STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 26, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S7656-S7689]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2922. A bill to create a Pension Reform and Simplification
Commission to evaluate and suggest ways to enhance access to the
private pension plan system; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
the pension reform and simplification commission act
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce legislation
calling for the establishment of a Pension Reform and Simplification
Commission. The legislation derives directly from conversations I have
had with constituents and experts on three key issues.
First, there is the problem related to the current cost and
complexity of private pension plans. In my view current regulations
place an unnecessary burden on small and medium business as they
attempt to adopt pension plans. Indeed, even the most simple plans are
often so complicated in form and function as to be incomprehensive to
an everyday businessperson.
Second, there is the problem involved in coverage. Although over-all
pension coverage may be consistent over the last decade and the assets
of private plans have been on the increase, my concern is with those
individuals of low to moderate income who are being left out of the
private pension plan equation. As companies move toward cheaper plans--
401(k)s being a salient example--and feel less obligated to offer
defined benefit-type plans, individuals who do not have the extra money
to contribute to their pension plans are
[[Page
S7657]]
unable to benefit from a plan's availability. This is if a plan is
available at all, and in many cases it is not.
Third, there is the problem of what kind of private pension plans are
best suited for the so-called ``New Economy''. Clearly there is
considerable debate as of late in terms of what kind of private pension
plans should be offered so as to increase saving, decrease mobility,
provide opportunity, enhance entrepreneurship, and so on, all of which
is apparent in the rise of hybrid pension plans. My foremost concern
here is that Congress now finds itself reacting to innovative private
pension plans rather than being pro-active in their creation.
Mr. President, in 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, known by most people by its acronym of ERISA, our
intention at the time being twofold. First, we wanted to protect the
assets held in private sector retirement plans. Second, we wanted to
create uniform rules that govern how these plans will be implemented in
each and every state.
From most accounts we have accomplished these two goals. There is no
question that ERISA has flaws that must be addressed--and I will
discuss these in detail later--but for all these flaws ERISA was
extremely significant in that it reaffirmed the government's commitment
to the importance of retirement plans for all Americans. Furthermore,
it created a comprehensive framework in this country under which the
expansion of private retirement plans could occur. Equally important,
the mechanisms it established for personal saving has added trillions
of dollars in available investment capital over the last decade alone,
fueling in a very tangible way the unprecedented economic growth that
we are seeing right now.
But for all the praise ERISA receives, it is also criticized widely
and, in my opinion, correctly on a number of counts. For this reason,
it is time to seriously re-evaluate whether it is addressing the needs
and concerns of all Americans. It is time to examine whether it fits
the demands of a changing, global, ``new'' economy.
As a specific example of these problems, the adoption of piecemeal,
narrow, and complicated statutes and regulations in the 26 years since
ERISA's implementation has made substantial portions of our retirement
system inefficient, expensive, and oftentimes incomprehensible to
anyone wishing to use it. It is well-known that we continue to add
provisions and plans with no effort at all to make them internally
compatible. We may have a broad vision about what we want to do with
retirement policy in this country, but we instead of revising
retirement policy in a comprehensive and strategic manner, we simply
add new ideas and language incrementally, hoping they will appeal to
businesses who wish to offer them to their employees.
Sadly, the end result is that for many businesses the cost of
compliance with ERISA regulations--the administrative and professional
costs of qualification--rival and even outweigh the costs of providing
the benefits themselves. This, in turn, has led to a decision by many
business owners that they can no longer afford to offer retirement
plans to their employees, this in spite of their desire to do so. For
these people, the current rules burden the system beyond the benefits
they provide. This has to change.
But the cost and complexity I have just mentioned has had a corollary
effect, that being a lack of access to pension plans on the part of
low- and middle-income workers, women and minorities in particular.
Rightly or wrongly, one of the foremost criticisms directed toward
ERISA is that it has accelerated the demise of traditional defined
benefit pensions and increased conversions to new forms of plans,
specifically defined contribution plans like 401(k)s. Employers
oftentimes no longer feel it is their role to provide retirement income
to their employees as they once did under defined benefit plans.
Instead they make defined contribution plans available and then educate
employees as to how to save for themselves.
The problem is that the retirement security of a great many workers
now lies in their ability to contribute individually to these plans,
and this is not always possible. Indeed, data suggests that if these
individuals are able to save adequately at all, they do so late in
their careers--this after paying for their homes, their childrens'
education, and other important spending priorities. Only then do they
have the opportunity to accumulate the money needed to supplement
Social Security and carry them through retirement. But these are the
lucky ones. The fact is a large portion of Americans simply no longer
have the capacity to save, this in spite of living in a time of
economic prosperity. This too needs to be changed.
There is a third reason to re-evaluate ERISA, and that is that the
dynamics of the New Economy demand a discussion of what retirement
policies best serve the economic interests of the United States. For a
good part of this century, private pension plans were seen by employers
as a way to keep their workforce intact, their employees' morale high,
and devotion to the company constant. Employees stayed with companies
because they identified with the company and were treated by employers
as family. Continuity and connection were the primary motivations for
individuals as they considered a job.
Recently, however, this rationale has changed, and has done so
significantly. According to most analysts, the main determinant for
most employees as they choose a job is personal development and
professional growth, the feeling being that economic security is best
attained by mobility--moving from one job to another, increasing
education, pay, and retirement savings as you go. Staying at one firm
is still an ideal for some but it is not essential for many. Perhaps
more importantly, given the dynamics of the New Economy, it may no
longer be practical to assume that you can find retirement security at
a single firm.
The bottom line, much as the recent debates over cash balance plans
suggest, is that some very basic issues concerning pension policy are
coming to the fore at this time, examples being the essence of the
employer-employee relationship, the ability of companies to attract and
maintain a skilled workforce, the benefits provided to short- and long-
term employees, the advisability of worker mobility seen in the context
of technological innovation and globalization, and so on. Here, we must
confront the reality of political economic change, and do so quickly
and coherently.
But Congress is not doing that. As I stated previously, we are
reacting to changes rather than planning for the future in a coherent
and strategic manner. In my view, this is an extremely serious problem
as it limits our ability to create the conditions necessary for
national economic growth and individual economic welfare.
As many of my colleagues know, the notion of a Pension Commission has
been discussed and debated for a number of years, but we have never
placed it high enough on our list of priorities to address it with
purpose. I would argue that we can no longer afford the luxury of
contemplation, and the time to act is now. Failure to adjust our
existing policies to meet the challenges we face both now and in the
future will result in several specific outcomes.
First, it will mean that many workers will see their retirement
expectations fade or disappear. Second, it will likely mean that these
individuals will be forced to rely on government sponsored programs
that are themselves financially overextended. Finally, it will mean
that the capacity of U.S. firms to compete in the global marketplace
will be diminished. In my view, none of these outcomes are acceptable.
We simply must become more thoughtful and pro-active.
The bill I introduce today has a number of purposes, but foremost
among them is to establish an affordable, accessible, equitable,
efficient, cost-effective, and easy to understand private pension plan
system in the United States. It is designed to conduct a complete top-
to-bottom evaluation of the current system and provide concrete
recommendations as to how we can reform it to serve the interests of
employers, employees, and the entire nation as a whole.
This Commission will be composed of fifteen members, all with
significant experience in areas related to retirement income policy. It
is mandated that the activities of the Commission
[[Page
S7658]]
will be concluded in a little over two years, with specific language to
be provided to Congress so that we can act on their recommendations
immediately. To ensure that the activities of the Commission are not
redundant or otherwise wasteful, it will be allowed to secure data from
any government agency or department dealing with retirement policy, and
furthermore, may request detailees from these agencies and departments
on a non-reimburseable basis. The Commission will also be allowed to
hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence as appropriate from
individuals who are able to contribute to this reform effort.
This bill has been created after detailed discussions with a number
of individuals and organizations interested in retirement policy, from
the Employee Benefits Research Institute, to the Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities, to the Association of Private Pension and Welfare
Plans. Although all of the organizations involved have their own
perspective on how retirement policy issues should be addressed in the
United States, I have made a concerted effort to make their concerns
compatible in this legislation. Significantly, all endorse the goals of
the bill, as does the American Academy of Actuaries, the Executive
Committee of the New York State Bar Association, and the Chairman of
the Special Commission on Pension Simplification of the New York State
Bar Association, Mr. Alvin D. Lurie.
Mr. President, although there is much to recommend concerning our
current pension system, it is common knowledge that this system is, in
many instances, too complicated for participants to understand, too
difficult for businesses to use, and too inaccessible for individuals
to join. We have added layer upon layer of legislation, to the point
that the system is not only unwieldy, but often of questionable
purpose. We have reached the point that its complexity and
inaccessibility is having a tangible impact on individuals and
businesses alike.
