Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. A cloture vote on the bankruptcy bill is scheduled to occur immediately following the prayer and opening statement. Following the vote, under rule XXII, the Senate will begin 30 hours of postcloture debate on the bankruptcy bill. The Senate will recess for the weekly party conferences from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. Senators can expect a vote on a continuing resolution late tomorrow afternoon and will be notified as to when that vote is scheduled.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in recess under the previous order, following the remarks of myself and Senator Sessions.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. We have had a good discussion on the bankruptcy bill. We will have further discussion postcloture. I think we have a good product. This conference report is basically the Senate-passed bankruptcy bill with certain minimal changes made to accommodate the House of Representatives. The means test retains the essential flexibility that we passed in the Senate. The new consumer protections sponsored by Senator Reed of Rhode Island relating to reaffirmation is in our conference report before the Senate. The credit card disclosure sponsored by Senator Torricelli is also in this final conference report. We also maintain Senator Leahy's special protections for victims of domestic violence and Senator Feingold's special protections for expenses associated with caring for nondependent family members. I think it is pretty clear that on the consumer bankruptcy side, we maintain the Senate's position. Anybody who says otherwise has not read the conference report. It is also important to realize how much of an improvement this legislation is for child support claims. The organizations that specialize in tracking down deadbeat fathers think this bill will be a tremendous help in collecting child support. I have a letter I am going to ask to have printed in the Record from Mr. Philip Strauss of the Family Support Bureau of the San Francisco district attorney's office. Mr. Strauss notes that professional organizations of people who actually collect child support . . . have endorsed the child support provisions of the Bankruptcy Reform Act as crucially needed modifications of the Bankruptcy Code, which will significantly improve the collection of support during bankruptcy. There you have it. According to people in the front lines, the bankruptcy bill is good for collecting child support. So I say to my colleagues, if you have concerns about child support, look at this letter. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, listen to the people who actually know how it is in the trenches collecting child support. Don't listen to inside-Washington special interests. Don't listen to academics who have no real world knowledge on this subject. I would add a word about cracking down on the very wealthy individuals who abuse the bankruptcy system. If you listened to the Senator from Minnesota last night, you might have had the impression that the Homestead exemption is a giant loophole that this bill does not deal with. We have had the General Accounting Office look at the question of how frequently the Homestead exemption is abused by wealthy people in bankruptcy. The General Accounting Office found that less than 1 percent of bankruptcy filings in States where there are unlimited Homestead exemptions involving homesteads of over $100,000. That means 99 percent of bankruptcy filings were not abusive. So this is not a loophole. We might say it is a little tiny pinhole. But there is a real problem with very wealthy people filing for bankruptcy under chapter 11, which is the chapter of the bankruptcy code normally left for corporations. Because chapter 11 is not designed for individuals, there are numerous loopholes that allow the wealthy to live high on the hog while paying nothing to their creditors. This bill before the Senate fixes this very major problem so these wealthy people will know they are no longer going to get off scot-free. This bill combats abuse wherever we find it. The Homestead exemption is capped at $500,000 for homes purchased within 2 years prior to the declaration of bankruptcy. The chapter 11 loophole is closed. This is what real reform is all about. In sum, in this conference report we preserve the proconsumer amendment adopted in the Senate. We crack down hard on abuses by the wealthy. We help child support claimants in a very major way. This bill is good for the American consumer. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the leader, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 1. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, 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 cloture vote on H.R. 2415, the bankruptcy legislation, as under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hour of 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conference meetings.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. I intend to do that.

Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time does the Senator need?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Twelve minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I hope we had a lot of people who were able to listen all afternoon on this debate. I doubt if very many people listened for 4 hours, but they heard a lot of charges against the bill that were partisan early on this afternoon. Then I said how this bill passed 83-14 originally. That would never have happened--that wide of a margin and bipartisan cooperation--except for the early support and continuing support, and you have seen that demonstrated in the recent speech by Senator Torricelli. I thank him for that. I also thank Senator Biden of Delaware for also helping us get this bill out of committee and to the floor, and also Senator Reid of Nevada, who helped us get through the hundreds of amendments we had filed with this legislation. So this is evidence of just three people on the other side of the aisle who have worked very hard to make this a bipartisan approach, and this legislation, as controversial as it is, would not have gotten as far as it had without that cooperation. I thank Senator Torricelli.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2346, which is at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 861, which is S. 2924.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the committee substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted for Dr. Cate McClain, a fellow with the Aging Committee.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, we started to debate a tax bill and it had to be brought down because there wasn't consent to move ahead on it. Before we adjourn and go home, hopefully, we will pass a tax bill. But there are a lot of provisions in that bill that are very good; common sense dictates them; and a lot of these are very bipartisan. So the President has threatened to veto the tax bill. I want to bring up some of these issues and ask the President why he would veto something as good as these provisions, where there is bipartisan consensus that we ought to pass them. Obviously, this bill doesn't contain everything I would like to see in it as a Member of the Senate. As a member of the Finance Committee, we have a chance to be on the ground floor of the drafting of the legislation coming out of that committee. On the other hand, no one person, even a member of the committee, can get everything he wants in the bill. There are even some things in this bill that I don't like, but on balance it will do a lot of good for a lot of people. Therefore, I think it should be enacted. To begin with, the bill contains a number of provisions I authored or coauthored with some colleagues and these are the bipartisan provisions that I am thinking about. For instance, on the issue of pensions, I worked very closely with Senator Graham of Florida--several critical pension provisions. As we anticipate the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers, we are always astonished at how much it is going to cost during their retirement. Retirement is expensive, not only due to rising life expectancy but also because inflation and taxes must be factored into the cost of retirement. We keep insisting that baby boomers--now 10 years away from their retirement--must do more to prepare for that retirement. How can they do that if we don't give them the tools they need? This bill has a lot to do with that because it would make small but significant steps to improve the ability of baby boomers and subsequent generations to prepare for retirement. This bill will increase retirement savings and the national savings rates by allowing workers to save more in their pension plan or in their individual retirement account. How can the President find disagreement on that point--the necessity of having better pension systems, the necessity for updating the individual retirement accounts so more can be saved in those accounts and so more people can be encouraged to save in those accounts? Our bill would restore section 415 limits for pension contributions closer to--not all the way, I am sorry to say--where they were before the 1993 tax increase bill was passed. You remember that 1993 tax increase bill? As Senator Moynihan said on the floor of the Senate, it was the largest tax increase in the history of the world after Bob Dole said it was the largest increase in the history of the country. That was a pretty significant tax increase in 1993. You remember that it passed on the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Gore as he sat right there in the chair. He cast the tie-breaking vote to pass a tax bill that most all Republicans thought was bad for the country. Even some Democrats thought it was bad for the country. When Republicans were in the minority, it would have still died on a 49-to-49 vote-- except for the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President. This bill will restore some of the bad aspects that the 1993 tax bill had on pensions contributions with these 415 limits. This bill increases existing IRA contribution limits because under this bill Americans would be able to contribute $5,000 annually. That is an increase up from the current $2,000 maximum contribution. This IRA limit has not been increased in the 18 years since the last time it was effective. For workers without a pension, a pretax individual retirement account is one of the best ways they can save for retirement. This limit is being increased for traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs. Why would the President want to veto that for people who don't have anything other than individual retirement accounts with the present $2,000 limit? You can see what has happened to that $2,000 limit because of inflation. After 18 years, it is not anywhere near the incentive for savings that it was in 1982. Increasing it to $5,000 