 
Medicaid to which they are entitled.
  First, the legislation would restore citizenship verification to a 
state option. Specifically, states would be permitted to determine when 
and to what extent citizenship verification is required of U.S. 
Citizens. States would also be permitted to utilize the standards most 
appropriate to the their population as long as such standards were no 
more stringent than those currently used by the Social Security 
Administration and includes native American tribal documents when 
appropriate.
  Second, the legislation would ensure that individuals are afforded a 
reasonable time period to provide citizenship documentation utilizing 
the same reasonable time period standard that is available to legal 
immigrants to provide satisfactory evidence of their immigration 
status.
  Third, the legislation protects children who are U.S. citizens by 
virtue of being born in the United States from being denied coverage 
after birth because of citizenship verification requirements.
  Fourth, the legislation also clarifies ambiguities in Federal law to 
ensure that these citizen children, regardless of the immigration 
status of their parents, are treated like all other low-income children 
born in the United States and are deemed eligible to receive Medicaid 
services for one year.
  Finally, the legislation also ensures that the thousands of citizen 
children and adults, who were erroneously denied Medicaid coverage, may 
receive retroactive Medicaid eligibility for coverage they were 
inappropriately denied because of citizenship verification 
requirements.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this critical 
legislation, which protects low-income U.S. citizens from being 
inappropriately denied Medicaid coverage because of lack of 
documentation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 228

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

     SECTION 1. STATE OPTION TO REQUIRE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO 
                   PRESENT SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF 
                   PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY FOR 
                   PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID.

       (a) In General.--Section 1902(a)(46) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(46)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(46)'';
       (2) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) at the option of the State and subject to section 
     1903(x), require that, with respect to an individual (other 
     than an individual described in section 1903(x)(1)) who 
     declares to be a citizen or national of the United States for 
     purposes of establishing initial eligibility for medical 
     assistance under this title (or, at State option, for 
     purposes of renewing or redetermining such eligibility to the 
     extent that such satisfactory documentary evidence of 
     citizenship or nationality has not yet been presented), there 
     is presented satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship 
     or nationality of the individual (using criteria determined 
     by the State, which shall be no more restrictive than the 
     criteria used by the Social Security Administration to 
     determine citizenship, and which shall accept as such 
     evidence a document issued by a federally-recognized Indian 
     tribe evidencing membership or enrollment in, or affiliation 
     with, such tribe (such as a tribal enrollment card or 
     certificate of degree of Indian blood, and, with respect to 
     those federally-recognized Indian tribes located within 
     States having an international border whose membership 
     includes individuals who are not citizens of the United 
     States, such other forms of documentation (including tribal 
     documentation, if appropriate) that the Secretary, after 
     consulting with such tribes, determines to be satisfactory 
     documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality for 
     purposes of satisfying the requirement of this 
     subparagraph));''.
       (b) Limitation on Waiver Authority.--Notwithstanding any 
     provision of section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1315), or any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services may not waive the requirements of 
     section 1902(a)(46)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(46)(B)) with respect to a State.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1903 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (i)--
       (A) in paragraph (20), by adding ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (21), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     period; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (22); and
       (2) in subsection (x)--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (3);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
       (C) in paragraph (1), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``section 1902(a)(46)(B)''; 
     and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) In the case of an individual declaring to be a 
     citizen or national of the United States with respect to whom 
     a State requires the presentation of satisfactory documentary 
     evidence of citizenship or nationality under section 
     1902(a)(46)(B), the individual shall be provided at least the 
     reasonable opportunity to present satisfactory documentary 
     evidence of citizenship or nationality under this subsection 
     as is provided under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 
     1137(d)(4)(A) to an individual for the submittal to the State 
     of evidence indicating a satisfactory immigration status.''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF RULES FOR CHILDREN BORN IN THE 
                   UNITED STATES TO MOTHERS ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID.