In my view, the status quo is no longer viable or acceptable. It is
time to meet the challenge that faces us in a direct and strategic
fashion. It is time to reform and simplify the system so that we have a
effective mechanism that serves employers and employees alike and
provides the means to guarantee all Americans income security in their
retirement years.
Mr. President, the time to act is now. I ask my colleagues to
recognize the importance of this legislation, and lend their support
for its passage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be
included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. I also ask
that the letters of support from the American Academy of Actuaries and
the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans be included in the
Record immediately following my floor statement.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2922
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pension Reform and
Simplification Commission Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The creation and implementation of an affordable,
accessible, equitable, efficient, cost-effective, and easy to
understand system is essential to the continuity and
viability of the current private pension plan system in the
United States.
(2) There is a near universal recognition in the United
States that the laws that regulate our pension system have
become unwieldy, complex, and burdensome, a condition that
hinders the achievement of increased saving and economic
growth and cannot be fixed by ad hoc improvements to ERISA
and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) Significant and effective improvement of laws can only
be accomplished through a coordinated, comprehensive, and
sustained effort to revise and simplify current laws by a
high-level body of pension experts, whose recommendations are
then transmitted to Congress.
(4) In recent years, the adoption of narrowly focused and
increasingly complex statutes through amendment of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (in this Act
referred to as ``ERISA'') and the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 has impeded the efforts of employers and employees to
save for their retirement and imposed significant challenges
for businesses which consider establishing pension plans for
their workforce.
(5) A high national savings rate can contribute
significantly to the economic security of the Nation as it
adds to available investment capital, fuels economic growth,
and enhances productivity, competitiveness, and prosperity.
(6) The Federal Government can potentially increase the
national savings rate through the implementation of policies
that create an effective framework for the spread of
voluntary retirement plans and the protection of the private
assets held in those plans.
(7) Private pension plans have been, and remain, the single
largest repository of private capital in the world and
potentially act as a significant inducement for personal
saving and investment.
(8) Pensions represent the only hope that most working
Americans have an adequate supplement to social security
benefits, and while the private pension system has been
greatly improved since the establishment of ERISA, many
inequities remain, and many workers are still not covered by
the system.
(9) It is essential that all Americans, no matter what
their income security level, have the opportunity to achieve
income security in their retirement years. Currently, many
tax and retirement incentives for private pension plans,
while benefiting higher income employees who can often save
adequately for their retirement, do not serve sufficiently
the needs of low and moderate income workers.
(10) The current pensions rules have tended to produce
disparate coverage rates for low and moderate income workers.
(11) The failure of the Government to modify current
pension policies will mean that many workers will be deprived
of the options needed to save for their retirement and will,
consequently, have their retirement expectations minimized or
eliminated.
(12) The failure of the Government to redress the burdens
imposed by over-regulation and complexity on employer-
sponsored pension plans will harm employees and their
families.
(13) The failure of the Government to redress the problems
related to private pension plans may erode the ability of
United States companies to compete effectively in the
international market and result in a decrease in the economic
health of the Nation.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
There is established a commission to be known as the
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission (in this Act
referred to as the ``Commission'').
SEC. 4. DUTIES.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall--
(1) study the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges
involved in the regulation of the current private pension
system;
(2) review and assess Federal statutes relating to the
regulation of the current private pension system; and
(3) recommend changes in the law regarding the regulation
of the current private pension system to mitigate the
problems identified under subsection (b), with the goal of
making the system more affordable, accessible, efficient,
less costly, less complex, and, in general, to expand pension
coverage.
(b) Issues To Be Studied.--The Commission shall include in
the study under subsection (a) a consideration of--
(1) the manner in which the current rules impact private
pension coverage, how such coverage has changed over the last
25 years (since the enactment of ERISA), and reasons for such
change;
(2) the primary burdens placed on small and medium business
in the United States regarding administration of pension
plans, especially how such burdens affect the tenuous
position occupied by these organizations in the competitive
market;
(3) the simplification of existing pension rules in order
to eliminate undue costs on employers while providing
retirement security protection to employees;
(4) the primary obstacles to employees in gaining optimum
advantages from the current pension system, with particular
attention to the small and medium business sector and low and
moderate income employees, including minorities and women;
(5) the feasibility of providing innovative design options
to enable small and medium businesses to be relieved of
complex and costly legislative and regulatory burdens in
matters of adoption, operation, administration, and reporting
of pension plans, in order to increase affordable and
effective coverage in that sector, for low and moderate
income employees, with emphasis on minorities and women;
(6) the means of leveling distribution of private pension
plan coverage between high wage earners and low and moderate
income workers;
(7) the feasibility of forward-looking reforms that
anticipate the needs of small and medium businesses in the
United States given the obstacles and opportunities of the
new global economy, in particular issues related to the
mobility and retention of skilled workers;
(8) how pension plan benefits can be made more portable;
(9) the means of achieving the expansion and adoption of
pension plans by United States businesses, especially those
employing low and moderate income workers who currently lack
access to such plans;
[[Page
S7659]]
(10) the impact of expanding individual retirement account
contribution limits and income limits on private pension plan
coverage;
(11) the provision of innovative incentives that encourage
more employers to use existing private pension plans;
(12) the impact of qualified plan contribution and benefit
limits on coverage; and
(13) any proposals for major simplification of Federal
legislation and regulation regarding qualified pension plans,
in order to address and mitigate problem areas identified
under this subsection, with the goal of--
(A) strengthening the private pension system;
(B) expanding the availability, adoption, and retention of
tax-favored savings plans by all Americans;
(C) eliminating rules that burden the pension system beyond
the benefits they provide, for low and moderate income
workers, including minorities and women, with specific
emphasis on--
(i) eligibility and coverage;
(ii) contributions and benefits;
(iii) minimum distributions, withdrawals, and loans;
(iv) spousal and beneficiary benefits;
(v) portability between plans;
(vi) asset recapture;
(vii) plan compliance and termination;
(viii) income and excise taxation; and
(ix) reporting, disclosure, and penalties; and
(D) identification of the trade-offs involved in
simplification under subparagraph (C).
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the
designation of the chairperson under section 5(d), the
Commission shall transmit to the President and Congress a
report containing--
(A) the issues studied under subsection (b);
(B) the results of such study;
(C) draft legislation and commentary under paragraph (2);
and
(D) any other recommendations based on such study.
(2) Legislative recommendations.--The Commission shall
develop draft legislation and associated explanations and
commentary to achieve major simplification of Federal
legislation regarding regulation of pension plans (including
ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to implement any
findings or recommendations of the study conducted under
subsection (b).
(3) Recommendations.--Any official findings or
recommendations of the Commission shall be adopted by \2/3\
of the members of the Commission.
(4) Minority views.--All findings and recommendations of
the Commission formally proposed by any member of the
Commission and not adopted under paragraph (3) shall also be
included in the report.
SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION; RULES; POWERS.
(a) Composition.--
(1) Number.--The Commission shall be composed of 15
members, appointed not later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Appointments.--The membership of the Commission shall
be as follows:
(A) 3 individuals appointed by the President, after
consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
the Treasury, or their respective designees.
(B) 3 individuals appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate.
(C) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the
Senate.
(D) 3 individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(E) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives.
(b) Qualifications of Members.--
(1) In general.--Individuals appointed under subsection
(a)(2) shall be individuals who--
(A) have experience in actuarial disciplines, law,
economics, public policy, human relations, business,
manufacturing, labor, multiemployer pension plan
administration, single employer pension plan administration,
or academia, or have other distinctive and pertinent
qualifications or experience in retirement policy;
(B) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
(C) are selected without regard to political affiliation or
past partisan activity.
(2) Other considerations.--In the appointment of members
under subsection (a), every effort shall be made to ensure
that the individuals, as a group--
(A) are representatives of a broad cross-section of
perspectives on private pension plans within the United
States;
(B) have the capacity to provide significant analytical
insight into existing obstacles and opportunities of private
pension plans; and
(C) represent all of the areas of experience under
paragraph (1)(A).
(c) Terms; Vacancies.--
(1) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of
the Commission.
(2) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers and shall be filled in the same manner as
the appointment of the member causing the vacancy.
(d) Chairperson; Vice chairperson.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall
designate a chairperson and vice chairperson of the
Commission from the individuals appointed under subsection
(a)(2).
(e) Compensation.--
(1) Prohibition of pay.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission may
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or
regular place of business in the performance of services for
the Commission.