would be a tremendous incentive for people who don't have pensions to save on their own for retirement, in addition to a baby boom generation that is not going to get out of Social Security as much as my generation will get out of Social Security when they retire. Consequently, that helps make up for some of the shortcomings of the Social Security surplus for the baby boom generation. Further, the bill encourages more people to save through an IRA by accelerating the scheduled increases in IRA income eligibility requirements. Individuals making up to $50,000 and couples making up to $80,000 could participate in an IRA. And the bill allows catch-up contributions for IRAs of an additional $1,500 for those age 50 or over. That will give people an opportunity who have been hit by the inflation-lessening value of the $2,000 individual retirement account now that they are 50 and over to put aside an additional $1,500 to make up for some of the shortcomings of Congress not keeping the $2,000 limit adjusted for inflation. Why would the President want to veto a bill that gives people who are saving an opportunity to make up for some of the shortcomings of Congress over the last 18 years, or even the negative impact of the 1993 tax bill on some of these pension provisions? This bill also encourages small businesses to start and maintain pension plans. One of the problems with the pension law is that there is tremendous discouragement for companies with under 100 employees to go to the expense of setting up a pension plan. For employers with over 100 employees and with the overhead that companies such as that have, it is not such a problem. You find larger corporations have pension plans-- not small businesses. The provisions encouraging expansion of coverage are vital and overdue improvements in pension law. I will give you an example. The bill modifies the top-heavy rules which only apply to small businesses. The top-heavy rules have been rightly criticized because they place burdens on small business pension plans. Those same requirements are not applicable to big business. The top-heavy rules make sponsoring a pension plan expensive, complicated, and out of reach for many small employers. In fact, the ERISA Advisory Council in this administration even supported the outright repeal of these top-heavy rules. This bill does not repeal the top-heavy rules, as much as we should, according to the Advisory Council's recommendation. It simply modifies the most onerous aspects of the rules to make having a plan more attractive for small firms. The bill also reduces plan costs and PBGC premiums for small businesses and eases administrative burdens by streamlining onerous pension regulations. These changes help to make the experience of maintaining a plan less difficult for small companies. Further, the bill simplifies annual reporting requirements, eliminates IRS user fees for new plans. These provisions encourage small businesses to provide pension coverage. When small businesses start up new plans, American workers win! The bill contains many provisions which will help rank and file workers specifically. For example, this bill enables workers aged 50 and over to make so- called catch up contributions to their retirement plan. That may sound like something that is new and we shouldn't do. But we allow State and local government workers to make these catchup contributions under current law if they are within 3 years of retirement. I know of no reason why we should not make the benefit of catchup contributions available to all workers--not just for those of State and local governments. We would do so in this bill for workers in for- profit businesses and also not-for-profit businesses. Unfortunately, this bill will not allow workers who make $80,000 or more to make these ``catchup'' contributions despite the fact there is not such an $80,000 limit on the current law for State and local employees. This is a further inequitable situation--something we give State and local government employees but we don't give employees in the private sector. We make up some of that in this legislation but not 100 percent, I am sorry to say. I regret that the bill made this restriction necessary because of negotiations that were going on between the House and Senate. The bill reduces the vesting period for receipt of the employer's matching contribution and defined contribution plans--such as a 401(k)--from 5 years to 3. Make no mistake about it; this is a huge help to many workers. This will particularly help women, maybe because of taking care of an elderly relation, or maybe to start a family or women who are in and out of the workforce or maybe even in some cases men who are in and out of the workforce, but they are more apt to be women. This will give them an opportunity to enhance their match so they can make up for lost time because of not being in the workforce. This bill makes another important change to law that will help low- and modest-income workers. The bill repeals the 25 percent of compensation limit on savings and defined contribution plans. That is a savings barrier that frustrates those of modest income. Most workers in this Nation will be saving through section 401(k) plans or section 403(b) plans or section 457 deferred compensation plans. In a 401(k) plan, for example, the limit for saving is 25 percent of compensation or a maximum of $10,500. Our bill repeals the 25 percent of compensation for the benefit of low and modestly paid workers who