       Section 1903(x) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(x)), as 
     amended by section 1(c)(2), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) pursuant to the application of section 1902(e)(4) 
     (and, in the case of an individual who is eligible for 
     medical assistance on such basis, the individual shall be 
     deemed to have provided satisfactory documentary evidence of 
     citizenship or nationality and shall not be required to 
     provide further documentary evidence on any date that occurs 
     during or after the period in which the individual is 
     eligible for medical assistance on such basis); or''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 
     1902(a)(46), the preceding paragraphs of this subsection, or 
     the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, including section 6036 of 
     such Act, shall be construed as changing the requirement of 
     section 1902(e)(4) that a child born in the United States to 
     an alien mother for whom medical assistance for the delivery 
     of such child is available as treatment of an emergency 
     medical condition pursuant to subsection (v) shall be deemed 
     eligible for medical assistance during the first year of such 
     child's life.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Retroactive Application.--The amendments made by this 
     Act shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171; 120 Stat. 
     4).
       (b) Restoration of Eligibility.--In the case of an 
     individual who, during the period that began on July 1, 2006, 
     and ends on the date of enactment of this Act, was determined 
     to be ineligible for medical assistance under a State 
     Medicaid program solely as a result of the application of 
     subsections (i)(22) and (x) of section 1903 of the Social 
     Security Act (as in effect during such period), but who would 
     have been determined eligible for such assistance if such 
     subsections, as amended by sections 1 and 2, had applied to 
     the individual, a State may deem the individual to be 
     eligible for such assistance as of the date that the 
     individual was determined to be ineligible for such medical 
     assistance on such basis.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, June 5, 2006]

            Medicaid Rules Toughened on Proof of Citizenship

                            (By Robert Pear)

       Washington, June 4.--The Bush administration plans this 
     week to issue strict standards requiring more than 50 million 
     low-income people on Medicaid to prove they are

[[Page 616]]

     United States citizens by showing passports or birth 
     certificates and a limited number of other documents.
       The new standards follow a tussle with Congress. Federal 
     health officials had considered giving states broad 
     discretion to accept affidavits in place of official 
     documents. But House Republicans complained, and the 
     administration backed off, allowing affidavits ``only in rare 
     circumstances.''
       The requirements, which take effect July 1, carry out a law 
     signed by President Bush on Feb. 8.
       They vividly illustrate how concern about illegal 
     immigration is affecting domestic social welfare policy. The 
     purpose of the law was to conserve federal money for 
     citizens, reducing the need for states to cut Medicaid 
     benefits or limit eligibility.
       Gov. Rick Perry of Texas won enthusiastic applause at a 
     state Republican convention on Friday when he vowed to 
     increase border security and said, ``Texas will start 
     requiring every Medicaid applicant to verify that they are in 
     the country legally in order to receive benefits.''
       But officials in some other states and advocates for the 
     poor said the new requirements could cause hardship for 
     children, older Americans and poor people born at home in 
     rural areas who never received birth certificates. Children 
     account for about half of Medicaid recipients. People 65 and 
     older account for about 10 percent.
       Jennifer M. Ng'andu, a health policy specialist at the 
     National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic rights group, said, 
     ``The documentation requirements will cause confusion about 
     eligibility and will put up barriers to enrollment.''
       In general, Medicaid is available only to United States 
     citizens and to certain ``qualified aliens.'' Before the new 