(f) Rules of the Commission.--
(1) Quorum.--Eight members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum for conducting the business of the
Commission, except 5 members of the Commission may hold
hearings, take testimony, or receive evidence.
(2) Notice.--Any meetings held by the Commission shall be
duly noticed in the Federal Register at least 14 days prior
to such meeting and shall be open to the public.
(3) Opportunities to testify.--The Commission shall provide
opportunities for representatives of the general public,
taxpayer groups, consumer groups, think tanks, and State and
local government officials to testify.
(4) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
chairperson of the Commission.
(5) Other rules.--The Commission shall adopt such other
rules as necessary.
(g) Powers of the Commission.--
(1) Information from federal agencies.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from
any Federal department or agency such materials, resources,
data, and other information as the Commission considers
necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. Upon
request of the chairperson of the Commission, the head of
such department or agency shall furnish such materials,
resources, data, and other information to the Commission.
(B) Coordination of research information.--The Commission
shall ensure effective use of such materials, resources,
data, and other information and avoid duplicative research by
coordinating and consulting with the head of the appropriate
research department of--
(i) the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration of the
Department of Labor;
(ii) the Department of the Treasury;
(iii) the Social Security Administration;
(iv) the Small Business Administration;
(v) the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;
(vi) the National Institute on Aging; and
(vii) private organizations which have conducted research
in the pension area.
(2) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as any other
Federal agency.
(3) Acceptance of services; gifts; and grants.--The
Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or grants of
services or property, both real and personal, for purposes of
aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts or
grants not used at the expiration of the Commission shall be
returned to the donor or grantor.
(4) Contract and procurement authority.--The Commission may
make purchases, and may contract with and compensate
government and private agencies or persons for property or
services, without regard to--
(A) section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5); and
(B) title III of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.).
(5) Volunteer services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of
title 31, United States Code, the Commission may accept and
use voluntary and uncompensated services as the Commission
determines necessary.
SEC. 6. STAFF AND SUPPORT SERVICES.
(a) Executive Director; Staff.--
(1) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to civil service laws and regulations and
after consultation with the Commission, appoint an executive
director of the Commission and such other additional
personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to
perform its duties.
(2) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
such title.
(b) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request by the
chairperson of the Commission, the head of any Federal
department or agency may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis,
any of the personnel of the department or agency to the
Commission to assist the Commission to carry out its duties
under this Act and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(c) Administrative Support Services.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a
reimbursable basis, any administrative support services that
are necessary to enable the Commission to carry out this Act.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate not later than 26 months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
[[Page
S7660]]
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
____
American Academy of Actuaries,
July 13, 2000.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The American Academy of Actuaries
would like to express its strong support for your idea of
establishing a national commission on pension reform and
simplification. The Academy has long advocated a
comprehensive and coordinated approach to retirement policy.
We believe the establishment of a bipartisan commission of
experts to analyze obstacles that weaken our private pension
system and recommend solutions is a positive first step. The
Academy also believes that slight modifications to your
proposal would make the commission more effective.
The Academy commends you for recognizing that, because the
laws that regulate our private pension system have become too
complex, they discourage employers from helping their workers
save for an adequate retirement. We strongly support the
concept of a bipartisan commission of experts that will
recommend specific ways to simplify the rules governing
private plans, thereby encouraging employers to expand
coverage to more workers.
The Academy believes that the commission called for in your
proposal could be made more effective if Congress was
required to have an up-or-down vote on its recommendations.
Furthermore, we believe that, given the expertise available
to the commission, it should be possible to formulate a
result in 12-18 months, rather than the 24 months specified
in your legislation. Finally, we would encourage the
commission to examine pension changes in the context of a
national retirement income policy, including Social Security,
since major changes to the private pension system undoubtedly
will affect Social Security.
The Academy believes that creation of a national commission
will be a positive first step toward our mutual goal of
increasing pension coverage for Americans. We appreciate your
recognition of the unique role that actuaries should play in
such a commission and look forward to providing any
assistance that may be of benefit to you and your staff.
Sincerely,
James E. Turpin,
Vice President, Pensions.
____
APPWP, Association of Private
Pension and Welfare Plans,
July 18, 2000.
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act
Senator Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the Association of
Private Pension and Welfare Plans (APPWP--The Benefits
Association), I want to express our appreciation for your
interest in, and support for, our nation's voluntary,
employer-sponsored retirement system as evidenced by the
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act that you
will soon introduce. APPWP is a public policy organization
representing principally Fortune 500 companies and other
organizations that assist companies of all sizes in providing
benefits to employees. Collectively, APPWP's members either
sponsor directly or provide services to retirement and health
plans that cover more than 100 million Americans. We
appreciate your past and continuing efforts to expand the
private, voluntary retirement system that currently enables
millions of working Americans to achieve financial security
in retirement.
As you know, the employer-based retirement system provides
an important source of income security for many Americans in
retirement, and, in many respects, has been successful in
meeting the challenges of an aging population. However, we
recognize that public policy can build and expand on this
success. Many employers, particularly small companies, find
it difficult to establish retirement plans because of cost
and administrative complexity. As a result, many workers do
not have access to private pensions and cannot save
adequately for retirement. Moreover, our pension laws have
not kept pace with the rapid developments in the business
world. New technologies, international competition, and many
types of corporate transactions pose unique pension
challenges that should be better accommodated by our nation's
retirement policy. APPWP has consistently campaigned for
expansion and reform of the nation's pension laws with the
express goals of expanding coverage, increasing portability,
reducing complexity, and reflecting business realities. We
are therefore pleased that you have made these goals the
central objective of the commission you propose.
In particular, APPWP commends you for putting the focus of
pension reform on expanding coverage. You correctly note that
our retirement system has become overly burdened with
unwieldy and complex rules that have impeded expanded
coverage and increased retirement security for all Americans.
Your advocacy on behalf of the goals of coverage and
simplification is an important step towards realizing a more
secure retirement for all Americans.
We look forward to working with you on these important
issues. If we can be of further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
James A. Klein,
President.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Moynihan, Mr. L. Chafee, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Robb, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Schumer, and
Mr. Leahy):
S. 2923. A bill to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act
to provide for FamilyCare coverage for parents of enrolled children,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the family care act of 2000
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the introduction
of the Family Care Act of 2000, which takes the next logical step in
assuring access by as many citizens as possible to affordable health
insurance. I commend Congressman John Dingell and the rest of our
colleagues for their fine work in crafting this legislation.
The number of uninsured Americans is now more than 44 million, and
the figure is rising by an average of one million a year. America is
the only industrial country in the world, except South Africa, that
fails to guarantee health care for all it citizens.
It is a national scandal that lack of insurance coverage is the
seventh leading--and most preventable--cause of death in America today.
Three years ago, we worked together to create CHIP, the federal-state
Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage to
children in families with incomes too high for Medicaid and too low to
afford private health insurance.
More than two million children have been enrolled in that program,
and millions more have signed up for Medicaid as a result of outreach
activities. Soon, more than three-quarters of all uninsured children in
the nation will be eligible for assistance through either CHIP or
Medicaid.
But, despite this progress, the parents of these children, and too
many others, have been left behind. The time has come to take the next
step.
The overwhelming majority of uninsured low-wage parents are
struggling to support their families. I will ask unanimous consent to
insert a statement in the Record from Patricia Quezada, a parent of
three lovely girls, who would benefit from this legislation.
Parents who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should be
eligible for assistance to buy the health insurance they need in order
to protect their families. Our message to them today is that help is on
the way.
Often, they work for companies which don't offer insurance, or they
aren't eligible for insurance that is offered. Fewer than a quarter of
the jobs taken by those who have been forced off the welfare rolls by
welfare reform offer insurance as a benefit--and even when it is
offered too few companies make it available for dependents. The time
has come to take the next step.
The Family Care Act of 2000 will provide with the resources,
incentives and authority to extend Medicaid and CHIP to the parents of
children covered under those programs.
Coverage for parents also means better coverage for children. Parents
are much more likely to enroll their children in health insurance, if
the parents themselves can have coverage, too.
This step alone will give to six and a half million Americans the
coverage they need and deserve.
The Family Care Act will also improve the outreach and enrollment for
CHIP and Medicaid, and encourage states to extend coverage to other
vulnerable population, such as pregnant women, legal immigrants, and
children ages 19 and 20.
This program is affordable under current and projected budget
surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost will
be $11 billion over the next five years.
Last Monday, a majority of the Senate voted in favor of this proposal
as an amendment to the marriage penalty bill. We needed 60 votes, so it
was not successful then, but we clearly have a bipartisan majority of
the Senate.
