[Pages S4574-S4585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BRADLEY (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 611. A bill to authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-
issued hydroelectric license; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.

ferc-issued license authorization extension act

<bullet> Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which
would allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend a
license already granted to the Mount Hope pumped storage project. It is
my understanding that the FERC has no objection to this extension and
that the agency itself would grant the extension, if it were not
statutorily prohibited from doing so.
I am very pleased to have Senator Lautenberg as a cosponsor on this
legislation.
The Mt. Hope project is an advanced pumped-storage hydroelectric
plant. It will be constructed on an existing industrial site that has
been active for almost 300 years. It will be largely underground, once
it is established, and should have a very limited environmental impact.
This project will cost $1.8 billion to construct and will be financed
entirely by the private sector. It is estimated that this single
project will create up to 1,300 jobs during construction and provide
about $20 million annually in property taxes.
Mr. President, the project's existing license will expire in August,
1996. When the license was originally requested and granted in the
early 1990's, the sponsors presumed that the financing would be
complete and construction underway by 1996, as required. Unfortunately,
the extended economic recession intervened. Because of the general
economic climate and the difficulty of financing any project of this
magnitude, the start-up date has slipped.
Normally, I am very hesitant to intervene in any way in a regulatory
process. However, since I understand that the FERC has no objections
and will support this extension, I am willing to move ahead. I also
understand that the Congressman representing this district, Rodney
Frelinghuysen, is preparing companion legislation.
When the FERC granted the original license, they required public
hearings and an extensive environmental analysis. While I understand
that there is substantial local support for this project, this
legislation will now be the subject of additional hearings. Before
agreeing to move the legislation in the Senate, I will weigh carefully
any new comments or concerns about the project and I will be contacting
local community members to gauge the level of their enthusiasm and
support.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill
printed following these remarks.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 611

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
notwithstanding the time limitation of section 13 of the
Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
upon the request of the licensee for FERC Project No. 9401 is
authorized, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence,
and public interest requirements of section 13 and the
Commission's procedures under such section, to extend until
August 3, 1999, the time required for the licensee to
commence the construction of such project. This section shall
take effect for the project upon the expiration of the
extension (issued by the Commission under section 13) of the
period required for commencement of construction of such
project.<bullet>
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Graham, and Mr.
Murkowski):
S. 612. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
a hospice care pilot program for the Department of Veterans Affairs; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

veterans' hospice care services act

<bullet> Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in the spirit of strengthening
our commitment to provide a comprehensive package of health care
benefits to veterans eligible for care in the VA health care system, I
am today introducing a bill that would require VA to conduct a hospice
care pilot program to determine how best to provide hospice care
services to terminally ill veterans. I am proud that Senators Daschle,
Graham, and Murkowski have joined with me as original cosponsors. As
the number of veterans who are elderly or have terminal illnesses
continues to grow, the need and demand for VA hospice care is likely to
increase. We must stay ahead of the surge and explore the various ways
to provide such care, so our veterans and their families will have the
best choices available to them.
Our legislation is derived from S. 1141, which I sponsored and which
was incorporated into the committee bill, S. 1030, of the 103d
Congress. Though S. 1030 passed the Senate, it did not pass the House.
The bill also builds upon S. 1358 of the 102d Congress which Senator
Graham introduced on June 24, 1991, and the Senate passed on October
16, 1991.
Although VA has expanded and improved hospice care services over the
past 4 years, it continues to fall short of the goals we envisioned.
Thus we feel compelled to introduce the Veterans' Hospice Care Services
Act of 1995.

summary of provisions

Mr. President, this legislation would expand comprehensive VA hospice
care programs and promote VA research on hospice care. The bill would
amend chapter 17 of title 38 to establish a new subchapter VII, the
provisions of which would:
First, require VA, during the period beginning on October 1, 1995,
and ending on December 31, 2000, to conduct a pilot program in order to
assess the desirability of furnishing hospice care services to
terminally ill veterans, and determine the most effective and efficient
means of furnishing such services.
Second, require VA to furnish hospice care services under the pilot
program to any veteran who has a life expectancy of 1 year or less, as
certified by a VA physician and who is entitled to VA hospital care,
eligible for and receiving VA hospital or nursing home care, eligible
for and receiving care in a community nursing home under a VA contract,
or eligible for and receiving care in a State veterans home for which
VA is making per diem payments to offset the costs of that care.
Third, specify that the hospice care services that VA must provide to
veterans under the pilot program are: The services to which Medicare
beneficiaries are entitled under the Medicare's hospice care benefit,
and personal care services, including care or services relating to
activities of daily living, such as dressing, personal hygiene,
feeding, and housekeeping.
[[Page S4575]] Fourth, require the Secretary to establish hospice
care demonstration projects that would provide these services at not
fewer than 15 but mote than 30 VA medical centers [VAMC's] by one of
these means: A hospice operated by a VAMC, a non VA hospice under
contract with a VAMC and pursuant to which the VA facility furnishes
any necessary inpatient services, or a non-VA facility furnishes any
necessary inpatient services.
Fifth, require that each of the three means for furnishing hospice
care services be used at not fewer than five VAMC's.
Sixth, require the Secretary to ensure, to the maximum extent
feasible, that VAMC's selected to conduct demonstration projects under
the pilot program include facilities that: Are located in urban areas
and rural areas, encompass the full range of affiliations between
VAMC's and medical schools, operate and maintain various numbers of
beds, and meet any additional criteria or standards that the Secretary
may deem relevant or necessary.
Seventh, provide that the amount paid by VA or a non-VA hospice under
a hospice care services contract generally may not exceed the amount
that would be paid to that hospice under the Medicare hospice benefit,
and authorize the Secretary to pay an amount in excess of the Medicare
reimbursement rate, if the Secretary determines, on a case-by-case
basis, that the Medicare rate would not adequate compensate the hospice
for the costs associated with furnishing necessary care to a terminally
ill veteran.
Eighth, require the Secretary to designate not fewer than 10 VAMC's
that would function as a control group and furnish a less comprehensive
range of hospice care services to terminally ill veterans that the
range that VAMC's participating in the pilot program must provide, by
VA personal providing one or more hospice care services to veterans at
a VAMC, or VA personal monitoring the furnishing by non-VA provider of
one or more hospice care services to veterans.
Ninth, require the Secretary to ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that terminally ill veterans receive information regarding
their eligibility, if any, for Medicare's hospice care benefit.
Tenth, require the Secretary, not later than September 30, 1996, and
on an annual basis thereafter, until October 1, 2001, to submit
periodic written reports to the House and Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs about the pilot program.
Eleventh, require the Under Secretary for Health, not later than
August 1, 1999, to submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Veterans' Affairs a detailed final report on the pilot program,
including an assessment of the desirability of furnishing hospice care
services to terminally ill veterans, an assessment of the optimal means
of furnishing hospice care services to terminally ill veterans, and his
recommendations, if any, for additional legislation regarding such
care.
Twelth, clarify that the pilot program would not preclude VA from
furnishing hospice care services at VAMC's not participating in the
pilot program or the control group.

background

Clearly, terminally ill veterans need an alternative to customary,
curative care, and the Department of Veterans Affairs has made steady
progress in meeting the demand.
However, VA headquarters officials have given only general guidance
to VAMC's regarding the types of hospice care services they must
provide and the manner in which they must provide them. Not
surprisingly, significant variations exist in the manner in which
VAMC's provide these services. Only 39 of 171 VAMC's operate their own
hospice units. These units are freestanding buildings or separate units
where a homelike atmosphere is created. Other VAMC's provide hospice in
units that are converted patient rooms where cure-oriented care is
administered adjacent to the hospice rooms. Still other VAMC's only
provide some hospice services such as caregiver counseling and pain
management. Many offer only an assessment of a terminally ill veterans'
needs and referral to a non-VA hospice.
Neither uniformity nor marked variation in the provision of VA
hospice care may be the answer. Each local area may need to tailor its
programs and services to the unique needs of the veterans they serve,
as well as the delivery modalities in their areas.
Yet I continue to believe that there are important questions that
need to be asked and answered about the ways to provide such care. For
example, some claim that we can best meet terminally ill veterans'
needs by integrating hospice concepts into mainstream care for
terminally ill persons. Others believe that because most VAMC's are
affiliated with medical schools that emphasize technology-intensive,
curative interventions, veterans would be better served if VA
contracted with community hospice providers. There may not be only one
correct approach, and that is fine. But I do know that we must address
these difficult questions if we truly care about meeting terminally ill
veterans' needs.
The pilot program this legislation envisions could be of great help
in assessing these concerns. The bill calls for VA to establish hospice
demonstration projects at 15 to 30 VAMC's that will provide a
comprehensive range of hospice care services. Ten other VAMC's will
constitute a control group and offer a less comprehensive range of
hospice services. In essence, an experiment will be set up, whereby
consistent data can be generated and valuable information extrapolated.
This study will help health care providers identify veterans most
likely to benefit from that program and tailor the program's services
to meet their needs.
This year's bill, like S. 1030 of the 103d Congress, contains a
provision that explicitly states that VA can continue to provide
hospice care services at any VAMC, which would guarantee that no
veteran will lose access to hospice care as a result of the pilot
program. We certainly do not want VA to eliminate its existing hospice
programs. Rather, we seek to ensure that VA studies and learns from
them.
conclusion
Mr. President, many terminally ill veterans do not want to spend
their last days in a hospital environment receiving high technology,
curative care. These veterans, who have served our country with honor
and dignity, choose a different type of environment, one where pain
management and emotional support are the focus. They are veterans like
Tom, a West Virginian whose plight the committee learned of in 1991.
The executive director of the Hospice of Huntington, WV, Charlene
Farrell, told the committee that while Tom was in the hospital,
suffering from cancer, this depressed veteran asked that the drapes be
closed so he could sit in darkness. Eventually, his daughters decided
to use their modest resources to purchase hospice care from a non-VA
provider, because their father longed for the type of care and support
that a hospital simply cannot offer. We owe veterans like Tom nothing
less than the best hospice care our Nation can provide. The Veterans
Hospice Care Services Act of 1995 will help us meet our obligation to
these brave men and women.
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. 612
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 ``Veterans' Hospice Care
Services Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. PROGRAMS FOR FURNISHING HOSPICE CARE TO VETERANS.

