The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE LOW-INCOME WIDOWS ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2000” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S6124-S6141 on June 29, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE LOW-INCOME WIDOWS ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2000
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act of 2000. Since 1988, Congress has established several programs to help pay the out of pocket medical costs for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. These programs, commonly referred to as Medicare Buy-in or QMB, SLMB, and QI-1, operate as federal-state partnerships and are funded through state Medicaid programs. Depending on an eligible senior's income level, the programs could cover the cost of Medicare Part B premiums, doctor visits, deductibles, and co-payments.
Despite the availability of these programs, many seniors are not aware that they may be eligible to receive these additional benefits. According to a 1998 Families USA study, there are somewhere between 3.3 and 3.8 million seniors in America who are eligible to receive these benefits, but not currently receiving them. In my home state, the same study estimates that there are somewhere between 49,000 and 58,000 Kentucky seniors who may be eligible for one of these assistance programs but are not enrolled. While the actual task of enrolling eligible seniors is left to the states, there are several important steps the federal government, through the Social Security Administration (SSA), can and should take.
A key component in improving participation in cost-sharing programs is the capacity of federal and state agencies to identify those individuals who experience a reduction in income after they have already enrolled in Social Security and Medicare. One group at particular risk of reduced income in their later years is widowed spouses.
For anyone who has lost a loved one, the experience is often overwhelming both mentally and emotionally. The loss of a spouse leaves many elderly with the difficult task of restructuring their lives in order to regain personal and financial stability. When SSA is informed that a married individual has died, the agency recalculates the benefit to determine the new benefit level. Frequently, the widowed spouse's benefit is lower than the amount the married couple received from Social Security. This sets up a circumstance in which a widow who was not previously eligible to receive QMB/SLMB benefits when she was married, would now be eligible to receive these benefits because her income has fallen.
In an effort to address this serious problem, I am today introducing the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act. This legislation directs Social Security to undertake outreach efforts designed to identify and notify individuals who may be eligible for these expanded benefits. It also addresses the unique challenges facing widowed spouses by requiring that when SSA recalculates the benefits for a recently widowed spouse and finds that he or she might be eligible for these assistance programs, the agency must:
One, notify the beneficiary that he or she may now be eligible for this additional assistance.
Two, notify the beneficiary's state that she may be eligible so that they can begin their own outreach efforts.
In order to help better understand how the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act would work in practical terms, I would like my colleagues to imagine the following scenario. Sally and Bob enjoyed 60 years of marriage, but just last fall, Bob suddenly passed away. Since Bob's death, Sally has been having a hard time making ends meet. She now has a lot of expenses to take care of on her own: making the house payment, buying food and clothes, and paying for doctors' visits and prescriptions--and not to mention the ``extras'' like birthday and Christmas presents for her many grandchildren. While her expenses remain essentially the same, Sally's Social Security survivors benefit is lower than what she and Bob were receiving.
Under the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act, when SSA recalculates Sally's benefit and finds that her monthly Social Security check has fallen below the $855 threshold for SLMB eligibility, the agency would be required to notify Sally that she may be eligible for SLMB benefits. SSA also would be required to notify Sally's state government that she may be eligible for these additional benefits. It is my hope that the states would then use this information to conduct their own outreach efforts to enroll Sally and others like her.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, as well as Congressmen Lewis and Fletcher who are introducing similar legislation in the House, to help low-income widows by enacting the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act of 2000.
______
By Mr. CLELAND (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2815. A bill to provide for the nationwide designation of 2-1-1 as a toll-free telephone number for access to information and referrals on human services, to encourage the deployment of the toll-free telephone number, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my colleague, Senator Snowe, a bill to designate 2-1-1 as the nationwide, toll-free number to access health and human services. Such designation is needed to simplify access to the maze of numbers and service organizations that currently exist. These organizations, which exist to help people, are useless if those in need do not know how to access the services provided.
Imagine a single mother who needs shelter and dinner one night for herself and her children. Although she may know of a shelter providing these services, there may be one closer that better fits her needs by catering to children and women in need. 2-1-1 could provide her with a targeted referral to a shelter specializing in child care and empowering mothers to get back on their feet. Or, visualize an older American on a fixed income, who may need assistance paying her electricity bill during a particularly cold month, can call 2-1-1 for a referral to an agency to assist her with her need. Also, if someone has goods or services she would like to donate to her community, she can call 2-1-1 for a referral to an agency with a specific need for her items or time. All 2-1-1 calls are confidential and unaffiliated with government agencies.
The United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta has implemented 2-1-1 service with much success. Not only has this consolidation of human services referrals provided direction and aid to those in need, it also has helped pool the resources of area charitable organizations. This pooling of resources has eliminated duplication and highlighted gaps in current service, which in turn has improved the delivery of services to the citizens of Metro Atlanta. Because of the great success in Atlanta, the United Way and other non-profit groups are attempting to replicate this service in almost every state in the nation. Petitions to designate 2-1-1 as a referral to health and human services have been approved or are pending in several other states. However, 2-1-1 offers such an important service to communities, that I believe it is time to reserve this number nationwide. Several states have indicated reservations about pending petitions without direction from the appropriate federal agencies that 2-1-1 will not be used for another purpose. Senator Snowe and I believe it is time to indicate to state and federal regulators Congress's clear support for 2-1-1.
One of the unique aspects of 2-1-1 in Metropolitan Atlanta, which I believe can be replicated in the other states, is the generous support it has received from the community through private donations. This funding model is one of the unique aspects of this legislation. Specifically, the bill stipulates that none of the costs of 2-1-1 service shall be passed on to telephone customers but will be supported by the organizations operating the 2-1-1 service.
Mr. President, I would like to submit a letter endorsing this legislation signed by the United Way of America, the American Red Cross, the Alliance for Children and Families, Girls Scouts of the United States of America, United Jewish Communities, Lutheran Services of America, and Volunteers of America to name only a few. I realize that N-1-1 numbers are finite in availability, but 2-1-1 is a service in the public interest that needs a national designation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will enable Americans, no matter where they are, to obtain the assistance they need through the use of a three digit number.
I ask consent that a copy of the United Way letter and a copy the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2815
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONWIDE DESIGNATION OF TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE
NUMBER FOR ACCESS TO HUMAN SERVICES INFORMATION
AND REFERRAL.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) N-1-1 codes, or 3-digit abbreviated dialing telephone numbers, provide Americans with easy, efficient, nationwide access to emergency and nonemergency information that serves the public interest.
(2) Individuals and families often find it difficult to navigate the complex and ever growing maze of human services agencies and programs and often spend inordinate amounts of time in trying to identify the agency or program that provides a service that may be immediately or urgently required.
(3) Americans desire to volunteer and become involved in their communities, and this desire, together with a desire to donate to organizations which provide human services, are among the reasons to call a center which provides information and referrals on human services.
(4) The number ``2-1-1'' is easy-to-remember and universally recognizable and would serve well as the designation of a telephone service for linking individuals and families to information and referral centers which could, in turn, make critical connections between individuals and families in need and appropriate human services agencies, including both community-based organizations and government agencies.
(5) United Ways and other non-profit and governmental centers that provide information about and referrals to human services have secured funding for the establishment, implementation, and current operation in the United States of three centers that provide such information and referrals and are accessed through the telephone number 2-1-1.
(6) United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta, Contact Helpline of Columbus, Georgia, and United Way of Connecticut currently utilize the telephone number 2-1-1 for the purpose of access to information about and referral to human services.
(7) Since United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta and United Way of Connecticut switched from 10-digit telephone numbers for access to their centers of information and referral on human services to the telephone number 2-1-1 for access to such centers, the volume of calls received at such centers has increased by approximately 40 percent. The centers of United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta and United Way of Connecticut each handled approximately 200,000 calls in 1999.
(8) Rapid deployment nationwide of the telephone number 2-1-1 as a means of access to information about and referral to human services requires coordination among State governments and the information and referral centers of many localities.
(9) Alabama, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Utah have approved petitions for the implementation of the telephone number 2-1-1 statewide for that purpose, and implementation of the use of that number for that purpose is underway. Jurisdictions in Louisiana and Tennessee have also designated the use of 2-1-1 for that purpose.
(10) Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin are considering petitions to designate the telephone number 2-1-1 for that purpose.
(11) Florida and Virginia have developed statewide models for telephone access for that purpose.
(12) The use of 2-1-1 for that purpose is being consider by nearly every other State.
(b) Designation of Toll-Free Human Services Access Telephone Number.--
(1) In general.--Section 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Human services access telephone number.--
``(A) Designation.--The Commission, and each commission or other entity to which the Commission has delegated authority under this subsection, shall designate 2-1-1 as a toll-free telephone number within the United States for access to information and referral centers for information about and referral to providers of human services, including information and referrals for purposes of volunteering and making donations.
``(B) Applicability.--The designation under subparagraph
(A) shall apply to wire and wireless telephone service.
``(C) Payment of Costs.--The costs of a telecommunications carrier in providing access to a provider of information and referrals through the telephone number designated under this paragraph shall be borne by the provider of such information and referrals.
``(D) Call location information.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require any telecommunications carrier to provide call location information to a provider of information or referrals on human services through the telephone number designated under this paragraph.
``(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Human services.--The term `human services' means services as follows:
``(I) Services that assist individuals in becoming more self-sufficient, in preventing dependency, and in strengthening family relationships.
``(II) Services that support personal and social development.
``(III) Services that help ensure the well-being of individuals, families, and communities.
``(ii) Information and referral center.--The term
`information and referral center' means a center that--
``(I) maintains a database of providers of human services in a State or locality; and
``(II) assists individuals, families, and communities in identifying, understanding, and accessing such providers and the human services offered by such providers.''.
(2) Transition.--The Federal Communications Commission shall provide for the implementation within a reasonable period of time of the designation required by paragraph (3) of section 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by paragraph (1) of this subsection, throughout the areas of the United States where the designation is not in effect as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Support for State Efforts.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall encourage and support efforts by States to develop and implement the use of the toll-free telephone number 2-1-1 for access to providers of information and referrals on human services.
(2) Activities.--In providing encouragement and support under paragraph (1), the Commission shall--
(A) consult with appropriate State officials, including State human services agencies, and appropriate representatives of the telecommunications industry, United Ways, Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS), AIRS affiliates, law enforcement and emergency service providers, and local non-profit and governmental information and referral centers; and
(B) encourage States to coordinate statewide implementation of the use of the telephone number in consultation with such representatives.
(3) Prohibition on imposition of obligations or costs.--Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or require the Commission to impose an obligation or cost on any person.
(d) Provision of Call Information.--Section 222(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) to provide call information when required by applicable law.''.
____
United Way of America,
Alexandria, VA June 29, 2000.
Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations support the bill cosponsored by Senators Max Cleland (D-GA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to nationally designate the 211 abbreviated dialing code for access to health and human services information and referral (I&R). 211 is an easy-to-remember and universally recognizable number that makes a critical connection between individuals and families in need and the appropriate community-based organizations and government agencies. Since United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta and United Way of Connecticut switched from 10-digit I&R numbers to 211, the volume of calls received at both has increased by 40 percent, with each handling over 200,000 calls in 1999.
A petition to nationally designate 211 for health and human services I&R submitted by the 211 Collaborative, of which United Way and the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems are members, has awaited action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for well over a year. FCC inaction leaves current and ongoing 211 implementation in state and local jurisdictions in jeopardy. Additionally, some state public utility commissions have indicated they will not take action on 211 petitions before the FCC makes its decision. Further, with 211 being considered or implemented in 45 states, if the FCC designates the number for a different purpose, all current and future 211 call centers would need to make significant expenditures and do considerable outreach to convert to a new, 10-digit number.
Legislation designating 211 for human services I&R would alleviate these concerns and would bypass a potentially lengthy and uncertain FCC approval process. We urge you to support the Cleland--Snowe bill. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alliance for Children and FamiliesAlliance of Information and Referral SystemsAmerican Association of Homes and Services for the AgingAmerican Red CrossAmerica's Blood CentersAssociation of Jewish Family & Children's AgenciesCamp Fire Boys and GirlsCitizen's Scholarship Foundation of AmericaCoalition of Human NeedsCoalition of Labor Union WomenCouncil for Health and Human Service MinistriesGirl Scouts of the USAGirls IncorporatedLutheran Services of AmericaNational Association of Child Care Resource and Referral
AgenciesNational Association of State Units on AgingNational Association of WIC DirectorsService Employees International UnionThe Salvation ArmyUnited Jewish CommunitiesUnited Neighborhood HousesUnited Way of AmericaVolunteers of AmericaWomen in Community Service
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. L. Chafee, and Mr.