The bottom line is that we have the resources to take this needed
step, and
[[Page
S7661]]
end the suffering and uncertainty that accompanies being uninsured.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements and letters of
support for this legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
statement of patricia quezada, july 21, 2000
Good morning. I am Patricia Quezada. I am a mother of three
girls (ages 9, 8 and 5). I work as a part-time parent liaison
at Weyanoke Elementary School in Fairfax, Virginia. My
husband is a self-employed general contractor. Because my
husband is self-employed and I work part-time, our family
does not have access to health insurance through our jobs.
In the past, we were able to purchase private insurance
that covered our family. But, in recent times, our family has
been unable to afford the high rates because it came down to
either paying for our home, transportation and other
necessities--including food--or purchasing this costly
insurance. On two occasions, the coverage was cancelled
because we were unable to meet the payments, which were
required in advance.
It was such a relief that my children are now able to
receive coverage through Medicaid and CMSIP, Virginia's SCHIP
Program. (As a parent-liaison, part of my job has been to
help other families sign up their children for health
insurance.) I feel extremely fortunate that my children are
now covered in case of an illness or accident, however I
continue to fear what could happen if my husband or I fall
sick or have an injury. While we both do our best to take
care of our health, we know how important it is to have
health insurance coverage if we should need it.
Thank you.
____
Children's Defense Fund,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: We are taking this opportunity to
thank you for introducing the FamilyCare Act of 2000 and to
express the strong support of the Children's Defense Fund for
this bipartisan initiative to provide and strengthen health
care coverage for uninsured children and their parents.
Building on the successes of Medicaid and the Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP), this legislation will
increase coverage for uninsured children, provide funding for
health insurance coverage for the uninsured parents of
Medicaid and CHIP-eligible children, and simplify the
enrollment process for Medicaid and CHIP to make the programs
more family friendly.
We want to extent our appreciation to Senators Chafee,
Collins, Daschle, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, and Snowe for co-
sponsoring this legislation in the Senate and to
Representatives Dingell, Stark, and Waxman for taking the
lead on this proposal in the House. We look forward to
working with you for passage of the FamilyCare Act of 2000.
Sincerely,
Gregg Haifley,
Deputy Director Health Division.
____
National Association of
Children's Hospitals,
Alexandria, VA, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the National Association
of Children's Hospital (N.A.C.H.), which represents over 100
children's hospitals nationwide, I want to express our strong
support for your introduction of the ``FamilyCare Act of
2000.''
As providers of care to all children, regardless of their
economic status, children's hospitals devote nearly half of
their patient care to children who rely on Medicaid or are
uninsured, and more than three-fourths of their patient-care
to children with chronic and congenital conditions. These
hospitals have extensive experience in assisting families to
enroll eligible children in Medicaid and SCHIP. They are
keenly aware of the importance of addressing the challenges
that states face in enrolling this often hard to reach
population of eligible children.
In particular, N.A.C.H. appreciates and strongly supports
your efforts to simplify and coordinate the application
process for SCHIP and Medicaid, as well as to provide new
tools for states to use in identifying and enrolling
families. In addition, N.A.C.H. applauds your provisions that
set a higher bar for covering children by: (1) requiring
states to first cover children up to 200% of poverty and
eliminating waiting lists in the SCHIP program before
covering parents; and (2) requiring every child who loses
coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP to be automatically screened
for other avenues of eligibility and if found eligible,
enrolled immediately in that program.
N.A.C.H. also supports your legislation's provision to give
states additional flexibility under SCHIP and Medicaid to
cover legal immigrant children. In states with high
proportions of uninsured children, such as California, Texas
and Florida, the federal government's bar on coverage of
legal immigrant children helps contribute to the fact that
Hispanic children represent the highest rate of uninsured
children of all major racial and ethnic minority groups. Your
provision to ensure coverage of legal immigrant children
would be extremely useful in improving this situation.
N.A.C.H. greatly appreciates all that you have done
throughout your years of service, and continue to do, to
provide all children with the best possible chance at
starting out and staying healthy. We welcome and look forward
to working with you to pass the ``FamilyCare Act of 2000.''
Sincerely,
Lawrence A. McAndrews.
____
March of Dimes,
Birth Defects Foundation,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of more than 3 million
volunteers and 1600 staff members of the March of Dimes, I
want to commend you for introducing the ``FamilyCare Act of
2000.'' The March of Dimes is committed to increasing access
to appropriate and affordable health care for women, infants
and children and supports the targeted approach to expanding
the State Children's Health Insurance Program contained in
the FamilyCare proposal.
The ``FamilyCare Act of 2000'' contains a number of
beneficial provisions that would expand and improve SCHIP.
The March of Dimes strongly supports giving states the option
to cover low-income pregnant women in Medicaid and SCHIP
programs with an enhanced matching rate. We understand that
FamilyCare would allow states to cover uninsured parents of
children enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP as well as uninsured
first-time pregnant women. SCHIP is the only major federally-
funded program that denies coverage to pregnant women while
providing coverage to their infants and children. We know
prenatal care improves birth outcomes. Expanding health
insurance coverage for low-income pregnant women has
bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.
The March of Dimes also supports FamilyCare provisions to
require automatic enrollment of children born to SCHIP
parents; automatic screening of every child who loses
coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP to determine eligibility for
other health programs; and distribution of information on the
availability of Medicaid and SCHIP through the school lunch
program. The March of Dimes also supports giving states the
option to provide Medicaid and SCHIP benefits to children and
pregnant women who arrived legally to the United States after
August 23, 1996, and to people ages 19 and 20.
We thank you for your leadership in introducing the
``FamilyCare Act of 2000'' and are eager to work with you to
achieve approval of this much needed legislation.
Sincerely,
Anna Eleanor Roosevelt,
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees; Chair, Public Affairs
Committee.
Dr. Jennifer L. Howse,
Presdient.
____
Association of Maternal and
Child Health Programs,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the Association of
Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP), I am writing to
express our support of the FamilyCare Act of 2000. We are
particularly supportive of the provisions that allow states
to include pregnant women in their SCHIP and Medicaid
programs.
We are also pleased with the provisions giving states the
flexibility to expand outreach activities as well as moving
towards greater equity in program payments.
AMCHP represents state officials in 59 states and
territories who administer public health programs aimed at
improving the health of all women, children, and adolescents.
In 1997, over 22 million women, children, adolescents and
children with special health care needs received services,
which were supported by the Maternal and Child Health Block
Grant.
We look forward to working with you and your staff on this
bill.
Sincerely,
Deborah Dietrich,
Director of Legislative Affairs.
____
American Dental
Hygienist Association,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Hon. Jay Rockefeller,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller: on behalf of the
American Dental Hygienists' Association (ADHA), I write to
express ADHA's support for the principles espoused in the
Family Care Act of 2000. This legislation is an important
step toward the goal of meaningful health insurance coverage,
including oral health insurance coverage, for all children
and their parents.
Regretfully, there is room for much improvement in our
children's oral health, a fundamental part of total health.
Studies show that oral disease currently afflicts the
majority of children in our country. Dental caries (tooth
decay), gingivitis, and periodontitis (gum and bone
disorders) are the most common oral diseases. The Public
Health Service reports that 50% of all children in the United
States experience dental caries in their permanent teeth and
two-thirds experience gingivitis.
[[Page
S7662]]
The percentages of children with dental disease are likely
far higher for the traditionally underserved Medicaid-
eligible population and for those eligible for the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). For example, one
of the most severe forms of gum disease--localized juvenile
periodontitis--disproportionately affects teenage African-
American males and can result in the loss of all teeth before
adulthood. If untreated, gum disease causes pain, bleeding,
loss of function, diminished appearance, possible systemic
infections, bone deterioration and eventual loss of teeth.
Yet, each of the three most common oral health disorders--
dental caries, gingivitis, and periodontitis--can be
prevented through the type of regular preventive care
provided by dental hygienists.
Despite the known benefits of preventive oral health
services and the inclusion of oral health benefits in
Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
Treatment (EPSDT) program, only one in 5 (4.2 million out of
21.2 million) Medicaid-eligible children actually received
preventive oral health services in 1993 according to a 1996
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report entitled
Children's Dental Services Under Medicaid: Access and
Utilization.
The nation simply must improve access to oral health
services and your legislation is an important building block
for all who care about our children's oral health, a
fundamental part of general health and well-being.
We in the dental hygiene community look forward to working
together toward our shared goal of health insurance coverage
for all of our nation's families. Please feel free to call
upon me or ADHA's Washington Counsel, Karen Sealander of
McDermott, Will & Emery (202-756-8024), at any time.