(a) Establishment of Programs.--Chapter 17 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``subchapter vii--hospice care pilot program; hospice care services

``Sec. 1761. Definitions

``For the purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) The term `terminally ill veteran' means any veteran--
``(A) who is (i) entitled to receive hospital care in a
medical facility of the Department under section 1710(a)(1)
of this title, (ii) eligible for hospital or nursing home
care in such a facility and receiving such care, (iii)
receiving care in a State home facility for which care the
Secretary is paying per diem under section 1741 of this
title, or (iv) transferred to a non-Department nursing home
for nursing home care under section 1720 of this title and
receiving such care; and
[[Page S4576]] ``(B) who has a medical prognosis (as
certified by a Department physician) of a life expectancy of
six months or less.
``(2) The term `hospice care services' means--
``(A) the care, items, and services referred to in
subparagraphs (A) through (H) of section 1861(dd)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(1)); and
``(B) personal care services.
``(3) The term `hospice program' means any program that
satisfies the requirements of section 1861(dd)(2) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)).
``(4) The term `medical facility of the Department' means a
facility referred to in section 1701(4)(A) of this title.
``(5) The term `non-Department facility' means a facility
(other than a medical facility of the Department) at which
care to terminally ill veterans is furnished, regardless of
whether such care is furnished pursuant to a contract,
agreement, or other arrangement referred to in section
1762(b)(1)(D) of this title.
``(6) The term `personal care services' means any care or
service furnished to a person that is necessary to maintain a
person's health and safety within the home or nursing home of
the person, including care or services related to dressing
and personal hygiene, feeding and nutrition, and
environmental support.
``Sec. 1762. Hospice care: pilot program requirements

``(a)(1) During the period beginning on October 1, 1995,
and ending on December 31, 2000, the Secretary shall conduct
a pilot program in order--
``(A) to assess the desirability of furnishing hospice care
services to terminally ill veterans; and
``(B) to determine the most effective and efficient means
of furnishing such services to such veterans.
``(2) The Secretary shall conduct the pilot program in
accordance with this section.
``(b)(1) Under the pilot program, the Secretary shall--
``(A) designate not less than 15 nor more than 30 medical
facilities of the Department at or through which to conduct
hospice care services demonstration projects;
``(B) designate the means by which hospice care services
shall be provided to terminally ill veterans under each
demonstration project pursuant to subsection (c);
``(C) allocate such personnel and other resources of the
Department as the Secretary considers necessary to ensure
that services are provided to terminally ill veterans by the
designated means under each demonstration project; and
``(D) enter into any contract, agreement, or other
arrangement that the Secretary considers necessary to ensure
the provision of such services by the designated means under
each such project.
``(2) In carrying out the responsibilities referred to in
paragraph (1) the Secretary shall take into account the need
to provide for and conduct the demonstration projects so as
to provide the Secretary with such information as is
necessary for the Secretary to evaluate and assess the
furnishing of hospice care services to terminally ill
veterans by a variety of means and in a variety of
circumstances.
``(3) In carrying out the requirement described in
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent
feasible, ensure that--
``(A) the medical facilities of the Department selected to
conduct demonstration projects under the pilot program
include facilities located in urban areas of the United
States and rural areas of the United States;
``(B) the full range of affiliations between medical
facilities of the Department and medical schools is
represented by the facilities selected to conduct
demonstration projects under the pilot program, including no
affiliation, minimal affiliation, and extensive affiliation;
``(C) such facilities vary in the number of beds that they
operate and maintain; and
``(D) the demonstration projects are located or conducted
in accordance with any other criteria or standards that the
Secretary considers relevant or necessary to furnish and to
evaluate and assess fully the furnishing of hospice care
services to terminally ill veterans.
``(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), hospice care to
terminally ill veterans shall be furnished under a
demonstration project by one or more of the following means
designated by the Secretary:
``(A) By the personnel of a medical facility of the
Department providing hospice care services pursuant to a
hospice program established by the Secretary at that
facility.
``(B) By a hospice program providing hospice care services
under a contract with that program and pursuant to which
contract any necessary inpatient services are provided at a
medical facility of the Department.
``(C) By a hospice program providing hospice care services
under a contract with that program and pursuant to which
contract any necessary inpatient services are provided at a
non-Department medical facility.
``(2)(A) The Secretary shall provide that--
``(i) care is furnished by the means described in paragraph
(1)(A) at not less than five medical facilities of the
Department; and
``(ii) care is furnished by the means described in
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1) in connection with
not less than five such facilities for each such means.
``(B) The Secretary shall provide in any contract under
subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) that inpatient care
may be provided to terminally ill veterans at a medical
facility other than that designated in the contract if the
provision of such care at such other facility is necessary
under the circumstances.
``(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amount
paid to a hospice program for care furnished pursuant to
subparagraph (B) or (C) of subsection (c)(1) may not exceed
the amount that would be paid to that program for such care
under section 1814(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395f(i)) if such care were hospice care for which payment
would be made under part A of title XVIII of such Act.
``(2) The Secretary may pay an amount in excess of the
amount referred to in paragraph (1) (or furnish services
whose value, together with any payment by the Secretary,
exceeds such amount) to a hospice program for furnishing care
to a terminally ill veteran pursuant to subparagraph (B) or
(C) of subsection (c)(1) if the Secretary determines, on a
case-by-case basis, that--
``(A) the furnishing of such care to the veteran is
necessary and appropriate; and
``(B) the amount that would be paid to that program under
section 1814(i) of the Social Security Act would not
compensate the program for the cost of furnishing such care.
``Sec. 1763. Care for terminally ill veterans

``(a) During the period referred to in section 1762(a)(1)
of this title, the Secretary shall designate not less than 10
medical facilities of the Department at which hospital care
is being furnished to terminally ill veterans in order to
furnish the care referred to in subsection (b)(1).
``(b)(1) Palliative care to terminally ill veterans shall
be furnished at the facilities referred to in subsection (a)
by one of the following means designated by the Secretary:
``(A) By personnel of the Department providing one or more
hospice care services to such veterans at or through medical
facilities of the Department.
``(B) By personnel of the Department monitoring the
furnishing of one or more of such services to such veterans
at or through non-Department facilities.
``(2) The Secretary shall furnish care by the means
referred to in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph
(1) at not less than five medical facilities designated under
subsection (a).

``Sec. 1764. Information relating to hospice care services

``The Secretary shall ensure to the extent practicable that
terminally ill veterans who have been informed of their
medical prognosis receive information relating to the
eligibility, if any, of such veterans for hospice care and
services under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).

``Sec. 1765. Evaluation and reports

``(a) Not later than September 30, 1996, and on an annual
basis thereafter until October 1, 2001, the Secretary shall
submit a written report to the Committees on Veterans'
Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives relating
to the conduct of the pilot program under section 1762 of
this title and the furnishing of hospice care services under
section 1763 of this title. Each report shall include the
following information:
``(1) The location of the sites of the demonstration
projects provided for under the pilot program.
``(2) The location of the medical facilities of the
Department at or through which hospice care services are
being furnished under section 1763 of this title.
``(3) The means by which care to terminally ill veterans is
being furnished under each such project and at or through
each such facility.
``(4) The number of veterans being furnished such care
under each such project and at or through each such facility.
``(5) An assessment by the Secretary of any difficulties in
furnishing such care and the actions taken to resolve such
difficulties.
``(b) Not later than August 1, 1999, the Secretary shall
submit to the committees referred to in subsection (a) a
report containing an evaluation and assessment by the Under
Secretary for Health of the hospice care pilot program under
section 1762 of this title and the furnishing of hospice care
services under section 1763 of this title. The report shall
contain such information (and shall be presented in such
form) as will enable the committees to evaluate fully the
desirability of furnishing hospice care services to
terminally ill veterans.
``(c) The report under subsection (b) shall include the
following:
``(1) A description and summary of the pilot program.
``(2) With respect to each demonstration project conducted
under the pilot program--
``(A) a description and summary of the project;
``(B) a description of the facility conducting the
demonstration project and a discussion of how such facility
was selected in accordance with the criteria set out in, or
prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to, subparagraphs (A)
through (D) of section 1762(b)(3) of this title;
``(C) the means by which hospice care services care are
being furnished to terminally ill veterans under the
demonstration project;
``(D) the personnel used to furnish such services under the
demonstration project;
[[Page S4577]] ``(E) a detailed factual analysis with
respect to the furnishing of such services, including (i) the
number of veterans being furnished such services, (ii) the
number, if any, of inpatient admissions for each veteran
being furnished such services and the length of stay for each
such admission, (iii) the number, if any, of outpatient
visits for each such veteran, and (iv) the number, if any, of
home-care visits provided to each such veteran;
``(F) the direct costs, if any, incurred by terminally ill
veterans, the members of the families of such veterans, and
other individuals in close relationships with such veterans
in connection with the participation of veterans in the
demonstration project;
``(G) the costs incurred by the Department in conducting
the demonstration project, including an analysis of the
costs, if any, of the demonstration project that are
attributable to (i) furnishing such services in facilities of
the Department, (ii) furnishing such services in non-
Department facilities, and (iii) administering the furnishing
of such services; and
``(H) the unreimbursed costs, if any, incurred by any other
entity in furnishing services to terminally ill veterans
under the project pursuant to section 1762(c)(1)(C) of this
title.
``(3) An analysis of the level of the following persons'
satisfaction with the services furnished to terminally ill
veterans under each demonstration project:
``(A) Terminally ill veterans who receive such services,
members of the families of such veterans, and other
individuals in close relationships with such veterans.
``(B) Personnel of the Department responsible for
furnishing such services under the project.
``(C) Personnel of non-Department facilities responsible
for furnishing such services under the project.
``(4) A description and summary of the means of furnishing
hospice care services at or through each medical facility of
the Department designated under section 1763(a)(1) of this
title.
``(5) With respect to each such means, the information
referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3).
``(6) A comparative analysis by the Under Secretary for
Health of the services furnished to terminally ill veterans
under the various demonstration projects referred to in
section 1762 of this title and at or through the designated
facilities referred to in section 1763 of this title, with an
emphasis in such analysis on a comparison relating to--
``(A) the management of pain and health symptoms of
terminally ill veterans by such projects and facilities;
``(B) the number of inpatient admissions of such veterans
and the length of inpatient stays for such admissions under
such projects and facilities;
``(C) the number and type of medical procedures employed
with respect to such veterans by such projects and
facilities; and
``(D) the effectiveness of such projects and facilities in
providing care to such veterans at the homes of such veterans
or in nursing homes.
``(7) An assessment by the Under Secretary for Health of
the desirability of furnishing hospice care services by
various means to terminally ill veterans, including an
assessment by the Director of the optimal means of furnishing
such services to such veterans.
``(8) Any recommendations for additional legislation
regarding the furnishing of care to terminally ill veterans
that the Secretary considers appropriate.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``subchapter vii--hospice care pilot program; hospice care services

