Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. amendment no. 1658

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for bringing us a balanced bill within necessary budget constraints. The Senate-reported bill provides $13.9 billion in a new budget authority (BA) and $17.5 billion in new outlays to fund the programs of the Department of Transportation, including federal-aid highway, mass transit, and aviation activities. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other adjustments are taken into account, the bill totals $12.8 billion in BA and $43.6 billion in outlays. The Senate-reported bill is exactly at the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority, and the bill is $4 million in outlays under the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. Mr. President, I support the bill and urge its adoption. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2587, the District of Columbia Appropriations bill for FY 2000. The bill provides $429 million in new budget authority and $389 million in new outlays for federal contributions to the District of Columbia government. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account, the Senate bill totals $429 million in budget authority and $393 million in outlays for FY 2000. I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, for her hard work and diligence in fashioning this bill. The bill is exactly at the Senate Subcommittee's revised 302(b) allocation. The bill is $36 million in budget authority above the President's request, due in part to the inclusion of a tuition assistance program for D.C. students who attend out-of-state colleges. The Administration has requested these funds, however, through the Department of Education rather than directly to the District of Columbia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Budget Committee scoring of the conference agreement on the District of Columbia Appropriations bill be placed in the Record at this point, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. When Assistant Secretary Gover first presented this idea to me a few months ago, he told me that ENIP had developed a solid approach for accountability that should be tried as a pilot for other tribes to emulate. Some of the other members of ENIP are anxious to try this approach to becoming more accountable to their tribal members, the BIA, and the Congress. It is a lot of work, but there is also a lot of benefit to be able to map out a complete picture of tribal needs and resources. With Assistant Secretary Gover's continuing enthusiasm and support, I am confident that a new beginning for accountability in TPA funding will actually be born at Nambe Pueblo. We will count on him to implement this ENIP pilot from existing TPA funds. We believe we have given him enough authority in this bill and other legislation to implement this accountability pilot program, and we look forward to its early success.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for his extraordinary efforts to bring fairness and accountability to the BIA's TPA Program. It is the single largest expenditure in the BIA, followed by school operations. I believe tribes will benefit from the fruits of this pilot, and the Congress will be better able to justify TPA expenditures. We will have better knowledge of just how TPA funds help tribes to meet their own local needs and goals. alternate fuels research

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Chairman Gorton and I have both discussed the TPA accountability issue with Kevin Gover, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the BIA. Mr. Gover has recommended a pilot project at Eight Northern Pueblos Agency in New Mexico. The purpose of this pilot program would be to demonstrate the ability of tribes to assess their own needs and then develop TPA budgets that allow the BIA to track just how TPA funds are being used to achieve specific results for tribes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Nambe Pueblo leaders have broken new ground in developing budgets to meet their own needs. Nambe Pueblo is a small pueblo with 633 members. It is located about 20 miles north of Santa Fe. Their Governor, David Perez, and Councilman Tony Vigil and many others at Nambe have spent hours, days, and nights developing a very thorough description of their precise needs. They have worked closely with Eight Northern Indian Pueblos (ENIP) Executive Director Bernie Teba and ENIP Chairman Walter Dasheno, who is also Governor of Santa Clara Pueblo, to document their needs in several key categories. In the area of Land Resources, for example, Nambe Pueblo has identified a solid waste disposal system, flood and erosion control needs, and an agricultural land recovery plan. For community services, they have identified youth services and senior citizen services. Their facility needs have been catalogued, and their economic and tourism plans have been laid out.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) Program of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has been an issue of controversy for several years. For next year, the Senate Interior appropriations bill provides $693 million for TPA. This money is used by local tribal governments to operate a wide range of programs like public safety, resources management, education, economic development, and human services. Many tribes are not able to relate TPA funds to their own tribal needs with any specificity. As a result, the BIA simply does not know, and is not able to relate TPA spending to actual tribal needs. We are not saying that tribes misuse these funds. We are saying that there is precious little information about how TPA funds are directed toward tribal needs as determined by the tribes themselves.