McCain):
S. 2816. A bill to provide the financial mechanisms, resource protections, and professional skills necessary for high quality stewardship of the National Park System, to commemorate the heritage of people of the United States to invest in the legacy of the National Park System, and to recognize the importance of high quality outdoor recreational opportunities on federally managed land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the national parks stewardship act
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
S. 2817. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish permanent recreation fee authority; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the recreational fee authority act of 2000
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come before you to today to discuss one of our nation's most valued assets--our National Parks.
Throughout the history of our country, visionary statesmen have arisen to remind us of the natural resource heritage on which our country rests. As early as 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt, spoke of the challenge at hand:
We must handle the woods, the water, the grasses so that we will hand them to our children and our children's children in better and not worse shape than we got them.
It is a challenge we still face today, and will into the future, in our role as stewards of the world in which we live.
Our system of National Parks and other public lands is the envy of the world. It serves as a model for other countries, as they also seek to preserve their natural and cultural heritage. No other country has set aside as full a spectrum of public lands--from wilderness to urban parks--for people to use and enjoy. But to just set them aside is, of course, not enough. The feature that makes these lands remarkable--that they are open and accessible to all Americans to enjoy--also threatens their existence in the future.
Mr. President, we face an ironic question: are we loving our national parks to death? The simple answer to that question is yes.
Earlier this year, the National Parks Conservation Association released its list of the Ten Most Endangered National Parks. We should all feel ashamed that they have so many endangered Parks from which to chose. This year's list includes National Parks across the country, from Alaska to Arizona, from Tennessee to Hawaii. It also includes Everglades National Park in my state of Florida, where decades of human manipulation have led to ecosystem destruction.
This list of the 2000 Ten Most Endangered National Parks is unfortunately not comprehensive, but is representative. During the past year I have visited several national parks to get a first hand view of the problem. From personal experience, I can enlarge the list of endangered national parks.
At Ellis Island National Monument, a facade of immaculate buildings hides an inventory of dilapidated historical structures.
At Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico, lack of maintenance and vandalism is leading to the deterioration of historical artifacts.
I recently witnessed a similar deterioration of marine-related artifacts at a park in my own state of Florida.
In April I participated in my 359th work day at Biscayne National Park, a chain of subtropical islands protecting mangrove shoreline, interrelated marine systems and the northernmost coral reef in the United States. This was my 4th workday in a National Park.
At Biscayne National Park, we Americans are in danger of losing a piece of our history. The HMS Fowey, an 18th century British warship, lies submerged in a highly unstable location. This very significant, national register site has been weakened by looting, prop-wash deflection, storms and other forces. The best choice available is to excavate the wreckage and recover whatever of the historical record we can. This kind of operation is well beyond the means of Biscayne National Park's annual operating budget.
My feelings about the National Park System are truly of wonder. The wonder that I feel at the treasures in our park system is only matched by my wonder at how we can take such treasures for granted. The importance of our National Parks should be reflected in our stewardship of the National Park System. We have failed to provide the National Park Service with the tools it needs to be good stewards of our National Parks.
Today, with my colleagues Senator Akaka, Senator L. Chafee and Senator McCain, I am introducing the ``National Parks Stewardship Act''.
I would also like to include for the record a letter from the National Parks Conservation Association expressing that organization's support for this legislation.
This legislation seeks to give the National Park Service the tools it needs to prepare for the next century. It also includes many of the proposals of others who feel strongly about the importance of our National Parks.
This bill gives park managers the protective tools needed to support the stewardship challenges of Theodore Roosevelt. We provide three types of tools: resource protection, financial tools and human resources.
The first element in the resource protection section of my bill deals with activities occurring outside park boundaries.
My inspiration for this was legislation introduced by the late Senator John Chafee who proposed the formation of ``park protection areas'' in 1986. John Chafee proposed that these areas be formed outside park boundaries to create the ``buffer zone'' needed for resource protection.
I identified strongly with this concept, having worked since the 1970's on a state-federal partnership for Everglades restoration that focuses heavily on providing a buffer zone for Everglades National Park. Today, the original boundaries of Everglades National Park are surrounded by Big Cypress Preserve, an expanded park boundary, and undeveloped land on the eastern side of the park.
It is as a memorial to John Chafee that I echo his provision in my bill, which I hope will become a permanent component of National Park stewardship. It is an honor to have Lincoln Chafee, a fine statesman in his own right, as a co-sponsor.
The federal government must be unified in its stewardship of the National Parks.
My legislation requires that federal agencies taking action on lands bordering National Park units consult with the Department of the Interior to ensure such actions do not degrade or destroy National Park resources.
It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to prohibit actions on Interior lands that will adversely impact Park resources.
The second action I propose to protect park resources relates to park uses.
The National Park Stewardship Act requires that activities allowed in National Parks pass the test of compatibility with natural, cultural and historical resource protection. As our parks are used and enjoyed by visitors, we must ensure that park resources are not inadvertently damaged. For example, the Park Service recently issued regulations limiting or prohibiting the use of personal water craft in some areas. This action was only taken after the use of these water craft in some areas was allowed at intensities seriously degrading water and air quality, and threatening both park wildlife and other park visitors.
My bill requires the National Park Service to take action to protect these resources before damage occurs. Activities must be analyzed and the impacts understood before they are authorized. It also asks the National Parks to seriously plan for the future, projecting visitation and use trends and identify needed personnel and facilities.
Another resource protection portion of the bill focuses on ensuring that our National Park System fully represents the history of our nation. Each year, a smaller percentage of the American population can trace its ancestry to those who landed at Plymouth rock, settled Jamestown, or fought in the American revolution. Many Americans are descended from people who crossed international boarders from the North or South, or landed at locations from the Florida Keys to the Aleutian Islands, from Ellis Island to the island of Oahu. All those who came to settle write their history alongside, and often atop the history of our country's native peoples.
The bill calls for a comprehensive look at the ethnic and cultural content of our National Park System. It asks the National Park Service to report this review to Congress, and to make recommendations on sites that might round out the American story. It encourages cultural/ethnic groups to nominate sites important to their heritage for inclusion in the System, and to recommend changes in the interpretation of present sites to improve historic accuracy.
America is etched with a rich historical record. I commend those who have succeeded in adding important heritage sites to the National park System. Units like the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom, authorized by Congress in 1998, and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail in California, tracing the path of a party of Spanish colonists in 1776, ensure that these events do not pass from our historical landscape. There are certainly many as equally important sites to consider.
Mr. President, I would like to include in the Record letters from the Ambassador of Spain and the Spanish Institute for Military History and Culture. These letters exemplify the willingness of those who contributed to the history of the United States to help in this effort. The Ambassador points out how the Institute's letter, ``opens the way for a cooperation between the two institutions that could result in a much better use of the many historical sites, of Spanish origin, on American soil. They could ``make the stones speak'' to many people in this country who are still unaware of a very rich and common heritage.'' I am sure other countries will be willing to help illustrate how the history of our country is linked to their own history.
Our National Park System, the treasured sites of American history, must contain the history of all Americans. If not, our National Park System is like a partially woven tapestry, depicting only part of the picture. Instead let our National Park System be woven, whole and beautiful, from the multi-colored threads of history of the people of these United States.
I hope this proposal will move us one step closer to a National Park System where all Americans should be entitled to see the role of their people in the exploration, settlement and development of this country. And I see it as complementing Senator Akaka's bill, S. 2478, calling for a study on the ``Peopling of America,'' which I am honored to co-
sponsor.
The second major section of the National Parks Stewardship act deals with financial resources.
Last year, I introduced legislation with Senators Reid and Mack, S. 819, the National Park Preservation Act, that would provide dedicated funding to the National Park Service to restore and conserve the natural, cultural and historic resources in our park system. We continue to work toward final passage of S. 819. However, this bill alone does not meet all of the needs in our National Parks.
The need for construction and maintenance in National Parks is great. Backlog estimates range from 2 to 8 billion dollars, depending on the method of calculation.
In order to accommodate many visitors each year, some National Parks have facilities and services that rival those of towns or small cities. Along with these facilities come the problems of infrastructure maintenance and repair that are beyond the reach of annually appropriated budgets.
Even at Yellowstone National Park, certainly a crown jewel of the system, a dilapidated sewer system leaking untreated waste befouls what should be pristine streams and lakes. At Yellowstone, a park visited by over 3 million people a year, certainly we should provide the means for financing a new sewer system.
My colleague Senator McCain addressed this need through his bill, S. 831, which would authorize a portion of park entrance fees to be used to secure bonds for these very necessary capital improvements. Bonding would seem to be a workable approach, if we could find an appropriate way for a federal agency to issue revenue bonds.
The National Parks Stewardship Act introduced today calls for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Interior to study and report to Congress how National Parks could issue revenue bonds to meet such large infrastructure needs.
The authority to issue revenue bonds places into the hands of National Park superintendents a tool to generate the funds to make these repairs.
The second revenue provision I propose is to make the recreation fee program in operation as a demonstration since its authorization in 1996 into a permanent park program. The program has demonstrated that park visitors can get a good return on the fees they pay; a return paid out in better maintained facilities, improved visitor services, and all-in-
all, a more enjoyable park visit.
To underscore the importance of recreation fee permanence, I, along with Senator Gorton, am introducing today the ``Recreation Fee Authority Act of 2000,'' a stand along piece of legislation containing these provisions.
In fiscal year 1999, the recreation fee demonstration program generated $176.4 million in fee revenue at National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges and Bureau of Land Management sites. Even more important than the amount collected is the fact that the large majority of the fees were retained at the site where collected for use in Park operations, maintenance, resource protection and visitor services.
Biscayne National Park, where I worked for a day in April, is one of the units benefitting from the recreation fee demonstration program. Last year, that park collected over $20,000 in recreation fees. At Biscayne, these funds were used to:
replace the broken tables and grills in the picnic area;
restore a historic breeze way trail across Elliott Key; and
renovate the public showers and bathrooms on Elliott Key, improving their accessibility for people with disabilities.
When park visitors see their ``fees at work'' in the form of improved facilities and services, research has shown that they understand and support the collection of an appropriate and reasonable fee. Over 95 percent of respondents to this year's National Survey on Recreation and the Environment felt reasonable fees were acceptable as a means for funding recreation services on public lands.
The recreation fee demonstration authority is temporary. If it is not extended or made permanent, Biscayne and other National Parks will lose this very necessary means to get the job done. Let's instead make this a permanent tool for National Park Stewardship.
In addition to revenue bonding and the recreation fee program, I propose the expanded use of Challenge Cost Share agreements, which allow the ``leveraging'' of Park Service appropriations with funds from the private sector and other federal agencies.
The final tool I propose in this legislation focuses on the professional skills of those we employ as the stewards for National Parks. Professionals typically attracted to the Service come from many fields, including education, recreation management, and the biological sciences. Today park managers must also demonstrate fiscal and program accountability and management planning, skills that are not found throughout National Park Service ranks.
I am proposing a pilot program, ``Professionals for Parks'', to attract needed skilled professionals to National Park Service careers. It will focus on recruiting at business schools across the country, offering talented graduates an entry level professional job within the National Park Service and a student loan buy-back program.
Professionals for Parks will add to National Park Service ranks the business management skills needed for better management, leading to long term stewardship. And we know this can make a difference.
We're looking for people like Nick Hardigg, a recent graduate of the Yale School of Management, who is now working as Chief of Concessions at Denali National Park. His financial analysis of the visitor transportation system in Denali led to a newly negotiated contract with the bus company. This contract allows for a healthy profit for the operator and for the first time in several years does not increase fees to park visitors. It also protects park resources by providing a quality transportation system.
It's a long way from the Ivy League to the Alaskan wilderness. Mr. Hardigg has made that journey, and has put his business skills to good use for National Park stewardship.
Mr. President, the National Park Stewardship Act is not calling for a revolution in the National Park System. It recognizes the value of what we have in the National Park System, recognizes what we stand to lose without immediate attention, and supplies the tools to the right people to tackle the job.
In closing I would like to recall the words of John Chafee, a visionary statesman who helped craft much of the foundation on which our system of environmental protection rests.