``1761. Definitions.
``1762. Hospice care: pilot program requirements.
``1763. Care for terminally ill veterans.
``1764. Information relating to hospice care services.
``1765. Evaluation and reports.''.
(c) Authority To Carry Out Other Hospice Care Programs.--
The amendments made by subsection (a) may not be construed as
terminating the authority of the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to provide hospice care services to terminally ill
veterans under any program in addition to the programs
required under the provisions added by such amendments.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Funds are authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of Veterans Affairs for
the purposes of carrying out the evaluation of the hospice
care pilot programs under section 1765 of title 38, United
States Code (as added by subsection (a)), as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 1996, $1,200,000.
(2) For fiscal year 1997, $2,500,000.
(3) For fiscal year 1998, $2,200,000.
(4) For fiscal year 1999, $100,000.<bullet>
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy,
Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 613. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
conduct pilot programs in order to evaluate the feasibility of
participation of the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system
in the health care systems of States that have enacted health care
reform; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

va state health care reform pilot program act

<bullet> Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, although the efforts of the
last Congress to provide national health care reform failed, many
States have already enacted reform legislation. These States have taken
the first, important steps on the road to universal coverage. I applaud
the efforts of these courageous legislators. They are giving their
citizens health care security. These State plans provide Congress with
the perfect opportunity to learn from their successes and to study the
effects of reform on existing Federal medical programs, including the
VA medical system.
The VA medical system--the Nation's largest health care system--
cannot participate fully in health care reform efforts in specific
States because current Federal law makes it impossible for VA
facilities to do so. This deprives VA of the kinds of experiences and
information it needs to thrive under national health care reform. If
this situation continues, we will miss a valuable opportunity to study
the effects of reform.
At a February 9, 1994, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs' hearing
on VA participation in State health care reform, then-Acting Deputy
Under Secretary of Health, Elwood Headley, M.D., stated that as a
public health care system, VA lacks experience in participating in a
competitive environment.
Mr. President, I believe VA will do well in a national plan under
which costs are controlled and coverage is expanded for all Americans,
because VA already operates within a fixed budget. VA must, however,
have the opportunity to learn what kinds of changes are needed in the
VA medical system as a whole.
It is in the spirit of improving VA medical services for veterans
that I am today introducing a bill that would require VA to conduct a
pilot health care reform program. This VA State Health Care Reform
Pilot Program would enable VA to participate in the health care reform
programs of several States. I am delighted to be joined in sponsoring
this bill by Committee members Bob Graham, Dan Akaka, Byron Dorgan,
Frank Murkowski, and Jim Jeffords, and by Senators Tom Daschle, Patrick
Leahy, Patty Murray, and Paul Wellstone.
At the committee's February 9, 1994, hearing, John Bollinger, deputy
executive director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, testified that
``the pilot programs will give VA in those states the opportunity to
become a full participant in the health care system. It will also
provide valuable experience to draw upon when the full VA system faces
the same challenges in the context of national health care reform.'' I
agree wholeheartedly.

summary of provisions

Mr. President, this legislation would enable VA to evaluate the most
appropriate means of participating in reformed State health care
systems, providing invaluable information to help them prepare for
national health care reform.
This bill would give VA the authority to select up to five States
with comprehensive health benefit plans in place, or where such plans
are imminent, to participate in the pilot program for a period of 2
years. The bill would authorize VA facilities in the selected States to
offer free comprehensive care to all compensable service-connected
veterans and to all veterans with incomes below the current levels that
apply to inpatient care.
The legislation would grant the Secretary authority to waive certain
laws and regulations that could interfere with the ability of VA
facilities to participate in State health care reform activities.
This legislation would give VA medical center directors flexibility
in allocating their resources, except with respect to regional
programs, such as spinal cord injury services, post-traumatic stress
disorder, blind rehabilitation, and substance abuse programs, which are
funded from central office.
The bill would give the head of the VA in selected States--the VA
health system director--the authority to contract out for medical
services without prior review from VA central office.
[[Page S4578]] For other services, VA facilities within the State would
have the authority to enter into contracts below $250,000 without prior
review by central office. Contracts above $250,000 would be reviewed by
central office, but would automatically be approved if central office
did not make a decision within 30 days. This would give local VA
facilities the autonomy they need to increase their number of providers
in a timely manner.
This bill would also give local VA facilities more flexibility in the
hiring process, by extending authority that is currently available for
hiring certain title 38 personnel to the hiring of all staff. This is
intended to help VA facilities hire the best possible employees in a
timely manner.
The bill would exempt VA facilities in the pilot program from FTE
cuts. Arbitrary FTE cuts could make it impossible for VA facilities to
compete under health care reform.
The legislation would give the participating VA facilities the
authority to carry over leftover funding from one year to the next.
Again, this would help VA facilities make better use of limited funds.
Finally, this legislation would give VA the authority to collect
employer contributions and other third-party payments for noncore
veterans who choose VA health care. These payments would enable VA
facilities to provide care for all veterans who choose VA health care,
not just core veterans.

conclusion

Mr. President, VA needs legislative relief from restrictions in
current law which, although enacted for good and appropriate reasons,
could prevent VA facilities from competing as providers in certain
States. The major obstacle which must be overcome is that VA facilities
cannot qualify as providers under some state plans because of current
eligibility requirements. Under various State proposals, all citizens
would be eligible to choose a provider, and all providers must offer
the same basic package of services. In most States, VA could not be
considered a provider for several reasons, including the restrictions
which limit preventive and primary care.
Mr. President, the ``VA State Health Care Reform Pilot Program''
would provide VA with invaluable experience regarding how it needs to
change in order to survive and thrive under health care reform. the
``VA State Health Care Reform Pilot Program'' will help us meet our
obligation to the brave men and women who served in every branch of the
Armed Forces, by improving the VA medical system that serves them.
Mr. President, one final note before closing. On Friday, March 17,
1995, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown submitted to our
committee notice of a plan to realign the field management of the
Veterans Health Administration. Pursuant to section 510(b) of title 38,
United States Code, this realignment cannot go into effect for 90 days
of continuous session of Congress.
Should there be no action of the Congress to modify the Secretary's
proposed plan--and I know of no such proposed action at this point--VA
will undertake a very significant realignment of the field management
structure of VHA. I mention this possibility in the context of my
introduction of this measure today, because it is likely that the
proposed pilot authority would have to be modified in light of the
realignment. Such changes in the legislation can be discussed later in
the committee's consideration of the issue, at which time we will have
a better sense of the outcome of the Secretary's proposed field
realignment.
Mr. President, I am looking forward to working with Senator Simpson
and all the members of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, as
well as with the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Bob Stump, and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Hospitals and
Health Care, Tim Hutchinson. This legislation was passed by the Senate
in the last Congress, and I hope that we can move forward with it in
this Congress.
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. 613
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 ``VA State Health Care Reform
Pilot Program Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE OF PILOT PROGRAMS.

The purpose of this Act is to authorize the participation
of the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system in
the health care systems of States that have enacted health
care reform in order to evaluate the most appropriate means
of enabling the Department health care system to participate
in such systems and in the National health care system
contemplated under any plans for National health care reform.

