Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. It is my assessment that title VIII does not change any of the provisions in the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that govern the declassification of records required under that Act, most notably but not limited to Nazi war crimes committed in the European theater of war, including Northern Africa. Therefore, title VIII refers only to activities exclusively of the Japanese Imperial Government and does not attempt to change any procedures relating to the declassification of all records under section 3(a)(1) and (2) of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator from California for her comments. She is correct. The Nazi War Criminal Records IWG has done an outstanding job. It only made sense, given the work the IWG already has done, to explicitly expand its current requirements to cover activities of the Japanese Imperial Government. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the floor, and would like to ask the chairman if the provisions of title VIII apply only to the work done by the IWG with respect to the declassification of records exclusively relating to the Japanese Imperial Government?

Mr. DeWINE. The Senator from California is correct.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to support passage of H.R. 4281, the ``ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000.'' This bill would make permanent the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, otherwise known as ``ICCVAM.'' Doing so would give companies and federal agencies a sense of certainty and would encourage them to make the long-term research investments necessary to develop new, revised, and alternative toxicology test methods for ICCVAM to review. This would decrease and ultimately could lead to the end of animal use in testing shampoos, pesticides, and other products, while ensuring that human safety and product effectiveness remain protected. ICCVAM was created pursuant to the 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act's mandate that the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) recommend new processes for federal agencies' acceptance of new, revised, or alternative toxicology test methods. ICCVAM is composed of representatives of various federal agencies that use or regulate the use of animals in toxicity testing. ICCVAM evaluates and recommends improved test methods and makes it possible for more uniform testing to be adopted across federal agencies. Ultimately, ICCVAM streamlines the test method validation and approval process by evaluating methods of interest to multiple agencies, thus reducing the need for companies to perform multiple animal tests to meet the requirements of different federal agencies. This bill and ICCVAM do not apply to regulations related to medical research. Recent advances in analytical chemistry and computer modeling have created new opportunities for the development of more accurate, faster, and less expensive test methods--methods that use fewer animals or bypass the need to use any animals in toxicity testing. This is a ``win-win'' situation for the public, industry, animal protection groups, and agencies. This is a truly bipartisan and cooperative effort among industry, animal protection groups, and various federal agencies. It simply makes sense to make permanent a process that is currently working so well. This bill is supported by the Doris Day Animal League, Procter & Gamble, the Colgate-Palmolive Company, the Humane Society, the American Humane Association, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Gillette Company, the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, the American Chemistry Council, the Soap and Detergent Association, the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, and the American Crop Protection Association. I thank Senators Kennedy, Murray, Smith of New Hampshire, Abraham, Santorum, and Boxer for their support of ICCVAM and for their work in this bipartisan effort. I also thank Chairman Jeffords for his help in moving forward the Senate counterpart bill I introduced--S. 1495--upon which we based our bipartisan negotiations. chemical testing programs and creating a scientific advisory committee

Mr. DeWINE. The Senator from California is correct that this provision is not meant to be exclusive, and she has my commitment this is the intent of this legislation and that the SAC can be comprised of at least one voting member from the environmental and one voting member from the public health community, in addition to the other members explicitly specified in the legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to hail the impending passage of H.R. 4640--the DNA Backlog Elimination Act. This is a House companion bill to S. 903--the Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999--which I introduced with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. While existing anticrime technology can allow us to solve many violent crimes that occur in our communities, in order for this technology to work, it must be used. I have been a longtime advocate for use of the Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS), which serves as a national DNA data base to profile convicted offender DNA. In fact, during consideration of the Anti-Terriorism Act of 1996, I proposed a provision under which Federal convicted offenders' DNA would be included in CODIS. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice never implemented this law, though currently all 50 States collect DNA from convicted offenders. One of the purposes of this legislation is to expressly require the collection of DNA samples from federally convicted felons and military personnel convicted of similar offenses. Collection of convicted offender DNA is crucial to solving many of the crimes occurring in our communities. Statistics show that many of these violent felons will repeat their crimes once they are back in society. Since the Federal Government does not collect DNA from these felons, however, the ability of law enforcement to rapidly identify likely suspects is slowed. Collection of such data is critical. The case of Mrs. Debbie Smith of Virginia underscores the importance of collection of DNA from convicted offenders. Debbie Smith was at her home in the middle of the day when a masked intruder entered her unlocked back door. Her husband, a police lieutenant, was upstairs sleeping. The stranger blindfolded Mrs. Smith and took her to a wooded area behind her house where he robbed and repeatedly raped her. After warning Mrs. Smith not to tell, the assailant let her go. She told her husband, who reported the incident, then took her to the hospital where evidence was collected for DNA analysis. Debbie Smith's rape experience was so terrible that she contemplated taking her own life. She continued to live in constant fear until 6\1/ 2\ years later when a State crime laboratory found a CODIS match with an inmate then serving in jail for abduction and robbery. In fact, the offender was jailed on another offense 1 month after raping her. There are thousands of other crimes the DNA database can solve. With CODIS we can grant countless victims, like Mrs. Smith, peace of mind and bring their attackers swiftly to justice. We need to do everything we can to make sure law enforcement has access to these tools. A major obstacle facing State and local crime laboratories are the backlogs of convicted offender samples. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that there are almost one- half million convicted offender samples in State and local laboratories awaiting analysis. Increasing demand for DNA analysis in active cases, and limited resources, are reducing the ability of State and local crime laboratories to analyze their convicted offender backlogs. While I introduced, and Congress passed, the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 to address the long-term needs of crime laboratories, many crime laboratories need immediate assistance to address their short- term backlogs that will help law enforcement solve crime. H.R. 4640 would provide $170 million over 4 years to help State and local crime laboratories address their convicted offender backlogs. Violent criminals should not be able to evade responsibility simply because a State lacks the resources to analyze their DNA samples, or because a loophole excludes certain Federal offenders from our national database. This legislation will be a huge asset for our local law enforcers in their day-to-day fight against crime. I thank Representative McCollum for his efforts.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene tomorrow at 5 p.m., with up to 2 hours for morning business, with Senators Reid and Domenici in control of the time. Under the previous order, there will be a vote on a continuing resolution at 7 p.m. That will be the first vote of the day. However, other votes may be necessary during tomorrow evening's session. Good- faith negotiations are ongoing, and it is hoped that an agreement can be finalized this week.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority leader of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 5 p.m. on Monday, October 30, 2000. I further ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business until 7 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Reid, or his designee, from 5 to 6 p.m.; Senator Domenici, or his designee, from 6 to 7 p.m.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. One minute, and then I will ask that my colleague from Iowa be recognized.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the business before us is the Older Americans Act.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the business before the Senate is the Older Americans Act. Specifically, we have Senator Gregg's amendment. I rise, very reluctantly, to oppose that amendment. In a moment, I will explain to my colleagues why I believe that amendment is unnecessary and why I believe it simply must be turned down if we are going to pass the Older Americans Act this year. Before I do that, I want to allow my colleague from Iowa, who has come to the floor and has a major provision in this bill, to talk about this provision. I compliment him on it. He has been the lead sponsor in the Senate on a separate bill. We incorporated his bill into the Older Americans Act. The provision he will explain to the Senate is one of the new provisions of the Older Americans Act in this bill and it is a major contribution. I thank him for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. I was trying to accommodate Mr. Grassley, whom I asked to come over here about this time. It is my understanding he has about 10 minutes. I would be happy to have you proceed at any point. At some point, I am going to talk about the Gregg amendment and why I think it should be opposed. I will be on the floor, so it doesn't matter when I do it.

