Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if she will yield for another question?

Mr. ROBERTS. If there is a home health care agency and they go through the requirements and get, hopefully, up to speed--although you don't know how with the lack of personnel and you are not being paid for it, et cetera--they could then be suspended, but they have already gone through those costs to comply. But then you don't know. Aren't they sort of in a ``HCFA purgatory'' here?

Mr. ROBERTS. They didn't say you have no requirement to keep up the reporting paperwork; they just suspended them. So that shoe will drop again.

Mr. ROBERTS. But they suspended them?

Mr. ROBERTS. Now, wait a minute, HCFA imposed the cost burden of this mandate on home health care agencies. Then they had seconds thoughts. Why?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield for another question or just an observation?

Mr. ROBERTS. The home health care agencies are worried about IPS in Kansas. I know the same is true of all around the country. They also complain that their financial problems have been exacerbated--that is a fancy word that means a whole lot worse--by a host of new regulatory requirements imposed by HCFA--my favorite agency in Washington-- including the implementation of something called OASIS--I have the report--that they are requiring nurses to fill out. Oasis, if you look in the dictionary, is a desert island somewhere or in the middle of the desert; you come to an oasis and you get relief. Oasis is not relief. You don't spell relief by spelling oasis: a new outcome and assessment information data set; new requirements for surety bonds, sequential billing, overpayment recoupment, and a new 15-minute increment reporting requirement that is a doozy. What about all these reporting requirements in addition to the IPS problem? What about OASIS?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield for another question, if she will.

Mr. ROBERTS. I heard similar complaints--I have them written down--on the interim payment system, the IPS system, from the same agencies in my State. In fact, since January of 1998, 56 Medicare-certified agencies in Kansas have closed their doors, largely as a result of the changes in the IPS. These are not the fly-by-night home health care agencies we hear about that sometimes are in the press. Many of these agencies have been in existence for 20 years. I have visited these agencies. There was a survey conducted by the Kansas Home Care Association that shows agencies have laid off an average of 42 percent of their staff. They are subsidizing their Medicare payments to the tune of $213,000. In 1997, many agencies decreased the Medicare patient visits by 63 percent. Your chart shows 6,600 people. I have asked Kansas to come up with the numbers of people who are affected. They are trying to do that. It could be in the hundreds; it could be in the thousands. But one person, just one person is a valued individual. That is everybody's mom, dad, grandmother, or granddad. So from the standpoint of numbers, it is astounding what the distinguished Senator has put up on the chart with regard to this so-called IPS system. We are going through the same kind of problem. I am going to ask you, how much longer is this IPS mess going to be in effect? It was supposed to be a transition program to the prospective payment system, but they said, well, we can't do it that fast. I understand that because it does take a lot of work, but how much longer will we have to put up with this?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I will ask the Senator from Maine, if she will yield, another question.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield one more time, I thank the Senator for all of her leadership and all of her hard work in this effort. I believe it is absolutely mandatory for Congress to bring much needed relief to the home health care industry in the timeframe she has emphasized, as well as to the small rural hospitals and teaching hospitals that also are feeling the pinch of all the legislative and regulatory changes made in the last few years. The Senator is exactly right. We will have to move quickly. We must do it this year. There has been talk if we can't agree on a single proposal, we might have to put it off until next year. Time is of the essence in regard to our hospitals, especially the small rural providers. They operate on a shoestring budget. The same is true for the home health care agencies. I will continue to work with the distinguished Senator to pass legislation before Congress adjourns for the year. We cannot go home before we straighten this out and provide some help. I thank the Senator for her leadership. I think we have had a very good colloquy.