SEC. 3. HEALTH CARE PILOT PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out pilot programs
on the participation of the Department of Veterans Affairs
health care system in the health care systems of States that
have adopted comprehensive health benefit plans. The
Secretary shall carry out any pilot program under this Act in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(b) States Eligible for Designation.--(1) The Secretary
shall designate each of not more than five States as a
location for a pilot program under this Act. The Secretary
shall complete the designation of States as locations for
pilot programs not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) The Secretary may designate a State as a location for a
pilot program under this Act if the Secretary determines
that--
(A) the State has enacted, or will soon enact, a statute
establishing or providing for a comprehensive health benefit
plan; and
(B) the participation of the health care system of the
Department under the plan is feasible and appropriate in
light of the purpose of this Act.
(c) Department Participation in State Health Benefit
Plans--(1) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary
shall provide eligible persons under each pilot program under
this Act with the comprehensive package of basic health care
benefits that would otherwise be available to such persons
under the comprehensive health benefit plan of the State in
which the pilot program is carried out. The Secretary shall
provide such benefits through the health care system of the
Department in such State as if such system were a provider of
such benefits under such plan.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State may
not prohibit the participation of the Department under the
comprehensive health benefit plan of the State under a pilot
program unless the chief executive officer of the State
certifies to the Secretary that--
(A) the benefits to be provided by the Department under the
pilot program do not meet requirements for quality of
benefits established by or provided under the plan; or
(B) the location of Department facilities (including
facilities providing services by contract or agreement with
the Secretary) in the State is such that the proximity of
eligible persons to such facilities does not meet
requirements so established for such proximity.
(3) Not later than 30 days after the designation of a State
as a location for a pilot program under this Act, and at such
other times as the Secretary may determine, the Secretary and
the health system director for that State shall jointly
determine the regulations under the authority of the
Secretary the waiver or modification of which is necessary in
order to facilitate the carrying out of the pilot program.
Upon such determination, the Secretary shall waive or modify
the application of such regulations to the pilot program.
(4) The Secretary shall furnish any eligible person living
in a State in which a pilot program is carried out (including
any eligible person electing to receive benefits under the
pilot program and any eligible person not electing to receive
benefits under the pilot program) with the health care
benefits for which such person is eligible under chapter 17
of title 38, United States Code, notwithstanding that the
comprehensive package of basic health care benefits provided
under the comprehensive health benefit plan of the State does
not otherwise include such health care benefits. The
Secretary shall furnish any health care benefits under this
paragraph in accordance with the provisions of that chapter.
(5) The Secretary may not provide any health care benefit
under a pilot program under this Act that the Secretary is
not otherwise authorized to provide under the laws
administered by the Secretary.
(d) Health System Director.--(1) The Secretary shall
designate a health system director for each State in which a
pilot program is carried out under this Act. To the maximum
extent feasible, the Secretary shall delegate to the health
system directors the responsibilities of the Secretary under
this Act.
(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall
designate an individual as health system director for a State
from among nominees for that position selected by a panel
composed of individuals who are senior management personnel
of the Department medical centers located in that State.
(B) An individual selected for nomination to be a health
system director of a State under subparagraph (A) shall be--
[[Page S4579]] (i) the director or chief of staff of a
Department medical center located in the State in which the
pilot program is carried out; or
(ii) any other individual having experience with the
Department medical system that is equivalent to the
experience with that system of an individual in a position
referred to in clause (i).
(e) Administrative Reorganization.--The Secretary may carry
out any administrative reorganization of an office, facility,
activity, or function of the health care system of the
Department in a State in which a pilot program is carried out
that the Secretary and the health system director jointly
determine to be necessary in order to facilitate the carrying
out of the pilot program. Section 510(b) of title 38, United
States Code, shall not apply to any such administrative
reorganization.
(f) Provision of Benefits.--(1)(A) Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall provide health care
benefits under a pilot program--
(i) through the direct provision of such services by the
health care system of the Department in the State in which
the pilot program is carried out; or
(ii) by contract or other agreement in accordance with
paragraph (2).
(B) The Secretary may exclude facilities of the Department
from participation in a pilot program. Any facilities so
excluded shall continue to provide health care benefits to
veterans and other persons eligible for such benefits in
accordance with the provisions of laws administered by the
Secretary.
(2) The health system director of a pilot program may enter
into contracts and agreements for the provision of health
care services and contracts and agreements for other services
with respect to the pilot program under paragraph (1)(A)(ii).
Any such contract or agreement (including any lease) shall
not be subject to the following provisions of law:
(A) Section 8110(c) of title 38, United States Code,
relating to contracting of services at Department health-care
facilities.
(B) Section 8122(a)(1) of such title, relating to the lease
of Department property.
(C) Section 8125 of such title, relating to local contracts
for the procurement of health-care items.
(D) Section 702 of title 5, United States Code, relating to
the right of review of agency wrongs by courts of the United
States.
(E) Sections 1346(a)(2) and 1491 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to the jurisdiction of the district courts of
the United States and the United States Court of Federal
Claims, respectively, for the actions enumerated in such
sections.
(F) Subchapter V of chapter 35 of title 31, United States
Code, relating to adjudication of protests of violations of
procurement statutes and regulations.
(G) Sections 3526 and 3702 of such title, relating to the
settlement of accounts and claims, respectively, of the
United States.
(H) Subsections (b)(7), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of section 8
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(b)(7), (e), (f),
(g), and (h)), relating to requirements with respect to small
businesses for contracts for property and services.
(I) The provisions of law assembled for purposes of
codification of the United States Code as section 471 through
544 of title 40 that relate to the authority of the
Administrator of General Services over the lease and disposal
of Federal Government property.
(J) The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
401 et seq.), relating to the procurement of property and
services by the Federal Government.
(K) Chapter 3 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.), relating to the
procurement of property and services by the Federal
Government.
(L) Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76.
(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
contracts and agreements for the provision of health care
services under this subsection may include contracts and
other agreements with insurers, health care providers, or
other individuals or entities that provide health care
services.
(B) Contracts and agreements under this paragraph may be
entered into without prior review by the Central Office of
the Department.
(4)(A) Contracts and agreements under this subsection for
services other than the services referred to in paragraph (3)
(including contracts and agreements for procurement of
equipment, maintenance and repair services, and other
services related to the provision of health care services)
shall not be subject to prior review by the Central Office if
the amount of such contracts or agreements is less than
$250,000.
(B) Contracts and agreements for services under this
paragraph shall be subject to prior review by the Central
Office if the amount of such contracts or agreements is
$250,000 or greater. If the Central Office fails to approve
or reject a contract or agreement under this clause within 30
days of its submittal to the Central Office, such contract or
agreement shall be deemed approved by the Central Office.
(g) Department Personnel.--(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and to the extent necessary to carry out the
purpose of a pilot program, the Secretary may--
(A) appoint personnel to positions in the health care
system of the Department in the State in which the pilot
program is carried out in accordance with such standards for
such positions as the Secretary may establish; and
(B) promote and advance personnel serving in such positions
in accordance with such standards as the Secretary may
establish.
(2) Not later than 60 days after the designation of a State
as a location for a pilot program under this Act, or at such
other time as the Secretary may determine, the Secretary
shall request authority from the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget to permit the Secretary to employ a
number of full time equivalent employees in the health care
system of the Department in that State which exceeds the
number of such employees that would otherwise be authorized
for such employment by the Director.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, employees
of the Department at facilities of the Department under a
pilot program shall not, during the carrying out of the pilot
program, be subject to any reduction in the number of full
time employees of the Department or as a result of a
reduction in the number of full time employees of the Federal
Government.
(h) Eligible Persons.--(1) A person eligible for health
care benefits under a pilot program is any person residing in
a State in which a pilot program is carried out as follows:
(A) Any veteran.
(B) Any spouse or child of a veteran.
(C) Any individual eligible for care under paragraph (2) or
(3) of section 1713(a) of title 38, United States Code.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State may
not require that any person other than a person referred to
in paragraph (1) be eligible for health care benefits through
the Department under a pilot program.
(i) Copayments and Other Charges.--(1) Except as provided
in paragraph (2), the Secretary may collect from or on behalf
of any individual receiving health care benefits from the
Secretary under a pilot program under this Act a premium,
deductible, copayment, or other charge with respect to the
provision of a benefit under the pilot program. The amount of
the premium, deductible, copayment, or other charge collected
with respect to a benefit provided under a pilot program may
not exceed the maximum amount otherwise permitted for a
premium, deductible, copayment, or other charge with respect
to that benefit under the comprehensive health benefits plan
of the State in which the pilot program is carried out.
(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall not collect under the pilot programs
premiums, deductibles, copayments, and other charges with
respect to the benefits provided by the Department to the
following:
(i) Veterans with compensable service-connected
disabilities.
(ii) Veterans whose discharge or release from active
military, naval, or air service was for a compensable
disability that was incurred or aggravated in the line of
duty.
(iii) Veterans who are in receipt of, or who, but for a
suspension pursuant to section 1151 of title 38, United
States Code (or both a suspension and the receipt of retired
pay), would be entitled to disability compensation, but only
to the extent that such veterans' continuing eligibility for
such care is provided for in the judgment or settlement
provided for in such section.
(iv) Veterans who are former prisoners of war.
(v) Veterans of the Mexican border period or of World War
I.
(vi) Veterans who are unable to defray the expenses of
necessary care, as determined in accordance with section
1722(a) of such title.
(B) The Secretary may collect premiums, deductibles,
copayments, and other charges with respect to benefits
provided under a pilot program to veterans referred to in
subparagraph (A) from any third party obligated to provide,
or to pay the expenses of, such benefits to or for such
veterans under the comprehensive health benefits plan of the
State in which the pilot program is carried out.
(j) Funding.--(1) There is established in the Treasury a
fund to be known as the Department of Veterans Affairs Health
Care Reform Fund (hereafter referred to in this subsection as
the ``Fund'').
(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, amounts
shall be deposited in the Fund as follows:
(i) Amounts collected under a pilot program in accordance
with subsection (i).
(ii) Amounts made available to a pilot program based upon a
determination under paragraph (3).
(iii) Amounts transferred to the Fund with respect to a
pilot program under paragraph (4).
(iv) Such other amounts as the Secretary and the health
system directors of the pilot programs jointly determine to
be necessary in order to carry out the pilot programs.
(v) Such other amounts as may be appropriated to the pilot
programs.
(B) The Secretary shall make available amounts under
clauses (ii) and (iv) of subparagraph (A) from amounts
appropriated to the Department of Veterans Affairs for the
provision of health care services.
(C) The Secretary shall establish and maintain a separate
account under the Fund for each pilot program carried out
under this Act. Any deposits and expenditures with respect to
a pilot program shall be made to or from the account
established and maintained with respect to that pilot
program.
(3)(A) For each year of the operation of a pilot program
under this Act, the Secretary
[[Page S4580]] shall deposit in account of the Fund for the
pilot program an amount (as determined by the Secretary)
equal to the amount that would otherwise be made available to
the health care system of the Department in the State in
which the pilot program is carried out for the payment of the
cost of health care services by such system in that State in
that year. The Secretary shall deposit such amount at the
beginning of such year.
(B) The costs referred to in subparagraph (A) shall not
include costs relating to the provision by the Secretary of
the following services:
(i) Services relating to post-traumatic stress disorder.
(ii) Services relating to spinal-cord dysfunction.
(iii) Services relating to substance abuse.
(iv) Services relating to the rehabilitation of blind
veterans.
(v) Services relating to prosthetics.
(4) Funds deposited in the Medical-Care Cost Recovery Fund
established under section 1729(g) of title 38, United States
Code, during any fiscal year in an amount in excess of the
Congressional Budget Office baseline (as of the date of the
enactment of this Act) for deposits in that fund for that
fiscal year shall not be subject to paragraph (4) of section
1710(f), 1712(f), or 1729(g) (as the case may be) of that
title, but shall be transferred to the fund established under
this subsection. Such transfer for any fiscal year shall be
made at any time that the total of amounts so received less
amounts estimated to cover the expenses, payments, and costs
described in paragraph (3) of section 1729(g) of that title
is in excess of the applicable Congressional Budget Office
baseline.
(5)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
health system director for a State in which a pilot program
is carried out shall determine the costs for which amounts in
the Fund may be expended in carrying out the pilot program.
(B)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the costs of
carrying out a pilot program under this paragraph shall
include any costs of marketing and advertising under the
program, costs of legal services provided to such pilot
program by the General Counsel of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and costs relating to acquisition (including
acquisition of land), construction, repair, or renovation of
facilities.
(ii) Costs under this subparagraph shall not include any
costs relating to a major medical facility project or a major
medical facility lease as such terms are defined in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 8104(a)(3) of title 38,
United States Code, respectively.
(C) Amounts in the Fund for the payment of costs of a pilot
program under this subsection shall be available for such
purpose without fiscal year limitation.
(k) Termination.--A pilot program carried out under this
Act shall terminate not later than 2 years after the date of
the commencement of provision of benefits under the pilot
program.