     standards, in many states, people who declared they were 
     citizens did not have to support the claim.
       But in a letter being sent this week to state officials, 
     the Bush administration says, ``Self-attestation of 
     citizenship and identity is no longer an acceptable 
     practice.''
       In the law, Congress listed examples of documents that 
     could be used to show citizenship, and it said the secretary 
     of health and human services could ``by regulation'' specify 
     other acceptable documents.
       The main proponents of the new requirements were two 
     Republican House members from Georgia, Representatives 
     Charlie Norwood and Nathan Deal.
       John E. Stone, a spokesman for Mr. Norwood, said Sunday: 
     ``Charlie provided feedback to the administration in the last 
     two weeks to make sure the regulations would not undermine 
     the intent of the law. Obviously you need some flexibility so 
     that a 92-year-old woman with Alzheimer's does not get kicked 
     off Medicaid. What's unacceptable is for people to claim 
     benefits or sign affidavits swearing they are citizens 
     without any verification.''
       In an interview Sunday, Dr. Mark B. McClellan, 
     administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
     Services, said, ``We want to provide an effective way to 
     document citizenship without placing excessive burdens on 
     states or beneficiaries.''
       In the letter to state Medicaid directors, the 
     administration says, ``An applicant or recipient who fails to 
     cooperate with the state in presenting documentary evidence 
     of citizenship may be denied or terminated'' from the 
     program.
       The requirements will be enforced when a person applies for 
     Medicaid or when eligibility is first recertified on or after 
     July 1. In general, applicants and recipients will have 45 
     days to provide documents. People with disabilities will have 
     90 days.
       States typically redetermine eligibility every 3 to 12 
     months. ``Once citizenship has been proved, it need not be 
     documented again'' because it does not normally change, the 
     administration said.
       But the guidelines include a significant ambiguity: ``An 
     individual who is already enrolled in Medicaid will remain 
     eligible if he or she showed a good-faith effort to present 
     satisfactory evidence of citizenship and identity, even if 
     this effort takes longer than 45 days.'' The administration 
     says that ``beneficiaries will not lose benefits as long as 
     they are undertaking a good-faith effort to provide 
     documentation.''
       States have a strong incentive to enforce the requirements. 
     If they fail to do so, they can lose federal Medicaid money.
       The guidelines say states should help people document 
     citizenship, especially if they are homeless, mentally 
     impaired or physically incapacitated and have no one to act 
     on their behalf.
       The guidelines list four categories of documents that can 
     be used as evidence of citizenship, from the most reliable to 
     the least trustworthy. The best evidence, they say, is a 
     United States passport or a certificate of naturalization. 
     The next category includes state and local birth certificates 
     and State Department documents issued to children born abroad 
     to United States citizens.
       The third category consists of nongovernment documents 
     showing place of birth. These include medical records from 
     doctors, hospitals and clinics; nursing home admission 
     papers; and records from life and health insurance companies.
       The fourth category includes affidavits, which can be used 
     ``only in rare circumstances when the state is unable to 
     secure evidence of citizenship'' from other sources.
       ``An affidavit must be supplied by at least two 
     individuals, one of whom is not related to the applicant or 
     recipient,'' the guidelines say. ``Each must attest to having 
     personal knowledge of the events establishing the applicant's 
     or recipient's claim of citizenship. The individuals making 
     the affidavit must be able to provide proof of their own 
     citizenship and identity.''
       People signing affidavits may also be asked ``why 
     documentary evidence of citizenship does not exist or cannot 
     be readily obtained.''
                                  ____