Mr. ROBERTS. If I could ask the Senator one final question, I know I have been hard on HCFA. Each Member has some very special experiences, and these are experiences that come to our attention when a constituent is having a big-time problem or a hospital or home health care agency. All of the folks that work down at HHS certainly don't fall under the category that I have been talking about. So what about our responsibility? What about our leadership? What should we do to fix the problem? How can we provide more relief to the beleaguered home health care agency?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank Chairman Stevens for his outstanding leadership during the long hours of debate leading to passage of the FY 2000 Defense appropriations bill. I especially thank the chairman for supporting Title IX of the act which permanently grants the President waiver authority over sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan. American business, workers, and farmers appreciate your efforts on this important economic and foreign policy provision.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, there are few responsibilities of the Senate more important than the constitutional duty to offer our advise and consent on treaties. After long deliberation and after a series of classified and unclassified hearings, I have determined that I cannot support ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. There are serious flaws in this document that could endanger our national security in the future. Make no mistake, the world is a dangerous place. We must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. And we must approach ratification of this treaty with only one view; does it advance the cause of world peace without jeopardizing our own security. The treaty fails on both counts. First, this treaty is not verifiable. I cannot vote for a treaty that will bind the United States, but which will be ignored by other nuclear nations. There are differing opinions concerning the ability to detect nuclear testing. But the issue is more complex than just detecting a detonation of a nuclear device with a yield greater than allowed by the treaty. If, for example, if a detonation occurred and we decided that we should inspect the site, how would we do the inspection? First, 31 nations have to agree that a violation has occurred before site inspections would be authorized. The chances of 31 nations agreeing a violation has occurred are remote. But why do proponents of the treaty think a nation that has just violated the treaty will allow an inspection? You need to look no further than Iraq to appreciate the difficulty in inspecting a nation that wants to obfuscate such testing. Just a quick review of the significant events that escaped our intelligence community in the recent past do not give confidence that they will uncover violations of this treaty. Our intelligence officers missed the development of the advanced missile development by North Korea, they failed to recognize the signs that both India and Pakistan were going to test nuclear weapons, they provided incorrect information resulting in our bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, and they failed to provide sufficient information to prevent us from conducting a missile attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. Additionally, there was confusion over the exact number of nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan. Secondly, ratification of this treaty will not reduce development or proliferation of nuclear weapons. A basic truth for any nation is that it will act in a manner that best suits its national interests. The downside of our military dominance compared to the rest of the world is that it forces weaker nations to rely on weapons of mass destructions as a counter to our conventional strength. Russia and China have both publicly stated that a new reliance on nuclear weapons is necessary to ``balance'' our dominance. Rogue nations cannot possibly challenge us with conventional weapons and therefore feel compelled to acquire or develop non-conventional weapons. This treaty will not stop or slow down the development of nuclear weapons if a nation deems these weapons as vital to their national interests. Russia and China will not be deterred from enhancing their nuclear weapon performance simply because they have signed this treaty. Yet, our own nuclear defense program would be limited under the treaty. Third, the Stock Pile Stewardship program as outlined will not guarantee safe and reliable nuclear weapons. This is a technical area. But there is considerable differences of opinion between impressive scientists about whether we can maintain our stock pile as safe and reliable without nuclear testing. Without such assurance of safety and reliability and with the knowledge that the United States will maintain a nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future, I cannot support such a treaty that would potentially put our stockpile at risk. Treaty proponents will argue that any time the appropriate leaders of defense, energy and the scientific community say we must test to insure reliability and safety, we can withdraw from the treaty. I have little confidence that once this treaty is approved, ``pulling the sword Excaliber from the stone'' would seem a trivial task compared to withdrawal from a nuclear test ban treaty. The point is that once the treaty is signed, we need to be confident that we can maintain a safe, reliable nuclear stockpile. We have no such confidence today--perhaps the technology will be in place in 5-15 years--and therefore we should not jeopardize our nuclear deterrent by agreeing to this treaty. Because we cannot verify whether other nations are following the treaty, because the treaty does not halt or prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and because the treaty could lead to reduced reliability and safety of our nuclear stockpile, I cannot support its ratification.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand that Senators are permitted to speak 10 minutes now and we are in morning business.