SEC. 4. REPORTS ON PILOT PROGRAMS.

(a) Collection of Information.--(1) The Secretary shall
collect such information with respect to the provision of
health care benefits under each pilot program as is necessary
to permit the Secretary to evaluate the pilot program in
light of the purpose of the pilot program under this Act.
(2) The information collected by the Secretary under
paragraph (1) shall include aggregated data on the following:
(A) The number of persons participating in each pilot
program, including the age, sex, health status, disability
ratings (if any), employment status, and incomes of such
persons.
(B) The nature of benefits sought by such persons under
each pilot program.
(C) The nature and quantity of benefits provided to such
persons under each pilot program.
(D) The cost to the Department of providing such benefits
under each pilot program.
(b) Reports.--(1) Not later than 14 months after the date
of the completion of the designation of States as locations
for pilot programs under this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and
House of Representatives a report on the progress of the
Secretary in carrying out the pilot programs. Such report
shall include the information referred to in subsection
(a)(2) on the date of the report.
(2) Not later than November 30 of the year of the
termination of the final pilot program under this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to the committees referred to in
paragraph (1) a report on the pilot programs carried out
under this Act. The report shall include the following:
(A) The information referred to in subsection (a)(2),
together with the comments and conclusions of the Secretary
with respect to such information.
(B) An assessment by the Secretary of the utility of each
pilot program for carrying out the purpose of this Act.
(C) An assessment by the Secretary of appropriate means of
integrating the health care system of the Department into the
health care systems of States that have enacted health care
reform and into the National health care system contemplated
under any plans for National health care reform.
(D) Such other information, assessments, and conclusions as
the Secretary considers appropriate.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Act--
(1) The terms ``Secretary'', ``Department'', ``veteran'',
``child'' and ``spouse'' have the meanings given such terms
in paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (31) of section 101 of title
38, United States Code, respectively.
(2) The term ``comprehensive health benefit plan'', in the
case of a State, means a plan or system established under the
law of the State that--
(A) attempts to ensure the access of residents of the State
to a comprehensive package of basic health care benefits; and
(B) ensures such access by providing that such benefits
shall be provided directly or by contract by public and
private entities.
(3) The term ``comprehensive package of basic health care
benefits'' means the health care benefits provided for by a
State under the comprehensive health benefit plan of the
State.
(4) The term ``health care system of the Department'', in
the case of a State designated as a location for a pilot
program, means the facilities and personnel of the Department
located in that State that provide health care services under
chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code.<bullet>
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 614. A bill to confer jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims with respect to land claims of Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

pueblo of isleta land claims act

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and
distinguished colleague, Senator Domenici, to reintroduce a bill on
behalf of our constituents, the people of the Pueblo of Isleta in New
Mexico. The Senate approved and passed an identical version of this
measure in the previous Congress. Unfortunately, the House adjourned
before its Members were able to take action on our bill, but a similar
measure was approved by the House in the 102d Congress.
The legislation we are introducing today will provide authority for
New Mexico's Pueblo of Isleta to file an aboriginal land claim in the
United States Court of Federal Claims under the Indian Claims Act. The
bill does not pass judgment on the claim or give the Pueblo priority on
the court's docket. If, however, the Pueblo of Isleta proves to the
court that it does indeed have a valid claim of aboriginal land use and
occupancy, then appropriate monetary compensation would be determined
by the court.
In April 1992, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law
and Governmental Relations held a hearing on an early version of our
bill. During that hearing, testimony made clear that the Pueblo of
Isleta--like all the Pueblo Tribes in New Mexico--had standing to
pursue land claims under the Indian Claims Act of 1946. Under the act,
claims could be based either on title to the land or aboriginal use,
but all claims must have been filed by 1951.
Unfortunately, due to incomplete or improper advice from counsel, the
Pueblo of Isleta filed only a limited claim based on a Spanish land
grant, to which there was a written record, before the 1951 deadline.
According to tribal leaders, their fore-fathers were not informed by
counsel that they could file a claim based on aboriginal land use.
Significantly, the Pueblo's counsel was a Bureau of Indian Affairs
official who was later found by the court to have given erroneous
advice on a similar matter to the Pueblo of Zuni. Like many other
tribes, the Pueblos of Zuni and Isleta were completely dependent on the
Bureau of Indian Affairs for advice and assistance regarding land
claims during the 1940's and 1950's.
Mr. President, this legislation would simply allow the Pueblo of
Isleta to pursue a claim today, much like legislation Congress approved
some years ago for the Pueblo of Zuni. Again, the bill does not give
the Pueblo priority on the court's docket, and it does not pass
judgement on the claim itself.
The people of the Pueblo of Isleta are entitled to their day in
court. This bill assures them of that right. I urge my colleagues to
support its swift passage.
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. 614

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S4581]] SECTION 1. JURISDICTION.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 2401 and 2501 of
title 28, United States Code, and section 12 of the Act of
August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1052, chapter 959), or any other
law that would interpose or support a defense of
untimeliness, jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the
United States Court of Federal Claims to hear, determine, and
render judgment on any claim by the Pueblo of Isleta Indian
Tribe of New Mexico against the United States with respect to
any lands or interests therein in the State of New Mexico or
any adjoining State that were held by aboriginal title or
otherwise and that were acquired from the tribe without
payment of adequate compensation by the United States.
(b) Interest.--As a matter of adequate compensation, the
United States Court of Federal Claims may award interest at a
rate of 5 percent per year to accrue from the date on which
such lands or interests therein were acquired from the tribe
by the United States.
(c) Limitations.--Such jurisdiction is conferred only with
respect to claims accruing on or before August 13, 1946. All
such claims must be filed not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Jurisdiction Is Not Dependent on Exhaustion.--Such
jurisdiction is conferred notwithstanding any failure of the
tribe to exhaust any available administrative remedy.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN DEFENSES NOT APPLICABLE.