Mr. DeWINE. That is fine with me.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the committee. Mr. President, I rise very reluctantly to oppose the amendment of my colleague, Senator Gregg. I do so reluctantly because it is very well intended. Frankly, as I listened to his speech, there was very little, if anything, about which I disagreed. The bottom line is that the reforms he has requested and about which he has been so eloquent over the last few years are, in fact, included in the bill that is in front of us. The reality is that while those reforms are already in the bill, if his amendment were accepted, it would kill the bill at this late date. We need to keep in mind that the House of Representatives has already passed this bill overwhelmingly with only two dissenting votes. This bill is the result of over 2 years of compromise work and labor. This bill has the accountability and the reforms that my colleague was asking about and has requested. I salute him for bringing these issues up not just on the floor today but, frankly, for bringing them up during the committee hearings, and I salute him for bringing them up before that. Because of what my colleague has done and because of the issues he has raised, we have incorporated these reforms into this bill. He gets a lot of credit, I believe, for doing that. I think, therefore, his amendment is simply just not necessary and ultimately, at this late date, turns out to be an amendment that could kill this bill. I would like to talk a minute about this bill from the point of view of the Governors. I think when looking at it from the point of view of the Governors, we can get a better understanding of the reforms this bill makes, the improvements this bill makes, and the accountability that is now in this bill that does not exist in the status quo. Let me make something very clear. The killing of this bill will not improve the status quo. We will be stuck with the status quo if this bill goes down. The question is, Does this bill fundamentally improve where we are today and bring about more accountability? I think clearly a fair reading of this bill indicates that it would. Let me talk about this bill from the point of view of the Governors. First of all, this bill recognizes growth in States that have more senior citizens, and therefore it is fair and it is the right thing to do. No. 2, this bill has numerous reforms in regard to title V. We recall what title V is. Title V is employment for seniors who couldn't get a job. That helps them; it not only helps them but helps the community. We have these all over the country. My colleague talked about Green Thumb and talked about the National Park Service. These jobs are all over the country in all 50 States. They are very valuable to the seniors and very valuable to the communities that are being served. The appropriators have traditionally, year after year, split this money 78 percent and 22 percent--78 percent going to the 9 or 10 national contractors and 22 percent going to the States. That has not changed. That is what the appropriators have done year after year. We bring about some more equity and fairness. We say dollars on top of that up to $35 million--any additional dollars up to $35 million--we are going to split and we are going to reverse that. Basically, we are going to have 25 percent that is going to go national but 75 percent of the money will be spent by the Governors in the local communities as they see fit. That is a fundamental change. Again, it is one of the reasons the Governors of our Nation want this bill. We then go further and say beyond $35 million--if the appropriators put in beyond $35 million--it would be a 50-50 split; again, certainly an improvement over the status quo. Again, we get to the issue of accountability. The next reason the Governors like this bill is that they get to submit for the first time a plan to the Department of Labor for the national contractors that are coming into the States. The complaint we hear from them now is: These national contractors come into our States, and they may be doing good work, but they may be in the wrong area or they may not spread around the States. The Governors and the people in the States of Ohio, or Illinois, or Pennsylvania, or Florida understand what our communities' needs are. We ought to have some input in that. This bill says: Yes, you can have that input. You can submit this plan to the Department of Labor, and they have to pay attention to it for the first time. That is an improvement in local control. That is one of the reasons the States like this bill so much and one of the reasons the National Governors' Association has endorsed this bill wholeheartedly. We next provide more accountability. We say after the national contractor comes in, after the national contractor begins its work, after they have this employment, if the State of Ohio or the State of Vermont or the State of Massachusetts decides the contractor is not doing a good job, they have redress and procedures they can follow to hold that national group accountable--again, a very significant improvement. Again, a reform that is contained in this bill. In summary, Governors will have a greater role in planning and administering a program within a State. Under our reauthorization bill, Governors will submit a State plan to the Department of Labor which will describe where these jobs are needed within a State, where the population of older individuals who qualify for the program are located, and describe how the plan would coordinate with the programs under the Workforce Investment Act. The Governors are also given, under our bill, the opportunity to submit recommendations to the Secretary of Labor regarding proposed projects within the State that would be carried out by the public and private nonprofit grantees. Finally, under our bill, the Governors can hold those public