[Pages S11131-S11136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 1605. A bill to establish a program of formula grants to the
States for programs to provide pregnant women with alternatives to
abortion, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN'S RESOURCES ACT

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that offers compassionate choices for women facing unplanned
pregnancies. This bill, the Women and Children's Resources Act,
establishes an $85 million formula grant program to provide pregnant
women with alternatives to abortion.
The Women and Children's Resources Act (WCRA) is modeled after a
successful program in Pennsylvania, Project Women In Need (WIN). This
program was created under the Administration of former Governor Robert
Casey and implemented during the current Administration of Governor Tom
Ridge. Project WIN has filled a critical void for women seeking support
during this confusing and uncertain time. The centers often receive 500
calls per week.
This legislation is designed to meet the needs of women facing one of
the most important decisions of their lives. WCRA is intended to link
women to a network of supportive organizations who are ready and
willing to offer assistance in the form of pregnancy testing, adoption
information, prenatal and postpartum health care, maternity and baby
clothing, food, diapers and information on childbirth and parenting.
Women can also receive referrals for housing, education, and vocational
training. This bill seeks to provide compassionate choices to women; it
is an effort to reach out to women and let them know they do not have
to face this decision alone.
The bill directs federal funding to states through a formula based on
the number of out-of-wedlock births and abortions in a state as
compared to this sum for the nation. Upon receipt of this grant, states
will select their prime contractors from the private sector to
administer the program. The prime contractor will distribute Women and
Children's Resources Grants to crisis pregnancy centers, maternity
homes, and adoption services on a fee-for-service basis. Faith-based
providers may also participate in the program, but they may not
proselytize. Further, state-wide toll-free referral systems and other
methods of advertisement will be established to make these services
readily available to pregnant women and their children. Low-income
women will be given priority for these services.
Because WCRA seeks to offer alternatives to abortion, contractors and
subcontractors which receive funding under this bill cannot promote,
refer, or counsel for abortion. Further, these entities must be
physically and financially separate from any entity which promotes,
refers, or counsels for abortion.
Mr. President, not every woman facing an unplanned pregnancy knows
that supportive services exist. Many believe that the future they had
planned is no longer achievable. They feel alone and abandoned. Often,
they mistakenly believe that abortion is their only real choice. For
this reason, WCRA offers compassionate, life-affirming choices and
support. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation
appear in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1605

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 ``Women and Children's
Resources Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Women confronted with unplanned or crisis pregnancy
often are left with the impression that abortion is the only
choice that they have in dealing with their difficult
circumstances.
(2) Women often lack accurate information, supportive
counseling and other assistance regarding adoption and
parenting alternatives to abortion.
(3) Organizations that provide accurate information,
supportive counseling and other assistance regarding adoption
and parenting alternatives to abortion often lack sufficient
resources to reach women in need of their services and to
provide for their needs.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is--
(1) to promote childbirth as a viable and positive
alternative to abortion and to empower those facing unplanned
or crisis pregnancies to choose childbirth rather than
abortion;
(2) to carry out paragraph (1) by supporting entities and
projects that provide information, counseling, and support
services that assist women to choose childbirth and to make
informed decisions regarding the choice of adoption or
parenting with respect to their children; and
(3) to maximize the effectiveness of this Act by providing
funds only to those entities and projects that have a stated
policy of actively promoting childbirth instead of abortion
and that have experience in providing alternative-to-abortion
services.

SEC. 3. FORMULA GRANTS TO STATES FOR ALTERNATIVE-TO-ABORTION
SERVICES PROGRAMS.

In the case of each State that in accordance with section 6
submits to the Secretary of Health and Human Services an
application for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make a
grant to the State for the year for carrying out the purposes
authorized in section 4(a) (subject to amounts being
appropriated under section 11 for the year). The grant shall
consist of the allotment determined for the State under
section 7.

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF STATE PROGRAMS TO
PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE-TO-ABORTION SERVICES;
ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAMS THROUGH CONTRACTS
WITH ENTITIES.