Any award made to any Indian tribe other than the Pueblo of
Isleta Indian Tribe of New Mexico before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this Act, under any judgment of the
Indian Claims Commission or any other authority, with respect
to any lands that are the subject of a claim submitted by the
tribe under section 1 shall not be considered a defense,
estoppel, or set-off to such claim, and shall not otherwise
affect the entitlement to, or amount of, any relief with
respect to such claim.
______

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Craig):
S. 615. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish outpatient medical services
for any disability of a former prisoner of war; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.

veterans outpatient health care act

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would ensure that all former prisoners of war [POW's] receive
outpatient care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA].
Under current law, POW's with service-connected disabilities are
entitled to outpatient medical services. However, POW's with less than
30 percent disability may be provided outpatient services at the
discretion of VA. This distinction is unfair to many POW's and fails to
recognize the trauma and brutality of imprisonment endured by all
former POW's. I am pleased to have Senators Craig, Rockefeller, and
Campbell join me as original cosponsors of this measure.
Mr. President, the need for this legislation is clear. All of
America's POW's deserve to be treated equally. Americans would agree
that those who served in defense of our Nation and were imprisoned by
the enemy deserve special consideration.
Some may feel this legislation is unnecessary because VA has been
providing outpatient services to POW's. But, when times get tough and
funding becomes tight, POW's without service-connected disabilities, or
with a lower disability rating, may be denied outpatient care. This is
exactly what happened in 1990. Due to budgetary reasons, two midwestern
VA medical centers began denying outpatient services to former POW's.
Fortunately, through congressional intervention, this policy was
reversed and POW's continued to receive ambulatory care. Although we
are facing a lean fiscal climate, accountants should not determine
whether our POW's receive outpatient care.
This bill only seeks to ensure that VA will continue to provide
outpatient services at all times to POW's. As of January 1, 1995, there
were only 62,676 former U.S. POW's, 94 percent of whom served in World
War II. As we observe the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of World
War II, this bill provides a fitting tribute to the sacrifices made by
POW's on behalf of our country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
additional material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 615

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR TO RECEIVE
OUTPATIENT MEDICAL SERVICES FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

Section 1712(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph
(D) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) to any former prisoner of war for any disability.''.
____

American Ex-Prisoners of War,

National Capital Office,

Washington, DC, March 22, 1995.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: On behalf of our 33,000 members, I want
to thank you very warmly for introducing the bill to
guarantee outpatient care for ex-POWs.
This bill, which was passed in 1992 by the Senate, means a
great deal to our members. Several years ago two VA Medical
Centers discontinued outpatient care to ex-POWs to save
money. Although outpatient care was restored to those
Centers, we never know when this may occur again.
Senator Akaka, we consider you a good friend of the former
prisoners of war, and we are looking forward to working with
your colleagues to assure enactment by Congress.
Again our sincere gratitude to you for introducing this
bill for us.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Prigmore,
National Commander.

<bullet> Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my
colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in introducing legislation that
will clarify veterans health services for ex-prisoners of war [ex-POW].
This bill will amend title 38 of the United States Code, ensuring
access to outpatient medical services for any disability of a former
prisoner of war. Mr. President, these services are currently being
provided in accordance with a directive from the Secretary of the
Veterans Administration. This bill is necessary in order to secure, by
law, access to these services by our veterans who have suffered as
prisoners of war.
The law currently covers inpatient medical services for ex-POWs.
However, as medical care continues to convert into more outpatient
care, we need to ensure that those who are in need of care can obtain
it in the most cost-effective manner. In the long-term this should
ensure that we continue to provide care in the most cost effective
manner as more ailments are treated on an outpatient basis. In short,
we will be better able to control costs and provide better delivery of
care to those veterans who suffered at the hands of our enemies as
prisoners of war.
Mr. President, I would like to point out that bills similar to this
one have previously passed the Senate. However, they have never
completed the process leading to enactment. I hope that my colleagues
will see the merit in this legislation and support it so that we can
see it signed into law during this Congress.<bullet>
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 616. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide parity
between the United States and certain free-trade agreement countries
with respect to the exemption for personal and household effects
purchased abroad by returning residents, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.

border tariffs act

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to correct
an inequity that has developed along our border with Mexico with
respect to tariffs on goods crossing the border.
The United States currently permits duty-free entry of $400 of retail
goods for personal consumption each month. There is a 10-percent duty
on the next 1,000 dollars' worth of purchases brought into the United
States. Mexico, by contrast, limits the amount of goods that can be
imported for personal consumption to $50 per day. Goods above that
amount have a duty of approximately 33 percent.
Mr. President, this difference in policy obviously hampers trade
along our borders. It is yet another burden on our border businesses,
which are also currently struggling with the adverse effects of the
peso crisis on the ability of Mexican citizens to purchase goods in the
United States.
Before introducing this legislation in the 103d Congress, I had hoped
that this problem could be corrected administratively. I wrote to the
Secretary of
[[Page S4582]] State about this issue. With my fellow border Senators,
I also contacted the Commissioner of Customs in our country and
President Salinas in Mexico. All, ultimately, to no avail.
I still believe that there are two tracks we can take to persuade the
Government of Mexico to increase its duty-free limit, and I believe
that we should pursue both of them. The first is to get our Government
to negotiate with the Government of Mexico to equalize the duties. My
good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator DeConcini, who retired
at the end of the 103d Congress, inserted language in the fiscal year
1995 Commerce, State, Justice appropriations report that would direct
the U.S. Trade Representative to make doing so a priority. It is my
understanding that USTR officials have raised the issue in trade talks,
but that the issue has yet to be resolved. Until it is resolved, I
believe that we should pursue a second track, that of changing the
exemption provided for in our tariff laws to match that of Mexico's.
Together, these two actions can help ensure that retail businesses on
both sides of the border are on the same footing.
So, today, I rise to again offer legislation that would equalize the
amount of personal retail goods that can cross the border duty-free in
either direction. This legislation simply says that our duty will not
be lower than Mexico's.
______

By Mr. COATS (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 618. A bill to provide a low-income school choice demonstration
program; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

school choice demonstration act

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague from
Connecticut, to introduce the School Choice Demonstration Act. This
bill will establish 10 to 20 demonstration projects to study the
effects of providing low-income parents and their children with
financial assistance to enable them to select the public or private
school of their choice.
This is a very simple and straightforward bill--we want to enable
low-income parents to choose the school their children attend. They can
select a public or a private school, but the point is that they will be
able to make a choice. Up until now, only those families who can afford
to send their children to private schools have had that option. Senator
Lieberman and I believe that all families should have the opportunity
to choose where their children will be educated. For too long, we have
asked everyone to pay for a particular type of education without
ensuring that people have a say in what they receive for their money.
American education has reached a critical point. Time has taught us
that we cannot simply throw more and more money at the public schools,
and rely on that to improve education. As many of you know, annual per
pupil spending has tripled in the last 30 years, while student
achievement has dropped dramatically, evidenced by a decrease in
average SAT scores of almost 90 points. Clearly, more money is not the
solution.
We have to do something soon. In inner cities across America, almost
half of all high school students fail to graduate. This is a chilling
statistic. We should take it as a wake up call. Obviously, something is
seriously wrong with our educational system. This bill proposes an
option for some students who are not succeeding in the public education
system.
Our bill is simple. It says, let us allot a small amount of funds, so
that 10 to 20 demonstration grants can be awarded to local districts
around the country who are interested in offering increased educational
opportunities to their students. The funds granted by this bill will
provide assistance to children from the lowest-income homes. The
children eligible under this program are those children who qualify for
reduced or free school lunches. These funds will only go to low-income
families. And they are to be used to pay for education costs at public
or private schools. The parents choose which school their child will
attend.
We have incorporated a very strict civil rights and desegregation
protection clause to make sure that participating schools can in no way
discriminate on the basis of race. We also stipulate that demonstration
projects cannot continue if they interfere with these desegregation
plans.
The cost of this program will be $30 million and there will be no
more than 20 projects. School districts would voluntarily apply for the
grants through the secretary of education, and we have established some
criteria for the secretary to make the determination as to which
districts would be included.
This bill also requires that a nationwide evaluation of the
demonstration program be conducted. Up until now, discussion concerning
the actual effects of school choice policies has been limited by a lack
of conclusive data. This bill addresses that need for objective data.
An evaluation will give us a baseline
from which to conduct our discussion at the Federal level.