In 1994, he reminded us of the importance of our Parks stewardship role:
I can think of no instance where the Government has designated an area as a park and years later people have looked back, regretted the decision, and tried to reverse it. As we continue to develop and extract resources from the remaining open spaces in our Nation, it is important that we ensure that there will always be places where people can get away and renew their spirits, breathe fresh air, and appreciate nature's gifts.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
National Parks
Conservation Association,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.Hon. Bob Graham,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: The National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) would like to commend you and your cosponsors for the introduction of the National Parks Stewardship Act. This bill includes many provisions that will promote better protection and management of national park resources.
As you know, the beginning of the 21st century is a watershed moment for Americans and our National Park System. One hundred and twenty-eight years after the establishment of Yellowstone, we have a magnificent park system that stretches from the coast of Maine to the tropical reefs of American Samoa. Millions people visit and enjoy these parks every year.
However, the National Park System also is severely troubled. Threats to the health of the National Park System fall into several broad categories: lack of funding; activities that damage park resources from inside and outside park boundaries; and poor management. As a result, basic information about park resources is lacking, much of the infrastructure and visitor services are in poor condition, and parks are increasingly jeopardized by activities around them.
Your National Stewardship Act addresses many of these concerns by:
Facilitating the issuance of national park revenue bonds that would help finance needed improvements at national parks;
Requiring that all activities in national parks be consistent with resource protection and preservation;
Ensuring that other federal government agencies respect the integrity of national park lands;
Promoting the protection of the historical documents in National Park Service collections;
Expanding the opportunities for national park managers to develop public administration and business management skills.
The National Parks Stewardship Act also ensures that the National Park System will better represent the diverse heritage of all people of the United States. Support for the National Park System runs deep in the hearts of millions of Americans. That support, however, will wane if significant numbers of people feel disconnected from the message and meaning of the parks. To ensure continued public support, and historical relevance, the National Parks Stewardship Act requires that the National Park Service review existing sites to determine if there are deficiencies in the accurate representation of all peoples that contributed to the shaping of the United States. We commend you for this farsighted proposal.
Thank you for undertaking this effort to assure the vitality of the National Park System through the 21st century and beyond. We look forward to promoting this legislation with you.
Sincerely,Thomas C. Kiernan.
____
El Embajador de Espana,
Washington, DC, April 27, 2000.Hon. Bob Graham,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.
Dear Senator, I have read with the utmost interest your proposed legislation on the role of the National Park Service of the United States in conservation and promotion of historic sites in this country.
With respect to the numerous monuments left by Spain in the southern States, we would certainly welcome all possible cooperation with the Park Service to give these venerable ruins a real cultural and educational purpose. We believe that solid support from historians and other experts from Spanish official institutions such as our Ministry of Defense or the Institute for the Protection of Historic Legacy, could make these sites incite the interest of new generations on pages of their past that they might have insufficient knowledge of.
I have written to the two aforementioned Spanish cultural institutions to ensure their willingness to collaborate with the National Park Service on the goals set forth in the draft Resolution.
In the meantime, let me assure you of our enthusiastic support for your initiative that I certainly hope will muster the necessary backing from the rest of the Senate.
Thanking you most warmly for your enlightened defense of the cultural integrity of this great country.
I remain,
Yours very sincerely,Antonio de Oyarzabal.
____
El Embajador de Espana,
Washington, DC, June 9, 2000.Hon. Bob Graham,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.
Dear Senator, I am pleased to enclose the attached letter from my friend General Penaranda, the Director of the Institute for Military History and Culture in Madrid, in response to my request for support to your initiative in Congress, on behalf of the ``National Park Service.''
I think General Penaranda's very enthusiastic answer opens the way for a cooperation between the two institutions that could result in a much better use of the many historical sites, of Spanish origin, on American soil. They could ``make the stones speak'' to many young people in this country who are still unaware of a very rich and common heritage.
Embajada de Espana,
Madrid, May 29, 2000.His Excellency Ambassador Antonio de Oyarzabal Marchesi,Ambassador of Spain to the U.S.,Washington, DC.
Dear Ambassador and Friend: It gives me great pleasure to be able to oblige you with regard to the wishes of the National Park Service which you refer to in your letter of April 26. I have consulted this Institute's Standing Committee on Historical Studies (Comision Permanente de Estudios Historicos) regarding the possibility of satisfying the possible American request, and it could not be more favorably disposed to the idea. It is very satisfying to be able to cooperate in some way in the efforts to heighten the historical value of the old Spanish military monuments in the U.S. as well as that of any other collection of documents, books or movables that can be considered part of this important historical legacy.
This institute has a considerable collection of documents and artifacts in its archives relating to the ancient viceroyalty and overseas provinces. Most of the items have already been catalogued (some have even been studied by U.S. specialists). Now we are in the advanced stages of negotiation with Puerto Rico whose Legislative Assembly has already allocated a budget for cataloguing, microfilming and digitizing all the material in our historical military archives about matters related to that island.
In any case, Antonio, you know that you can count on the Institute for Military History and Culture to initiate a collaborative effort with the National Park Service. It would be advisable to establish direct contact between the National Park Service and this Institute so as to define the matters of most interest to them. While we could begin in writing, a trip to Spain by a director or historian of the Park Service so that they might gain an understanding in situ of our capabilities with regard to their projects would be very fruitful. They will be most warmly received.
I am at your service!
With my best regards,
Juan Ma de Penaranda y Algar.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, in introducing legislation today that seeks to permanently authorize the recreation fee program for the federal land management agencies. Congress authorized the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in the FY 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations Act, and has extended the program through the Interior Appropriations bill several times since 1996.
In the Pacific Northwest, the fees collected by the National Park Service and Forest Service have been a tremendous additional resource to provide improved campgrounds, trails, and other visitor facilities. As chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Committee, I have consistently provided increases for operations, maintenance, and repair of park, forest, and refuge facilities. Regardless, this country's love affair with recreation and the great outdoors has begun to take its toll on the public lands we enjoy so much.
Since I took over the chairmanship of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I also have been faced with an unending list of federal land acquisition proposals. The demand to increase the federal government's land base cannot be considered in a vacuum, especially when we're faced with at least a $12 billion maintenance backlog on the lands we already own. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office recommended last year that the federal government place a ten-year moratorium on land acquisitions in an effort to address the backlog in maintenance projects.
I don't support taking such an extreme step. Rather, I believe we can have a reasonable level of land acquisitions, but we also need to commit to finding the additional resources to maintain what we already have. I am committed to providing access to our public lands, but this can only happen if we have enough funding to maintain the land and facilities treasured by Americans and visitors from all over the world.
Over the past five years of the fee demonstration project, the federal agencies have tested various types of fees and collection methods in preparation for the possibility of some day establishing a long-term, consistent, and fair fee program. In general terms, the project has been a great success, providing the federal land management agencies nearly $200 million last year in additional revenue for maintenance and repair projects, and resources for improved visitor services.
In 1999, at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest in my state, the program allowed this Forest to clear 739.6 miles of trail, hire 22 trail maintenance workers, develop leveraged partnerships with non-profit groups to accomplish maintenance work with volunteers, and maintain 67 trailhead toilets and 136 trailheads. All of this vital work was accomplished by charging $3 for day passes or $25 for an annual pass.
Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported the Interior Appropriations bill, which extends the Recreation Demonstration Fee Program through the end of fiscal year 2002. Despite my resistance to using the Interior bill to continue this program, I felt it was vital to provide the agencies certainty for another year. In fact, recent improvements to the Forest Service fee program in the Northwest, including the new Northwest Forest Pass, would have been jeopardized without the extension.
With that said, I believe the Senate, through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, deserves the opportunity to fully consider legislation to permanently authorize the recreation fee program. The success stories are abundant, but by no means am I blind to the problems we've seen over the past five years. Most importantly, the public deserves the opportunity to participate, both through hearings and contact with their elected representatives, to provide us the input we need to authorize a permanent program.
That's why I have chosen to join Senator Graham today in introducing a bill to begin the debate over how and whether Congress should permanently authorize the recreation fee program. The bill we've crafted provides the framework for a permanent program that will build upon the successes and correct the problems we've seen so far.
I want to stress that this bill will serve as the starting point for what I hope to be a full and deliberative discourse on recreation fees. I intend to work with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to hold a series of hearings, including field hearings, so representatives of recreation groups, gateway communities, and other interested parties can air their concerns and suggestions. My staff and I have spent a considerable amount of time meeting and talking with recreation groups based in Washington state. I am certain there will be many ways we can improve the legislation introduced today to address their concerns through the committee process, and I am excited to continue that dialogue.
It goes without saying that no one really wants to pay a fee to recreate on public lands. The key to making a permanent program a success in the future will depend on keeping the fees reasonable and the results tangible. The most important component of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Project is the requirement that 80 percent of the fees remain at the site the fees are collected. The legislation introduced today maintains that requirement. In addition, Congress and the Administration must make a firm commitment to uphold its responsibility to continue to increase appropriations in the future to reduce the maintenance backlog. It's a two-way street, and we must all do our part.
Further, I fully expect to address other issues raised by my friends in the recreation community. Although the situation has improved recently, the multiple fee structures tested by the Forest Service created a confusing and frustrating situation for hikers and rock climbers. In particular, rock climbers have been hit with multiple fees for just one visit to the forest. Many recreationists are calling for multi-agency passes. I find this idea intriguing and would urge further discussion through the committee process. I must note, however, that multi-agency fees may distract from the expectation that fees remain at the facilities and sites where they are collected. Further, some outdoor enthusiasts are concerned the fee program could inspire over-
building on our public lands to justify collection of the fees. I, too, am concerned with preserving the integrity of our public lands and avoiding the impulse to provide unnecessary facilities. This legislation directs the agencies to place a priority on deferred maintenance projects. But again, these are topics that deserve thoughtful discussion, and I look forward to addressing them in the near future.
Finally, many active recreationists have made a strong case for developing a recognition program that rewards volunteers for dedicating their time to improving our public lands. Many forests and parks have well-developed volunteer programs, while others do not. I am dedicated to working with recreation groups to provide the agencies appropriate guidelines in the bill to develop a consistent program that provides volunteers reduced or free access to our public lands.
Again, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for being a leader in the protection of the nation's public lands. I look forward to working with him, and the members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to authorize a permanent program that provides necessary resources to maintain and improve these national treasures for generations to come.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON:
S. 2818. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to establish a flexible fallow program under which a producer may idle a portion of the total planted acreage of the loan commodities of the producer in exchange for higher loan rates for marketing assistance loans on the remaining acreage of the producer; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
the food security and land stewardship act of 2000
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to amend the 1996 farm bill. This legislation is really the culmination of at least two years of work on the part of two agricultural producers from my home State of South Dakota. These two individuals, Craig Blindert of Salem and Phil Cyre of Watertown, have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy refining the proposal I am introducing today and I want to express my thanks and gratitude.
While some policy makers purport to have all the answers to agricultural policy and our current economic disaster in farm country, I am proud that two South Dakota farmers approached me with their plan. Mr. Blindert and Mr. Cyre exhibit a quality inherent to a farmer that most policy makers will never exhibit, something I call ``tractor seat common sense.'' Former President Eisenhower once said, farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away from a farm. Instead of pretending I have all of the answers, I think it just makes good practical sense to listen to farmers who know their business better than anyone in the world, and that is what I have tried to do with this proposal.
Unfortunately, all of that expertise our farmers demonstrate about the production of crops and livestock, marketing, and risk management means little when our farm policy and agribusinesses minimizes them into mere price takers. The legislation I am introducing today attempts to allow farmers to become price setters in response to the free market, and it attempts to ensure responsibility from agribusiness to finally offer a decent price for commodities.
The current economic setting and commodity price forecast for farmers and ranchers remains disastrous. Crop prices have absolutely collapsed with corn prices at a 12 year low, soybeans prices at a 27 year low, and wheat prices that have not been so low since 1977. Meatpacker concentration and unfair livestock dumping are still crippling livestock producers. Prices paid for livestock have remained low in the pork and lamb sectors while they have recovered, at a very limited and still unprofitable rate, for cattle producers. As a result, net farm income has plummeted to around $40 billion this past year, plunging $9 billion from last year, without government assistance. Agricultural exports are down over $11 billion from 1996, and constricted global demand for our agricultural products restricts exports from boosting prices.
It is clear that once again this disastrous marketplace clouds the landscape of rural America as a woefully inadequate farm bill continues to rip the safety net from beneath farmers and ranchers. If not for government market loss assistance the last three years--a record level of $23 billion in 1999--many hard-working farmers and ranchers might be out of business.