and private grantees that operate in their States, for the first time, accountable if they fail to serve seniors. Under the bill, the Governor can request the Secretary of Labor to review a public and private nonprofit grantee operating within the State. If the grantee is not meeting performance standards, the Secretary, under our bill, is required to take corrective action against that grantee. Next, new cost controls will prevent misuse of funds by the grantees. That is very important. The reauthorization bill would codify definitions of administrative expenses and programmatic expenses. It would also require at least 75 percent of a grantee's funds be used for enrollee wages and benefits. This bill also explicitly states that the funds a grantee receives for the program must be used solely for that particular program. Moreover, the bill expressly requires each grantee to comply with OMB circulars and rules, and requires the grantees to maintain records sufficient to permit tracing of funds to ensure that funds have not been spent unlawfully. Further, grantees will be required to serve seniors or they will lose their grant. The reauthorization bill introduces performance measures in competition into the program for the first time. The bill will establish a three-strikes-and-you-are-out policy to ensure performance goals are met. Failure to meet performance standards will first result in technical assistance and require the grantee to come up with a plan for the future. Failure to meet performance standards a second consecutive year will result in a net loss of 25 percent of the grant which will be competitively bid in an open competition. Failure to meet performance standards a third year will cut off the grantee from the program, and the grant will be competitively bid in open competition. Failure of a public and private nonprofit agency grantee to meet performance standards a fourth year in an individual State will also lead to the loss of the grant, which will then be competitively bid in an open competition. These reforms significantly improve the Older Americans Act. They protect the taxpayers and provide seniors with a jobs program that works. Failure to pass these reforms this year will only continue a system that has not served the job placement needs of seniors in many States and will not correct the deficiencies in the administration and planning of the program. The only way these improvements will be realized is to pass this bill, the Older Americans Act, a bipartisan, bicameral initiative. Under the bill, funding may only be used for provisions of title V. I want to make this very clear. The provisions of training and jobs to low-income seniors is the only legal use of money under our bill. You can't use, under this bill, money for lobbying. Under our bill you cannot use it for litigation. We make sure of that by specific reference to the OMB circular and we make reference in the bill to that which prohibits that type of activity. Each grantee receiving funds must comply with the law. They cannot do lobbying; they cannot do electioneering activities. That is under our bill, as well. Under our bill, the Secretary must conduct a review and apply responsibility tests to all applicants receiving funds, just as the Gregg amendment provided. Under our bill, it is simple: If you fail to meet a responsibility test, you cannot be a grantee. Putting this bill together has not been an easy task. Let me remind my colleagues, it has been 8 years since Congress reauthorized the Older Americans Act. It has been 5 years since that last reauthorization expired. It has not been easy, but we are here today with a bill that fundamentally changes the status quo. Our bill makes significant and substantial improvements to the existing Older Americans Act. Failure to pass this bill would mean that we are going to be stuck with the status quo for at least 2 more years. I will be quite candid. After what we have gone through to put this together, if this bill fails today, I don't know how anybody thinks we could put another bill together next year or the year after. It would force another Congress to rehash these issues and try to pass a bipartisan bill. Keep in mind, we now have a bill that is more acceptable to our friends in the House. We worked this bill and coordinated this bill closely with them. They passed this bill yesterday 405-2. This bill has the support, as I indicated a moment ago, for very good and substantial reasons, of the National Governors' Association. It is not easy getting all 50 Governors to agree on anything. They agree on this bill. They want this bill. They have lobbied for the bill. They have been a part of putting it together. Failure to pass this bill means we will be stuck with the status quo for a long time. I congratulate my colleague from New Hampshire for his work. I believe it is abundantly clear we have covered the concerns he has raised. The good news is if we pass the bill before the Senate, we can change the status quo for the better, particularly title V. Let me talk for a moment about the status of title V. It is funded now at $440 million annually and administered by the Department of Labor, which awards grants to 10 national organizations, AARP, Green Thumb, U.S. Forest Service, and the State governments. As I outlined, 78 percent of the funds are awarded by the Department of Labor on a noncompetitive basis to the 10 national organizations; 22 percent of the funds are distributed to the States. That is the status quo. As I indicated a moment ago, we fundamentally change that status quo. Let me conclude by referencing the bill. If my colleagues have concerns about the reforms, whether or not they were in this bill, I reference them to this bill, to actually look at the bill. We provide for accountability in regard to title V entities in two separate ways. One, we do it before the fact, before