Many localities are already experimenting with some type of school
choice. My home State of Indiana, for example, has several existing
choice initiatives under way. One program, originated by Golden Rule
Insurance, helps low-income children in Indianapolis attend the private
school of their choice by awarding them scholarships to cover up to
half of the tuition costs. There are currently 1,100 students being
sponsored, and 650 kids are on the waiting list. Our public schools are
also experimenting with choice. Indianapolis public schools, for
example, has initiated the select schools program, by which parents can
choose which IPS school their child will attend. Eighty-six percent of
IPS parents participated in this program this year.
I have spoken with educators in a district in Indiana who have
already expressed an interest in the program. Some public school
educators have met with private and parochial school educators and
there is a real interest in testing the concept to see how it works, to
work out the bugs, and to see if it would actually make a difference.
None of you should have any reason to oppose this bill. It is not a
mandate. It is a purely voluntary program for those local education
associations who are interested in broadening the educational
opportunities offered in their community. This bill provides a basis by
which we in Congress can evaluate the validity of this particular
concept. If it results in substantially new opportunities for low-
income children, then shouldn't such data be offered to school
districts and education agencies across this country? Why would we not
want to have this information available so we can make intelligent
choices? After all, we are not here to protect a particular system. Our
bottom line is to provide the best education opportunities to American
children. For far too long, we have denied low-income families the
educational choice that many others have.
It is important to understand what this bill does not do. It does not
force choice on anyone. This bill presents a purely voluntary program.
It will not upset the American public education system. Ten to twenty
voluntary choice programs throughout the country will not upset public
education.
Furthermore, Federal resources will not be drained from any public
school or education system. The Secretary cannot reduce or deny funds
that a public school would otherwise be eligible for, even though
students in that school or school system opted out or numbers
decreased. This bill does not violate civil rights protections. It does
not destroy public education. In fact, I think it enhances public
education.
My home is Fort Wayne, IN. For decades our education system has
thrived on competition. We have a vigorous Catholic school education
system in Fort Wayne, IN. We have a Lutheran school system because of
our heavy concentration of people of Lutheran belief. They have
established their own system.
These two systems exist, along with other private education
opportunities, side by side with the public education system in Fort
Wayne and they are all thriving. They are thriving because the parents
and students of Fort Wayne have a choice. The competition between those
three systems has caused each system to better their education program
to compete with each other for the students, and they work hand in
hand. Parents in Fort Wayne have opportunities which parents in many
States and areas do not have.
This bill says that it is time for low-income families to have the
same
[[Page S4583]] choice concerning their child's school that those who
can afford to send their kids to private schools already have. Let's
try this limited demonstration project and see if it improves the
education of some of America's neediest children.
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. 618
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 ``Low-Income School Choice
Demonstration Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to determine the effects on
students and schools of providing financial assistance to
low-income parents to enable such parents to select the
public or private schools their children will attend.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act--
(1) the term ``choice school'' means any public or private
school, including a private sectarian school or a public
charter school, that is involved in a demonstration project
assisted under this Act;
(2) the term ``eligible child'' means a child in grades 1
through 12 who is eligible for free or reduced price lunches
under the National School Lunch Act;
(3) the term ``eligible entity'' means a public agency,
institution, or organization, such as a State, a State or
local educational agency, a consortium of public agencies, or
a consortium of public and private nonprofit organizations,
that can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary,
its ability to--
(A) receive, disburse, and account for Federal funds; and
(B) carry out the activities described in its application
under this Act;
(4) the term ``evaluating agency'' means any academic
institution, consortium of professionals, or private or
nonprofit organization, with demonstrated experience in
conducting evaluations, that is not an agency or
instrumentality of the Federal Government;
(5) the term ``local educational agency'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 14101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
(6) the term ``parent'' includes a legal guardian or other
individual acting in loco parentis;
(7) the term ``school'' means a school that provides
elementary education or secondary education (through grade
12), as determined under State law; and
(8) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Education.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for
fiscal year 1996, and such sums as may be necessary for each
of the fiscal years 1997 and 1998, to carry out this Act.

SEC. 5. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

(a) Reservation.--From the amount appropriated pursuant to
the authority of section 4 in any fiscal year, the Secretary
shall reserve and make available to the Comptroller General
of the United States 5 percent for evaluation of programs
assisted under this Act in accordance with section 11.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated pursuant to
the authority of section 4 and not reserved under subsection
(a) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall award grants to
eligible entities to enable such entities to carry out at
least 10, but not more than 20, demonstration projects under
which low-income parents receive education certificates for
the costs of enrolling their eligible children in a choice
school.
(2) Amount.--The Secretary shall award grants under
paragraph (1) for fiscal year 1996 so that--
(A) not more than 2 grants are awarded in amounts of
$5,000,000 or less; and
(B) grants not described in subparagraph (A) are awarded in
amounts of $3,000,000 or less.
(3) Continuing eligibility.--The Secretary shall continue a
demonstration project under this Act by awarding a grant
under paragraph (1) to an eligible entity that received such
a grant for a fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which
the determination is made, if the Secretary determines that
such eligible entity was in compliance with this Act for such
preceding fiscal year.
(c) Use of Grants.--Grants awarded under subsection (b)
shall be used to pay the costs of--
(1) providing education certificates to low-income parents
to enable such parents to pay the tuition, the fees, the
allowable costs of transportation, if any, and the costs of
complying with section 9(a)(1), if any, for their eligible
children to attend a choice school; and
(2) administration of the demonstration project, which
shall not exceed 15 percent of the amount received in the
first fiscal year for which the eligible entity provides
education certificates under this Act or 10 percent in any
subsequent year, including--
(A) seeking the involvement of choice schools in the
demonstration project;
(B) providing information about the demonstration project,
and the schools involved in the demonstration project, to
parents of eligible children;
(C) making determinations of eligibility for participation
in the demonstration project for eligible children;
(D) selecting students to participate in the demonstration
project;
(E) determining the amount of, and issuing, education
certificates;
(F) compiling and maintaining such financial and
programmatic records as the Secretary may prescribe; and
(G) collecting such information about the effects of the
demonstration project as the evaluating agency may need to
conduct the evaluation described in section 11.
(d) Special Rule.--Any school participating in the
demonstration program under this Act shall comply with title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not discriminate on
the basis of race, color, or national origin.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZED PROJECTS; PRIORITY.

(a) Authorized Projects.--The Secretary may award a grant
under this Act only for a demonstration project that--
(1) involves at least one local educational agency that--
(A) receives funds under section 1124A of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
(B) is among the 20 percent of local educational agencies
receiving funds under section 1124A of such Act in the State
and having the highest number of children described in
section 1124(c) of such Act; and
(2) includes the involvement of a sufficient number of
public and private choice schools, in the judgment of the
Secretary, to allow for a valid demonstration project.
(b) Priority.--In awarding grants under this Act, the
Secretary shall give priority to demonstration projects--
(1) in which choice schools offer an enrollment opportunity
to the broadest range of eligible children;
(2) that involve diverse types of choice schools; and
(3) that will contribute to the geographic diversity of
demonstration projects assisted under this Act, including
awarding grants for demonstration projects in States that are
primarily rural and awarding grants for demonstration
projects in States that are primarily urban.

SEC. 7. APPLICATIONS.

(a) In General.--Any eligible entity that wishes to receive
a grant under this Act shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may prescribe.
(b) Contents.--Each application described in subsection (a)
shall contain--
(1) information demonstrating the eligibility for
participation in the demonstration program of the eligible
entity;
(2) with respect to choice schools--
(A) a description of the standards used by the eligible
entity to determine which public and private schools are
within a reasonable commuting distance of eligible children
and present a reasonable commuting cost for such eligible
children;
(B) a description of the types of potential choice schools
that will be involved in the demonstration project;
(C)(i) a description of the procedures used to encourage
public and private schools to be involved in the
demonstration project; and
(ii) a description of how the eligible entity will annually
determine the number of spaces available for eligible
children in each choice school;
(D) an assurance that each choice school will not impose
higher standards for admission or participation in its
programs and activities for eligible children provided
education certificates under this Act than the choice school
does for other children;
(E) an assurance that each choice school operated, for at
least 1 year prior to accepting education certificates under
this Act, an educational program similar to the educational
program for which such choice school will accept such
education certificates;
(F) an assurance that the eligible entity will terminate
the involvement of any choice school that fails to comply
with the conditions of its involvement in the demonstration
project; and
(G) a description of the extent to which choice schools
will accept education certificates under this Act as full or
partial payment for tuition and fees;
(3) with respect to the participation in the demonstration
project of eligible children--
(A) a description of the procedures to be used to make a
determination of eligibility for participation in the
demonstration project for an eligible child, which shall
include--
(i) the procedures used to determine eligibility for free
or reduced price lunches under the National School Lunch Act;
or
(ii) any other procedure, subject to the Secretary's
approval, that accurately establishes the eligibility for
such participation for an eligible child;
(B) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure
that, in selecting eligible children to participate in the
demonstration project, the eligible entity will--
(i) apply the same criteria to both public and private
school eligible children; and
(ii) give priority to eligible children from the lowest
income families;
(C) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure
maximum choice of schools for participating eligible
children, including procedures to be used when--
[[Page S4584]] (i) the number of parents provided education
certificates under this Act who desire to enroll their
eligible children in a particular choice school exceeds the
number of eligible children that the choice school will
accept; and
(ii) grant funds and funds from local sources are
insufficient to support the total cost of choices made by
parents with education certificates under this Act; and
(D) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure
compliance with section 9(a)(1), which may include--
(i) the direct provision of services by a local educational
agency; and
(ii) arrangements made by a local educational agency with
other service providers;
(4) with respect to the operation of the demonstration
project--
(A) a description of the geographic area to be served;
(B) a timetable for carrying out the demonstration project;
(C) a description of the procedures to be used for the
issuance and redemption of education certificates under this
Act;
(D) a description of the procedures by which a choice
school will make a pro rata refund of the education
certificate under this Act for any participating eligible
child who withdraws from the school for any reason, before
completing 75 percent of the school attendance period for
which the education certificate was issued;
(E) a description of the procedures to be used to provide
the parental notification described in section 10;
(F) an assurance that the eligible entity will place all
funds received under this Act into a separate account, and
that no other funds will be placed in such account;
(G) an assurance that the eligible entity will provide the
Secretary periodic reports on the status of such funds;
(H) an assurance that the eligible entity will cooperate
with the Comptroller General of the United States and the
evaluating agency in carrying out the evaluations described
in section 11; and
(I) an assurance that the eligible entity will--
(i) maintain such records as the Secretary may require; and
(ii) comply with reasonable requests from the Secretary for
information; and
(5) such other assurances and information as the Secretary
may require.

SEC. 8. EDUCATION CERTIFICATES.