The course of the last few years under the current farm bill has given all of us the opportunity to measure the theories of Freedom to Farm against the practical reality of experience. The measurable results of that practical experience should convince Congress we cannot delay to reform the current farm bill. Some tend to ignore this reality, choosing instead to overlook the flawed farm policy, in hopes that over time our nation's family farmers and ranchers will find themselves enjoying the prosperity of our booming economy. However, most farmers merely read about this prosperity as they face escalating production expenses, eroding equity, and collapsing crop prices.
Delay in reforming farm policy is dangerous to the entire fabric of rural America. The other day a farmer remarked to me, ``the best time for Congress to write a better farm bill would have been in 1996, but, the next best time is today.'' I couldn't agree more.
Congress cannot continue to overlook the link between the current financial stress our family producers face and the 1996 farm bill provisions which eliminated the financial safety net for farmers. Consequently, there should be no higher priority for this Congress to accomplish in farm policy than to restore a fair price from a truly free marketplace.
The legislation I am introducing today is not a radical departure from the current farm bill. We try to reinforce the advantages of Freedom to Farm while improving upon other areas of our farm policy. Coined ``Flexible Fallow'' by the farmers who developed it, my proposal adds a voluntary, annual, conservation-use feature to the loan rate provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill. Should a farmer desire to operate under current farm bill conditions, my legislation ensures that opportunity. However, should a farmer need greater leverage over crop production and marketing, Flex Fallow guarantees that planting and marketing flexibility.
Neil Harl of Iowa State University, arguably the most respected agricultural economist in the country, has enthusiastically endorsed my Flex Fallow proposal. In a letter to me he describes Flex Fallow as
``the missing link to the 1996 farm bill.'' He believes this proposal will function in a market oriented fashion and ensure that ``farmers continue to make production decisions based upon their own operations in a manner that makes economic sense.''
Mr. President, farmers electing to devote a portion of their total crop acreage to conservation-use under my bill receive a higher loan rate on their remaining crop production. On an annual and crop-by-crop basis, farmers can choose to conserve up to thirty percent of their total crop acreage.
An adjustable loan rate schedule is a key feature of this proposal. With the exception of wheat and soybeans, the proposed base loan rates for 0 percent participation in Flex Fallow (otherwise known as full production) are set at 2000 levels. Participation in Flex Fallow is directly proportional to increased loan rates. For corn, wheat, and soybeans, loan rates increase by one percent for each one percent increase in conservation-use.
In 1999, the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) completed an analysis of the Flex Fallow proposal. I believe the results were very promising. In years and regions (areas of the country with a wide basis) of low commodity prices, Flex Fallow encourages farmers to voluntarily set-aside land in turn for a higher loan rate. Yet in years of better commodity prices, farmers are inclined to produce for the market, planting most or all of their land to crop production. The reduced plantings in years of poor crop prices, like the last three years, would lead to higher crop prices. More specifically, reduced plantings in the first two years of the program would translate into the following higher crop prices. Corn prices rise 27 cents per bushel over current levels, soybean prices climb 44 cents per bushel, wheat prices recover 29 cents per bushel, and cotton prices rise 9 cents per pound. The FAPRI analysis predicts a commodity price recovery in the long-term, and the analysis found participation in Flex Fallow to decline after 2002.
While I work on this amendment to the current farm bill, I am absolutely open to other ideas and alternatives that revise our farm policy. Unlike the authors of the 1996 farm bill, I do not cling to a pride in authorship in a farm program. So, I want the opportunity to support as many viable alternatives as possible.
In summary, here are a few highlights of the Flex Fallow farm bill amendment I am introducing today. Flex Fallow is flexible and adjustable enough to meet the needs of individual farm operations. Flex Fallow is voluntary. Flex Fallow is market-oriented because it permits farmers the freedom to plant for marketplace conditions. Flex Fallow emphasizes conservation practices. Flex Fallow updates yield data and eliminates current base acres. Flex Fallow targets disaster assistance to producers who suffer from weather-related crop loss and price collapse. Finally, Flex Fallow will result in a modest cost to taxpayers. The FAPRI analysis finds net Commodity Credit Corporation expenditures under Flex Fallow to compare with that of the 1996 farm bill without billion-dollar emergency spending additions.
In the coming months I anticipate a full airing of my Flex Fallow amendment to the farm bill, alongside other pieces of farm bill reform legislation that others in Congress may introduce. I expect to refine this proposal after discussing it further with farmers and farm organizations across South Dakota and the entire country. As a result, it is likely I will introduce another piece of legislation similar to Flex Fallow in the next session of Congress, wherein two other significant issues will be addressed.
First, of critical importance to me is the need to design a farm bill in the future that targets the benefits to family-sized farmers and ranchers. Too often, Congress and the Administration devise tactics to ignore and plow under the existing farm program payment limitations. If we have a limited amount of taxpayer funds in which to devote to price support for farmers, it simply makes sense to target those benefits to small and mid-sized family producers. While the amendment I introduce today does not alter current payments limits under the farm bill, I am a strong supporter of targeting. As such, I will work to place sensible, responsible, payment limitations that provide benefits to all but ensure targeted benefits to the small and mid-sized family farmers and ranchers who need and deserve greater attention from Congress.
Second, I believe Congress will be unable to develop a future farm bill without the support of those in the conservation and wildlife community. I am a strong supporter of conservation programs that protect sensitive soil and water resources, promote wildlife habitat, and provide farmers and landowners with benefits and incentives to conserve land. Flex Fallow can work very well with both short-term and longer-term conservation practices. It is my goal to bring conservation groups together with farm interests in order to develop a well-balanced approach to future farm policy that protects our resources while promoting family-farm agriculture.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Dr. Harl be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Iowa State University
of Science and Technology,
Ames, IA, April 17, 2000.Senator Tim Johnson,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnson: It is my understanding that legislation based on the
``Flexible-Fallow'' concept developed and advanced by Craig Blindert and Phil Cyre of South Dakota is being prepared for introduction. I would like to write in strong support of the legislation and do so most enthusiastically.
Mr. Blindert called me in late 1998 with a request for a half day to discuss a farm bill proposal. I was extremely busy at the time but reluctantly agreed to set aside an afternoon in late December. As the proposal was explained, I could see that what Blindert and Cyre had developed was the missing link for the 1996 farm bill. I wrote in strong support of the proposal following that meeting--encouraging an analysis by the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI)-- and am even more supportive today.
The weak element of the 1996 farm bill was the downside protection in the event of pressure on the supply side for commodities. A series of normal to good weather years, a drop of nearly 20 percent in exports and the relentless effects of technology have combined to produce very low prices for most crops.
What I find so appealing about the Blindert-Dyre proposal is that--(1) the proposal would function in a market-oriented manner; (2) it would be most appealing in the so-called
``swing'' areas which are expected to shift land use patterns when prices for intensively-produced crops are low and to return to such production when prices recover; (3) the proposal would self-correct when prices rise; (4) it would entail only a modest amount of administrative involvement on a discretionary basis; (5) it would enable producers to continue to make decisions based on their own situation, in a manner that makes economic sense to them; and (6) the cost would be modest to taxpayers and to consumers.
I would be pleased to respond further in support of the proposal. Mr. Blindert and Mr. Cyre are to be commended for developing what I believe would be an enormously helpful adjunct to the 1996 farm bill.
Sincerely,Neil E. Harl,
Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor in Agriculture, Professor of Economics and Director, Center for International Agricultural Finance.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 2819. To provide for the establishment of an assistance program for health insurance consumers; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
the health care consumer assistance act
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Jeffords today to introduce the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act. This important legislation seeks to address a significant problem that currently exists in the health insurance market, the lack of a reliable source of information and assistance for health care consumers.
In 1997, President Clinton's Health Quality Commission identified the need for consumer assistance programs that allow consumers access to accurate, easily understood information and get assistance in making informed decisions about health plans and providers. Earlier this month, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Consumer Reports magazine released the results of a survey they conducted on consumer satisfaction with their health plans. Their survey is part of a larger project looking at ways to improve how consumers resolve problems with their health insurance plans. The survey found that while most people who experienced a problem with their plan were often able to resolve them, the majority of those surveyed were confused about where to go for information and help if they have a problem with their health plan. Eventhough a growing number of states have taken steps to give patients new rights in dealing with their health insurance plans, most consumers are either unaware or do not know how to exercise those rights.
The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Jeffords seeks to remedy this information gap by providing grants to states that wish to establish health care consumer assistance programs. These programs are designed to help consumers understand and act on their health care choices, rights, and responsibilities. Under this bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will offer states funds to create or contract with an independent, nonprofit agency to provide a variety of information and support services for health care consumers, including the following: educational materials for health care consumers about strategies to resolve problems and grievances; operate a 1-800 telephone hotline to respond to consumer inquiries; coordinate and make referral to other private and public health care entities when appropriate; conduct education and outreach in the community; and collect and disseminate data about nature of inquiries, problems and grievances handled by the program.
The concept of a health care consumer assistance program has already received considerable support and several states have taken the initiative to create these programs. Governors and state legislatures in many states including, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin have introduced or enacted health care ombudsman legislation. While some states have successfully launched their programs, other state initiatives have faltered due to a lack of sufficient funding.
While important strides are being made to enhance health care consumer information and resources, clearly more needs to be done to expand access to these simple and cost-effective services to all Americans.
Mr. President, I believe that Americans deserve access to the information and assistance they need to be empowered and informed health care consumers. As the health insurance system becomes more confusing and complex, it is critically important that as consumers navigate this system, they have a place where they can go for information, counseling and assistance. As health plan options become more complicated and the web of policies and principles governing those plans becomes more enmeshed, people need a reliable, accessible source of information, and state health care consumer assistance programs have proven their ability to meet this challenge. I look forward to working with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, in advancing this important and timely legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of my bill printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2819
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Health Care Consumer Assistance Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) People with health care insurance or coverage have many more options with respect to coverage of, payment or payments for, items, services or treatments. Also, their health plans, coverages, rights, and providers are frequently being reorganized, expanded, or limited.
(2) All consumers need information and assistance to understand their health insurance choices and to maximize their access to needed health services. Many do not understand their health care rights or how to exercise them, despite the current efforts of both the public and private sectors.
(3) Few people with health care coverage have independent credible sources of information or assistance to guide their decisionmaking or to help resolve problems.
(4) It is important to maintain and strengthen a productive working relationship between all consumers and their health care professionals and health insurance providers.
(5) Federally initiated health care consumer assistance and information programs targeted to consumers of long-term care and to medicare beneficiaries under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) are effective, as are a number of State and local consumer assistance initiatives.
(6) The principles, policies, and practices of health care providers for delivering safe, effective, and accessible health care can be enriched by State-based collaborative, independent education, problem resolution, and feedback programs. Health care consumer assistance programs have proven their ability to meet this challenge.
(7) Health care consumers want and need reliable information about their health care options that integrates data and effective resolution strategies from the full range of available resources. Health care consumer assistance programs can provide that reliable, problem-solving information to help in navigating the health care system.
(8) Health care delivered to individuals and within communities can be improved by collecting and examining consumers' experiences, questions, and problems and the ways in which their questions and problems are resolved. Health care consumer assistance programs can educate and inform consumers to be more effective, self-directed health care consumers.
(9) Many states have created health care consumer assistance programs. The Federal Government can assist the States in developing and maintaining effective health care consumer assistance programs.
SEC. 3. GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall award grants to States to enable such States to establish and administer (including the administration of programs established by States prior to the enactment of this Act) consumer assistance programs designed to provide information, assistance, and referrals to consumers of health insurance products.
(b) State Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this section a State shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require, including a State plan that describes--
(1) the manner in which the State will establish, or solicit proposals for, and enter into a contract with, an entity eligible under subsection (d) to serve as the health care consumer assistance office for the State;
(2) the manner in which the State will ensure that the health care consumer assistance office will assist health care consumers in accessing needed care by educating and assisting health insurance enrollees to be responsible and informed consumers;
(3) the manner in which the State will coordinate and distinguish the services provided by the health care consumer assistance office with the services provided by the long-term care ombudsman authorized by the Older Americans Act of 1965
(42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the State health insurance information program authorized under section 4360 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-4), the protection and advocacy program authorized under the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq.), and any other programs that provide information and assistance to health care consumers;
(4) the manner in which the State will coordinate and distinguish the health care consumer assistance office and its services from enrollment services provided under the medicaid and State children's health insurance programs under titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. and 1397aa et seq.), and medicare and medicaid health care fraud and abuse activities including those authorized by Federal law under title 11 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.);
(5) the manner in which the State will provide services to underserved and minority populations and populations residing in rural areas;
(6) the manner in which the State will establish and implement procedures and protocols to ensure the confidentiality of all information shared by consumers and their health care providers, health plans, or insurers with the office established under subsection (d)(1) and to ensure that no such information is used, released or referred without the express permission of the consumer, except to the extent that the office collects or uses aggregate information as described in section 4(c)(8);
(7) the manner in which the State will provide for the collection of non-Federal contributions for the operations of the office in an amount that is not less than 30 percent of the amount of Federal funds provided under this Act; and
(8) the manner in which the State will ensure that funds made available under this Act will be used to supplement, and not supplant, any other Federal, State, or local funds expended to provide services for programs described under this Act and those described in paragraphs (3) and (4).