they are chosen; second, we provide it after the fact. The first is what is labeled in the bill as a responsibility test. In the section on the responsibility test, it outlines what the Federal Government must look at before a grantee is chosen. Let me emphasize this is not in current law. The great improvement this bill makes is we put this in law. No matter who the Secretary of Labor is, no matter which party runs the Department of Labor, they have to follow the law. They have strict criteria that they have to follow. We spell it out. The bill provides: Before final selection of a grantee, the Secretary shall conduct a review of available records to assess the applicant agency or State's overall responsibility to administer Federal funds. As part of that, the Secretary may consider any information about that proposed grantee-specific language which I will read. The organization's history with regard to the management of other grants-- So I listened very carefully to the concerns of my colleague from New Hampshire about a specific grantee. I say to him, look at the language in this bill. We have addressed those concerns. The Department of Labor will look at these things and they will look at a past history and they will look at a pattern and they will look to see if there have been problems in the past. We go on and spell this out, page after page, all the different things the Department can look at and should, in fact, look at: Failure to submit required reports; failure to maintain effective cash management or cost controls; failure to ensure that a subrecipient complies with the Office of Management and Budget Circular[s]; failure to audit a subrecipient within the required period; willful obstruction of audit process; failure to establish a mechanism to resolve a subrecipient's audit in a timely fashion--[et cetera, et cetera.] I will not read them all. They are all here. Then we also provide any history and we provide any information. So the Department, for the first time, is being told they have to consider this information, and that is what the law will be after we pass this bill. We next say after the fact, if they get that, if they do get the grant, we then provide in a section called ``National Performance Measures And Competition For Public And Private Nonprofit Agencies And Organizations'': The Secretary shall determine if each public or private nonprofit agency or organization that is a grantee has met the national performance measures established. . . . We outline, as I indicated a minute ago, how that is done as well. That is in this bill as well. We step them down and we punish them and we eventually, if they keep doing it, say they do not get any more money and they are gone. That is what is in this bill. So let me conclude. We have a strong bill in front of us. It is a bipartisan bill. It is our chance to pass the Older Americans Act. We will not have another chance in this Congress. We may not get another chance in the next Congress. It is the right thing to do. There are groups across this country that want this but, more importantly, the senior citizens of this country need it. It is the right thing to do. We address the concerns my colleague has raised. I again thank my colleague from New Hampshire for raising this amendment, but I very reluctantly must oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Make no mistake about it, we have this covered. We have the reforms in the bill and, No. 2, if his amendment would pass, this bill would die and we would not reauthorize the Older Americans Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I announce for the information of all Senators, it is hoped that the Senate can begin consideration of the Older Americans Act under a time agreement this morning. Until an agreement can be reached, the Senate will be in a period of morning ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as the lead sponsor of the Older Americans Act, along with my friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, I thought I would take a few moments, even though we are not technically on the bill at this point, to begin a discussion of this bill. I make note to my colleagues in the Chamber that I will be a few minutes in doing this, so if any of my colleagues do want to proceed in morning business on other matters, I will be more than happy to yield when they come to the floor. We will begin today a debate about a bill that has been long in coming. Previous Congresses have had difficulty reaching agreement on reauthorizing the Older Americans Act for any number of reasons, and previous Congresses have failed to do that. But I think anyone who works in this field, anyone who understands what is going on with the Older Americans Act, knows it is past time for Congress to reauthorize the bill. This is a bipartisan program. It is a program that dates over 35 years. It is a program that delivers great services to the senior citizens of this country. What we have done in this bill in a very bipartisan fashion is to bring it up to date to meet the needs of senior citizens entering this new century. This bill is going to help ensure the continuation of valuable supportive services for lower income older Americans. It will establish new and reliable services from which every older American can benefit and provide support for those caring for older adults. This reauthorization would not be a reality if it were not for the persistent, bipartisan efforts and dedication of the Senate Aging Subcommittee ranking member, Senator Mikulski; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee chairman, Senator Jeffords and the ranking member, Senator Kennedy; the House Education and the Workforce Committee chairman, Congressman Goodling, and the ranking member, Congressman Clay; as well as the House Postsecondary Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning Subcommittee Chairman McKeon and Congressman Martinez. Each has worked tirelessly on this legislation, along with the members and staff of the Senate Aging Subcommittee, the full Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and the Senate Select Committee on Aging. I also thank additional colleagues, such as Senator Hagel, Senator Collins, and Senator Wyden, for their insights and contributions to reaching a bipartisan agreement on this bill. I will mention later the great work that Senator Grassley has also done to offer a new provision in this bill which, again, meets the needs of seniors in this century. Because of this support and help, we are going to see the Older Americans Act finally reauthorized. Reauthorization attempts in both the 104th and 105th Congresses failed for many reasons. So as chairman of the Aging Subcommittee, I introduced S. 1536, with the hope we could get a reauthorization passed in this Congress. At the end of this past July, our committee marked up that bill and developed a solid piece of legislation that reflects months of hard work and deliberation. I am very pleased that yesterday the House of Representatives passed this bill overwhelmingly by a vote of 405-2. They passed their reauthorization bill which represents the combined legislative efforts of both the House and the Senate. I point out to my colleagues that one of the things we did as we worked through this bill for the last 2 years was to work with the House Members on both sides of the aisle so we would finally emerge with a consensus bill and a bill we would be able to pass in both the Senate and the House. This reauthorization bill we have before us today represents a modernized and streamlined Older Americans Act and one that maintains some of the most important and successful programs the Federal Government provides for our senior citizens. As an editorial in a newspaper in my home State of Ohio, the Cincinnati Post, on September 20, 1999, stated: The Older Americans Act has been the closest thing on record to a national policy on aging. That is a pretty strong statement, but it is true. It is true because the Older Americans Act created and is responsible for programs that do the following: Provide nutrition both at home and at senior community centers; protect the elderly from abuse, neglect, and unhealthy nursing homes; offer valuable jobs to seniors; furnish transportation which is so vital for the way seniors live today; and render valuable in-home services such as homemaker and home health aides, chore services, respite care, and personal care services. To be sure, as our senior population grows larger and larger, these services and many others become more and more important--not just important but, in many cases, essential to maintain the quality of life of our senior citizens, central to the continued well being and prosperity of our aging senior community. That is why it is fundamental to the security of our seniors that we reauthorize, protect, and improve the Older Americans Act. Our reauthorization bill does just that. First, it will permit States to implement cost sharing for some of the services provided under the Older Americans Act. This means that States will be able to obtain payments from wealthier seniors for services. Doing so enables States to expand services to additional older individuals. This is something that was asked for by the people who testified in our committee. They told us the current rules and regulations were complicated, very difficult to understand, and were being interpreted differently from county to county within a State, such as my State of Ohio. Working in a bipartisan fashion, we put together the language that will make it much easier for these laws to be administered. Second, our authorization will increase flexibility for States by authorizing the Assistant Secretary on Aging to issue waivers to States with certain provisions of the Older Americans Act. This flexibility will help eliminate obsolete, duplicative, and burdensome requirements of a State plan and the area plan. Third, our bill includes the first major changes to the Senior Community Service Employment Program, title V. It begins to change the allocation of funds between the States and the organizations that provide jobs. It allocates 75 percent of the first $35 million in additional funding for the program to the States and 25 percent to organizations. Any increase in funding over $35 million will be split 50-50 between the States and the national organizations. Historically, the funding split has been practically the reverse, with 78 percent allocated to national sponsors and 22 percent to the States. This is an improvement that has received bipartisan support of the Governors across the country. Let me stop for a moment and say how much we have relied on the Governors as we have fashioned this bill and how much they support this bill. This bill is supported by the NGA; it is supported by the southern Governors. It has received a great deal of support and help from them. We thank them for that support. Additionally, our bill provides Governors greater responsibility and influence over the allocation of title V job slots within their States, and it includes performance measures that all organizations and States must meet. Failure to meet such standards will result in the loss of job slots. Those slots then will be redistributed through open competition and will help eliminate poorly performing grantees in the program--one more way the Governors will have more say in title V and more say in how these slots are allocated and, not only a say in how they are allocated, but a say in what happens with them, and they will have the ability to measure the success or failure of these programs. These improvements are the result of our efforts to make sure our reauthorization bill addresses the most important concerns facing older