(a) In General.--Grant funds provided under this Act may be
expended only for purposes of the establishment and operation
of a State program (carried out pursuant to contracts under
subsection (c)) designed to provide alternative-to-abortion
services (as defined in section 9) to eligible individuals as
described in subsection (b).
(b) Eligible Individuals.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an individual is
an eligible individual for purposes of subsection (a) if--
(A) the individual is pregnant (or has reasonable grounds
to believe she may be pregnant);
(B) the individual (male or female) is the parent or legal
guardian of an infant under 12 months of age; or
(C) the individual is the spouse or other partner of an
individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) Priority for low-income individuals.--Grant funds
provided under this Act shall be awarded only to States that
submit a grant application that assures that the State
program--
(A) will give priority to serving eligible individuals who
are from low-income families; and
(B) will not impose a charge on any eligible individual
from a low-income family except to the extent that payment
will be made by a third party (including a government agency)
that is authorized or is under legal obligation to pay such
charge.
(c) Administration of Programs Through Contracts With
Experienced Entities and

[[Page S11132]]

Service Providers.--Grant funds provided under this Act shall
be awarded only to States that submit a grant application
that assures that the State program will be established and
operated in accordance with the following:
(1) Establishment and operation of program.--
(A) Prime contractor.--The State shall enter into a
contract with a nonprofit private entity that, under the
contract, shall be designated as the ``prime contractor'' and
shall have the principal responsibility for administering the
State program, including subcontracting with service
providers.
(B) Subcontracts with service providers.--The prime
contractor shall enter into subcontracts with service
providers for reimbursement of alternative-to-abortion
services provided to eligible individuals on a fee-for-
service basis, as provided in paragraph (2)(C)(ii).
(C) Expenditures of grant.--The prime contractor shall be
authorized to expend funds to administer the State program,
reimburse service providers, and to provide additional
supportive services to assist such providers in providing
alternative-to-abortion services to eligible individuals
consistent with the purposes of this Act, including providing
for a toll-free referral system, advertising of alternative-
to-abortion services, purchase of educational materials, and
grants for new sites and new project development.
(D) Requirement for prime contractors.--An entity may not
become a prime contractor unless, consistent with the overall
purpose of this Act, it has a stated policy of actively
promoting childbirth instead of abortion.
(E) Additional requirements for prime contractors.--An
entity may not become a prime contractor unless--
(i) for the 5-year period preceding the date on which the
entity applies to receive the contract, it has been engaged
primarily in the provision of core services or it has
operated a project that provides such services;
(ii) it already serves as a prime contractor pursuant to a
State appropriation designed to fund alternative-to-abortion
services; or
(iii) it is a subsidiary of an entity that meets the
criteria under clause (i) or (ii).
(F) Requirements for subcontractors.--An entity may not
become a service provider unless--
(i) it operates a service provider project that has a
stated policy of actively promoting childbirth instead of
abortion;
(ii) its project has been providing alternative-to-abortion
services to clients for at least 1 year; and
(iii) its project is physically and financially separate
from any entity that advocates, performs, counsels for or
refers for abortion.
(G) Restriction.--No prime contractor or service provider
project may perform abortion, counsel for or refer for
abortion, or advocate abortion.
(2) Expenditures under the program.--
(A) Expenditures for start-up costs.--For the first full
fiscal year in which a State program has received grant funds
pursuant to this Act, the State shall disburse grant funds to
the prime contractor for start-up costs, in an amount not to
exceed 10 percent of the total amount of the grant made to
the State for that fiscal year.
(B) Expenditures for administrative costs.--For the first
full fiscal year in which a State program has received grant
funds pursuant to this Act and for the 2 subsequent fiscal
years, the State shall disburse grant funds to the prime
contractor for administrative costs, in an amount not to
exceed 20 percent of the total amount of the grant made to
the State for those fiscal years. For all other fiscal years,
the State shall disburse grant funds for administrative
costs, in an amount not to exceed 15 percent of the total
amount of the grant made to the State for the fiscal year.
(C) Expenditures for service costs.--
(i) Disbursement to prime contractor for service costs.--
For each fiscal year, the State shall disburse to the prime
contractor for service costs all remaining grant funds not
expended on permissible administrative or start-up costs.
(ii) Service provider reimbursement rates.--The prime
contractor shall reimburse service providers for alternative-
to-abortion services provided to eligible individuals at the
following fee-for-service rates:

(I) $10 for every 10 minutes of counseling for eligible
individuals.
(II) $10 for every 10 minutes of referral time spent.
(III) $20 per individual per hour of class instruction
provided.
(IV) $10 for each self-administered pregnancy test kit
provided.
(V) $10 for every pantry visit.