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I rise in support of the Hutchison-Domenici amendment because the MMS's procedures are flawed. Department of the Interior employees involved in the writing of the regulations received $300,000 each from a group that had interests contrary to those of the oil and gas firms. It is wrong on substance. I will just give one example showing it is flawed. A producer from one oil well producing one kind of oil would be forced to value his oil ten different ways under this MMS proposal.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could the chairman of the subcommittee put the last statement in the form of a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think Senator Durbin, who serves on the Budget Committee, which I happen to chair, knows that on many matters I hold him in high esteem. As a matter of fact, I believe he is smiling a very gentle smile there as he sits back in his chair, and I guess he is going to listen now for a few minutes. I hope so. He would not disavow what I have just said. But he is wrong on this one. He is wrong in many ways. First, he would have done a wonderful job if he had left out the partisan speech at the end about this side of the aisle not being as concerned as our forefathers about the environment. Second, he showed some pictures of leases where one of the leaseholds had been abused and in some way tied that to the Domenici language or to his amendment. To do that is totally without an understanding of the ongoing authority of the BLM and the Forest Service, the twin agencies who are out there on our property. I say to the good Senator, the BLM does not find malfeasance on the part of ranchers only when they renew the lease every 10 years. As a matter of fact, they have total authority to enter upon the premise, inspect, and periodically recommend changes in the use that the rancher should make. They don't wait around until a drought year or until the 10-year permit has expired to go in and change the usage of the lessee. You cannot use what we are trying to do to prevent a wholesale diminution of ranching properties in our States, and state that there are abuses out there that need to be fixed; let me suggest they are being fixed. Animal numbers are being changed all the time. As a matter of fact, 2 years ago they were changed regularly in my State, regularly in Arizona, and regularly in Wyoming because we were in a drought period. Federal managers would say this coming year you can't do as much because the foliage isn't so good. You wore it down pretty good last year. So we are going to cut you by 50 head or 100 head. Ongoing management remains the prerogative of the management agency-- in this case the Bureau of Land Management. Having said that, let me also say I have been around a little while-- sometimes longer than I want to admit. But the Senate ought to know that no administration before this one--Democrat or Republican--has subjected the leases of cattlemen and women and businesses to a total review under NEPA for the simple issuance of permits. The Forest Service did on a few selective ones. This administration comes along with thousands and thousands of leases out there and decides that before they are going to issue a renewal, they are going to subject it to an environmental assessment and, if necessary, a full-blown impact statement. Some of us told them that is crazy. We lost. Do you know the result? The result is this debate on this floor of the Senate because BLM can't conceivably do their work on time. As a matter of fact, in the State of Wyoming only 15 percent of the subject leases--these leases are to families who live on the ranches and borrow money on their houses and their ranch together--only 15 percent have gone through compliance by the BLM. The BLM hasn't done its work. Look, before we leave a wide-open opportunity to cancel these leases because the environmental assessment is not done, we have to give some latitude to these people who are subject annually to review in terms of their ranch management. We have to provide them with some flexibility and assurance from the standpoint of knowing what they own and what the bankers are going to say about the loans they have on the ranch. There is nothing new about having a loan on a ranch in Wyoming or New Mexico. You put it on the entire ranch, including the fee ownership, and the ranch house. The entire unit--it is called--is collateral for the loan. It is a coincidence that a member of an esteemed banking institution is sitting in the Chair and happens to be from the same State as the Senator who is opposed to my approach. But I ask hypothetically, do you think a banker who had been expecting to renew a loan because there was going to be a new 10-year permit issued--it is about a year away--and the rancher comes up, and says: Hey, banker, friend, are you going to give us a loan again? And the banker says: What does the BLM say about your permit? The poor rancher says: Well, they have their own rule, and it says if you do not have an impact statement you can't get the permit. But they haven't done the required work on this permit. And the poor rancher says: Won't you lend me the money anyway? But the banker says: No, of course not. What