                [From the Birmingham News, Dec. 4, 2006]

 Medicaid Rules Put Pinch On Poor, Lack of Proof Needed for Plan Keeps 
                             Many From Help

                           (By Kim Chandler)

       The four children in her office needed immunizations. But 
     because their mother did not have their original birth 
     certificates, and couldn't buy a copy, the family could not 
     enroll in Medicaid, Dr. Marsha Raulerson said.
       The children did not get their shots.
       During September and October, 1,600 low-income people, many 
     of them children, were rejected by Alabama's Medicaid program 
     because of tougher federal rules. They require applicants to 
     show an original birth certificate or a copy purchased from 
     the state Health Department with a raised seal, plus a 
     driver's license or other proof of citizenship and identity 
     when signing up for Medicaid benefits.
       Many more people eventually could lose benefits if they 
     can't produce the necessary documents.
       The new rules took effect July 1 and are part of the 2005 
     Deficit Reduction Act. Congress approved the law because of 
     concern that illegal immigrants were signing up for Medicaid 
     en masse. Instead of curbing widespread fraud, advocates 
     argue, the new rules deter poor U.S. citizens from getting 
     health coverage.
       ``Under the best of circumstances, many people would be 
     surprised to have to produce documentation of their 
     citizenship,'' said Jim Carnes of Alabama Arise, an advocacy 
     group for the poor.
       Alabama Medicaid Commissioner Carol Herrmann-Steckel said 
     the state is working hard to keep people on the Medicaid 
     rolls. Unlike some other states, Alabama is not kicking 
     current Medicaid recipients off the program if they do not 
     possess the necessary documents. Under a provision called 
     ``reasonable assurance,'' current Medicaid recipients are 
     allowed to temporarily re-enroll. Medicaid beneficiaries must 
     re-enroll every year.
       ``We are doing everything we can to verify citizenship. We 
     want to be fair to the Alabamians who are on Medicaid,'' 
     Herrmann-Steckel said. However, federal government officials 
     have not said how long the ``reasonable assurance'' period 
     could last. The number of people who could lose Medicaid 
     benefits would be ``significant.'' Herrmann-Steckel said.
       Medicaid is a joint federal-state health care program for 
     the poor and disabled, and it is a major provider of medical 
     care in Alabama. Medicaid pays for the health care of nearly 
     1 million Alabamians, about 20 percent of the state's 
     population, Herrmann-Steckel said.
       Advocates fear many poor people can no longer enroll in 
     Medicaid because they cannot locate their birth certificate, 
     or afford to buy a copy, and do not have the required proof 
     of citizenship such as a photo ID.
       The cost of obtaining a birth certificate is a challenge 
     for many low-income people, Carnes said, as is transportation 
     to present the documents. The state Department of Public 
     Health charges $12 to search for a birth certificate.
       There is currently no way to tell if the 1,600 who were 
     denied coverage were illegal immigrants or U.S. citizens 
     without the proper documents. But anecdotal evidence from 
     Medicaid workers suggests some were just poor American 
     parents. Medicaid workers asked people who had been denied 
     coverage why they didn't have the proper paperwork.
       ``By and large the reason was, `I can't afford to buy four 
     birth certificates,''' said Lee Rawlinson, deputy Medicaid 
     commissioner for beneficiary services.
       Herrmann-Steckel said the state is doing everything 
     possible to help Medicaid-eligible people obtain the 
     documents.
       The Department of Public Health has agreed to begin faxing 
     Medicaid officials copies of birth certificates as a last 
     resort for applicants who can't obtain their own. The two 
     agencies will split the cost.
       Transportation also is a problem for some families, Carnes 
     said. While people previously could renew their Medicaid 
     status by mail, the new rules require a trip to see a 
     Medicaid eligibility worker in person.
       ``There are all sorts of barriers, particularly for people 
     without transportation and who may not have had a documented 
     birth to begin with,'' Carnes said.
       Raulerson said she cares for a family in Monroe County that 
     once had Medicaid benefits but, without a car, has not been 
     able to renew their coverage.

[[Page 617]]

       Medicaid officials say they don't know how many Alabamians 
     have lost their Medicaid benefits because they couldn't, or 
     didn't, visit an eligibility worker.
       The Alabama Medicaid Agency is also working with other 
     state agencies, such as the Department of Mental Health and 
     Mental Retardation, to see if they've already verified a 
     person's citizenship, she said.
       People who also receive Medicare, the health care program 
     for seniors, or Supplemental Security Income for a disability 
     were exempted from the requirements after state Medicaid 
     officials from across the country complained that would be 
     too burdensome.
       Other states are struggling to comply as well.
       California has yet to implement the new federal rules. 
     Vermont and other states are phasing in the regulations. 
     While the law was designed to cut down on Medicaid fraud by 
     illegal immigrants, Herrmann-Steckel said she does not 
     believe Alabama has a widespread problem of illegal aliens 
     receiving Medicaid.
                                  ____


              New Medicaid Rules Could Cost State Millions

                            (By John Hanna)