For fiscal year 2001 and subsequent fiscal years, each of the
dollar amounts specified in this clause shall be adjusted to
offset the effects of inflation occurring after the beginning
of fiscal year 2000.
(d) Additional Restrictions Regarding Expenditure of Grant
Funds.--A State applying for a grant under this Act shall
provide assurances, in its grant application, as follows:
(1) No grant funds will be expended for any of the
following:
(A) Performing abortion, counseling for or referring for
abortion, or advocating abortion.
(B) Providing, referring for, or advocating the use of
contraceptive services, drugs, or devices.
(2) No grant funds will be expended to make payment for a
service that is provided to an eligible individual if payment
for such service has already been made, or can reasonably be
expected to be made--
(A) under any State compensation program, under an
insurance policy, or under any Federal or State health
benefits program; or
(B) by an entity that provides health services on a prepaid
basis.
(3) No grant funds will be expended--
(A) to provide inpatient hospital services;
(B) to make cash payments to intended recipients of
services;
(C) to purchase or improve land, purchase, construct, or
permanently improve (other than minor remodeling) any
building or other facility; or
(D) to satisfy any requirement that non-Federal funds be
expended as a precondition of the receipt of Federal funds.

SEC. 5. SERVICES PROVIDED BY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to allow
States to contract with religious organizations pursuant to
section 4(c) on the same basis as any other nongovernmental
provider without impairing the religious character of such
organizations, and without diminishing the religious freedom
of eligible individuals served under the State program.
(b) Nondiscrimination Against Religious Organizations.--
Religious organizations are eligible, on the same basis as
any other nongovernmental organization, as contractors to
provide services under a State program described in section
4(c) so long as the program is implemented consistent with
the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.
Neither the Federal Government nor a State receiving a grant
under this Act shall discriminate against an organization
which is or applies to be a contractor under section 4(c) on
the basis that the organization has a religious character.
(c) Religious Character and Freedom.--
(1) Religious organizations.--A religious organization
receiving a contract under section 4(c) shall retain its
independence from Federal, State, and local governments,
including such organization's control over the definition,
development, practice, and expression of its religious
beliefs.
(2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal Government
nor a State receiving a grant under section 2 shall require a
religious organization to--
(A) alter its form of internal governance; or
(B) remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other
symbols;
in order to be eligible for a contract under section 4(c).
(d) Employment Practices.--
(1) Tenets and teachings.--A religious organization that
provides services under a program described in section 4(c)
may require that its employees providing assistance under
such program adhere to the religious tenets and teachings of
such organization, and such organization may require that
those employees adhere to rules forbidding the use of drugs
or alcohol.
(2) Title vii exemption.--A religious organization's
exemption provided under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1, 2000e-2(e)(2)) regarding
employment practices shall not be affected by the receipt of
a contract under section 4(c).
(e) Rights of Beneficiaries of Assistance.--
(1) In general.--If an eligible individual has an objection
to the religious character of the organization from which the
individual receives, or would receive, alternative-to-
abortion services, the State shall provide such individual
within a reasonable period of time after the date of such
objection with the names and addresses of alternative service
providers that offer a range of services similar to those
offered by the original service provider.
(2) Notice.--A State receiving a grant under this Act shall
ensure that notice is provided to individuals described in
paragraph (1) of the rights of such individuals under this
section.
(f) Nondiscrimination Against Beneficiaries.--A religious
organization shall not discriminate against an eligible
individual in regard to providing alternative-to-abortion
services on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or
refusal to actively participate in a religious practice.
(g) Fiscal Accountability.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
religious organization receiving a contract under section
4(c) shall be subject to the same regulations as other
contractors to account in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles for the use of such funds under this
Act.
(2) Limited audit.--If such organization segregates funds
received under this Act into separate accounts, then only
such funds shall be subject to audit by the government.
(h) Compliance.--Any party which seeks to enforce its
rights under this section may assert a civil action for
injunctive relief exclusively in an appropriate State court
against the entity or agency that allegedly commits such
violation.
(i) Limitations on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes.--No
grant funds obtained pursuant to this Act shall be expended
for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.
(j) Preemption.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to preempt any provision of a State constitution or State
statute that