Senator Domenici tried to do was to say it isn't a ranchers' problem that the BLM undertook such a mammoth job of environmental assessments and sometimes full-blown statements on every single lease out there in the West. BLM and the Forest Service began the process, so we can say both of the public lands management twins do this. It is not the ranchers' fault. They didn't hold up these environmental assessments. I said to the ranching community: What would be a fair way to make sure you are not harmed by the inaction of the Bureau of Land Management? They said: Let them extend our lease as they would have done 5 years ago, and as they would have done if they had completed their work. But let them continue with their assessment work, and when they get it done and say there are some changes that have to be made, give them the authority to make the changes that the assessment calls for. That is essentially where we are. I understand we are in a battle in the West. We are in a battle where ranchers are looked upon by some environmental groups with very low esteem. In fact, some of the groups even say there shouldn't be any cattle grazing on public lands. They say this without any evidence it is harmful. If managed properly, grazing is not harmful. It is salutary. It is healthy. It is good for the forest lands and for Bureau of Land Management lands. We are not talking here about rich farmers and ranchers; even though there may be some in corporate ownership. I have five letters from New Mexicans. I want everybody to listen to the last names of these people. They live in northern New Mexico with anywhere from 100 head to 350 head. Their names are Gerald Chacon, a Hispanic American whose family has lived there for generations. He says in this letter, ``Please don't take away our security.'' It isn't ``take away our ranch.'' They are saying ``our security.'' ``The bank won't lend us the money.'' He alludes to the fact that if it is only a 2-year opportunity to get a loan, he is not going to have a very good chance. That is the solution of the Senator from Illinois to this problem. From Palemon Martinez, also from northern New Mexico, a letter that just plain pleads with me to make sure their leases are not held in abeyance because the Bureau of Land Management did not do their work. Again, I repeat for those worried about proper management, BLM has entry all year long, and management opportunities all year long. They do not need to wait around for permit renewal to say to my friend, Palemon Martinez, that he has to change his way of doing business because he is grazing too heavily or he is affecting the stream. Alonso Gallegos from Pena Blanca, NM--the same kind of letter. Jake Vigil, and Dennis Braden, general manager for a family. They are all the same--frightened to death of what is going to happen to the security in their allotment if we don't say it is the BLM's fault for not having done the assessments. This fellow, Jake Vigil, had nothing whatsoever to do with it. He is wide open to review. They come out there and do their assessment. He makes his comments. But they do not get it done. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas. I think the Senate has an opportunity today to decide whether we are going to give in to a group of Federal bureaucrats who have decided it is going to be their way or no way. That is actually the issue. All we are trying to determine through the activities of an established regulatory body is what the fair market value of the oil is on which the U.S. taxpayers are entitled to receive a royalty. The MMS has decided to change the way we have done it in the past and in the process, in the opinion of this Senator and many others, has made it no longer fair. It is not actually levying a royalty on the value of the oil. They have decided to have new starting points. They are not allowing certain things to be deducted that are actual business expenses. In a nutshell, they are establishing a price upon which the royalty is predicated which is not the result of the marketplace and ordinary business practices but some concoction that they have come up with which will cost more money to an American industry that clearly should not be paying new taxes today. This is a new tax because you change the way you regulate it and the way you determine value and you thus increase the taxes. If it is not the right way, then it is an increase in taxes. I do not believe they should be doing this. I think we should be doing this. I believe they ought to establish a process and submit it to us and ask, Do you want to change the rules on this or not? Essentially, I listened attentively to the Senator from Louisiana. He hit it right on the head. And the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma in his brief remarks was right there. There has not been a better fighter than Kay Hutchison. She has been right again. We have been right together on this, and we have convinced the Senate heretofore, but we cannot convince the MMS to be fair, and that is what the issue is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we have three people who want to speak on our side. I think the Senator from Wyoming would like to speak first. I will follow with a few minutes and then Senator Craig will follow, and we will be finished.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I am reading off a type-written amendment. If you say it is ``shall,'' I withdraw that part.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent I have 2 seconds.