(c) Amount of Grant.--
(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 4 for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award a grant to a State in an amount that bears the same ratio to such amounts as the number of individuals within the State covered under a health insurance plan (as determined by the Secretary) bears to the total number of individuals covered under a health insurance plan in all States (as determined by the Secretary). Any amounts provided to a State under this section that are not used by the State shall be remitted to the Secretary and reallocated in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) Minimum amount.--In no case shall the amount provided to a State under a grant under this section for a fiscal year be less than an amount equal to .5 percent of the amount appropriated for such fiscal year under section 5.
(d) Provision of Funds For Establishment of Office.--
(1) In general.--From amounts provided under a grant under this section, a State shall, directly or through a contract with an independent, nonprofit entity with demonstrated experience in serving the needs of health care consumers, provide for the establishment and operation of a State health care consumer assistance office.
(2) Eligibility of entity.--To be eligible to enter into a contract under paragraph (1), an entity shall demonstrate that the entity has the technical, organizational, and professional capacity to deliver the services described in section 4 throughout the State to all public and private health insurance consumers.
SEC. 4. USE OF FUNDS.
(a) By State.--
(1) In general.--A State shall use amounts received under a grant under this Act to establish and operate of a health insurance consumer assistance office as provided for in this section and section 3(d).
(2) Noncompliance.--If the State fails to enter into or renew a contract for the operation of a State health insurance consumer assistance office, the Secretary shall reallocate amounts to be provided to the State under this Act.
(b) By Entity.--An entity that enters into a contract with a State under section 3(d) shall use amounts received under the contract to establish and operate a health insurance consumer assistance office.
(c) Activities of Office.--A health insurance consumer assistance office established under this Act shall--
(1) operate a toll-free telephone hotline to respond to requests for information and assistance with health care problems and assist all health insurance consumers to navigate the health care system;
(2) acquire or produce and disseminate culturally and language appropriate educational materials concerning health insurance products available within the State, how best to access health care, and the rights and responsibilities of the health care consumer;
(3) educate health care consumers about strategies that such consumers can implement to promptly and efficiently resolve inquiries, problems, and grievances related to health insurance and access to health care;
(4) refer health care consumers to appropriate private and public entities so that inquiries, problems, and grievances with respect to health insurance and access to health care can be handled promptly and efficiently;
(5) coordinate with health organizations in the State, State health-insurance related agencies, and State organizations responsible for administering the programs described listed in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 3(b) so as to maximize the ability of consumers to resolve health care questions and problems and achieve the best health care outcomes;
(6) conduct education and outreach within the State in partnership with consumers, health plans, health care providers, health care payers and governmental agencies with health oversight responsibilities;
(7) provide information to consumers about an internal, external, or administrative grievance or appeals procedure
(in nonlitigative settings) to appeal the denial, termination, or reduction of health care services, or the refusal to pay for such services, under a health insurance plan; and
(8) provide information to State agencies, employers, health plans, insurers, and the general public concerning the kinds of inquiries, problems, and grievances handled by the office.
(d) Confidentiality and Access to Information.--The health insurance consumer assistance office of a State shall establish and implement procedures and protocols to ensure the confidentiality of all information shared by consumers and their health care providers, health plans, or insurers with the office and to ensure that no such information is used, released or referred to State agencies or outside entities without the expressed permission of the consumer, except to the extent that the office collects or uses aggregate information described in subsection (c)(8).
(e) Availability of Services.--The health insurance consumer assistance office of a State shall not discriminate in the provision of information and referrals regardless of the source of the individual's health insurance coverage or prospective coverage, including individuals covered under employer-provided insurance, self-funded plans, the medicare or medicaid programs under title XVII or XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 and 1396 et seq.), or under any other Federal or State health care program.
(f) Designation of Responsibilities.--
(1) Within existing state entity.--If the health insurance consumer assistance office of a State is located within an existing State regulatory agency or office of an elected State official, the State shall ensure that--
(A) there is a separate delineation of the funding, activities, and responsibilities of the office as compared to the other funding, activities, and responsibilities of the agency; and
(B) the office establishes and implements procedures and protocols to ensure the confidentiality of all information shared by consumers and their health care providers, health plans, or insurers with the office and to ensure that no information is transferred or released to the State agency or office without the expressed permission of the consumer.
(2) Contract entity.--In the case of an entity that enters into a contract with a State under section 3(d), the entity shall provide assurances that the entity has no real or perceived conflict of interest in providing advice and assistance to consumers regarding health insurance and that the entity is independent of health insurance plans, companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care.
(g) Subcontracts.--The health insurance consumer assistance office of a State may carry out activities and provide services through contracts entered into with 1 or more nonprofit entities so long as the office can demonstrate that all of the requirements of this Act are complied with by the office.
(i) Training.--
(1) In general.--The health insurance consumer assistance office of a State shall ensure that personnel employed by the office possess the skills, expertise, and information necessary to provide the services described in subsection (c).
(2) Contracts.--To meet the requirement of paragraph (1), an office may enter into contracts with 1 or more nonprofit entities for the training (both through technical and educational assistance) of personnel and volunteers. To be eligible to receive a contract under this paragraph, an entity shall be independent of health insurance plans, companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care.
(3) Limitation.--An amount not to exceed 7 percent of the amount awarded to an entity under a contract under section 3(d) for a fiscal year may be used for the provision of training under this section.
(j) Administrative Costs.--An amount not to exceed 1 percent of the amount of a grant awarded to the State under this Act for a fiscal year may be used by the State for administrative expenses.
(k) Term.--A contract entered into under this section shall be for a term of 3 years.
SEC. 5. FUNDING.
There are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 to carry out this Act.
SEC. 6. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that contains--
(1) a determination by the Secretary of whether amounts appropriated to carry out this Act for the fiscal year for which the report is being prepared are sufficient to fully fund this Act in such fiscal year;
(2) with respect to a fiscal year for which the Secretary determines under paragraph (1) that sufficient amounts are not appropriated, the recommendations of the Secretary for fully funding this Act through the use of additional funding sources; and
(3) information on States that have been awarded a grant under this Act and a summary of the activities of such States and the data that is produced.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to join in introducing the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act. This important bill has been crafted to help Americans navigate our increasingly complex and ever changing health care system. I want to recognize the leadership of Senator Jack Reed in bringing this issue forward for consideration.
Americans need and want help with their health care. In a recent national survey, Consumers Report and the Kaiser Family Foundation learned that half of all managed care plan members have had a problem with their plan in the last year. The vast majority of those
``problems'' were minor and successfully resolved in a very short period of time. However, a large number of Americans report significant financial consequences, lost time at work, or actual health declines as a result of these disputes.
The same survey reports that 84% of Americans want ``an independent place to turn for help'' with their health care rights. In fact, Americans prefer, by a wide margin, an independent source of help, as provided for in the Health Care Consumer Assistance Act, rather than a right to sue.
Three years ago, my own state recognized that Vermonters needed an independent program to help them navigate the complex health care delivery system. The state offices of the Division of Banking and Insurance and the Office of Vermont Health Access (our Medicaid agency) jointly administer the Vermont Ombudsman. It has helped Vermonters find care providers and use appeal procedures.
It is time for the federal government to play a constructive role in aiding states like Vermont that will answer the needs of their citizens for a consumer-focused, consumer-directed health care assistance program. This bill builds on the existing state-based programs to provide an office that provides consumers with the basic and credible information they want and need to make all kinds of important health care decisions.
The bill gives each State the opportunity to design a consumer assistance program that meets local needs. At the same time, the grant program calls upon the state to coordinate this overall health care consumer assistance office's activities with its existing consumer assistance offices such as the long-term care Ombudsman program for long term care consumers and its work in registering children and families for S-CHIP.
Access to quality health care services is a priority for every American family, every state, and this nation. It is clearly time for a federal commitment to help families get the health care information and assistance they want and need.
Once again, I want to thank Senator Reed for this bipartisan effort on such important health legislation. Health care consumers, plans, providers, and states will be well served by enacting our legislation as soon as possible.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS (by request):
S. 2820. A bill to provide for a public interest determination by the Consumer Product Safety Commission with respect to repair, replacement, or refund actions, and to revise the civil and criminal penalties, under both the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the consumer product safety commission enhanced enforcement act
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce at the request of the Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Consumer Product Safety Commission Enhanced Enforcement Act of 2000. This legislation is designed to enhance the authority of the CSPC to prevent the manufacture and sale of defective products.
The legislation seeks to accomplish this goal in two significant ways. First, it proposes to remove the cap that exists under current law on the maximum civil penalty that can be assessed to companies that market products in violation of federal consumer product safety regulations. Currently, the maximum civil penalty that can be assessed to companies that violate consumer product safety laws is $1,650,000, a figure that is less than the amount that generally could be assessed by the CPSC. According to the agency, in many instances, it seeks penalties against very large companies, which likely are not deterred by the $1,650,000 cap. Second, the legislation proposes to increase the CPSC's authority over recalls by authorizing the Commission to determine the manner in which a defective product is to be corrected. Currently, a company that has marketed a defective product has the right to determine the remedy that is offered to the public, regardless of whether the selected remedy is the most effective solution. The proposed legislation alters this situation by permitting the CPSC to choose the remedy that is best suited to protect the public as opposed to the company.
For these reasons, Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this act on behalf of the Administration and the CPSC.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Moynihan, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Biden):
S. 2823. A bill to amend the Andean Trade Preference Act to grant certain benefits with respect to textile and apparel, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the plan colombia trade act
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by Senators DeWine, Moynihan, Grassley, Dodd, Coverdell, and Biden, to introduce the Plan Colombia Trade Act, a bill that would provide additional trade benefits to the nations of the Andean Trade Pact, which includes Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
This bill is an important component of Plan Colombia, which seeks to address not only the nation's crisis with respect to massive narcotrafficking and insurgent and paramilitary forces, but also focuses on Colombia's deep economic recession. The bill is consistent with U.S. policy of promoting trade and combating drugs on a regional basis, thereby ensuring that U.S. benefits and assistance provided to one nation do not adversely affect other nations in the immediate region. Such a strategy is the only way to avoid what is often described as the ``balloon effect,'' which has meant that the drug problem, at best, is displaced from one location to another. Finally, the bill would re-assert our commitment to promote economic growth and regional stability throughout the Andean region, and to provide alternatives to the cultivation and exportation of illegal narcotics.
Passage of this legislation by the Senate will signal the United States' support of the Andean Trade Pact's economic reform efforts, and will boost the confidence of both domestic and international investors in pursuing business opportunities that create jobs and enhance international trade in the Andean region, particularly in Colombia. In addition, this bill would ensure that U.S. trade with these important nations is not adversely affected by the recent passage of the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000,'' which provided significant trade benefits to the Caribbean Basin.
To briefly summarize, the ``Plan Colombia Trade Act,'' would extend, for approximately one year, additional trade benefits to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru-nations that currently benefit from the Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991 (commonly known as the ATPA). New trade benefits would include some--but not all--trade benefits extended to the nations of the Caribbean Basin under the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000,'' which was signed by the President on May 18, 2000. Specifically, the bill would extend duty-free, quota-free treatment to apparel articles assembled or cut in ATPA beneficiary nations using yarns and fabric wholly formed in the United States, thereby achieving a measure of parity with the CBI nations, as well as expanding an important source of economic and employment growth for the U.S. textile and apparel industry.
In its March 2000 interim report, ``First Steps Toward a Constructive U.S. Policy in Colombia,'' a Council on Foreign Relations/Inter-
American Dialogue Independent Task Force--which I co-chair with Brent Scowcroft--recommended the extension of the ATPA, to include the same benefits as those contained under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Specifically, we recommended the following:
Indeed, Colombia's economic well-being is absolutely critical, and in this area the United States can be more helpful. Perhaps even more important than providing increased assistance to the Colombian government to support employment programs is assuring Colombia greater access to U.S. markets for its products. Extending trade-related benefits to Colombia would have a positive impact on the country's prospects for higher growth and employment levels.