[[Page S11133]]

prohibits or restricts the expenditure of State funds in or
by religious organizations.
(k) Treatment of Service Providers.--This section applies
to awards under section 4(c) made by prime contractors to
service providers to the same extent and in the same manner
as this section applies to awards under such section by
States to prime contractors.

SEC. 6. STATE APPLICATION FOR GRANT.

An application for a grant under this Act is in accordance
with this section if--
(1) the State submits the application not later than the
date specified by the Secretary;
(2) the application demonstrates that the State program for
which grant funds are sought will be established and operated
in compliance with all of the requirements of this Act; and
(3) the application is in such form, is made in such
manner, and contains such agreements, assurances, and
information as the Secretary determines are necessary to
carry out this Act.

SEC. 7. DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF STATE ALLOTMENT.

(a) In General.--The allotment of funds to be granted to
each State for a fiscal year is to be the State-calculated
percentage of the total amount available under section 11 for
the fiscal year.
(b) State-Calculated Percentage.--The State-calculated
percentage shall be determined by dividing--
(1) the number of children born in the State to women who
were not married at the time of the birth plus the number of
abortions performed in the State; by
(2) the number of children born in all States to women who
were not married at the time of the birth plus the number of
abortions performed in all States as last reported by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(c) Unallotted Funds for First Three Fiscal Years.--For the
first 3 fiscal years for which funds are appropriated under
section 11, if excess funds are available due to the failure
of any State to apply for grant funds under this Act, such
excess funds shall be allotted to participating States in an
amount equal to a percentage of the excess funds determined
by dividing--
(1) the number of children born in the participating State
to women who were not married at the time of the birth plus
the number of abortions performed in the participating State;
by
(2) the number of children born in all participating States
to women who were not married at the time of the birth plus
the number of abortions performed in all participating States
as last reported by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
(d) Unallotted Funds for Subsequent Fiscal Years.--For
years subsequent to the first 3 fiscal years for which funds
are appropriated under section 11, if excess funds are
available due to the failure of any State to apply for grant
funds under this Act, such excess funds shall be allotted to
participating States in an amount equal to a percentage of
the total excess funds determined by dividing--
(1) the amount of service costs expended by an individual
participating State under this Act during the previous
calendar year; by
(2) the total amount of service costs expended by all
participating States under this Act during the previous
calendar year.

SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

The Secretary shall submit to the Congress periodic reports
on the State programs carried out pursuant to this Act. The
first report shall be submitted not later than February 1,
2001, and subsequent reports shall be submitted biennially
thereafter.

SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administrative costs.--The term ``administrative
costs'' means expenditures for costs associated with the
administration of the State program by the prime contractor,
including salaries of administrative office staff, taxes,
employee benefits, job placement costs, postage and shipping
costs, travel and lodging for administrative staff, office
rent, telephone and fax costs, insurance and office supplies,
professional development for administrative staff and ongoing
legal, accounting, and computer consulting for the program.
Such term does not include expenditures for start-up costs or
service costs.
(2) Alternative-to-abortion services.--The term
``alternative-to-abortion services'' means core services and
support services as defined in this section.
(3) Core services.--The term ``core services'' means the
provision of information and counseling that promotes
childbirth instead of abortion and assists pregnant women in
making an informed decision regarding the alternatives of
adoption or parenting with respect to their child.
(4) Low-income family.--The term ``low-income family'' has
the meaning given such term under section 1006(c) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300a-4(c)).
(5) Support services.--The term ``support services'' means
additional services and assistance designed to assist
eligible individuals to carry their child to term and to
support eligible individuals in their parenting or adoption
decision. These support services include the provision of--
(A) self-administered pregnancy testing;
(B) baby food, maternity and baby clothing, and baby
furniture;
(C) information and education, including classes, regarding
prenatal care, childbirth, adoption, parenting, chastity (or
abstinence); and
(D) referrals for services consistent with the purposes of
this Act.
(6) Pantry visit.--The term ``pantry visit'' means a visit
by an eligible individual to a service provider during which
baby food, maternity or baby clothing, or baby furniture are
made available to the individual free of charge.
(7) Referral time.--The term ``referral time'' means the
time taken to research and set up an appointment on behalf of
an eligible individual to secure support through a referral.
(8) Referrals.--The term ``referrals'' means action taken
on behalf of an eligible individual to secure additional
support from a social service agency or other entity.
Referral may be for services, items and assistance regarding
physical and mental health (prenatal, postnatal, and
postpartum), food, clothing, housing, education, vocational
training, and for other services designed to assist pregnant
women and infants in need.
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(10) Service costs.--The term ``service costs'' means
expenditures for costs incurred by the prime contractor to
provide support for service provider projects, including
salaries for technical support staff, taxes, employee
benefits, job placement costs, professional development and
ongoing training, educational and informational material for
eligible individuals and counselors, advertising costs,
operation of a toll-free referral system, travel for
technical support staff, billing and database computer
consulting, seminars for counseling training, meetings
regarding program compliance requirements, minor equipment
purchases for service provider projects, new project
development, and service provider reimbursements for
alternative-to-abortion services.
(11) Service provider.--The term ``service provider'' means
a nongovernmental entity that operates a service provider
project and which enters into a subcontract with the prime
contractor that provides for the reimbursement for
alternative-to-abortion services provided to eligible
individuals.
(12) Service provider project.--The term ``service provider
project'' means a project or program operated by a service
provider that provides alternative-to-abortion services. All
service provider projects must provide core services and may
also provide support services.
(13) Start-up costs.--The term ``start-up costs'' means
expenditures associated with the initial establishment of the
State program, including the cost of obtaining furniture,
computers and accessories, copy machines, consulting
services, telephones, and other office equipment and
supplies.
(14) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands.

SEC. 10. DATE CERTAIN FOR INITIAL GRANTS.

The Secretary shall begin making grants under this Act not
later than 180 days after the date on which amounts are first
appropriated under section 11, subject to the receipt of
State applications in accordance with section 6.

SEC. 11. FUNDING.

For the purpose of carrying out this Act, there is
authorized to be appropriated $85,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

SEC. 12. OFFSET.

It is the sense of the Senate that overall funding for the
Department of Health and Human Services should not be
increased under this Act.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 1608. A bill to provide annual payments to the States and counties
from National Forest System lands managed by the Forest Service, and
the revested Oregon and California Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay
Wagon Road grant lands managed predominately by the Bureau of Land
Management, for use by the counties in which the lands are situated for
the benefit of the public schools, roads, emergency and other public
purposes; to encourage and provide new mechanism for cooperation
between counties and the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management to make necessary investments in federal lands, and reaffirm
the positive connection between Federal Lands counties and Federal
Lands; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.

secure rural schools and community self-determination act

<bullet> Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is time for Congress to enact a
new program that combines secure funding for county services with a
fresh approach to the management of federal lands in rural communities.
Under our legislation counties will be connected to federal lands not
just through the cutting of timber but also through important

[[Page S11134]]