could be very thrifty people but are prohibited from saving more. They may want to sacrifice during their work years to have a better quality of life in retirement, but the present limit of 25 percent will keep them from doing that. We ought to make it possible for people who want to look ahead to do more for enhancing their retirement and have more savings for that retirement to be able to do it. This legislation does that. I don't know why the President wants to veto such good provisions for low- and modest-pay workers. In Iowa and much of the Midwest, people are not only thrifty but they are very frugal. Let them save their money if they want to; that money belongs to them, not to the government. The bill also greatly enhances pension portability. Because of these provisions, workers will be able to take their pension money with them when they leave one job to go to another job. Their retirement plan contributions will not be stuck in the plan of their previous employer. When more of those matching contributions are vested as I just mentioned a minute ago, a larger account can be rolled over to an IRA and to the retirement savings plan of a subsequent employer, regardless of whether the employer is for profit, not for profit, or a government employer. Under current law, you can't make those rollovers. The pension portability provisions of this bill are a great way to reduce pension plan leakage. The issue of leakage is real, and I hope we get to examine it in more detail next year and even improve it more than this present legislation does. The business also improves pension funding so benefits will be more secure over the long term. Good pension funding is one of the very foundations of the ERISA law. Most plans are well funded but some are not funded properly at all. We need to be taking a closer look at the underfunded plans and shine the spotlight on them. I want to look at the reasons why some plans have not been better funded, and I hope to look at the status of the underfunded plans in greater detail next year. Finally, I take note for my colleagues and cosponsors that this bill does not include everything I would have liked, and I hope we will be able to do more for pensions according to what Senator Graham of Florida and I suggested in our legislation, which had many cosponsors. When all is said and done, there are a lot of good provisions in this bill, particularly those that deal with women who are in and out of the workplace so they can make up lost time on their pensions if they want to pay more into it. It does an awful lot for low- and medium-paid employees so that they can make up for the fact, if they want to save more for retirement, that the present 25-percent limit doesn't allow them to do that. The bottom line is, why would any President want to veto such a good bill? I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I believe morning business is going to expire at 10:30. Do I need to ask unanimous consent to extend morning business?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss a critical issue: adoption of children with special needs. I appreciate the work of my Senate colleagues who cochair the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, Senators Craig and Landrieu. I thank them for their dedication in furthering adoption. Both have demonstrated their commitment to adoption through word and deed. I respect their efforts and look forward to working with them in the coming years to increase adoptions and to improve the lives of vulnerable children. The adoption tax credit which passed in 1996 was a step in the right direction. It provided a 5-year credit for adoptions of nonspecial needs children. It provided a permanent credit for adoptions of children with special needs. I commend Senator Craig for his efforts to extend the provision relating to nonspecial needs adoptions. As Senator Craig mentioned on the floor earlier today, while extending the credit is another step in the right direction, we must not rest on our laurels. There is more to be done especially as it relates to adoption of special needs children. The cost of adoption varies widely. Private or international adoptions can cost as much as $30,000 per child. In contrast, adoptions from foster care are often subsidized by the government. Parents who choose to adopt a child from foster care or through a public agency incur little, if any, expenses related directly to the adoption process. However, they incur a great deal of ``incidental'' expense related to adoption. The adoption tax credit is available only for ``adoption related expenses'' which include necessary adoption fees, court costs, and attorneys' fees. This limitation works directly to the disadvantage of families adopting children with special needs, because the credit does not recognize the overwhelming indirect expenses associated with adopting such a child. These expenses might include fitting the home with a ramp for a wheelchair bound child, to cite one example. When Congress passed the tax credit in 1996, it also directed the U.S. Department of the Treasury to issue a report on the effect of the credit. According to the Treasury report released this month, for tax year 1998, 77,000 adoptions were eligible for a tax credit--31,000 for special needs and 46,000 for non-special needs adoptions. However, of the 31,000 eligible special needs adoptions, only 4,700 received benefits from the tax credit. Compare that with 45,700 of the eligible 46,000 