Sincerely,
Stanley B. Peck,
Executive Director.
____
Premier Inc.,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of Premier Inc., I am
writing to applaud your introduction of the ``FamilyCare Act
of 2000'' and express our strong support. Premier is a
strategic alliance of leading not-for-profit hospitals and
health systems across the nation. Premier provides group
purchasing and other services for more than 1,800 hospitals
and healthcare facilities.
As reported by the Urban Institute in the July/August issue
of Health Affairs, the population of non-elderly uninsured
grew by 4.2 million between 1994 and 1998. This hike in the
rate of uninsured occurred among children and adults. In the
same period, Medicaid coverage fell from 10 to 8.4 percent,
or about 3.1 million persons (1.9 million children and 1.2
million adults). Your legislation confronts and seeks to
address these disturbing trends head on.
The FamilyCare Act of 2000 not only expands coverage to
children--it also enables states to provide health insurance
to parents of children enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid. The
bill creates new opportunities for states to cover immigrant
children and pregnant women, and provides for the automatic
coverage of children born to CHIP-enrolled parents, thereby
enhancing presumptive eligibility.
This legislation provides for the mutual reinforcement of
the Medicaid and CHIP programs by integrating eligibility
determination and outreach efforts. A standard application
form and simple enrollment process for both programs will
raise the participation rate for both programs. Finally, the
bill provides grants to support broader outreach activities
and employer subsidies to offer health insurance packages,
thereby encouraging joint public/private market innovations
to reduce the population of uninsured.
Stifling the growth in the rate of uninsured and reversing
the trend remain a top priority for the hospital community.
Securing the appropriate preventative care for these
individuals will improve the quality and cost-effectiveness
of further care, as the uninsured are more likely to be
hospitalized for medical conditions that, initially, could
have been managed with physician care and/or medication.
Thank you for taking the lead in addressing the problem of
America's uninsured. We look forward to working with you
toward enactment of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Kerb Kuhn,
Vice President, Advocacy.
____
Families USA,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: We congratulate you on the
introduction of your bill, the Family Care Act of 2000, which
gives states the option to provide parents of children
enrolled in the Medicaid and CHIP programs with health
insurance. We believe that your bill is a crucial next step
in addressing the problem of our nation's uninsured, and we
offer our unequivocal support.
By covering parents through CHIP, the Family Care Act could
provide health insurance to over four million previously
uninsured Americans. We believe this is a cost-effective and
efficient way to provide quality healthcare to low- and
moderate-income working families. Children of CHIP-enrolled
parents will be automatically enrolled at birth, but, equally
importantly, research has shown that children are more likely
to have health coverage when their parents are insured. This
means that the Family Care Act could, in effect, cover many
more Americans than the estimated four million. Additionally,
the expansion of coverage to legal immigrant children and
pregnant women addresses the needs of two particularly
vulnerable groups.
Again, we applaud your ongoing leadership in tackling the
problem of the uninsured, and we support this important
legislation. Please let us know how we can help you to enact
this bill into law.
Sincerely,
Ronald F. Pollack,
Executive Director.
____
American Hospital Association,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The American Hospital Association
(AHA), which represents, 5,000 hospitals, health care
systems, networks, and other providers of care, is pleased to
support the FamilyCare Act of 2000. The AHA shares your goal
of expanding access to health care coverage for the 44
million uninsured Americans. We believe the federal budget
surplus offers a unique opportunity to fund solutions to the
health care problems of the uninsured.
Recent Medicaid expansions and the creation of the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) have greatly
improved access to health care coverage for millions of
children living in low-income families. But more needs to be
done. AHA strongly supports the objective of your legislation
that embraces, as one option to address the problems of the
uninsured, building on existing public programs to expand
coverage to the parents of the children covered by S-CHIP.
Furthermore, your provisions that include coverage for
legal immigrants, improve Medicaid coverage for those
transitioning from welfare-to-work, and create state grant
programs to encourage market innovation in health care
insurance are to be applauded. AHA believes these are good
first steps toward lowering the numbers of the uninsured.
In addition to expanding public programs, AHA supports
measures that make health care insurance more affordable for
low-income working families. Toward that end, AHA also
support
H.R. 4113, bipartisan legislation establishing
refundable tax credits to assist low-income families in the
purchase of health care insurance.
Our nation's hospitals see every day that the absence of
health coverage is a significant barrier to care, reducing
the likelihood that people will get appropriate preventive,
diagnostic and chronic care. With the uninsured growing in
numbers, AHA supports your effort to build on current public
programs as an important option to make it possible for more
low-income families to get needed health care coverage. We
thank you for your leadership and we look forward to working
with you on advancing the FamilyCare Act of 2000.
Sincerely,
Rick Pollack,
Executive Vice President.
____
Network,
Washington, DC, July 2000.
From NETWORK--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
Re: The Family Care Act of 2000.
Hon. Senator Ted Kennedy: Since 1975, NETWORK: A National
Catholic Social Justice Lobby has worked for universal access
to affordable, quality health care. NETWORK considers the
constant increase in the number of uninsured persons a
national disgrace and a serious moral and ethical issue.
Sadly, the political will to reform the nation's fragmented
non-system of health care is seriously lacking in the current
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 26, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S7656-S7689]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2922. A bill to create a Pension Reform and Simplification
Commission to evaluate and suggest ways to enhance access to the
private pension plan system; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
the pension reform and simplification commission act
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce legislation
calling for the establishment of a Pension Reform and Simplification
Commission. The legislation derives directly from conversations I have
had with constituents and experts on three key issues.
First, there is the problem related to the current cost and
complexity of private pension plans. In my view current regulations
place an unnecessary burden on small and medium business as they
attempt to adopt pension plans. Indeed, even the most simple plans are
often so complicated in form and function as to be incomprehensive to
an everyday businessperson.
Second, there is the problem involved in coverage. Although over-all
pension coverage may be consistent over the last decade and the assets
of private plans have been on the increase, my concern is with those
individuals of low to moderate income who are being left out of the
private pension plan equation. As companies move toward cheaper plans--
401(k)s being a salient example--and feel less obligated to offer
defined benefit-type plans, individuals who do not have the extra money
to contribute to their pension plans are
[[Page
S7657]]
unable to benefit from a plan's availability. This is if a plan is
available at all, and in many cases it is not.
Third, there is the problem of what kind of private pension plans are
best suited for the so-called ``New Economy''. Clearly there is
considerable debate as of late in terms of what kind of private pension
plans should be offered so as to increase saving, decrease mobility,
provide opportunity, enhance entrepreneurship, and so on, all of which
is apparent in the rise of hybrid pension plans. My foremost concern
here is that Congress now finds itself reacting to innovative private
pension plans rather than being pro-active in their creation.
Mr. President, in 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, known by most people by its acronym of ERISA, our
intention at the time being twofold. First, we wanted to protect the
assets held in private sector retirement plans. Second, we wanted to
create uniform rules that govern how these plans will be implemented in
each and every state.
From most accounts we have accomplished these two goals. There is no
question that ERISA has flaws that must be addressed--and I will
discuss these in detail later--but for all these flaws ERISA was
extremely significant in that it reaffirmed the government's commitment
to the importance of retirement plans for all Americans. Furthermore,
it created a comprehensive framework in this country under which the
expansion of private retirement plans could occur. Equally important,
the mechanisms it established for personal saving has added trillions
of dollars in available investment capital over the last decade alone,
fueling in a very tangible way the unprecedented economic growth that
we are seeing right now.
But for all the praise ERISA receives, it is also criticized widely
and, in my opinion, correctly on a number of counts. For this reason,
it is time to seriously re-evaluate whether it is addressing the needs
and concerns of all Americans. It is time to examine whether it fits
the demands of a changing, global, ``new'' economy.
As a specific example of these problems, the adoption of piecemeal,
narrow, and complicated statutes and regulations in the 26 years since
ERISA's implementation has made substantial portions of our retirement
system inefficient, expensive, and oftentimes incomprehensible to
anyone wishing to use it. It is well-known that we continue to add
provisions and plans with no effort at all to make them internally
compatible. We may have a broad vision about what we want to do with
retirement policy in this country, but we instead of revising
retirement policy in a comprehensive and strategic manner, we simply
add new ideas and language incrementally, hoping they will appeal to
businesses who wish to offer them to their employees.
Sadly, the end result is that for many businesses the cost of
compliance with ERISA regulations--the administrative and professional
costs of qualification--rival and even outweigh the costs of providing
the benefits themselves. This, in turn, has led to a decision by many
business owners that they can no longer afford to offer retirement
plans to their employees, this in spite of their desire to do so. For
these people, the current rules burden the system beyond the benefits
they provide. This has to change.