Americans. That is why even before drafting the reauthorization bill, as chairman of the Aging Subcommittee, we held six subcommittee hearings covering titles of the existing law. I see on the floor my colleague, Senator Mikulski, who played such a major role in those committee hearings. In fact, those six hearings were very helpful in eliciting information to make this a better bill. At one of those hearings, for example, we heard from Reeve Lindbergh, the daughter of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh. Her mom was subjected, according to her testimony, to 10 years of financial and other abuse and, as Reeve pointed out: ``It''--referring to that type of elder abuse--``can happen to anyone.'' Because of similar testimony, we included language in the reauthorization to protect elders not only from physical abuse and neglect but also from financial abuse and exploitation. We also added language to coordinate State and local advocacy and protection services directly to State and local law enforcement agencies, as well as linking them to the court system. I will now turn to a provision that has bipartisan support and whose lead sponsor is my friend, Senator Chuck Grassley. This is the National Caregiver Support Act which is an integral part of this bill. Another one of our Aging Subcommittee hearings focused on the bill I just referenced, the National Family Caregiver Support Act, which Senator Grassley sponsored, along with Senators Breaux, Bryan, Dodd, Hutchinson, Kohl, Lincoln, Mikulski, Reed from Rhode Island, Reid from Nevada, Santorum, and Wyden. Following moving testimony from people such as Carolyn Erwin-Johnson from Baltimore, MD, we included this important act as a provision in our reauthorization bill. At our subcommittee hearing, Carolyn spoke movingly of one of the most important aspects of the Caregiver Support Act--the need for respite care. Let me explain. When her elderly mother became unable to care for herself anymore, Carolyn decided against placing her in a nursing home. She chose, instead, to care for her mom at home. When her mother first moved in with her, Carolyn said she had to discontinue her doctorate program. She had to find a job and more accommodating hours. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, that job also paid less money. Carolyn continued in her testimony that she needed advice about lifting her mother, feeding her mom, medications, and many other challenges, things she had not faced before in her life, and most of us have not. Most of all, however, because of her mother's constant care needs, Carolyn testified that she just needed some rest, she just needed a break. With the National Family Caregiver Support Act provision included in our reauthorization, Carolyn will get that break in the form of respite care--someone to take over for her for maybe a weekend, maybe a day, maybe just a few hours, so she can shop for herself and complete some overtime work or just rest. Again, this is an attempt to bring this bill up to date and to authorize the type of services that are so very important today. In addition to respite care, the Caregiver Support Act brings an intergenerational element to the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. During an Aging Subcommittee field hearing we held in Cleveland, we heard from grandparents who, for any number of reasons, were caring for their grandchildren, raising their grandkids. In some cases their own children were addicted to drugs or were in prison or died. There are any number of reasons why these folks were doing something that we did not see done that much 20 or 30 or 40 years ago but something that is, frankly, very common today. Rather than relinquishing their grandchildren to foster care, these grandparents took on the responsibility of raising them and keeping the family together. That is something that we in Congress should support when people make that choice. The grandparents who testified in front of our committee in Cleveland are not alone. The number of grandparents raising children is growing and growing. In fact, a Census Bureau report released last year indicated that 3.9 million children in the United States were living in homes maintained by their grandparents. That is up an astounding 75 percent since 1970. A 1998 study by the University of Cincinnati found that grandparents are caring for their grandchildren in 10 percent of Ohio households with children, and of that 10 percent, approximately 32,000 grandparents statewide are the sole providers for their grandchildren. Amazing figures. Let's look at the example of a Cleveland woman in her early seventies named Bertha. At our hearing last year, she told us her story. She told us about the difficulties she faced in taking on the responsibility of raising her three great-nephews--Clarence, age 12; Joseph, age 11; and Christopher, age 10. The boys' father--a horribly sad story--died from AIDS. Their drug- addicted mother was simply in no shape to take care of them at all. Someone needed to take care of those boys, so Bertha took them in. When the three boys first moved into Bertha's home, she had no way to support them financially. To be eligible for assistance, she became a licensed foster mother. But despite doing so, a full year went by before the county gave her any financial assistance at all. Additionally, she testified it has been very difficult getting information about available services. In the process, she has encountered mounds of bureaucratic redtape. New information and assistance services in the Older Americans Reauthorization Act, as well as the respite care and support groups provided in the Caregiver Support Program, will provide much needed assistance to people, relatives, great-aunts, grandparents--people such as Bertha, people who have taken on a tremendous responsibility many years after raising their own children, many