Although the bill provides benefits to all ATPA beneficiaries, it is particularly critical to Colombia, which in 1998 exported 59 percent of all textiles and apparel from the Andean region to the U.S., two-thirds of which were assembled and/or cut from U.S. yarns and fabric.
This legislation addresses an important, albeit unintentional, contradiction in U.S. policy towards Colombia. With the recent passage of enhanced trade benefits to the countries of Caribbean Basin Initiative, Colombia stands to lose up to 150,000 jobs in the apparel industry. At least ten (10) U.S.-based companies that purchase apparel from Colombian garment manufacturers have already indicated their near-
term intentions to shift production to CBI countries due to the significant cost savings associated with the new trade benefits afforded to the Caribbean basin. Some of these U.S. companies have utilized Colombia as a manufacturing base for over ten (10) years, providing desperately needed legitimate employment in the Colombian economy.
In summary, the immediate reaction of these companies to enhanced Caribbean trade benefits clearly demonstrates the negative effects of the CBI legislation on Colombia. It would be foolish for the Congress to approve a comprehensive aid package for Colombia, while simultaneously implementing legislation that puts tens of thousands of Colombians out of work. This bill will address that critical, unintended contradiction.
On a more comprehensive scale, passage of this legislation is critical to ensure that all nations in the Western Hemisphere can maintain their long-term competitiveness with Asian nations, particularly in the textile industry. At present, the textile products of most Asian nations are subject to quotas imposed by the Multi-Fiber Agreement, now known as the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. This restriction on Asian textiles has enabled the nations of the Western Hemisphere to remain competitive, and further, the Andean region--
specifically Colombia--has become a significant market for fabric woven in U.S. mills from yarn spun in the U.S., originating from U.S. cotton growers.
However, in 2005, these Asian import quotas will be phased out. At that time, textile production in both the Andean region and the Caribbean basin will be placed at a distinct and growing disadvantage. Disinvestment in the region will occur, reducing the incentive to use any material from U.S. textile mills or cotton grown in the United States.
background
Seventeen years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the first legislation to provide trade preferences to the twenty-seven countries of the Caribbean Basin. In 1983, the Caribbean Basin was a region inflamed with violent conflict and rampant drug trafficking that threatened the political and economic stability of our closest neighbors, as well as our own national security. The primary goal of the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) was to stabilize the region by building stronger and more diverse economies, encouraging growth in international trade, developing a strong economic relationship between the U.S. and the region, and creating employment opportunities in the legitimate economy as an alternative to drug trafficking.
Following enactment of CBI, the U.S. trade position with the region improved from a deficit of $3 billion in 1983, to a surplus of nearly
$3.5 billion in 1998. Between 1983 and 1998, U.S. exports to the region increased fourfold, while total imports from the region grew by less than 20 percent. On a per capita basis, the U.S. trade surplus with the region has consistently outpaced the U.S. trade surplus with any other region of the world--in fact, since 1995, U.S. exports to the CBI region have increased by almost 32 percent.
In 1991, after 8 years of resounding success in the CBI region, Congress passed the ATPA, providing CBI-like trade benefits to the countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. In the nine years following enactment of ATPA, U.S. exports to the Andean region have more than doubled--from $3.8 billion in 1991 to over $8.6 billion in 1998. U.S. exports to Colombia account for over half of this increase, growing from $2 billion in 1991 to $4.8 billion in 1998. During the same time period, Andean exports to the U.S. increased by almost 80 percent. In addition, in 1998, the U.S. achieved a $309 million trade surplus with the ATPA nations. Under ATPA, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru enjoyed the same trade benefits that we had extended to the CBI region. However, on May 18, 2000, the President signed the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000,'' which extended additional trade benefits--particularly with respect to textiles and apparel--to the nations of the CBI region. Therefore, our Andean trading partners are now likely to lose significant trade and investment opportunities that will shift to the CBI, given the additional trade benefits included in the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000.''
Need for the ``Plan Colombia Trade Act''
The United States is at now a critical juncture with its neighbors in the Andean region. As was demonstrated by the recent passage of the
``Trade and Development Act of 2000.'' it is clear that we must continue enhance our trading relationship with our partners in the Caribbean and the Andean region.
In particular, these additional trade benefits should be extended to Colombia, which is currently fighting a war for the survival of its democratic institutions, its free market economy and for the future of its people. Those challenging Colombia's future include drug traffickers, guerilla groups (the FARC and the ELN) and other elements of society who seek to foster instability and fear. A comprehensive strategy in response to the crisis in essential for Colombia.
The government of Colombia, therefore, has formulated Plan Colombia. The United States government, in turn, has responded generously to Columbia's needs by considering a supplemental appropriations package of more than $1.6 billion to help the country in this time of crisis. This will supplement over $4.0 billion being spent by Colombia itself.
Fundamental to Plan Colombia (and to the government's ability to succeed in its efforts to safeguard the country) will be efforts to encourage economic growth and provide jobs to the Colombian people. Today in Colombia more than one million people are displaced, the unemployment rate is nearly 20 percent and Colombia is experiencing the worst recession in 70 years. Without new economic opportunities, more and more Colombians will turn to illicit activities to support their families or seek to join the growing numbers of people who are leaving the country to find a better, safer future for their families.
Measuring both imports and exports, Colombia is by far the most important U.S. trade partner in the ATPA region. In 1998, over 53 percent of U.S. exports to the Andean region went to Colombia, and over 53 percent of U.S. imports from the Andean region originated from Colombia.
Mr. President, to promote economic growth and regional stability, the Congress must consider additional trade measures that benefit the entire Andean region. Therefore, Congress should grant CBI parity to the ATPA beneficiaries, specifically with respect to textiles and apparel. During 1999, Colombia and its Andean neighbors exported approximately $562 million in textiles and apparel to the United States. While insignificant in comparison to the $8.4 billion in textile and apparel exports originating in the CBI region, Andean textile and apparel production sustains more than 200,000 jobs in Colombia alone--valuable jobs in the legitimate economy. Absent CBI parity, the Andean region will find itself at a significant competitive disadvantage with the 27 countries of the CBI region.
Mr. President, upon final passage of CBI enhancement legislation, I stated that we had initiated the process of establishing true
``partnership for success'' with some of our most important neighbors. Although that legislation was a good start, it was only the beginning. I urge my colleagues to look towards the future by supporting the
``Plan Colombia Trade Act,'' and by taking advantage of the real economic benefits that can be achieved by further enhancing our relationship with all of the nations of the Western Hemisphere.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2823
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 ``Plan Colombia Trade Act''.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL TRADE BENEFITS TO
CERTAIN ANDEAN COUNTRIES.
(a) In General.--Section 204(b) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Exceptions to Duty-Free Treatment.--
``(1) In General.--Subject to paragraphs (2), the duty-free treatment provided under this title shall not apply to--
``(A) textile and apparel articles which are subject to textile agreements;
``(B) footwear not designated at the time of the effective date of this Act as eligible for the purpose of the generalized system of preferences under title V of the Trade Act of 1974;
``(C) tuna, prepared or preserved in any manner, in airtight containers;
``(D) petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum, provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS;
``(E) watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to, mechanical, quartz digital or quartz analog, if such watches or watch parts contain any material which is the product of any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty apply;
``(F) articles to which reduced rates of duty apply under subsection (c);
``(G) sugars, syrups, and molasses classified in subheadings 1701.11.03, 1701.12.02, 1701.99.02, 1702.90.32, 1806.10.42, and 2106.90.12 of the HTS; or
``(H) rum and tafia classified in subheading 2208.40.00 of the HTS.
``(2) Transition period treatment of certain textile and apparel articles.--
``(A) Articles covered.--During the transition period, the preferential treatment described in subparagraph (B) shall apply to the following articles:
``(i) Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary countries from fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States, from yarns wholly formed in the United States, that are--
``(I) entered under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS; or
``(II) entered under chapter 61 or 62 of the HTS, if, after such assembly, the articles would have qualified for entry under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS but for the fact that the articles were embroidered or subjected to stone-washing, enzyme-washing, acid washing, perma-pressing, oven-baking, bleaching, garment-dyeing, screen printing, or other similar processes.
``(ii) Apparel articles cut and assembled in one or more beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles cut in one or more beneficiary countries from fabric wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, if such articles are assembled in one or more such countries with thread formed in the United States.
``(iii) Special rules.--
``(I) Exception for findings and trimmings.--(aa) An article otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the article contains findings or trimmings of foreign origin, if such findings and trimmings do not exceed 25 percent of the cost of the components of the assembled product. Examples of findings and trimmings are sewing thread, hooks and eyes, snaps, buttons, `bow buds', decorative lace, trim, elastic strips, zippers, including zipper tapes and labels, and other similar products. Elastic strips are considered findings or trimmings only if they are each less than 1 inch in width and are used in the production of brassieres.
``(bb) In the case of an article described in clause (ii) of this subparagraph, sewing thread shall not be treated as findings or trimmings under this subclause.
``(II) Certain interlining.--(aa) An article otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the article contains certain interlinings of foreign origin, if the value of such interlinings (and any findings and trimmings) does not exceed 25 percent of the cost of the components of the assembled article.
``(bb) Interlinings eligible for the treatment described in division (aa) include only a chest type plate, `hymo' piece, or `sleeve header', of woven or weft-inserted warp knit construction and of coarse animal hair or man-made filaments.
``(cc) The treatment described in this subclause shall terminate if the President makes a determination that United States manufacturers are producing such interlinings in the United States in commercial quantities.
``(III) De minimis rule.--An article that would otherwise be ineligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph because the article contains fibers or yarns not wholly formed in the United States or in one or more beneficiary countries shall not be ineligible for such treatment if the total weight of all such fibers or yarns is not more than 7 percent of the total weight of the good. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an apparel article containing elastomeric yarns shall be eligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph only if such yarns are wholly formed in the United States.
``(IV) Special origin rule.--An article otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under clause (i) or (ii) of this subparagraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the article contains nylon filament yarn (other than elastomeric yarn) that is classifiable under subheading 5402.10.30, 5402.10.60, 5402.31.30, 5402.31.60, 5402.32.30, 5402.32.60, 5402.41.10, 5402.41.90, 5402.51.00, or 5402.61.00 of the HTS duty-free from a country that is a party to an agreement with the United States establishing a free trade area, which entered into force before January 1, 1995.
``(iv) Special rule for fabrics not formed from yarns.--
``(I) Application to clause (i).--An article otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under clause (i) of this subparagraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the article is assembled in one or more beneficiary countries from fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly formed and cut in the United States.
``(II) Application to clause (ii).--An article otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under clause (ii) of this subparagraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the article is assembled in one or more beneficiary countries from fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly formed in the United States.
``(B) Preferential treatment.--During the transition period, the articles to which this paragraph applies shall enter the United States free of duty and free of any quantitative restrictions, limitations, or consultation levels.
``(C) Transition period.--In this paragraph, the term
`transition period' means, with respect to a beneficiary country, the period that begins on the date of enactment of the Plan Colombia Trade Act or October 1, 2000, whichever is later, and ends on the date that duty-free treatment ends under this title.''.
(b) Factors Affecting Designation.--
(1) In general.--Section 203(d) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3202(d)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) the extent to which such country adheres to democratic principles and the rule of law.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection take effect on the earlier of--
(A) October 1, 2000; or
(B) the date of enactment of the Plan Colombia Trade Act.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the Plan Colombia Trade Act along with my colleague, Senator Bob Graham. This important bill will supplement Plan Colombia by expanding trade benefits to the countries of Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.
Plan Colombia is an important package that provides about a billion dollars to the government of Colombia, and other countries in that region. These funds will go to fight drugs, eradicate the crops which create them, and provide for alternative development. Unfortunately, Plan Colombia does not provide for an important measure that we can do to help these countries, that is to stimulate their economy. We can achieve this by passing the Plan Colombia Trade Act, which will provide assistance to develop their textile and apparel industries.
Developing the apparel industry of these countries will encourage global trade, and offer the good people of that region a future filled with prosperity. Additionally, the trade benefits outlined in this bill will enhance peace, stability, and prosperity in that region, which will ultimately yield a better quality of life for all involved. This bill will not only benefit the struggling economies of Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru, but will advance the economy of the United States as well.
As important as the assistance package to Colombia is, most of the money we provide will not reach ordinary Colombians. They also are engaged in the effort to combat illegal drugs. We need to ensure that they are not penalized for doing so. The current bill helps us help Colombians not with cash but with opportunity. It preserves legitimate jobs in a country sorely beset with problems.