(a) Education Certificates.--
(1) Amount.--The amount of an eligible child's education
certificate under this Act shall be determined by the
eligible entity, but shall be an amount that provides to the
recipient of the education certificate the maximum degree of
choice in selecting the choice school the eligible child will
attend.
(2) Considerations.--
(A) In general.--Subject to such regulations as the
Secretary shall prescribe, in determining the amount of an
education certificate under this Act an eligible entity shall
consider--
(i) the additional reasonable costs of transportation
directly attributable to the eligible child's participation
in the demonstration project; and
(ii) the cost of complying with section 9(a)(1).
(B) Schools charging tuition.--If an eligible child
participating in a demonstration project under this Act was
attending a public or private school that charged tuition for
the year preceding the first year of such participation, then
in determining the amount of an education certificate for
such eligible child under this Act the eligible entity shall
consider--
(i) the tuition charged by such school for such eligible
child in such preceding year; and
(ii) the amount of the education certificates under this
Act that are provided to other eligible children.
(3) Special rule.--An eligible entity may provide an
education certificate under this Act to the parent of an
eligible child who chooses to attend a school that does not
charge tuition or fees, to pay the additional reasonable
costs of transportation directly attributable to the eligible
child's participation in the demonstration project or the
cost of complying with section 9(a)(1).
(b) Adjustment.--The amount of the education certificate
for a fiscal year may be adjusted in the second and third
years of an eligible child's participation in a demonstration
project under this Act to reflect any increase or decrease in
the tuition, fees, or transportation costs directly
attributable to that eligible child's continued attendance at
a choice school, but shall not be increased for this purpose
by more than 10 percent of the amount of the education
certificate for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for
which the determination is made. The amount of the education
certificate may also be adjusted in any fiscal year to comply
with section 9(a)(1).
(c) Maximum Amount.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the amount of an eligible child's education
certificate shall not exceed the per pupil expenditure for
elementary or secondary education, as appropriate, by the
local educational agency in which the public school to which
the eligible child would normally be assigned is located for
the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the
determination is made.
(d) Income.--An education certificate under this Act, and
funds provided under the education certificate, shall not be
treated as income of the parents for purposes of Federal tax
laws or for determining eligibility for any other Federal
program.

SEC. 9. EFFECT ON OTHER PROGRAMS; USE OF SCHOOL LUNCH DATA.

(a) Effect on Other Programs.--
(1) In general.--An eligible child participating in a
demonstration project under this Act, who, in the absence of
such a demonstration project, would have received services
under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 shall be provided such services.
(2) Part b of the individuals with disabilities education
act.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the
requirements of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
(b) Counting of Eligible Children.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, any local educational agency
participating in a demonstration project under this Act may
count eligible children who, in the absence of such a
demonstration project, would attend the schools of such
agency, for purposes of receiving funds under any program
administered by the Secretary.
(c) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding section 9 of the
National School Lunch Act, an eligible entity receiving a
grant under this Act may use information collected for the
purpose of determining eligibility for free or reduced price
lunches to determine an eligible child's eligibility to
participate in a demonstration project under this Act and, if
needed, to rank families by income, in accordance with
section 7(b)(3)(B)(ii). All such information shall otherwise
remain confidential, and information pertaining to income may
be disclosed only to persons who need that information for
the purposes of a demonstration project under this Act.
(d) Construction.--
(1) Sectarian institutions.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to supersede or modify any provision of a State
constitution or State law that prohibits the expenditure of
public funds in or by sectarian institutions, except that no
provision of a State constitution or State law shall be
construed to prohibit the expenditure in or by sectarian
institutions of any Federal funds provided under this Act.
(2) Desegregation plans.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to interfere with any desegregation plans that
involve school attendance areas affected by this Act.

SEC. 10. PARENTAL NOTIFICATION.

Each eligible entity receiving a grant under this Act shall
provide timely notice of the demonstration project to parents
of eligible children residing in the area to be served by the
demonstration project. At a minimum, such notice shall--
(1) describe the demonstration project;
(2) describe the eligibility requirements for participation
in the demonstration project;
(3) describe the information needed to make a determination
of eligibility for participation in the demonstration project
for an eligible child;
(4) describe the selection procedures to be used if the
number of eligible children seeking to participate in the
demonstration project exceeds the number that can be
accommodated in the demonstration project;
(5) provide information about each choice school, including
information about any admission requirements or criteria for
each choice school participating in the demonstration
project; and
(6) include the schedule for parents to apply for their
eligible children to participate in the demonstration
project.

SEC. 11. EVALUATION.

(a) Annual Evaluation.--
(1) Contract.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall enter into a contract, with an evaluating agency that
has demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations, for
the conduct of an ongoing rigorous evaluation of the
demonstration program under this Act.
(2) Annual evaluation requirement.--The contract described
in paragraph (1) shall require the evaluating agency entering
into such contract to annually evaluate each demonstration
project under this Act in accordance with the evaluation
criteria described in subsection (b).
(3) Transmission.--The contract described in paragraph (1)
shall require the evaluating agency entering into such
contract to transmit to the Comptroller General of the United
States--
(A) the findings of each annual evaluation under paragraph
(1); and
(B) a copy of each report received pursuant to section
12(a) for the applicable year.
(b) Evaluation Criteria.--The Comptroller General of the
United States, in consultation with the Secretary, shall
establish minimum criteria for evaluating the demonstration
program under this Act. Such criteria shall provide for--
(A) a description of the implementation of each
demonstration project under this Act and the demonstration
project's effects on all participants, schools, and
communities in the demonstration project area, with
particular attention given to the effect of parent
participation in the life of the school and the level of
parental satisfaction with the demonstration program; and
(B) a comparison of the educational achievement of all
students in the demonstration project area, including a
comparison of--
(i) students receiving education certificates under this
Act; and
[[Page S4585]] (ii) students not receiving education
certificates under this Act.

SEC. 12. REPORTS.

(a) Report by Grant Recipient.--Each eligible entity
receiving a grant under this Act shall submit to the
evaluating agency entering into the contract under section
11(a)(1) an annual report regarding the demonstration project
under this Act. Each such report shall be submitted at such
time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information, as
such evaluating agency may require.
(b) Reports by Comptroller General.--
(1) Annual reports.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall report annually to the Congress on the findings
of the annual evaluation under section 11(a)(2) of each
demonstration project under this Act. Each such report shall
contain a copy of--
(A) the annual evaluation under section 11(a)(2) of each
demonstration project under this Act; and
(B) each report received under subsection (a) for the
applicable year.
(2) Final report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a
final report to the Congress within 9 months after the
conclusion of the demonstration program under this Act that
summarizes the findings of the annual evaluations conducted
pursuant to section 11(a)(2).

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Coats
today to introduce the Low-Income School Choice Demonstration Act. I
know Senator Coats shares my deep commitment to improving education.
All of our children deserve and need the best possible academic
instruction. Increasing school choice will help give more children the
opportunity they deserve.
Our bill authorizes up to 20 demonstration projects to determine the
effects on students and schools of providing education vouchers to low-
income parents for their children. Parents would use the vouchers to
choose the public or private school their child would attend. The
demonstration programs will give participating children new
opportunities, and will provide those participating children new
opportunities, and will provide those of us seeking to strengthen
education with a fair evaluation of private school choice programs.
Education in America is in need of change. We are failing too many of
our children. The performance of our kids lags behind that of children
living in those countries we compete with in the global marketplace.
While we have many fine schools, we have too many that do not give our
children what they need to succeed.
I have visited many excellent public schools in Connecticut, and have
met countless dedicated and effective teachers and administrators. I
command them for their work and am committed to supporting their
efforts. At the same time, it is clear that the public schools are not
working for all students, particularly in our poorest communities. We
have a responsibility to seek more effective ways to address the needs
of these children.
School choice programs expand opportunity for low-income children.
They provide low-income children with the same options other kids have.
For some that may mean another public school, for others a private or
parochial school.
Private school choice opens doors for children in our poorest
neighborhoods, where religious schools--particularly Catholic schools--
often have had better results than public schools. I have long believed
what some research has shown--that the success of parochial schools is
in part due to their students' and teachers' shared beliefs and strong
moral values. Lower-income parents who want their kids to learn in a
religious environment should have that chance, just as wealthier
parents do.
Some fear that school choice programs will hurt our public schools,
but I think choice will help revitalize public education. A national
panel of experts, the Panel on the Economics of Educational Reform,
recently concluded that public schools have few incentives for
innovation. Good, effective teachers are often not
rewarded by greater pay. Programs are rarely evaluated systematically
to see if they are working.

Choice programs and charter school programs hold schools accountable
for results. Voucher programs let parents and students reward good
schools--public or private schools--with their business. That increased
competition may help those students who stay put as well as those who
choose to attend a new school.
As a U.S. Senator I have worked to promote public and private school
choice. Last year Congress passed legislation, which I had co-authored,
to promote the establishment of charter schools--public schools that
are freed from burdensome regulatory requirements and are instead held
accountable for improving the performance of their students. I am
pleased that Congress made a commitment to public school choice, and
will work to ensure the new program the rapidly growing interest in
charter schools.
This year Senator Coats and I are introducing legislation that
establishes demonstration programs that provide parents with the
ability to choose private or public schools, including public charter
schools and private parochial schools. The demonstrations will allow
low-income children to attend the public or private school of their
choice. The bill will also fund evaluations so that we can learn more
about how voucher programs affect public and private schools, and how
they affect our children's ability to learn.
Improving public education is and must be our country's top priority.
What we are trying to do is find new ways to accomplish that goal.
School choice programs should be tested. They create competition for
failing bureaucracies and failing schools. They reward public and
private schools that work. And, most important, they give our poorest
students the chance for a better education and a better life.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Coats for his leadership on this bill,
and I look forward to continuing to work with him to ensure our
children have the education and opportunity they deserve.
______

By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Faircloth, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Simon, Mr. Mack, Mr. Bond, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Warner and Mr. Reid):
S. 619. A bill to phase out the use of mercury in batteries and
provide for the efficient and cost-effective collection and recycling
or proper disposal of used nickel cadmium batteries, small sealed lead-
acid batteries, and certain other batteries, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

____________________