But the cost and complexity I have just mentioned has had a corollary
effect, that being a lack of access to pension plans on the part of
low- and middle-income workers, women and minorities in particular.
Rightly or wrongly, one of the foremost criticisms directed toward
ERISA is that it has accelerated the demise of traditional defined
benefit pensions and increased conversions to new forms of plans,
specifically defined contribution plans like 401(k)s. Employers
oftentimes no longer feel it is their role to provide retirement income
to their employees as they once did under defined benefit plans.
Instead they make defined contribution plans available and then educate
employees as to how to save for themselves.
The problem is that the retirement security of a great many workers
now lies in their ability to contribute individually to these plans,
and this is not always possible. Indeed, data suggests that if these
individuals are able to save adequately at all, they do so late in
their careers--this after paying for their homes, their childrens'
education, and other important spending priorities. Only then do they
have the opportunity to accumulate the money needed to supplement
Social Security and carry them through retirement. But these are the
lucky ones. The fact is a large portion of Americans simply no longer
have the capacity to save, this in spite of living in a time of
economic prosperity. This too needs to be changed.
There is a third reason to re-evaluate ERISA, and that is that the
dynamics of the New Economy demand a discussion of what retirement
policies best serve the economic interests of the United States. For a
good part of this century, private pension plans were seen by employers
as a way to keep their workforce intact, their employees' morale high,
and devotion to the company constant. Employees stayed with companies
because they identified with the company and were treated by employers
as family. Continuity and connection were the primary motivations for
individuals as they considered a job.
Recently, however, this rationale has changed, and has done so
significantly. According to most analysts, the main determinant for
most employees as they choose a job is personal development and
professional growth, the feeling being that economic security is best
attained by mobility--moving from one job to another, increasing
education, pay, and retirement savings as you go. Staying at one firm
is still an ideal for some but it is not essential for many. Perhaps
more importantly, given the dynamics of the New Economy, it may no
longer be practical to assume that you can find retirement security at
a single firm.
The bottom line, much as the recent debates over cash balance plans
suggest, is that some very basic issues concerning pension policy are
coming to the fore at this time, examples being the essence of the
employer-employee relationship, the ability of companies to attract and
maintain a skilled workforce, the benefits provided to short- and long-
term employees, the advisability of worker mobility seen in the context
of technological innovation and globalization, and so on. Here, we must
confront the reality of political economic change, and do so quickly
and coherently.
But Congress is not doing that. As I stated previously, we are
reacting to changes rather than planning for the future in a coherent
and strategic manner. In my view, this is an extremely serious problem
as it limits our ability to create the conditions necessary for
national economic growth and individual economic welfare.
As many of my colleagues know, the notion of a Pension Commission has
been discussed and debated for a number of years, but we have never
placed it high enough on our list of priorities to address it with
purpose. I would argue that we can no longer afford the luxury of
contemplation, and the time to act is now. Failure to adjust our
existing policies to meet the challenges we face both now and in the
future will result in several specific outcomes.
First, it will mean that many workers will see their retirement
expectations fade or disappear. Second, it will likely mean that these
individuals will be forced to rely on government sponsored programs
that are themselves financially overextended. Finally, it will mean
that the capacity of U.S. firms to compete in the global marketplace
will be diminished. In my view, none of these outcomes are acceptable.
We simply must become more thoughtful and pro-active.
The bill I introduce today has a number of purposes, but foremost
among them is to establish an affordable, accessible, equitable,
efficient, cost-effective, and easy to understand private pension plan
system in the United States. It is designed to conduct a complete top-
to-bottom evaluation of the current system and provide concrete
recommendations as to how we can reform it to serve the interests of
employers, employees, and the entire nation as a whole.
This Commission will be composed of fifteen members, all with
significant experience in areas related to retirement income policy. It
is mandated that the activities of the Commission
[[Page
S7658]]
will be concluded in a little over two years, with specific language to
be provided to Congress so that we can act on their recommendations
immediately. To ensure that the activities of the Commission are not
redundant or otherwise wasteful, it will be allowed to secure data from
any government agency or department dealing with retirement policy, and
furthermore, may request detailees from these agencies and departments
on a non-reimburseable basis. The Commission will also be allowed to
hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence as appropriate from
individuals who are able to contribute to this reform effort.
This bill has been created after detailed discussions with a number
of individuals and organizations interested in retirement policy, from
the Employee Benefits Research Institute, to the Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities, to the Association of Private Pension and Welfare
Plans. Although all of the organizations involved have their own
perspective on how retirement policy issues should be addressed in the
United States, I have made a concerted effort to make their concerns
compatible in this legislation. Significantly, all endorse the goals of
the bill, as does the American Academy of Actuaries, the Executive
Committee of the New York State Bar Association, and the Chairman of
the Special Commission on Pension Simplification of the New York State
Bar Association, Mr. Alvin D. Lurie.
Mr. President, although there is much to recommend concerning our
current pension system, it is common knowledge that this system is, in
many instances, too complicated for participants to understand, too
difficult for businesses to use, and too inaccessible for individuals
to join. We have added layer upon layer of legislation, to the point
that the system is not only unwieldy, but often of questionable
purpose. We have reached the point that its complexity and
inaccessibility is having a tangible impact on individuals and
businesses alike.
In my view, the status quo is no longer viable or acceptable. It is
time to meet the challenge that faces us in a direct and strategic
fashion. It is time to reform and simplify the system so that we have a
effective mechanism that serves employers and employees alike and
provides the means to guarantee all Americans income security in their
retirement years.
Mr. President, the time to act is now. I ask my colleagues to
recognize the importance of this legislation, and lend their support
for its passage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be
included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. I also ask
that the letters of support from the American Academy of Actuaries and
the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans be included in the
Record immediately following my floor statement.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2922
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pension Reform and
Simplification Commission Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The creation and implementation of an affordable,
accessible, equitable, efficient, cost-effective, and easy to
understand system is essential to the continuity and
viability of the current private pension plan system in the
United States.
(2) There is a near universal recognition in the United
States that the laws that regulate our pension system have
become unwieldy, complex, and burdensome, a condition that
hinders the achievement of increased saving and economic
growth and cannot be fixed by ad hoc improvements to ERISA
and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) Significant and effective improvement of laws can only
be accomplished through a coordinated, comprehensive, and
sustained effort to revise and simplify current laws by a
high-level body of pension experts, whose recommendations are
then transmitted to Congress.
(4) In recent years, the adoption of narrowly focused and
increasingly complex statutes through amendment of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (in this Act
referred to as ``ERISA'') and the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 has impeded the efforts of employers and employees to
save for their retirement and imposed significant challenges
for businesses which consider establishing pension plans for
their workforce.
(5) A high national savings rate can contribute
significantly to the economic security of the Nation as it
adds to available investment capital, fuels economic growth,
and enhances productivity, competitiveness, and prosperity.
(6) The Federal Government can potentially increase the
national savings rate through the implementation of policies
that create an effective framework for the spread of
voluntary retirement plans and the protection of the private
assets held in those plans.
(7) Private pension plans have been, and remain, the single
largest repository of private capital in the world and
potentially act as a significant inducement for personal
saving and investment.
(8) Pensions represent the only hope that most working
Americans have an adequate supplement to social security
benefits, and while the private pension system has been
greatly improved since the establishment of ERISA, many
inequities remain, and many workers are still not covered by
the system.
(9) It is essential that all Americans, no matter what
their income security level, have the opportunity to achieve
income security in their retirement years. Currently, many
tax and retirement incentives for private pension plans,
while benefiting higher income employees who can often save
adequately for their retirement, do not serve sufficiently
the needs of low and moderate income workers.
(10) The current pensions rules have tended to produce
disparate coverage rates for low and moderate income workers.
(11) The failure of the Government to modify current
pension policies will mean that many workers will be deprived
of the options needed to save for their retirement and will,
consequently, have their retirement expectations minimized or
eliminated.
(12) The failure of the Government to redress the burdens
imposed by over-regulation and complexity on employer-
sponsored pension plans will harm employees and their
families.
(13) The failure of the Government to redress the problems
related to private pension plans may erode the ability of
United States companies to compete effectively in the
international market and result in a decrease in the economic
health of the Nation.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
There is established a commission to be known as the
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission (in this Act
referred to as the ``Commission'').