Mr. DOMENICI. The history of noncompliance by the Bureau of Land Management in getting this work done in New Mexico is miserable. In our State, we are a little ahead of Wyoming. We have 26 percent that have had their environmental assessments done. The rest aren't going to have it done before their permits expire and are exactly subject to what I have been telling the Senate on the floor. My friend from Illinois says: Keep the pressure on the BLM. Don't take the pressure off by saying you can issue the permit. But I say you continue your assessment work, and when you have finished and find that you want to make some changes to the permit, if you must, then do it, and you have the automatic right to do it. We are not on the floor of the Senate trying to risk the security of hundreds and hundreds of ranchers--including these people--for the purpose of keeping the heat on the Bureau of Land Management, which ought to get their own work done. As a matter of fact, there are many people who think the assessments and impact statements are very expensive, that in many cases they don't even fix the problems. We have a NEPA law that is a couple of decades or more old. We attempt to apply it to every kind of environmental issue around. The cases it applies to with the least efficacy are ranchlands because they are small ``events.'' We had in mind big governmental actions before we applied the NEPA laws to land. I am not interested in putting at risk the ranchers in my State so we can keep the pressure on the Bureau of Land Management. Senator Gorton can keep the pressure on in his bill. He gives them the money. He can tell them: Do your work. That is all the pressure they need. Frankly, this is an easy one. Sometimes it is awful hard for people who don't have public lands to understand our plight. This is easy. The only thing difficult is a whole group of organizations that don't think the rancher cares about anything. They are saying: Don't give them help with what Domenici wants, give them something less. Keep the heat on; and a wonderful, nice Senator from Illinois who doesn't have any public land making their pitch for them. He is a good pitch maker. He made a good speech today. It just happens to be it is not right. It is not right. I will have printed in the Record a letter of very recent origin from the president of the Farm Credit Services of New Mexico. I think the Senator from Wyoming alluded to it. Anyone who questions whether or not the ranchers are more at risk under this 2-year extension rather than giving them their permit and letting the Bureau of Land Management do their work, this is the proof of the pudding. I was giving a hypothetical. This is the banker. This is the Farm Credit Bureau. They go out and place these loans. They say it is very hard on this 2-year proposal to get the financing for the farmers and their families in my State, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and the rest. My last observation, and I am not at all sure the senior Senator from Illinois intended this, I view the amendment as making a significant change in FLMPA, Federal Land Management bill that underlies this debate. In Arabic No. 2, his amendment says: Upon completion of processing of a grazing permit or lease described in subsection (a)(1), the Bureau may-- . . . (B) reissue the grazing permit or lease for a term not to exceed 10 years. I think the substantive law of the land says ``shall,'' not ``may.'' I am not sure he wants to have ``shall'' or ``may'' in there. It shouldn't be ``may.'' If you have done your work and the land is OK, the law is they shall issue the permit. We surely should not change that on the floor while we are trying to get the Bureau of Land Management to do their job--which they are not doing--on time. Frankly, I think they bit off more than they can chew. That is the reason. This is a big undertaking. What we ought to have is an economic impact statement on this huge job of environmental assessments. What have we gotten out of it that is environmentally enhancing? I am not sure it would be very much. I am not asking for that today. I am merely speculating based on what I happen to feel and know. Having said that, I want the Senate to know I have used far more time on this issue than I should. The combined time we all spent is probably more than we should have used. Some people are very pleased we are spending all of this time so they can be doing something else. But I guarantee, this is very important. These five letters from the New Mexicans that I read are multiplied across Western America hundreds and hundreds of times over. We talk on the floor about problems people have. Many times they are less significant and less important than the problem we are addressing today. We don't need to punish a few thousand Americans living out in rural Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, et cetera, who are already having it very tough because of the market in cattle and the droughts that have been recurring. We don't need them worrying about what the Federal Government will do to them, when they have done nothing wrong themselves. We don't need them worrying about their banker, who will tell them: When you know you have the permit, we will lend you the money. Isn't that what they will say? They will not say: You are a nice fellow and I loaned your grandpa and your great grandpa money on this ranch. They will say: Where is the permit? They will say: The Durbin amendment passed and we only have it for up to 2 years because we had to give the government more time to do an impact statement, which they should have already done. I don't think we need that. If Members had the opportunity to read these five or six letters, they would get the tone. The tone is one of real fear. If we don't fix this, technically, they wouldn't have to issue any of these permits because the impact statement isn't completed--because of the government's delay--and they could say: Here are the rules; unless it is done, we will not issue permits. I understand my friend from Idaho wants to speak.