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, those of us who are privileged to serve in the Senate are also privileged to become associated with a great many people who also serve our Nation's Capitol and, in turn, better enable us to meet our responsibilities. They also serve the true ``owners'' of this Capitol Building, the many men, women, and children who visit this very historic place to see firsthand ``their'' Capitol, their symbol of America, and the freedoms that we all enjoy. Despite the fact they do a good job, they are mostly unsung. I am talking about the 1,600 employees of the Senate. If you count our fine U.S. Capitol Police force, that number goes over 2,000. Today, I rise to pay tribute to one such employee, former Hill staffer, James Thomas ``Tony'' Anderson, who passed away this past August. For the past 5 years, the Senate's appointment desk, just one floor from this Chamber, was where Tony always greeted people with a smile and made them feel very special. In this tribute to him, I also speak for his coworkers and friends, Joy Ogdon, Christine Catucci, and Laura Williams. Mr. President, I first met Tony Anderson when I worked for Kansas Senator Frank Carlson and was a good friend with his mother, Margaret, who was a long-time and valued member of the Carlson staff. Like many of our dedicated employees, Mr. Anderson was never far from Capitol Hill. He was born in the old Providence Hospital at Third and E Streets N.E., and Tony got his training early and from some of the best. While still in high school, and later in college, he worked in various capacities for many Senators; the list reads similar to a Who's Who of the Senate during those years. I am talking about Senator Russell Long, Senator Leverett Saltonstall, Senator John Kennedy, Senator George Murphy, and Senator Frank Carlson. He graduated from Anacostia High School and later attended Federal City College, Montgomery College, and later the University of the District of Columbia. James Thomas Anderson was also Brother Bernard, junior Profess member of the Order of St. Francis, a Holy Order within the Episcopal Church, located at Little Portion Monastery in New York. His chosen service within the Order of St. Francis was commensurate with his strong support of human and animal rights. Upon his return from the monastery, he worked for the Architect of the National Cathedral. Mr. Anderson's life took a turn from Washington as a result of being a waiter at the old Carroll Arms Hotel Restaurant, where his interest in wines led him to a successful career that took him to the vineyards of Italy, France, Germany, and Spain. With his knowledge of wine and cheeses, he helped to open the Capitol Hill Wine and Cheese Shop, one of the first business successes that led to the revitalization of Capitol Hill. He later became the sommelier at the Watergate Terrace, the Four Seasons, Jean Louis at the Watergate, and then to the Hay Adams Hotel. Mr. Anderson was instrumental in getting the Four Seasons' wine and beverage program started. Tony Anderson then returned to the Capitol, working in the Senate Restaurant and Banquet Department. He could tell many accounts of serving First Ladies, visiting dignitaries, and even a luncheon for the Queen of England. No one did it better or with more elegance and propriety than Tony. Mr. Anderson left the Senate Restaurant, and for the past 5 years served on the Senate Appointments Desk. In that capacity, he was a natural. Tony Anderson was born in the city, grew up in the city. He loved the city and the Senate dearly. He truly enjoyed people, made them feel welcome, and if they had a moment, he made their visit to our Capitol special with all of his stories and experiences. I am not sure when he told me who he was. As I indicated, we were friends when I worked for Senator Frank Carlson a long time ago. For me and for most who have worked here as pages, interns, employees, and staffers--and, yes, also as Members of Congress--each experience, each person and, yes, even the places, are like a special collage etched in your memory. I can't remember exactly when it was, but I know I was coming from the Hart Building; I decided not to take the elevator to get to the first floor but to take the old stairs that I used when I was an intern for Senator Frank Carlson; they lead to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee room. Well, I turned right and was hurrying on my way, glancing at those ever-present appointment cards, when I heard Tony: Hey, Pat, remember me? I'm Tony Anderson, Margaret Anderson's son. And there he was, with a bow tie and a smile, the same smile and always pleasant demeanor that made him special to his family, coworkers, and friends--not to mention everyone he ever served and helped, from the Queen of England to John Q. Public, visitor to our Nation's Capitol. Mr. Anderson died at the age of 57. He is survived by his sister, Karen Anderson Cramer of Ocean Pines, MD. He was preceded in death by his parents, James and Margaret Anderson, and Edward Brodniak, his life partner of 32 years. Tony, thanks and godspeed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to read a statement I am sending to Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman regarding USDA's approach to emergency farm legislation. The letter goes like this: ``Dear Mr. Secretary''--Dear Dan, we are personal friends-- We all agree that we need to get the emergency agriculture bill out of conference, passed and get the assistance to our farmers as fast as possible. In this regard, I am concerned with recent comments you have made regarding how these payments should be funded and made available to farmers. Instead of using the current Agriculture Marketing Transition Act--[and the acronym for that is AMTA--instead of using that] payment system that farmers and their lenders were promised and banked on several months ago, you and others within the Administration have recommended alternative payment plans. In your September 15 testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, you said: ``There is an immediate need to provide cash assistance to mitigate low prices, falling incomes, and in some areas, falling land values.'' But then you said: ``Congress should enact a new program to target assistance to farmers of 1999 crops suffering from low