road maintenance projects, watershed improvements and programs that
promote tourism and recreation.
Since 1908, natural resource dependent communities have received
federal funds for schools, roads and basic services based on the level
of federal timber programs. The Forest Service cuts timber and the
counties receive revenue. This has long constituted the traditional
relationship between the counties and federal land management.
Now, as a result of changes in natural resource policies causing
declines in timber production, many of our rural communities are
finding it almost impossible to fund essential programs for school
children, infrastructure and other needs.
There is a crisis in rural, timber-dependent America that must be
addressed now. This crisis can be addressed now and in the future by
providing secure, consistent funding to counties, and by encouraging a
new cooperative relationship between these communities and federal land
managers.
Congress must promptly enact a new program that combines traditional
funding for county services with creative new policies that provide
real connections between rural communities and the federal lands they
cherish.
Senator Craig and I have been discussing how this might be
accomplished because we realize that no pending proposal addressing the
county payment issue has won the support of both the Congress and the
Clinton administration.
In an effort to break this gridlock, we have developed the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act bill.
Our proposal would work as follows:
Counties will receive a consistent payment amount each year totaling
75% of the average of the top three federal land revenue years for
their area between 1985 and the present, tied to the Consumer Price
Index for rural areas. That consistent payment amount will be a
combination of traditional 25% payments from the Forest Service and 50%
payments from the Bureau of Land Management plus money from the general
treasury where the traditional revenue stream does not rise to the
level of the necessary consistent payment amount.
Counties would receive an additional 25% of the average amount
described above from the general treasury to use for projects
recommended by local community advisory committees and approved by the
Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. These projects could
include watershed restoration, road maintenance, or timber harvest,
among other opportunities, as long as the project is in compliance with
all applicable forest plans and environmental laws.
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management would be required to
certify that a local consensus of environmental, industry, and other
stakeholders exists, as well as approve the proposed project as
environmentally sound. If consensus proposals cannot be developed in a
particular county, then the money would be made available to counties
that have developed such proposals. It bears repeating that all
projects would have to comply with all environmental laws and
regulations, as well as all applicable forest plans.
We believe that this bill has the potential to break the impasse on
the county payment issue on Capitol Hill. But even more important, it
represents an opportunity to forge a new charter for federal/county
government cooperation, to encourage local citizens to seek consensus-
based solution for resource conflicts, and to make critical investments
in the stewardship of our federal lands.
This proposal will not please the proponents favoring pure decoupling
of payments from timber harvest. It will also be opposed by those who
are prepared to hobble the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land
Management if they feel the timber harvest levels are not high enough.
Our objective is to break the gridlock on federal support of counties,
while bringing the nature of the relationship between the federal land
managers and public land dependent communities into the twenty-first
century. This bill provides a foundation to help rural counties through
their immediate crisis, and down a path that will make sense in the
next century.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from
Oregon, Senator Wyden and Senator Smith of Oregon to introduce the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 1999.
Perhaps as much as any other state, our counties have suffered as
federal forest lands have been beset with conflict, and as the receipts
promised to counties for educational purposes have decreased
dramatically. Senator Wyden's counties are also suffering, as are other
counties throughout the West and the country as a whole. Today, we wish
to propose a solution to this problem.
When the National Forests were withdrawn from the Public Domain at
the turn of the century, they were established with a basic commitment
to local governments. Gifford Pinchot and other visionary
conservationists of that day persuaded often-skeptical Federal and
local government officials that retention of lands by the Federal
Government, the creation of forest reserves, and the sustainable
management of these forests would be good for local people, good for
local governments, good for the country, and good for the environment.
Pinchot and his peers based these assurances on the proposition that
the proceeds from the sustainable management and sale of the fiber,
forage, and other resources from these reserved Federal lands would be
shared between the local and Federal Governments. Consequently,
cooperative management between local governments and Federal land
managers--both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management--
has been a hallmark of good intergovernmental cooperation in many of
our states, including Oregon and Idaho. In many cases, local
governments have incurred costs from increased police, search and
rescue, and fire protection associated with federally owned lands.
Our Federal forests have been crucial to the education of our
children. Receipts from the sale of Federal timber and other
commodities have been a vital component of county school and road
budgets. In many cases, these funds have supported school lunches,
special education, and a variety of assistance measures for
disadvantaged children. In a very real sense, the bounty of our forests
has allowed us to give a hand to our most needy rural children,
including Native Americans and Hispanics. So this should be the one
federal program through which concerns for the ``environment and
education'' can be fulfilled by the same thoughtful actions.
However, we live in a different time, and federal forest management
policies have become a source of considerable controversy. Timber sales
have been reduced. Revenues both to the Federal treasury and the
counties have decreased precipitously. Consequently, our rural school
systems are in crisis.
Unfortunately, rather than coming together to forge a solution to
these problems, the extremes on both sides of the equation are moving
further apart. And they are placing our school children in the center
of the controversy. One group seems to want to hold our school children
hostage--to use the diminishing receipts and the deteriorating school
systems as leverage to advantage their side of the forest management
debate, favoring increased timber harvests. The other extreme would
make our rural school children orphans--sending them out into the
wilderness with no secure financial support in order to expedite the
achievement of their goal of eliminating federal timber sales.
Senator Wyden and I reject both of these extremes. We reject the
notion that we cannot provide the school systems with additional
support, without increasing timber harvesting. At the same time, we
reject the proposition that we should completely ``decouple'' the
support for rural schools from any responsibility on the part of the
federal land management agencies, thereby totally separating local
concerns from federal land management.
Gifford Pinchot articulately outlined the responsibility that the
Federal Government generally, and the Forest Service and BLM
specifically, assumed when the Federal forests were withdrawn from
disposal or later retained in Federal ownership. In its simplest terms,
this is a responsibility to provide local governments with a source of