adoptions of non-special needs children that received benefits from the tax credit. Let me put it another way. The Treasury Department reports 15 percent of eligible special needs adoptions received tax benefits compared with 99 percent of eligible non-special needs adoptions which received tax benefits for 1998. For those wondering why so few special needs adoptions benefited from the tax credit in 1998, here is one reason. Average expenses--allowed by current law--were reported for tax year 1998 as $3,540 per special needs adoption and $5,890 per nonspecial needs adoption. When you look at these expenses, it is clear that increasing the amount of the tax credit for special needs adoptions will have little to no impact on families seeking to adopt special needs children. I view this as one of the flaws in current law that must be fixed. Let me be clear: I support the extension of the tax credit for non- special needs adoption. I also support taking a hard look at how the current tax credit impacts special needs adoptions. I urge my colleagues to consider the impact of the tax credit on families adapting special needs children. Again, I commend Senators Craig and Landrieu for their efforts on behalf of vulnerable children. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 782, the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000. I join my colleagues in commending Chairmen Jeffords and DeWine and other members of the committee for their hard work and endless energy in bringing this important measure to the floor. In its 35th year, the Older Americans Act continues to meet its mission of helping seniors stay independent and part of their community. The wide array of services available under the act serve as the life-line to millions of seniors across the Nation. Seniors in both rural and urban areas rely heavily on one or more of these services: nutrition services such as home-delivered meals; meals served in congregate settings; transportation services to medical appointments; legal assistance; protection from abuse through the ombudsman program; pension counseling services; in-home services; and volunteer and employment opportunities for older persons. As chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am particularly pleased that this bill contains the National Family Caregiver Support Program. Over the past 3 years, Senator Breaux and I have convened a number of hearings to examine the important role that family caregivers play. More than 20 million Americans are caring for an aging or ailing family member. To put this number in perspective, there are fewer than 2 million seniors living in nursing homes. So simply by looking at the numbers, we can conclude that the bulk of caring for our Nation's elderly is carried out by family and friends in the form of informal caregiving. The story of Barbara Boyd, a state legislator from Ohio who testified before the Special Committee on Aging last year, provides a good example of what a caregivers job entails. Ms. Boyd cared at home for her mother who had Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer. Her mother had $20,000 in savings and a monthly Social Security check. That went quickly. Her prescription drugs alone ran $400 a month. Antibiotics, ointments to prevent skin breakdown, incontinence supplies, and other expenses cost hundreds of dollars a month. Ms. Boyd exhausted her own savings to care for her mother, and exhausted herself. She isn't complaining. Family caregivers don't complain. The contribution of family caregivers is enormous. Economically, family caregiving is worth billions of dollars. Emotionally and physically, caregiving is often an overwhelming task. Caregivers know what it entails to juggle personal and professional demands with the responsibilities that accompany caregiving. This is why the Family Caregiving Support Program, now a part of the Older Americans Act bill before us, is critically important to families caring for loved ones who are ill or who have disabilities. The program uses existing resources to meet a pressing need. In this case, the already successful network of aging centers will administer the program. It will serve millions of caregivers throughout hundreds of communities nationwide by providing: respite care; information and assistance; caregiving counseling and training and supplemental services to caregivers and their families. Our country is aging, and that demographic shift creates new needs, and this legislation helps us meet those needs. The Older Americans Act not only serves as a critical safety net, but it embraces important principles that we should uphold in policies that serve our nation's elderly. The act calls attention to the need to prepare our nation's aging population for its own longevity by enhancing health promotion opportunities, improving flexibility for states and area agencies on aging, by modernizing programs and services, and in calling for a White House Conference on Aging in 2005. Finally, the act provides authorization for the thirteen area agencies on aging in my home state of Iowa. In 1999, these funds enabled the agencies to serve nearly 293,000 elderly Iowans. The services the act funds are critical to older Americans in my state and throughout the country. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter I recently received from Representative Boyd be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'm glad we're getting around to the bankruptcy bill. I think we've got a good product. This conference report is basically the Senate-passed bankruptcy bill with certain minimal changes made to accommodate the House of Representatives. The means-test retains the essential flexibility that we passed in the Senate. The new consumer protections sponsored by Senator Reed of Rhode Island relating to reaffirmations is in this report. The credit card disclosures sponsored by Senator Torricelli are also in this final conference report. We also maintained Senator Leahy's special protections for victims of domestic violence and Senator Feingold's special protections for expenses associated with caring for non- dependent family members. So, Mr. President, on the consumer bankruptcy side, we maintained the Senate's position. On the business side of things, we kept Senator Kennedy's changes to the small business provisions. We have kept the international trade section intact. The financial netting provisions were updated to reflect technical changes suggested by the House. The new netting provisions, however, have universal support. Finally, Mr. President, I want to make one point crystal clear. Because of objections from the other side of the aisle, we have been delayed in getting this conference report up. Because of this delay and these kind of underhanded tactics, Congress has allowed chapter 12 to just expire. Chapter 12 gives family farmers a real chance to reorganize their affairs. But that's gone now. This bill restores chapter 12. This conference report also expands the eligibility for chapter 12 so more farmers will have access to these special protections. Also, Mr. President, this conference report gives farmers in chapter 12 much-needed capital gains tax relief. We hear a lot about helping farmers around here. This bill gives us a chance to do a lot of good. We should get on with passing this bill right away and stop playing political games with our farmers.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the support of Senator Breaux in introducing The Nursing Home Staff Improvement Act of 2000. This is an important piece of legislation for the 1.6 million frail elderly Americans who reside in nursing homes across the nation. A recently released and long overdue report from the Health Care Financing Administration was the immediate impetus for our bill. This report was first mandated by Congress in 1990. It took the Department of Health and Human Services 10 years to complete Part I of the report. It will take almost another year to finish it. The first part of the study documented, to just about everyone's satisfaction, severe staffing shortages, severe staffing shortages in our nation's nursing homes. While we are waiting for the agency to complete the second and final part of the report, Senate Breaux and I want to begin to address the staffing crisis in long-term care. Therefore, we are introducing this legislation today. We have a long way to go in meeting the staffing needs of elderly nursing home residents. The bill we are introducing today is not the answer to the problem. It is only a first step. Yet, it is an extremely important step that Congress should take. Before describing the bill Senator Breaux and I are introducing today, I'd like to take a couple of minutes to go over the history of our committee's work on nursing home quality of care and HCFA oversight of the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. It's important for me to emphasize the scope and depth of the problem in order to give my fellow Senators an appreciation of the context out of which this legislation developed. In the fall of 1997, serious allegations were brought to my attention about the quality of care provided in California nursing homes. These allegations claimed that thousands of California nursing home residents had suffered and met with untimely and unnecessary deaths due to malnutrition, dehydration, decubitus ulcers, and urinary tract infections. In an effort to respond to these allegations, I asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to conduct a thorough review of them and, more generally, of the quality of care in California nursing homes. This review culminated in a 2-day hearing held on July 27-28, 1998, entitled ``Betrayal: The Quality of Care in California Nursing Homes.'' At this hearing, the GAO released its report titled ``California Nursing Homes: Care Problems Persist Despite Federal and State Oversight.'' The findings of this report were explosive and disturbing, illustrating that residents in far too many California nursing homes were threatened by seriously substandard care. One week prior to this hearing, the Clinton administration announced a broad set of new nursing home initiatives to improve enforcement of the Nursing Home Reform Act and, hence, the quality of care in nursing facilities. The administration was acting in response to the impending release of the GAO's study before the scheduled Aging Committee hearing. It acted also in response to a congressionally mandated report by the Department of Health and Human Services on nursing home oversight that was completed just before the hearing. The Department's report uncovered weaknesses on the part of the federal government in its oversight of nursing home quality of care. As the Federal agency with regulatory oversight responsibility over our Nation's nursing homes, the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] is responsible for monitoring the compliance of nursing home facilities in