years, I am sure, after they thought they would ever be doing this. Many older Americans who are now raising children for the second time need information, and they need respite care. Our bill would provide those kinds of services. I see my colleagues on the floor, Senator Mikulski and Senator Kennedy. And Senator Jeffords will be here in a moment. Let me conclude for now by saying that this is a long time in coming. It is a good reauthorization bill. It is the product of a great deal of work by many Members of this Chamber. It is a bill we can all be proud of, a bill we can be proud today to pass and send to the President. Our reauthorization bill makes the most substantial reforms in the Older Americans Act since its creation. Our bill is a key step toward preparing for the demographic tidal wave of aging baby boomers in the next few decades. The fact is that we are an aging nation. Today, 12.7 percent of the U.S. population is over the age of 65. By the year 2030, that number will grow to 20 percent. There is no indication that this trend will slow anytime soon. Americans, thank heavens, are living longer, making it all the more pressing we ensure that supportive services exist for every older American now and in the future. By working together, on a bipartisan and bicameral basis--both sides of the aisle; both the House and the Senate--we have crafted a bill that will make a lasting contribution to all older Americans; and that is something we can all be proud of as a major accomplishment as this 106th Congress ends. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 782, regarding the Older Americans Act, and it be considered under the following terms: 30 minutes for debate on the bill equally divided in the usual form; that the only amendments in order be the following: One amendment offered by Senator Gregg relating to title V, which would be 2 hours equally divided for that particular amendment, and an additional amendment offered by Senator Gregg relating to title V, and that would be 2 hours equally divided as well, with no other amendments or motions in order to the bill. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time on each amendment, the Senate proceed to a vote on each amendment. Further, I ask that, following the disposition of the above amendments, the bill be read the third time and the Senate then proceed to passage of H.R. 782, as amended, if amended.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if I could, let me thank my colleague from Nevada. I understand there is no objection, actually, to the substance, then, of the agreement and what we are waiting for is some agreement with regard to the actual time the votes will actually take place. Is that correct?

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in half an hour we are going to have the opportunity to cast two votes. The first vote will be on the Gregg amendment. The second vote will be on the Older Americans Act. We have the opportunity to do something that Congress has not done for 8 years; that is, to reauthorize and change and improve the Older Americans Act. For 5 years this bill has not been reauthorized. It is time we do it. Let me be very candid and very blunt about the amendment of my colleague from New Hampshire. I understand his concerns. He has expressed them very well. The reality is we have taken his concerns into consideration, and we have done more than that, we have incorporated them into this bill. So the bill we will ultimately pass today, I certainly hope without the Gregg amendment, will reflect what my colleague from New Hampshire has already contributed. That has already been done. He should be very proud of that because he has been the voice talking about accountability. The bill that is in front of us is a bill that needs to pass. Lest anyone make a mistake about what is at stake on this first vote on the Gregg amendment, if the Gregg amendment is agreed to, the Older Americans Act reauthorization will die. It is as simple as that. We have taken a long time to get to this point. We are in the last few days of this Congress. The House of Representatives, that has been working with us so very closely, passed this identical bill yesterday by an overwhelming vote, with only two votes against it. The idea we would be able to add the Gregg amendment, which makes changes in the bill, and get the bill ultimately passed is absurd. Make no mistake about it; the key vote today is on the Gregg amendment. Anyone who is for the Older Americans Act needs to vote against the Gregg amendment. Let me talk about the accountability we have been able to put into this bill. The accountability takes care of those issues about which Senator Gregg was concerned. We do it, basically, in two separate ways. We do it by requiring, for the first time, the Department of Labor to have very specific standards and very specific criteria. We enumerate that in the section I have in front of me called ``Responsibility Tests.'' We outline what the Department of Labor will take into consideration when they decide whether or not this contract will be let to an organization. It says: Before final selection of a grantee, the Secretary shall conduct a review of available records to assess the applicant agency or State's overall responsibility to administer Federal funds. As part of the review described in [this paragraph] the Secretary may consider any information, including the organization's history with regard to the management of other grants. It goes on and on, page after page, to describe what is in there that they will have to look at. The second way this bill brings about accountability is after the fact, if a grantee is awarded a contract. It provides for a process of review, to make a determination whether or not the grantee has met the national performance standards.

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.