[[Page S11135]]

revenue that they are otherwise denied as a consequence of their
inability to tax federal lands. That responsibility is still as
relevant today as it was at the turn of the century or during the
Depression. It is still relevant today, irrespective of what options we
choose for how to manage our Federal forests.
Indeed, the most telling flaw in the proposal to decouple county
payments from timber receipts is the notion that this responsibility--
willing assumed by the Forest Service at the turn of the century and
BLM during the Depression--should be transformed into either the sole
responsibility of the federal taxpayer, or no one's responsibility as
it becomes another entitlement program which the Federal Government and
taxpayers feel free to eliminate or reduce as their needs dictate.
Our proposal starts by establishing a set payment amount with which
the counties can provide support for rural school systems. This set
payment is based upon an average of representative years of timber
receipts. In this respect, this proposal is similar to that offered by
the Clinton Administration, and to H.R. 2389 being considered in the
House.
But here is where the similarity stops. We would not establish a
separate appropriations line--which in all likelihood would be
underfunded like the existing Payment in Lieu of Taxes System. Nor
would we impose the responsibility to meet this payment on the Forest
Service's or the BLM's annual budget.
Instead, we provide the Forest Service and the BLM with the authority
to use any available receipts to meet these payments, and--only if
these receipts fall short--to make up the difference from unobligated
funds in the General Treasury. The intent here is to retain an
obligation on the part of the Forest Service and the BLM, but to
provide some flexibility in meeting this obligation.
Based upon our experience with the Quincy Library Group, the
Applegate Partnership, and elsewhere, we have come to conclude that the
best, recent decisions concerning federal resource management have
enjoyed significant, local input. That is why our proposal contains a
unique element--Senator Wyden's idea, actually--to foster both local
consensus and federal accountability around the management of federal
lands.
Only 75 percent of the money to be given to the counties is provided
for the traditional school and road programs. The remaining 25 percent
would be provided to the counties for federal land management
investments. The counties may fund either commercial or noncommercial
projects on the federal lands at the recommendation of local advisory
groups, and with the agreement of federal land managers. Projects must
comply with all environmental laws and regulations, and must be
consistent with the applicable land management plan. Any proceeds from
revenue generating projects will be split equally between the affected
county and the federal land management agency. The county share will go
to supporting schools and roads, while the federal share will go to
infrastructure maintenance or ecosystem restoration. Any funds left-
over because of a lack of local agreement will be reallocated to
counties where agreement on resource stewardship priorities has been
reached.
This proposal is as value-neutral concerning the resource debate as
we could make it. It neither encourages nor discourages a particular
resource management outcome. But it does have a very heavy prejudice
that Senator Wyden and I have become very passionate about. We are in
favor of people of goodwill reasoning together to improve the quality
of their lives and the quality of our environment. We cannot legislate
an end to conflict. But we can use the legislative process to create an
environment in which people are motivated to resolve their differences.
That is what we think this bill does.<bullet>
______

By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Bennett, Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Hagel);
S. 1609. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
revise the update factor used in making payments to PPS hospitals under
the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.