Most garments that are produced in Colombia are subject to a 20-30% duty rate upon importation into the U.S. As an example, swimsuits are subject to a duty rate of 33%. By granting duty-free and quota-free benefits to apparel assembled in these countries from U.S. made yarn, and U.S. made fabric, these countries will now be able to compete with other developing countries that currently enjoy duty-free and quota-
free benefits. It will also afford them the opportunity to participate in the global economy. This will encourage additional export of U.S. made cotton and yarn, stimulate U.S. investment in the region and create needed jobs as well.
This bill is an opportunity to help rebuild a region which has been plagued by the drug trade. We can assist these countries, not by giving them more money, but by providing these enhanced trade opportunities. By helping our neighbors in the south to maintain political and economic stability, we will in effect be securing the National Security of the United States. This legislation will provide these countries with the opportunity build their industry and their struggling economies and will improve the quality of their everyday lives.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill which will have a positive effect on the prosperity of our neighbors in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Breaux):
S. 2825. A bill to strengthen the effectiveness of the earned income tax credit in reducing child poverty and promoting work; to the Committee on Finance.
the tax relief for working families act of 2000
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be joined by Senators Jeffords and Breaux in introducing the Tax Relief for Working Families Act of 2000. This bipartisan bill is designed to strengthen the effectiveness of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in reducing child poverty and promoting work.
Our bill will increase the EITC for families with three or more children. Families could qualify for almost an additional $500. Obviously, raising a large family costs more, and these families have a higher poverty rate of 29 percent, more than double the poverty rate of children in smaller families. Nearly three out of every five poor children live in families with three or more children.
A report by the Committee for Economic Development found that the
``EITC has become a powerful force in dramatically raising the employment of low-income women in recent years.'' The report also recommended further expansions of the EITC. Since research shows that larger families have greater problems leaving welfare for work, this legislation should build upon our welfare reform efforts.
But even more compelling than national statistics are the real stories from West Virginia families. One woman in Huntington, West Virginia is struggling to raise five daughters and care for her husband who was disabled in a roofing accident. That family is managing on approximately $13,000 a year. She works the night shift, but must currently rely on the public bus. Her shift begins at midnight, but the last bus is at 9:00 p.m. so she takes the earlier bus, and spends several hours waiting for her shift instead of having time with her family. Last year, she used the EITC to pay her bills, including a winter coat for one of her daughters. With an increase, she hopes to save for a used car.
Another West Virginia mother is recently divorced and struggling to raise four sons, ranging in age from sixteen to seven. Her 16-year-old son has Downs Syndrome. Last year she earned $13,800 and she used her EITC to purchase a used van so she would have reliable transportation for her 50-mile commute to work. Another year, the EITC helped pay for new mattresses for her children's beds. With an increase, she'd like to save a little money in case of an emergency or for better housing.
These are real stories of real families who are working hard to make ends meet but need and deserve more help.
This is a bipartisan bill. We have closely consulted with leading groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Catholic Charities U.S.A., the United Way of America, and the Progressive Policy Institute.
In addition to increasing the EITC available to large families, our bill includes several bipartisan provisions to simplify the credit by conforming the definition of earned income and simplifying the definition of a dependent child.
Some may question the cost of expanding the EITC, but I believe, compared to other tax proposals such as providing additional marriage tax relief, investing an additional $8 billion over the next five years is a reasonable investment to help low-wage working families. Most of these families are married. All are struggling, but working hard to do the right thing for their children. In its letter supporting our efforts, Catholic Charities U.S.A. describes our legislation is ``pro-
family, pro-marriage, and pro-work.''
During the 1998 tax year, over 19 million working Americans got $30.5 billion in tax relief, thanks to the EITC. In my state, about 141,000 West Virginians claimed $210.7 million. About nineteen percent of West Virginia taxpayers benefit from the EITC. In my state, 84 percent of taxpayers earn less than $50,000. I believe that this legislation to expand the EITC for families with three or more children will help more West Virginians than many of the other, more expensive provisions under consideration as part of the marriage penalty relief debate.
We know that the EITC works. It encourages work, and it helps lift families out of poverty. I urge my colleagues to join with Senators Jeffords and Breaux to help hard working families raise their children.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senators Rockefeller and Breaux to introduce a bill that will provide a third-
tier earned income tax credit (EITC) for families with three or more children. I believe that the additional tax credit provided by this bill could be of significant help to working low-income families.
The EITC is a refundable tax credit to low-income families. It is only available to taxpayers who work and earn wages. Indeed, the EITC was enacted to encourage taxpayers to work--even at low-paying jobs--
rather than relying on government programs. The EITC has played a key role in reducing the poverty rate for families. By some estimates, it has been the single most important factor in removing children from poverty.
As currently structured, the EITC provides a credit to families with one child, and a higher credit to families that have two or more children. Families with three or four children receive the same EITC as families with two children.
For low-income families of four, we have seen significant progress in reducing the incidence of poverty. The combination of the minimum wage, the EITC, and food stamps can raise a family of four with a full-time year-round minimum wage worker close to the poverty line. But poverty persists in large families where there are more than two children. In families with three or more children, the official poverty rate is 29 percent--twice the rate for families with two children. While children in families with three or more children were 37 percent of all children in the United States in 1998, they comprised 57 percent of the children living in poverty.
It is not surprising that reducing poverty is more problematic in large families. As family size rises, so do family expenses. Welfare benefits increase with family size; wages, however, do not. For a large family, moving from welfare to work may actually mean less money. In addition, with more children, child care is not only more expensive, it is also more complicated.
With surplus projections now reaching $1.7 trillion, there are a whole host of tax reform proposals--many meritorious--circulating on Capitol Hill. In the debate about tax cuts, we must not lose sight of our most vulnerable workers. We should build on the proven success of the EITC to help these workers. I believe a larger earned income tax credit for families with three or more children will help put more low-
income families on the path to self-sufficiency, while at the same time helping welfare reform succeed.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 2826. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage of substitute adult day care services under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on Finance.
the medicare adult day services alternative act
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as this Congress continues to deliberate options of how best to care for our senior population, it is critical to consider, as well, the role that caregivers play in accommodating the delivery of such care to loved ones. Family caregivers are often forced to make difficult sacrifices. By just one measure, it is estimated that the average loss of income to these caregivers is more than $600,000 in wages, pensions and Social Security benefits. This does not have to be the case, though.
It does not have to be the case with the choices afforded by legislation I am pleased to be introducing today along with Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia aimed at reforming Medicare's home health benefit. The Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act of 2000 would provide Medicare beneficiaries who qualify for home health benefits the choice to receive those services in qualified adult day care centers, and simultaneously assist family caregivers with the very real difficulties in caring for a homebound family member.
It is with America's Medicare beneficiaries and family caregivers in mind which makes the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act a winner for Medicare, for patients and for their caregivers. First, it would allow patients to receive home health services in a setting that promotes rehabilitation by providing social interaction, meals and therapeutic activities above and beyond the provision of the prescribed home health benefit. Second, caregivers for homebound patients would be able to maintain employment outside of the home because they would know that their family member is in a healthy, protected environment during the day.
With this legislation, patients could elect to receive some, or all, of their home health benefit in a home or an adult day care congregate setting. I think my colleagues would agree with me that the opportunity to interact with others with similar needs can improve patients' mental and physical wellbeing. While not expanding the existing eligibility criteria for home health, this legislation offers Medicare beneficiaries a greater sense of autonomy afforded by receiving necessary care outside of their homes.
The adult day care center would be paid 95% of the rate paid to a home health agency for providing the Medicare-covered service. But within that lump-sum payment, the adult day care center would also be required to cover transportation, medication management, therapeutic activities, and meals.
The Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act recognizes the benefit that will come to family members of Medicare recipients of this service. These caregivers will be able to attend to other things in today's fast-paced family life, knowing their loved ones are well cared for. This creative solution to health care delivery also adequately reimburses providers and is designed to be budget neutral.
I hope that members on both sides of the aisle will join me in advancing this important issue for Medicare beneficiaries and their families. As this Congress considers various proposals to improve Medicare's home health benefit, this proposal deserves the serious attention and consideration of my colleagues. I look forward to working with them to enact this pro-beneficiary, potentially cost-saving reform legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2826
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) adult day care offers services, including medical care, rehabilitation therapies, dignified assistance with activities of daily living, social interaction, and stimulating activities, to seniors who are frail, physically challenged, or cognitively impaired;
(2) access to adult day care services provides seniors and their familial caregivers support that is critical to keeping the senior in the family home;
(3) more than 22,000,000 families in the United States serve as caregivers for aging or ailing seniors, nearly 1 in 4 American families, providing close to 80 percent of the care to individuals requiring long-term care;
(4) nearly 75 percent of those actively providing such care are women who also maintain other responsibilities, such as working outside of the home and raising young children;
(5) the average loss of income to these caregivers has been shown to be $659,130 in wages, pension, and Social Security benefits;
(6) the loss in productivity in United States businesses ranges from $11,000,000,000 to $29,000,000,000 annually;
(7) the services offered in adult day care facilities provide continuity of care and an important sense of community for both the senior and the caregiver;
(8) there are adult day care centers in every State in the United States and the District of Columbia;
(9) these centers generally offer transportation, meals, personal care, and counseling in addition to the medical services and socialization benefits offered; and
(10) with the need for quality options in how to best care for our senior population about to dramatically increase with the aging of the baby boomer generation, the time to address these issues is now.
SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF SUBSTITUTE ADULT DAY CARE SERVICES UNDER
MEDICARE.
(a) Substitute Adult Day Care Services Benefit.--
(1) In general.--Section 1861(m) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395x(m)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``or (8)'' after ``paragraph (7)'';
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in paragraph (7), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (7), the following new paragraph:
``(8) substitute adult day care services (as defined in subsection (uu));''.
(2) Substitute adult day care services defined.--Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``Substitute Adult Day Care Services; Adult Day Care Facility
``(uu)(1)(A) The term `substitute adult day care services' means the items and services described in subparagraph (B) that are furnished to an individual by an adult day care facility as a part of a plan under subsection
(m) that substitutes such services for a portion of the items and services described in subparagraph (B)(i) furnished by a home health agency under the plan, as determined by the physician establishing the plan.
``(B) The items and services described in this subparagraph are the following items and services:
``(i) Items and services described in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (m).
``(ii) Transportation of the individual to and from the adult day care facility in connection with any such item or service.
``(iii) Meals.
``(iv) A program of supervised activities designed to promote physical and mental health and furnished to the individual by the adult day care facility in a group setting for a period of not fewer than 4 and not greater than 12 hours per day.
``(v) A medication management program (as defined in subparagraph (C)).
``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B)(v), the term
`medication management program' means a program of services, including medicine screening and patient and health care provider education programs, that provides services to minimize--
``(i) unnecessary or inappropriate use of prescription drugs; and
``(ii) adverse events due to unintended prescription drug-to-drug interactions.
``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), the term `adult day care facility' means a public agency or private organization, or a subdivision of such an agency or organization, that--
``(i) is engaged in providing skilled nursing services and other therapeutic services directly or under arrangement with a home health agency;
``(ii) meets such standards established by the Secretary to ensure quality of care and such other requirements as the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services in the facility;
``(iii) provides the items and services described in paragraph (1)(B); and
``(iv) meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) through (8) of subsection (o).
``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term `adult day care facility' shall include a home health agency in which the items and services described in clauses (ii) through (v) of paragraph (1)(B) are provided by others under arrangements with them made by such agency.
``(C) The Secretary may waive the requirement of a surety bond under paragraph (7) of subsection (o) in the case of an agency or organization that provides a comparable surety bond under State law.
``(D) For purposes of payment for home health services consisting of substitute adult day care services furnished under this title, any reference to a home health agency is deemed to be a reference to an adult day care facility.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Sections 1814(a)(2)(C) and 1835(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)(2)(C); 1395n(a)(2)(A)(i)) are each amended by striking ``section 1861(m)(7)'' and inserting ``paragraph (7) or (8) of section 1861(m)''.
(b) Payment for Substitute Adult Day Care Services.--Section 1895 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Payment Rate for Substitute Adult Day Care Services.--In the case of home health services consisting of substitute adult day care services (as defined in section 1861(uu)), the following rules apply:
``(1) The Secretary shall determine each component (as defined by the Secretary) of substitute adult day care services (under section 1861(uu)(1)(B)(i)) furnished to an individual under the plan of care established under section 1861(m) with respect to such services.