meeting the requirements of the Nursing Home Reform Act. For facilities found to be noncompliant, HCFA is responsible for seeing that remedies or sanctions are imposed until the situation is corrected. The administration's report found shortcomings in HCFA's enforcement of the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. The agency's report was really a kind of self- indictment. Up to that point, the agency had failed in its responsibility to protect nursing home residents. As part of its multistep initiative, the administration called for improvements in nursing home inspections, better and more timely enforcement against nursing homes that repeatedly violate safety rules, and more attention to quality of care for nursing home residents through prevention of bed sores, malnutrition and dehydration. HCFA was given the responsibility for carrying out this initiative. Under my chairmanship, the Senate Special Committee on Aging has taken an active role in overseeing the implementation of the President's nursing home initiative led by the Administrator of HCFA. At regular hearings and forums, 10 to be specific, I have heard from family members, health care professionals and other long-term care experts about the progress and obstacles in achieving improved nursing home quality of care. Anecdotally, we have heard from the very beginning of our work on nursing home quality of care that understaffing is a root cause of many of the problems facing nursing home residents. Because we desperately needed a more systematic, research-based analysis of this understaffing problem, I had persistently urged HCFA to finish the long delayed staffing report I mentioned earlier. On July 27, 2000, Part I of the report, entitled ``Appropriateness of Minimum Staffing Ratios in Nursing Homes'' was done, and our committee held a hearing to take testimony on it. The report and the hearing presented groundbreaking new information on nursing facility staffing. It was the first time that understaffing, and the consequences of understaffing, were described by a scientifically sound government report. Although a Part II of the report will be required to completely validate the findings of Part I and to analyze a number of other questions raised by Part I, the report showed for the first time what family members and resident advocates had been saying for years: that the majority of nursing homes in our country are dramatically understaffed. Specifically, the report concluded that more than half of nursing facilities around the country employ too few nurses and nurse aides to provide adequate care to residents. As a result of these report findings, I began working on legislation to address the serious problems of understaffing. I started by seeking input from interested parties, including the Administration, nursing home providers, health care professionals, and resident advocates. I finalized my proposal right around the same time the President announced the administration's initiative in this area. The two proposals are similar in their goal to start addressing the problems of understaffing in nursing facilities. As I said earlier, the impetus for my bill was the Report to Congress on the ``Appropriateness of Minimum Nurse Staffing Ratios in Nursing Homes''. The major conclusions of the report are outlined in the Findings section of our bill. The report found that 2.0 nurse aide hours per resident day is a threshold below which residents' lives are at risk, not a standard for the provision of appropriate care. The findings also showed that 2.9 nurse aide hours per resident day are necessary for a nurse aide to complete core resident care tasks, although, because of the very conservative estimates used in this part of the study, 2.9 hours probably significantly understates the staffing levels necessary for a nurse aide to complete these core tasks. Part I of the report also indicated that Part II will analyze and report on minimum staffing levels according to a facility's resident acuity level. I urge Congress and the Administration to be careful in accepting either the 2.0 or 2.9 nurse aide hours per resident day as a minimum goal for nursing facilities until these results are validated and case-mix is included in the equation. It is reasonable to expect that staffing requirements will be substantially higher for facilities that have residents with higher acuity. Our bill calls for the completion of phase two of the study. It requires the Secretary to complete the report not later than July 1, 2001. It adds to the original authority a requirement that the study undertake several tasks that Part I of the report stated would be done in the second phase. Among other things, these tasks include a requirement that the case mix analysis of Part I of the report be further refined and related to appropriate minimum staffing levels. It also adds to the original authority a requirement that the report analyze ``optimal minimum'' caregiver to resident levels and ``optimal minimum'' supervisor to caregiver levels of skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program and nursing facilities participating in the Medicaid program. We modified the original authority in this manner because we believed the public should know not just appropriate minimum staffing levels, but also what more optimal staffing levels should be in nursing facilities. My bill requires that minimum staffing levels be developed and enforced within one year of the completion of the