the american hospital preservation act of 1999

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with
my colleagues Senators Abraham, Bennett, Roberts, Burns, and Hagel, the
American Hospital Preservation Act of 1999.
Mr. President, the single biggest Medicare dollar issue facing
hospitals today is a recently enacted reduction in the annual inflation
adjustment for inpatient hospital payments. Prior to 1997, Medicare
provided an annual inflation adjustment for the PPS (prospective
payment system) payments it makes to hospitals, according to the
patient's diagnosis. The inflation update is calculated using the
projected increase in the hospital market basket indicator (MBI), which
is just a way to calculate the overall inflation rate for hospital
costs.
To achieve savings in the Medicare program, the 1997 balanced budget
agreement between Congress and the President included a tightening of
the MBI to ensure after-inflation savings in Medicare.
The bill I am introducing today will ease that tightening somewhat to
reflect the savings we've made beyond our original estimate.
Specifically, the bill will restore .5 percent of those scheduled
reductions in the MBI for FY '00 through '02.
This restoration will bring inpatient reimbursement rates closer in
line to actual health care inflation, which is necessary given the
significant reductions in government and private health insurance plans
that providers are increasingly experiencing. The bill will also serve
to help hospitals and other institutional providers to adjust to new
outpatient payment systems as well as greater than anticipated costs
stemming from Y2K compliance, prescription drugs, and blood supplies.
Y2K compliance alone is estimated to cost hospitals between $7 billion
and $8 billion. To make matters worse, the Health Care Finance
Administration (HCFA) has been making cuts in its payments to hospitals
and other Medicare providers that are even beyond the savings Congress
originally called for.
My bill will provide a temporary shot in the arm to hospitals already
hard hit by overall Medicare provider reimbursement cuts, and
particularly cuts in outpatient services. As hospitals learn to adjust
to the new reimbursement system for outpatient services, continuing to
receive inflation adjustments might just mean the difference between
disaster and survival.
This bill also reflects the recommendation made by the Medicare
Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) to provide the \1/2\ percent
restoration to the inpatient MBI.
This legislation is particularly justified considering that, far from
the $115 billion originally envisioned to be saved through FY '02, the
Medicare system is now projected to be in about $200 billion better
shape than anticipated. Savings in Medicare from hospitals alone are
estimated to be $20 billion more than first estimated.
Mr. President, rural hospitals, and all hospitals for that matter,
operate on very slim margins yet manage to bring cutting-edge medical
care to the communities they serve. But changes in Medicare payments to
hospitals have put many institutions in a bind. Others are fighting for
their lives.
Rural communities across Texas have felt the impact of hospital
closures for more than a decade now. When a rural hospital closes,
local residents lose access to routine, preventative care, not to
mention emergency services that can save life and limb. Doctors and
other highly trained professionals move away. Then people must drive a
hundred miles or more in some cases to get the care city dwellers take
for granted. Local economies suffer when jobs are lost. Existing
businesses may have to move, and new businesses won't locate in places
where health care is unavailable. Hospital closure can be a death-kneel
for struggling towns.

Other rescue efforts are moving forward to preserve the ability of
our nation's hospitals and other Medicare providers to provide adequate
health care to their patients. I am cosponsoring a number of bills that
have been introduced to strengthen hospitals' financial position. one
would limit hospitals' losses under the new outpatient reimbursement
system; another would

[[Page S11136]]

increase the reimbursements made to rural hospitals for seniors in
Medicare Choice-Plus (managed care) plans.
Finally, my successful effort to ensure that states' tobacco
settlement funds stay in our state and out of the clutches of the
federal government has meant that many hospitals across the country are
receiving a financial boost. As a result, hospitals across Texas and
health care systems across the country are in line to receive the
lion's share of $246 billion in state tobacco settlement payments over
the next 25 years and beyond.
America's hospitals aren't out of the woods yet, but first aid is on
the way.
Thank you, Mr. President, and I urge my colleagues to support and
pass the American Hospital Preservation Act of 1999.
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. 1609

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 ``American Hospital
Preservation Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF PPS HOSPITAL PAYMENT UPDATE.

(a) In General.--Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (XV), by striking ``1.8 percentage
points'' and inserting ``1.3 percentage points''; and
(2) in subclause (XVI), by striking ``1.1 percentage
points'' and inserting ``0.6 percentage point''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

____________________