SEC. 4. DUTIES.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall--
(1) study the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges
involved in the regulation of the current private pension
system;
(2) review and assess Federal statutes relating to the
regulation of the current private pension system; and
(3) recommend changes in the law regarding the regulation
of the current private pension system to mitigate the
problems identified under subsection (b), with the goal of
making the system more affordable, accessible, efficient,
less costly, less complex, and, in general, to expand pension
coverage.
(b) Issues To Be Studied.--The Commission shall include in
the study under subsection (a) a consideration of--
(1) the manner in which the current rules impact private
pension coverage, how such coverage has changed over the last
25 years (since the enactment of ERISA), and reasons for such
change;
(2) the primary burdens placed on small and medium business
in the United States regarding administration of pension
plans, especially how such burdens affect the tenuous
position occupied by these organizations in the competitive
market;
(3) the simplification of existing pension rules in order
to eliminate undue costs on employers while providing
retirement security protection to employees;
(4) the primary obstacles to employees in gaining optimum
advantages from the current pension system, with particular
attention to the small and medium business sector and low and
moderate income employees, including minorities and women;
(5) the feasibility of providing innovative design options
to enable small and medium businesses to be relieved of
complex and costly legislative and regulatory burdens in
matters of adoption, operation, administration, and reporting
of pension plans, in order to increase affordable and
effective coverage in that sector, for low and moderate
income employees, with emphasis on minorities and women;
(6) the means of leveling distribution of private pension
plan coverage between high wage earners and low and moderate
income workers;
(7) the feasibility of forward-looking reforms that
anticipate the needs of small and medium businesses in the
United States given the obstacles and opportunities of the
new global economy, in particular issues related to the
mobility and retention of skilled workers;
(8) how pension plan benefits can be made more portable;
(9) the means of achieving the expansion and adoption of
pension plans by United States businesses, especially those
employing low and moderate income workers who currently lack
access to such plans;
[[Page
S7659]]
(10) the impact of expanding individual retirement account
contribution limits and income limits on private pension plan
coverage;
(11) the provision of innovative incentives that encourage
more employers to use existing private pension plans;
(12) the impact of qualified plan contribution and benefit
limits on coverage; and
(13) any proposals for major simplification of Federal
legislation and regulation regarding qualified pension plans,
in order to address and mitigate problem areas identified
under this subsection, with the goal of--
(A) strengthening the private pension system;
(B) expanding the availability, adoption, and retention of
tax-favored savings plans by all Americans;
(C) eliminating rules that burden the pension system beyond
the benefits they provide, for low and moderate income
workers, including minorities and women, with specific
emphasis on--
(i) eligibility and coverage;
(ii) contributions and benefits;
(iii) minimum distributions, withdrawals, and loans;
(iv) spousal and beneficiary benefits;
(v) portability between plans;
(vi) asset recapture;
(vii) plan compliance and termination;
(viii) income and excise taxation; and
(ix) reporting, disclosure, and penalties; and
(D) identification of the trade-offs involved in
simplification under subparagraph (C).
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the
designation of the chairperson under section 5(d), the
Commission shall transmit to the President and Congress a
report containing--
(A) the issues studied under subsection (b);
(B) the results of such study;
(C) draft legislation and commentary under paragraph (2);
and
(D) any other recommendations based on such study.
(2) Legislative recommendations.--The Commission shall
develop draft legislation and associated explanations and
commentary to achieve major simplification of Federal
legislation regarding regulation of pension plans (including
ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to implement any
findings or recommendations of the study conducted under
subsection (b).
(3) Recommendations.--Any official findings or
recommendations of the Commission shall be adopted by \2/3\
of the members of the Commission.
(4) Minority views.--All findings and recommendations of
the Commission formally proposed by any member of the
Commission and not adopted under paragraph (3) shall also be
included in the report.
SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION; RULES; POWERS.
(a) Composition.--
(1) Number.--The Commission shall be composed of 15
members, appointed not later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Appointments.--The membership of the Commission shall
be as follows:
(A) 3 individuals appointed by the President, after
consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
the Treasury, or their respective designees.
(B) 3 individuals appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate.
(C) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the
Senate.
(D) 3 individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(E) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives.
(b) Qualifications of Members.--
(1) In general.--Individuals appointed under subsection
(a)(2) shall be individuals who--
(A) have experience in actuarial disciplines, law,
economics, public policy, human relations, business,
manufacturing, labor, multiemployer pension plan
administration, single employer pension plan administration,
or academia, or have other distinctive and pertinent
qualifications or experience in retirement policy;
(B) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
(C) are selected without regard to political affiliation or
past partisan activity.
(2) Other considerations.--In the appointment of members
under subsection (a), every effort shall be made to ensure
that the individuals, as a group--
(A) are representatives of a broad cross-section of
perspectives on private pension plans within the United
States;
(B) have the capacity to provide significant analytical
insight into existing obstacles and opportunities of private
pension plans; and
(C) represent all of the areas of experience under
paragraph (1)(A).
(c) Terms; Vacancies.--
(1) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of
the Commission.
(2) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers and shall be filled in the same manner as
the appointment of the member causing the vacancy.
(d) Chairperson; Vice chairperson.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall
designate a chairperson and vice chairperson of the
Commission from the individuals appointed under subsection
(a)(2).
(e) Compensation.--
(1) Prohibition of pay.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission may
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or
regular place of business in the performance of services for
the Commission.
(f) Rules of the Commission.--
(1) Quorum.--Eight members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum for conducting the business of the
Commission, except 5 members of the Commission may hold
hearings, take testimony, or receive evidence.
(2) Notice.--Any meetings held by the Commission shall be
duly noticed in the Federal Register at least 14 days prior
to such meeting and shall be open to the public.
(3) Opportunities to testify.--The Commission shall provide
opportunities for representatives of the general public,
taxpayer groups, consumer groups, think tanks, and State and
local government officials to testify.
(4) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
chairperson of the Commission.
(5) Other rules.--The Commission shall adopt such other
rules as necessary.
(g) Powers of the Commission.--
(1) Information from federal agencies.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from
any Federal department or agency such materials, resources,
data, and other information as the Commission considers
necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. Upon
request of the chairperson of the Commission, the head of
such department or agency shall furnish such materials,
resources, data, and other information to the Commission.
(B) Coordination of research information.--The Commission
shall ensure effective use of such materials, resources,
data, and other information and avoid duplicative research by
coordinating and consulting with the head of the appropriate
research department of--
(i) the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration of the
Department of Labor;
(ii) the Department of the Treasury;
(iii) the Social Security Administration;
(iv) the Small Business Administration;
(v) the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;
(vi) the National Institute on Aging; and
(vii) private organizations which have conducted research
in the pension area.
(2) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as any other
Federal agency.
(3) Acceptance of services; gifts; and grants.--The
Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or grants of
services or property, both real and personal, for purposes of
aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts or
grants not used at the expiration of the Commission shall be
returned to the donor or grantor.
(4) Contract and procurement authority.--The Commission may
make purchases, and may contract with and compensate
government and private agencies or persons for property or
services, without regard to--
(A) section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5); and
(B) title III of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.).
(5) Volunteer services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of
title 31, United States Code, the Commission may accept and
use voluntary and uncompensated services as the Commission
determines necessary.
SEC. 6. STAFF AND SUPPORT SERVICES.
(a) Executive Director; Staff.--
(1) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to civil service laws and regulations and
after consultation with the Commission, appoint an executive
director of the Commission and such other additional
personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to
perform its duties.
(2) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
such title.
(b) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request by the
chairperson of the Commission, the head of any Federal
department or agency may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis,
any of the personnel of the department or agency to the
Commission to assist the Commission to carry out its duties
under this Act and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(c) Administrative Support Services.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a
reimbursable basis, any administrative support services that
are necessary to enable the Commission to carry out this Act.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate not later than 26 months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
[[Page
S7660]]
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
____
American Academy of Actuaries,
July 13, 2000.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The American Academy of Actuaries
would like to express its strong support for your idea of
establishing a national commission on pension reform and
simplification. The Academy has long advocated a
comprehensive and coordinated approach to retirement policy.
We believe the establishment of a bipartisan commission of
experts to analyze obstacles that weaken our private pension
system and recommend solutions is a positive first step. The
Academy also believes that slight modifications to your
proposal would make the commission more effective.
The Academy commends you for recognizing that, because the
laws that regulate our private pension system have become too
complex, they discourage employers from helping their workers
save for an adequate retirement. We strongly support the
concept of a bipartisan commission of experts that will
recommend specific ways to simplify the rules governing
private plans, thereby encouraging employers to expand
coverage to more workers.
The Academy believes that the commission called for in your
proposal could be made more effective if Congress was
required to have an up-or-down vote on its recommendations.