       The state could face millions of dollars in additional 
     costs because of federal rules requiring Medicaid recipients 
     to verify their citizenship, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said 
     Wednesday.
       Sebelius said she's worried the state will have to pick up 
     the full cost of caring for some poor, frail and elderly 
     Kansans who are living in nursing homes, instead of sharing 
     the cost with the federal government. Also, she said, she 
     will propose adding state employees to verify the citizenship 
     status of Medicaid recipients and applicants.
       The governor told reporters she hopes Congress reviews the 
     issue and other attempts to prevent illegal immigrants from 
     obtaining social services or using driver's licenses as 
     identification.
       ``There was no input from the states on how realistic these 
     were or what the cost was,'' Sebelius said during a brief 
     news conference following an unrelated meeting.
       Under Medicaid requirements that took effect July 1, 
     recipients must provide either a passport or two other 
     documents, such as a birth certificate and a driver's 
     license, to verify citizenship.
       While the measure is targeted at illegal immigrants, some 
     advocates for the needy have worried that citizens will 
     either lose or be denied services because they have trouble 
     finding the necessary documents.
       State officials say the number of Kansans covered by 
     Medicaid dropped almost 7 percent since July 1, down to 
     253,000 from 271,000. They believe much of the decline can be 
     attributed to the new requirements.
       Typically, every $1 the state spends on Medicaid is matched 
     by about $1.50 from the federal government. If someone loses 
     their coverage, then the state faces paying the entire bill 
     for their services, Sebelius said.
       ``You're at 100 percent state dollars or push them out the 
     door,'' she said.
       Also, Sebelius said, the state needs to ``ramp up'' its 
     staffing to handle the additional verification work. The 
     governor is working on the budget proposal she'll submit to 
     the 2007 Legislature, which convenes Jan. 8.
       ``We're certainly going to put some of them in place,'' she 
     said. ``We're trying to make a careful analysis of how many 
     we need.''
       She said that if the state refuses to comply with the law, 
     it could face the loss of all federal health care dollars.
       ``We don't have a lot of latitude to say we're not going to 
     do this,'' she said. ``There are literally hundreds of 
     millions of dollars at stake.''
       Meanwhile, Sebelius expressed concern about a federal law 
     on driver's licenses passed last year.
       Starting in 2008, federal agencies won't treat a state's 
     licenses as valid ID unless a state requires license 
     applicants to document that they're living in the United 
     States legally. Lack of ID could prevent someone from 
     entering a federal building or boarding a plane.
       Sebelius said the law will require local driver's licenses 
     offices to certify that someone has the proper documentation 
     and to store the information.
       ``Exactly how that's going to happen, we're not quite 
     sure,'' Sebelius said. ``We don't basically have any of the 
     equipment that's required to do that in any of the rural 
     areas.''
                                  ____


      Thousands in Kansas Off Medicaid Following Citizenship Rules

       Thousands of low-income Kansans have lost or been denied 
     state health care coverage because of new rules requiring 
     them to prove they are American citizens, state officials 
     say.
       Since the federally mandated rules took effect July 1, the 
     number of Medicaid recipients in Kansas has decreased by 
     about 18,000, to 253,000. While officials can't determine 
     exactly how much of the 7 percent drop can be attributed to 
     the new rules, they believe much of it can.
       ``The impact to the consumer has been severe,'' said John 
     Anzivino, a vice president for MAXIMUS, a Reston, Va., 
     company that helps administer the joint federal-state 
     Medicaid program in Kansas. ``From our perspective, this has 
     possibly been the most dramatic change and challenge to the 
     Medicaid program since its inception.''
       The new rules were included in last year's federal deficit 
     reduction law and were designed to prevent illegal immigrants 
     from enrolling in the state programs providing health 
     coverage.
       But consumer advocates said many vulnerable people who 
     legitimately were eligible for assistance would lose coverage 
     because they couldn't produce the necessary documentation.
       ``We expect that many of these that have lost coverage will 
     regain coverage once they have gathered and provided the 
     necessary documentation,'' Marcia Nielsen, executive director 
     of the Kansas Health Policy Authority, told the Lawrence 
     Journal-World. ``They will, however, experience a gap in 
     coverage that could prove to be significant for some.''
       Medicaid applicants can prove their citizenship by 
     providing a passport. Or they can provide other documents 
     that verify both their citizenship, such as a birth 
     certificate, and their identities, such as a driver's 
     license.
       Anzivino said most people seeking benefits don't have a 
     passport and are left scrambling to find birth certificates 
     and other documents:
       The number of calls each month to a Kansas Medicaid 
     clearinghouse has more than doubled to 49,000 from 23,000, 
     official said.
       Meanwhile, Rep. Dennis Moore, a Democrat whose district is 
     centered on the state's portion of the Kansas City area, said 
     federal officials were aware of states' problems with the new 
     rules and probably would work on it when the new Congress 
     takes office in January.

                          ____________________