prices. The Administration believes the income assistance must address the shortcomings of the farm bill by providing counter- cyclical assistance. The income assistance should compensate for today's low prices and therefore they should be paid according to this year's actual production of the major field crops, including oilseeds.'' [Mr. Secretary--] Dan, I know the Administration, the Farmer's Union and some Democrats in the Congress want to change the farm bill in the emergency legislation. And I know some of the budget [folks, I call them] ``wonks'' in the Office of Management and Budget--[I do not mean to perjure their intent, what they do, but they are] sending mixed signals and I know the politics of the issue. [There has been a lot of that.] Nevertheless, I urge you to reconsider for the following reasons: First: The very farmers who need the assistance [and who would receive the assistance] oppose this plan. The commodity organizations representing producers of soybeans, wheat, corn, cotton, grain sorghum, sunflowers, canola and rice and the American Farm Bureau--the very farmers you stressed in your statement--strongly disagree with your philosophy and proposal. In a letter to the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Ted Stevens, they said and I quote: ``We strongly disagree with that [and I am saying] (your) philosophy. The current economic distress is party a result of the unfulfilled promises of expanded export markets, reduced regulations and tax reform that were part of the promises made during deliberation of the 1996 farm bill. The costs of these unfulfilled promises fall upon those people who were participating in farm programs at that time. [They go on to say, and I am quoting: ``The current AMTA payment process is in place and can deliver payments quickly. The administration costs of developing an alternative method of payments would be very high and eat into funds that should go to farmers. Given the 7\1/2\ months it took the Department to issue weather disaster aid last year, we are unwilling to risk that producers might have to wait that long for development and implementation of a new farm program and disaster aid formula. Time is also critical for suppliers of goods and services to producers. They need payments for supplies now to stay in business, not just promises that something will happen in the future. ``Supplemental AMTA payments provide income to producers of corn, wheat, cotton, rice, barley and grain sorghum.'' Again, these are the very organizations, the commodity groups that represent the producers, that would receive the assistance. They go on to say: ``Soybean producers will receive separate payments under the Senate language. Crop cash receipts for these producers in 1999 will be down over 20 percent from the 1995-97 yearly average. Producers who have smaller than normal crops due to weather problems will receive normal payment levels. This is better than using the loan deficiency payment program which are directly tied to this year's production.'' Finally they say: ``We urge you to retain the $5.5 billion in supplemental AMTA payments as the method of distribution for farm economy aid in the agriculture appropriations conference agreement. Any alternative would certainly take additional time to provide assistance to producers--time which we cannot afford.'' My second reason for opposing these alternative plans: Changing the payment plan will mean farmers will not receive their payments until next year. The term you used, Mr. Secretary, in your statement regarding the emergency payments was ``immediate.'' The difference between using the AMTA payment system-- That is the current one-- and the several alternative methods you have suggested is: Three weeks or 3 months. Or this year or next. Last week, Farm Service Agency official Parks Shackelford said: ``All the king's horses and all the king's men could not get the payments made as quickly as Congress desires.'' Well, Dan, last year the USDA was able to distribute payments through the AMTA system in less than 3 weeks after passage of the legislation by Congress. They began on November 3, the date of the election, by the way, and farmers received their payments before Thanksgiving. Last year, in delivering disaster assistance, through a formula developed by the Department, it took 7\1/2\ months to receive these payments. I say to the Secretary with no disrespect: Dan, you are the ``king'' and you have the horses, just do it. Third: No specific or formal plan has been presented and in terms of the actual farming practices, the criticism, in my view, just doesn't add up. Staff on both the authorizing and the appropriations committees tell me no formal plan for an alternative distribution plan has been developed or submitted. What has been developed and submitted, however, is repeated criticism of current policy. That has been ongoing for sometime, not only at the Department, not only by one major farm organization, but certainly on the floor of the Senate and the House, for that matter. However, these comments show either naivete from people who do not understand the current legislation or worse, that the Department is breaking the law. In recent weeks, the USDA and Office of Management and Budget officials have criticized plans to distribute income assistance through the AMTA system. Their first complaint was, ``Payments actually go to people who planted no crops.'' I respectfully ask are producers who lost their crops due to hail, disease, drought, or flooding in better financial condition than those producers who had crops to harvest in 1999? Yes, our farmers can receive AMTA payments without planting a crop. That is part of the flexibility of the farm bill. But you and I know, Mr. Secretary, they must plant a cover crop for conservation requirements, and you and I also know that farmers have shifted the crops they plant and the current price crisis affects all crops. I know of no farmers who have quit planting altogether. Farmers don't do that. Last Friday, you said these payments are being made on many acres that are no longer planted to crops but rather have been switched over to pasture and to grassland. If that is the case, certainly hard hit livestock producers