Report. It requires the Secretary to make recommendations regarding appropriate minimum caregiver to resident levels and minimum supervisor to caregiver levels for skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program and nursing facilities participating in the Medicaid program. The Secretary further shall require through the administrative rulemaking process compliance with appropriate minimum staffing levels as a condition for such facilities to receive payment under those programs. The Secretary would be required to promulgate a final rule not later than one year after completion of the report. The bill requires that the Secretary establish appropriate minimum staffing levels because we believed that a regulatory requirement should establish those staffing levels that will assure that residents receive the quality of care they have a right to receive under the terms of the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. We assume that the resident case mix of a facility will have an effect on the appropriate minimum staffing levels of the facility. In order to help States prepare for the minimum staffing levels that the Secretary will promulgate by July 1, 2002, my bill establishes a competitive state grant program. The purpose of the grant program will be to improve staffing levels in nursing facilities in order to improve the quality of care to residents of such facilities. A state that secures such a grant may provide technical or financial support to nursing facilities, labor organizations, nonprofit organizations, community colleges, or other organizations approved by the Secretary. Such support from the state shall be used for projects which will help to increase or improve recruitment and retention of direct care nursing staff. Projects supported by a state must be consistent with the requirements of sections 1818 and 1919 of the Social Security Act. No funds may be made available to county or state-owned nursing facilities. Funds used under a grant to a state may only be used to supplement, not supplant, other funds that the state extends to carry out the activities that may be supported by this grant program. The Secretary shall evaluate this grant program and report to the Congress on her findings not later than six months after completion of the grant program. Authorized to be appropriated are $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002. My bill includes a requirement for reporting of accurate information on staffing. Skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program and nursing facilities participating in the Medicaid program would be required to submit staffing information to the Secretary in a form and manner determined by the Secretary. Such information must be attested to as accurate by the reporting facility. The Secretary shall periodically post and update such information on the Nursing Home Compare web site. Skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program and nursing facilities participating in the Medicaid program shall submit to the Secretary a classification of all residents of the facility according to the resident classification system required under current law. My understanding is that nursing facilities should have data on hand and in a form that would be required by the Secretary for reporting to the Department, and, thus, the administrative burden of this requirement should be minimal. My bill includes a requirement for posting of facility staffing information. Facilities participating in the Medicare and Medicaid program would be required to post daily for each nursing unit and each work shift the current number of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care together with the number of residents per unit and shift. Throughout my work and oversight activity of nursing facility quality of care, I have made it a point to stress that there are many good nursing facilities. When a family is in need of a facility for a loved one, it is critically important that individuals shop around and gather information in order to find the best nursing home to meet the needs of their loved ones. The provision in my bill calling for additional reporting of staffing and facility posting of staffing data will help families which need to find a good facility for a loved one's placement. It should also eventually have an effect on the overall quality of care in nursing facilities as families search out and choose better facilities. The information collected by HCFA will help it improve and maintain its Nursing Home Compare web site. This is a database which contains information on every Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing home in the country. You can locate nursing homes in your area and find information about compliance with Medicare and Medicaid regulations based on the facility's most recent survey by state inspectors. Additionally, the web site contains useful phone numbers for survey agencies and long term care ombudsmen on the web site's ``Phone Directory'' page. In closing, I plan to continue my work to improve quality of care and quality of life for nursing home residents. In my position as Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I will continue to monitor the quality of care provided to our nation's nursing home residents. With the assistance of the GAO, I will continually assess and monitor the Health Care Financing Administration's progress and commitment to improving the quality of care in nursing homes.