``(2) The Secretary shall estimate the amount that would otherwise be payable under this section for all home health services under that plan of care other than substitute adult day care services for a week or other period specified by the Secretary.
``(3) The total amount payable for home health services consisting of substitute adult day care services under such plan may not exceed 95 percent of the amount estimated to be payable under paragraph (2) furnished under the plan by a home health agency.
``(4) No payment may be made under this title for home health services consisting of substitute adult day care services described in clauses (ii) through (v) of section 1861(uu)(1)(B).''.
(c) Adjustment in Case of Overutilization of Substitute Adult Day Care Services.--
(1) Monitoring expenditures.--Beginning with fiscal year 2002, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall monitor the expenditures made under the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) for home health services (as defined in section 1861(m) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m))) for the fiscal year, including substitute adult day care services under paragraph (8) of such section (as added by subsection (a)), and shall compare such expenditures to expenditures that the Secretary estimates would have been made for home health services for that fiscal year if subsection (a) had not been enacted.
(2) Required reduction in payment rate.--If the Secretary determines, after making the comparison under paragraph (1) and making such adjustments for changes in demographics and age of the medicare beneficiary population as the Secretary determines appropriate, that expenditures for home health services under the medicare program, including such substitute adult day care services, exceed expenditures that would have been made under such program for home health services for a year if subsection (a) had not been enacted, then the Secretary shall adjust the rate of payment to adult day care facilities so that total expenditures for home health services under such program in a fiscal year does not exceed the Secretary's estimate of such expenditures if subsection (a) had not been enacted.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to items and services furnished on or after the date on which the prospective payment system for home health services furnished under the medicare program under section 1895 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff) is established and implemented.
______
By Mr. ALLARD.
S. 2827. A bill to provide for the conveyance of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center at Ft. Lyon, Colorado, to the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
legislation to improve healthcare options for veterans
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve the healthcare options for veterans in southern Colorado. To do this, I am expediting the transfer of the Ft. Lyon facility to the State of Colorado, which will allow the Veterans Administration (VA) to implement their plan to use the annual $8.6 million in savings from the closure of Fort Lyon to provide better service to Colorado's veterans through new outpatient clinics in La Junta, Lamar and Alamosa and a smaller, more efficient nursing home in Pueblo, CO.
Ft. Lyon is a historical building, but it is simply not more important than the needs of those who served us. I would prefer that the money currently used to maintain the facility was instead used to provide medical care for those veterans who need it.
This bill will lead to an improvement in medical services for veterans in several ways. With the estimated $8.6 million in savings to be realized after the Ft. Lyon closure, clinics will be set up in local communities which will be closer and more responsive to their local veteran communities. This bill mandates that the VA must open the replacement clinics before they convey Ft. Lyon to the State of Colorado, to ensure there is no gap in service. This bill will help to ensure that no service-connected veteran's needs are unmet. No veteran will go homeless. Every veteran who needs a nursing home bed due to service connected illness will still be granted one. Those veterans currently in Ft. Lyon will continue to receive nursing home care, at no additional charges to them. The cemetery and historic Kit Carson chapel will remain fully accessible to the public. And the people of the region will also be assisted by the opening of a state facility to replace Ft. Lyon in the local economy. Without this legislation, there are no guarantees any of this would occur.
I hope that this bill will be considered and pass quickly, so that the savings and the improvements in veteran's healthcare can begin as soon as possible.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gregg,
Mr. Gorton, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 2829. A bill to provide for an investigation and audit at the Department of Education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
department of education investigation and audit legislation
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation requiring an audit of accounts at the U.S. Department of Education that are susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse. It is unfortunate that Congress has to be dealing with this issue, but unfortunately, it is all too necessary.
As Members of the Senate have been debating education this year, we have stressed the need for accountability of federal funds. Before we stress accountability at the local level, though, we must ensure that accountability is also occurring at the federal level. It we are going to increase the budget for the Department of Education, as the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill does, we have the responsibility to determine whether the Department is properly accounting for the funding that they already have.
The U.S. Department of Education is already having problems overseeing the programs that it currently administers. For the second year in a row, the Department of Education has been unable to address its financial management problems. In its last two audits, the Department was unable to account for parts of its $32 billion program budget and the $175 billion owed in student loans. Every year, the Department is required to undergo an independent audit. Unfortunately, for Fiscal years 1998 and 1999, auditors have declared the Department of Education inauditable.
The House Education and the Workforce Committee has been holding hearing on financial problems at the Department of Education, and has found serious instances of duplicate payments to grant winners and an
$800 million college loan to a single student. In its 1998 audit, the Department blamed its problems on a faulty new accounting system that cost $5.1 million, in addition to the cost of manpower to try to fix the system. A new accounting system will be the third in five years.
The most recent 1999 audit showed that the Department's financial stewardship remains in the bottom quartile of all major federal agencies. It also sent duplicate payments to 52 schools in 1999 at a cost of more than $6.5 million. In addition, none of the material weaknesses cited in the 1998 audit were corrected.
These instances show that the Department is currently vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. The House of Representatives has already indicated its support for a fraud audit at the Department of Education by passing its own version of this bill on June 13, 2000, by an overwhelming vote of 380-19. Before Congress entrusts the U.S. Department of Education with funding that is so important to our nation's schools and students, we must demand that the funds they already have are well-managed.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 2830. A bill to preclude the admissibility of certain confessions in criminal cases; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the miranda reaffirmation act of 2000
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona. I applaud that decision. Miranda struck a balance between the needs of law enforcement and the rights of a suspect that has worked well for 34 years. There is no reason to upset that balance now.
Shortly after Miranda was decided in 1966, I became State's Attorney for Chittenden County, Vermont. I remember clearly the immediate impact that this momentous decision had upon law enforcement, prosecutors, criminal defendants and the criminal justice system as a whole. The Supreme Court's pronouncement that all suspects in custody needed to be advised of certain constitutional rights, including the privilege against self-incrimination, before being questioned was as new then as it is familiar today.
The Miranda decision put into place a fair and bright-line rule that both protects the rights of the accused and has proven workable for law enforcement. Statements stemming from custodial interrogation of a suspect are inadmissible at trial unless the police first provide the suspect with a set of four specific warnings: (1) you have the right to remain silent; (2) anything you say may be used as evidence against you; (3) you have the right to an attorney; and (4) if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
These warnings are necessary to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings and so ensure that any statement obtained from the suspect is truly the product of his free choice. As author and former Federal prosecutor Scott Thurow wrote in an opinion article in Wednesday's New York Times: ``The requirement to recite Miranda is an important reminder to the police that the war on lawlessness is always subject to the guidance of the law.''
Over the last 34 years, the Miranda rule has developed into a bedrock principle of American criminal law. The required issuance of Miranda warnings has been incorporated in local, State and Federal police practice across this nation. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say, as the Court said this week, that Miranda warnings ``have become part of our national culture.''
Two years after Miranda was decided, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. 3501, which laid down a rule that purported to overrule Miranda and to restore the case-by-case, totality-of-the-circumstances test of a confession's ``voluntariness'' that the Miranda decision found constitutionally inadequate. The validity of section 3501 did not come before the Court until now because no Administration of either party sought to use it, out of concern for its dubious constitutionality. The issue was finally presented only because an organization of conservative activists maneuvered a case before the most conservative Federal appeals court in the country. To her credit, Attorney General Reno declined to argue that Miranda had been invalidated by section 3501. She also declined to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Miranda, on the ground that it has proved to be workable in practice and in many respects beneficial to law enforcement.
The Court's decision this week in Dickerson v. United States--
announced by the Chief Justice and joined by six other Justices--erased any doubt that the protections announced in Miranda are constitutionally required and cannot be overruled by an act of Congress. Section 3501's attempt to authorize the admission at trial of statements that would be excluded under Miranda is therefore unconstitutional, as I have long believed.
This week's resounding reaffirmation of the Miranda rule should put to rest the issue of Miranda's continuing vitality. Most law enforcement officers made their peace with Miranda long ago: It is time for the rest to do the same. That is why I am disturbed by Justice Scalia's parting shot in Dickerson. In a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia vowed to continue to apply section 3501 until such time as it is repealed.
Mr. President, that time has come. I am introducing a bill today, together with my good friend, Senator Feingold, to repeal section 3501. I can think of no good reason to allow this patently unconstitutional statute to remain on the books. On the contrary, leaving section 3501 on the books is sure to invite more unwarranted attacks on Miranda by the same conservative activists who brought us the Dickerson case. Enough is enough. Whatever you think of Miranda's reasoning and its resulting rule, seven Supreme Court Justices have reaffirmed its constitutional pedigree. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution by repudiating an unconstitutional statute.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2830
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 ``Miranda Reaffirmation Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18.
Section 3501 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a) and (b); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (a), (b), and (c) respectively.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from Vermont to introduce the Miranda Reaffirmation Act, a bill that repeals two sections of the United States Criminal Code because they directly conflict with the constitutional rule set forth by the United States Supreme court in the 1966 landmark decision of Miranda v. Arizona.
This week, nearing the conclusion of a busy term, the United States Supreme Court handed down several very important decisions. In one of the more highly anticipated rulings, Dickerson v. United States, the Court held by a 7-2 majority that the rule announced in Miranda is still the supreme law of this land. As we are all aware, the Miranda rule instructs all law enforcement officers that prior to an in-custody interrogation they must inform suspects of several important constitutional rights: the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to have counsel appointed if they cannot afford one.
As the Court noted, ``Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warning have become part of our national culture.'' Millions of American children have first learned about their constitutional rights by watching police dramas on television and hearing the famous Miranda warnings given to criminal suspects.
Mr. President, the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the Miranda rule was extremely important. In the Dickerson case, a private legal foundation and a law professor intervened in a criminal case and questioned whether Miranda warnings are constitutionally required. Relying on 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3501, they argued that law enforcement officers should not have to inform suspects of their basic constitutional rights before proceeding with in-custody interrogations as long as any confessions obtained were determined to be voluntary. While every administration since the law was passed in 1968 has refused to make this argument, a lower court in the Dickerson case agreed with it. Section 3501 was enacted in 1968, just two years after the original Miranda decision. It was a clear attempt by Congress to overturn the constitutional rule laid down in that case.
It is a strange quirk of history that the validity of Sec. 3501 and Congress's attempt to overrule Miranda was addressed for the first time by the Supreme Court in the Dickerson case. The reason is that a series of Departments of Justice, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents assumed that the statute was unconstitutional and refused to proceed under it. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court agreed with that view.
Writing for a seven justice majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out that ``because of the obvious conflict between our decision in Miranda and Sec. 3501 we must address whether Congress has the constitutional authority to thus supercede Miranda.'' Second, the Chief Justice reiterated the established principle that ``Congress may not legislatively supercede our decision[s] interpreting and applying the constitution,'' and he concluded by ruling that ``Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supercede legislatively.''
Justice Scalia, in dissent, disagreed vehemently with the majority's analysis. In a somewhat curious declaration of defiance he wrote:
``[U]ntil Sec. 3501 is repealed, [I] will continue to apply it in all cases where there has been a sustainable finding that the defendant's confession was voluntary.''
Mr. President, as a result of the Court's unequivocal ruling in Dickerson, we now have a law on the books that the Court has ruled is inconsistent with what the Constitution requires with respect to constitutional in-custody interrogations. That may seem to be a matter of little consequence, but the statement of Justice Scalia that he will continue to apply it in future cases shows that it is not. The bill that we are introducing today eliminates this potential problem by removing the unconstitutional provision from the criminal code.
This repeal will accomplish two things. It will bring our criminal code into line with what the Supreme Court has now firmly established as the law of the land, and it will remove from the books an ineffective law that Justice Rehnquist considered ``more difficult than Miranda for law enforcement officers to conform to, and for courts to apply in a consistent manner.'' The prophylactic rule established by Miranda has worked well and stood the test of time. Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys have found that it is a far better way to protect the constitutional rights of those accused of crimes than the ``voluntariness'' standard that was in place before Miranda and that Sec. 3501 attempted to keep in place.
Mr. President, it is simply not appropriate for the existing criminal code to conflict with what the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution requires. It is our duty to act to repeal a provision that the Department of Justice has refused to apply and that the Supreme Court has held, in any event, cannot be enforced. As the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am proud to join the ranking member of the full Committee, Senator Leahy, in offering this straightforward and commonsense measure.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 2831. A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve conservation and management of sharks and establish a consistent national policy toward the practice of shark-
finning; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________