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the Durbin amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if we could add it be in order to make the motion to table and ask for the yeas and nays at this time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk about someone who has provided invaluable assistance to me and the Budget Committees over the years--Dr. Paul Van de Water, the Assistant Director for Budget Analysis of the Congressional Budget Office. Dr. Van de Water is leaving the Congressional Budget Office this week, after 18 years of distinguished service to the Congress, the budget process, and the American public. He will become the Senior Advisor to the Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the Social Security Administration. Paul Van de Water came to CBO in 1981, the same year I assumed Chairmanship of the Senate Budget Committee. For years he headed the Projections Unit--doing the bread and butter work involved with producing Congressional budgets. Without CBO, I could not have done my job, and Paul contributed mightily to almost every CBO analysis we needed. He has served over and above the call of duty, spending nights and weekends working on our two Budget Committees' requests. I am sure he will never forget the two weeks spent at Andrews Air Force Base during the 1990 Budget Summit. We will not soon forget his sharp analytical skills, his appreciation of Congressional demands, and the institutional consistency he has provided CBO over the last 18 years. Dr. Van de Water has truly been an exceptional public servant. I know I am speaking for all Members who have ever served on the Budget Committees of the House and Senate, and all our staff, when I express our gratitude to Paul for his contributions to this Congressional budget process. I join everyone in congratulating him on his service to the country and wishing him luck in his future work at the Social Security Administration.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know there are Senators who are waiting to speak on other measures. I am only going to speak for 2 minutes. I congratulate Senator Hutchison on the argument she offered today. She indicated that the last three times we have done this, I have either been the sponsor and she the cosponsor, or vice versa. I am here today to again indicate that whoever follows us and talks about the fact that we ought to stick big oil, or we ought to make sure there are no longer any slick deals, as I see some of these comments that are going to be made here on the floor, let me suggest that if you are taxing anything in the United States and you are doing it wrongly or unfairly or without justification under the law, then it doesn't matter whether somebody is going to lose money if in fact Congress says you have to stop doing that. That is what we have here. We are going to have Senators argue that there are certain oil companies that are not going to have to pay. There have been settlements where they have paid. But the truth of the matter is, the intention of this law is, if you are going to change it materially, Congress is supposed to be involved. We have tried to get involved. In fact, for 6 months we have mutually attended hearings with the MMS and the oil producers and talked about what was wrong with these regulations and rules. Everybody on both sides was saying, let's fix them; let's modify them; let's change them. Frankly, I think the oil people who were at those meetings who have talked with us and have gone to hearings in the Energy Committee are more than willing to listen to realistic, reasonable changes. But essentially what has happened is, the MMS decided to change the rule which historically based royalties on prices at the wellhead. They decided they would go downstream from that wellhead, and they invented a new concept called ``duty to market.'' They decided that they are going to decide what expenses are allowed in moving that gas downstream to where the marketing occurs. They are deciding what the values are at that point. And we could go through a litany of situations where the oil industry believes the decisions are not fair, not market oriented, or not consistent with business practices. Frankly, I think some-- because it is oil, or big oil--think it just doesn't matter, stick them. Frankly, as I indicated before, we want to stand here and say: Why don't you get serious about fixing those regulations? And we will get off your back. That is what is going to happen. Until they do it realistically and we get some word that they have been fair and reasonable in the way they are setting these royalty costs and prices that yield dollars in taxes to the oil industry, until we find out there are some changes made, we are going to be here on the floor saying this is a new add-on tax to an industry that maybe 15 years ago we could talk about as if what you taxed them didn't matter. But we know that we have a falling production market in the United States. It is more and more difficult to produce these products. It is more and more expensive and cheaper overseas. Some of us don't want to see the American industry taxed any more than is absolutely reasonable and fair. These regulations are not right. They are not fair; they are not based on marketplace concepts, or we wouldn't be here. I know some are going to want to debate this for a very long time. Maybe we will even have to ask for the debate to be closed. But we are not going to give up very easily. We ask Senators who pay close attention. It is not a matter of what we could get out of this industry or what somebody alleges they would have paid in the settlement. It is a question of whether the new rules and regulations are right and consistent with fair market concepts or not. As you figure the royalty, are you inventing costs and prices and disallowing deductions and the like that have no relationship to reality? We think that is what these are. We would be happy to come back again and debate. I will be glad to be here. But for now I yield the floor. I thank Senator Hutchison.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Byrd, in both the steel and the oil and gas loan guarantee programs, the legislation provides that loan guarantees may be issued upon application of the prospective borrower (section 101(g) for the Steel Loan Guarantee Program and section 201 (f) for the Oil and Gas Loan Guarantee Program). Ordinarily, the applicant for a loan guarantee is the prospective lender. Am I correct in assuming that that would be the case under these programs, and that the true intent of the language in the legislation is that the prospective lender is the applicant?