will also benefit from the AMTA payments. But more to the point, you, some in the Department and many of our friends across the aisle have urged production and/or acreage controls because farmers have allegedly planted ``fence row to fence row'' under the 1996 farm bill. The dramatic changes in production figures on major crops you cited arguing the administration's new payment distribution proposal clearly shows the large grain surpluses did not come from U.S. farmers. However, the current AMTA payment plan is, in fact, a paid diversion if the farmer wishes to make that decision. Those who propose acreage or production controls should embrace AMTA payments in that it affords farmers the opportunity to be paid for shifting to other crops or putting the ground into good conservation practices. They won't, of course, because the controls are not mandatory and did not simply come out of Washington. The second complaint we have heard is, ``Payments are being made to those who share no risk in farm production,'' or the landlords. Dan, if they are, both the USDA and the recipient are simply breaking the law. The 1996 farm bill clearly states that payments can be made only to those who ``assume part or all of the risk of producing a crop.'' If payments are indeed being made to those who share no risk in production, it is a clear violation of the law and disciplinary action should be taken for any official approving payments in an illegal manner. The third complaint was, ``The income assistance component must address the shortcomings of the farm bill by providing countercyclical assistance.'' I am not going to go into a detailed description of a portion of the farm bill that we call the Loan Deficiency Payment Program-- And the acronym for that is LDPs-- but what on Earth is the loan deficiency payment if it is not countercyclical? As a matter of fact, your own Department estimated last week that at least $5.6 billion in loan deficiency payments will be going out to farmers this year because prices are low and the lower prices are, the higher the LDP payments-- i.e., they are countercyclical-- even to the point of exempting them from payment limitations. That is how much money is going out under the LDP Program. How can you get more safety net countercyclical than that? Fourth: The alternative plans that you have proposed-- And there have been several of them-- have problems in regard to how they would work. While no formal alternative plan has been submitted-- And I emphasize the word ``formal'' and specific-- you have indicated such a plan would base payments off of a State average yield or off of a 5-year production average that farmers would have to prove. On one hand, you are telling farmers their payment will be based on ``actual production yields'' while on the other you state you intend to use the 1999 State averages or 5-year average yields. We both know that widespread discrepancies can occur in yields from one region of a State to another. We do not need western Kansas versus eastern Kansas arguments in regard to equity or similar arguments with any State or region throughout the country. Fifth: Our farmers, and their lenders, will not know the amount of payment not to mention when they will receive it. Any change in the AMTA distribution payments also changes what farmers and their lenders are promised and they banked on several months ago when we passed the bill in the Senate. We should use the current AMTA system where the producers and the lenders know exactly what their payments will be. Finally, Dan, as we have discussed, no farm bill is set in stone and none is perfect by any means. Certainly the current bill fits that description. That debate is and should be taking place but not on an emergency bill. It has been 6 months now since you requested an emergency bill. To date, I still don't know the administration's budget position, and I have not seen a specific plan. Some within OMB tell the appropriators they want less lost income payments and more disaster and others just the opposite. Summing up, with all due respect, Mr. Secretary, your proposal: 1. Is opposed by the very farmers who will receive emergency assistance. 2. Will delay the payments until next year. 3. Is based upon comments from those who apparently do not understand the legislation (and, I might add, not to mention farming) or if their comments are true, mean the USDA is breaking the law. 4. Has yet to be formally presented to staff and involves serious distribution and equity problems. 5. Breaks the commitment made to farmers and lenders when the Senate passed the emergency bill months ago. With all due respect, Mr. Secretary, I don't think we should be in the business of changing horses after the stage left. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Bryan's remarks, the Senate then proceed to consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2605, the energy and water appropriations bill. I further ask consent that reading of the report be waived and there then be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member. I finally ask consent that at 2:15 today the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 28. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 12:30, with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, 10 to 10:30; Senator Snowe, or her designee, 10:30 to 11.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 10 a.m. tomorrow and be in a period of morning business until 12:30. It is expected that tomorrow morning the Senate will be able to reach an agreement for the consideration of the Energy and Water Appropriations conference report. It is hoped the Senate would begin that conference report at approximately 11 o'clock on Tuesday for 45 minutes of debate. If that agreement is reached, Senators could anticipate the first rollcall vote to occur at approximately 11:45 in the morning. Following the party conference meetings, the Senate may begin consideration of the digital millennium legislation or any conference reports or appropriations bills available for action while waiting for the continuing resolution from the House of Representatives. Therefore, Senators can anticipate votes throughout tomorrow's session of the Senate.