Mr. DOMENICI. It is possible that under each of these programs there may be many, many eligible firms--more under the Oil and Gas Loan Guarantee Program, but potentially a high number under the Steel Loan Guarantee Program, as well--particularly as there is no ``floor'' or minimum amount of loan that may be guaranteed. Would the Loan Guarantee Boards have the discretion to establish priorities and criteria for the consideration of applications and award of guarantees, so that projects could be considered in an orderly manner, and there could be a proper mix of loan risks, to maximize the effectiveness of the programs within the amount appropriated for program costs?

Mr. DOMENICI. This is indeed important legislation, but I ask whether regulations promulgated to implement the legislation would be a ``major rule'' as that term is used in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804). Generally, any rule that has a $100 million effect on the economy in a single year is considered to be a major rule, and cannot go into effect until 60 days after the rule is submitted to Congress for review and possible disapproval. But, if the loan guarantee regulations are considered a major rule, delaying their effect would appear to be inconsistent with the language and intent of the legislation. Once regulations promulgated under this legislation are written, cleared by OMB, filed with Congress, and published in the Federal Register, I assume they would go into effect right away. Is this correct?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Hatch in introducing the ``Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act of 1999.'' I am convinced that this bill is urgently needed to assure our senior citizens have access to quality nursing home care through the Medicare program. We can all take a certain amount of pride in the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which contained the most sweeping reforms for Medicare since the program was enacted in 1965. These reforms have extended the solvency of the program to 2015 and brought new health coverage options to seniors throughout the country. However, it should come as no surprise that legislation as complex as the Balanced Budget Act (BBA), as well as its implementation by the Health Care Financing Administration, has produced some unintended consequences that need to be corrected. That is exactly the situation in the case of nursing homes. The transition to the Prospective Payment System (PPS) for Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) that was contained in the BBA is seriously threatening access to needed care for seniors all across the country. In May, 63 Senators joined with me in sending a bipartisan appeal to the Secretary of Health and Human Services urging her to address the growing crisis in the nursing home industry through administrative action. To date, we have received no direct response from the Secretary on this matter, nor has the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) shown any willingness to address the problem. With time quickly running out on many nursing home operators, I believe Congress must act before it is too late to assure our seniors will continue to have access to quality nursing home care. Let me note that Congress is not alone in believing there is a problem here. Dr. Gail Wilensky, the Chair of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, recently testified before the Senate Finance Committee that some Medicare patients are having difficulty accessing care in skilled nursing facilities. Dr. Wilensky went on to say that the current reimbursement system adopted by HCFA does not adequately account for patients requiring high levels of nontherapy ancillary services and supplies. In New Mexico, there are currently 81 nursing homes in the state serving about 6,000 patients, and I am convinced that the current Medicare payment system, as implemented by HCFA, simply does not provide enough funds to cover the costs being incurred by these facilities when they care for our senior citizens. For rural states like New Mexico, corrective action is critically important. Many communities in my state are served by a single facility that is the only provider for many miles. If such a facility were to close, patients in that home would be forced to move to facilities much farther away from their families. Moreover, nursing homes in smaller, rural communities often operate on a razor thin bottom line, and, for them, the reductions in Medicare reimbursements have been especially devastating. The legislation we are introducing today would go a long way toward restoring stability in the nursing home industry. It would increase reimbursement rates through two provisions. First, a 2-year period, the bill modestly increases payments for 15 high acuity conditions, like cancer, hip fracture, and stroke. At the end of 2 years, HCFA expects that they will have the data to more properly reflect the high costs of these cases in the payment system. Second, the bill eliminates the one percentage point reduction in the annual inflation update for all reimbursement rates for skilled nursing facilities. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch and the other cosponsors of this bill in pushing for passage of this critical legislation when we return in September.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I submit for the Record a list of material considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of section 313. The inclusion or exclusion of material on the following list does not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate. To the best of my knowledge, the conference agreement for the Financial Freedom Act of 1999, H.R. 2488, contains no material considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.