Furthermore, we believe that, given the expertise available
to the commission, it should be possible to formulate a
result in 12-18 months, rather than the 24 months specified
in your legislation. Finally, we would encourage the
commission to examine pension changes in the context of a
national retirement income policy, including Social Security,
since major changes to the private pension system undoubtedly
will affect Social Security.
The Academy believes that creation of a national commission
will be a positive first step toward our mutual goal of
increasing pension coverage for Americans. We appreciate your
recognition of the unique role that actuaries should play in
such a commission and look forward to providing any
assistance that may be of benefit to you and your staff.
Sincerely,
James E. Turpin,
Vice President, Pensions.
____
APPWP, Association of Private
Pension and Welfare Plans,
July 18, 2000.
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act
Senator Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the Association of
Private Pension and Welfare Plans (APPWP--The Benefits
Association), I want to express our appreciation for your
interest in, and support for, our nation's voluntary,
employer-sponsored retirement system as evidenced by the
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act that you
will soon introduce. APPWP is a public policy organization
representing principally Fortune 500 companies and other
organizations that assist companies of all sizes in providing
benefits to employees. Collectively, APPWP's members either
sponsor directly or provide services to retirement and health
plans that cover more than 100 million Americans. We
appreciate your past and continuing efforts to expand the
private, voluntary retirement system that currently enables
millions of working Americans to achieve financial security
in retirement.
As you know, the employer-based retirement system provides
an important source of income security for many Americans in
retirement, and, in many respects, has been successful in
meeting the challenges of an aging population. However, we
recognize that public policy can build and expand on this
success. Many employers, particularly small companies, find
it difficult to establish retirement plans because of cost
and administrative complexity. As a result, many workers do
not have access to private pensions and cannot save
adequately for retirement. Moreover, our pension laws have
not kept pace with the rapid developments in the business
world. New technologies, international competition, and many
types of corporate transactions pose unique pension
challenges that should be better accommodated by our nation's
retirement policy. APPWP has consistently campaigned for
expansion and reform of the nation's pension laws with the
express goals of expanding coverage, increasing portability,
reducing complexity, and reflecting business realities. We
are therefore pleased that you have made these goals the
central objective of the commission you propose.
In particular, APPWP commends you for putting the focus of
pension reform on expanding coverage. You correctly note that
our retirement system has become overly burdened with
unwieldy and complex rules that have impeded expanded
coverage and increased retirement security for all Americans.
Your advocacy on behalf of the goals of coverage and
simplification is an important step towards realizing a more
secure retirement for all Americans.
We look forward to working with you on these important
issues. If we can be of further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
James A. Klein,
President.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Moynihan, Mr. L. Chafee, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Robb, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Schumer, and
Mr. Leahy):
S. 2923. A bill to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act
to provide for FamilyCare coverage for parents of enrolled children,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the family care act of 2000
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the introduction
of the Family Care Act of 2000, which takes the next logical step in
assuring access by as many citizens as possible to affordable health
insurance. I commend Congressman John Dingell and the rest of our
colleagues for their fine work in crafting this legislation.
The number of uninsured Americans is now more than 44 million, and
the figure is rising by an average of one million a year. America is
the only industrial country in the world, except South Africa, that
fails to guarantee health care for all it citizens.
It is a national scandal that lack of insurance coverage is the
seventh leading--and most preventable--cause of death in America today.
Three years ago, we worked together to create CHIP, the federal-state
Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage to
children in families with incomes too high for Medicaid and too low to
afford private health insurance.
More than two million children have been enrolled in that program,
and millions more have signed up for Medicaid as a result of outreach
activities. Soon, more than three-quarters of all uninsured children in
the nation will be eligible for assistance through either CHIP or
Medicaid.
But, despite this progress, the parents of these children, and too
many others, have been left behind. The time has come to take the next
step.
The overwhelming majority of uninsured low-wage parents are
struggling to support their families. I will ask unanimous consent to
insert a statement in the Record from Patricia Quezada, a parent of
three lovely girls, who would benefit from this legislation.
Parents who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should be
eligible for assistance to buy the health insurance they need in order
to protect their families. Our message to them today is that help is on
the way.
Often, they work for companies which don't offer insurance, or they
aren't eligible for insurance that is offered. Fewer than a quarter of
the jobs taken by those who have been forced off the welfare rolls by
welfare reform offer insurance as a benefit--and even when it is
offered too few companies make it available for dependents. The time
has come to take the next step.
The Family Care Act of 2000 will provide with the resources,
incentives and authority to extend Medicaid and CHIP to the parents of
children covered under those programs.
Coverage for parents also means better coverage for children. Parents
are much more likely to enroll their children in health insurance, if
the parents themselves can have coverage, too.
This step alone will give to six and a half million Americans the
coverage they need and deserve.
The Family Care Act will also improve the outreach and enrollment for
CHIP and Medicaid, and encourage states to extend coverage to other
vulnerable population, such as pregnant women, legal immigrants, and
children ages 19 and 20.
This program is affordable under current and projected budget
surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost will
be $11 billion over the next five years.
Last Monday, a majority of the Senate voted in favor of this proposal
as an amendment to the marriage penalty bill. We needed 60 votes, so it
was not successful then, but we clearly have a bipartisan majority of
the Senate.
The bottom line is that we have the resources to take this needed
step, and
[[Page
S7661]]
end the suffering and uncertainty that accompanies being uninsured.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements and letters of
support for this legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
statement of patricia quezada, july 21, 2000
Good morning. I am Patricia Quezada. I am a mother of three
girls (ages 9, 8 and 5). I work as a part-time parent liaison
at Weyanoke Elementary School in Fairfax, Virginia. My
husband is a self-employed general contractor. Because my
husband is self-employed and I work part-time, our family
does not have access to health insurance through our jobs.
In the past, we were able to purchase private insurance
that covered our family. But, in recent times, our family has
been unable to afford the high rates because it came down to
either paying for our home, transportation and other
necessities--including food--or purchasing this costly
insurance. On two occasions, the coverage was cancelled
because we were unable to meet the payments, which were
required in advance.
It was such a relief that my children are now able to
receive coverage through Medicaid and CMSIP, Virginia's SCHIP
Program. (As a parent-liaison, part of my job has been to
help other families sign up their children for health
insurance.) I feel extremely fortunate that my children are
now covered in case of an illness or accident, however I
continue to fear what could happen if my husband or I fall
sick or have an injury. While we both do our best to take
care of our health, we know how important it is to have
health insurance coverage if we should need it.
Thank you.
____
Children's Defense Fund,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: We are taking this opportunity to
thank you for introducing the FamilyCare Act of 2000 and to
express the strong support of the Children's Defense Fund for
this bipartisan initiative to provide and strengthen health
care coverage for uninsured children and their parents.
Building on the successes of Medicaid and the Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP), this legislation will
increase coverage for uninsured children, provide funding for
health insurance coverage for the uninsured parents of
Medicaid and CHIP-eligible children, and simplify the
enrollment process for Medicaid and CHIP to make the programs
more family friendly.
We want to extent our appreciation to Senators Chafee,
Collins, Daschle, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, and Snowe for co-
sponsoring this legislation in the Senate and to
Representatives Dingell, Stark, and Waxman for taking the
lead on this proposal in the House. We look forward to
working with you for passage of the FamilyCare Act of 2000.
Sincerely,
Gregg Haifley,
Deputy Director Health Division.
____
National Association of
Children's Hospitals,
Alexandria, VA, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the National Association
of Children's Hospital (N.A.C.H.), which represents over 100
children's hospitals nationwide, I want to express our strong
support for your introduction of the ``FamilyCare Act of
2000.''
As providers of care to all children, regardless of their
economic status, children's hospitals devote nearly half of
their patient care to children who rely on Medicaid or are
uninsured, and more than three-fourths of their patient-care
to children with chronic and congenital conditions. These
hospitals have extensive experience in assisting families to
enroll eligible children in Medicaid and SCHIP. They are
keenly aware of the importance of addressing the challenges
that states face in enrolling this often hard to reach
population of eligible children.
In particular, N.A.C.H. appreciates and strongly supports
your efforts to simplify and coordinate the application
process for SCHIP and Medicaid, as well as to provide new
tools for states to use in identifying and enrolling
families. In addition, N.A.C.H. applauds your provisions that
set a higher bar for covering children by: (1) requiring
states to first cover children up to 200% of poverty and
eliminating waiting lists in the SCHIP program before
covering parents; and (2) requiring every child who loses
coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP to be automatically screened
for other avenues of eligibility and if found eligible,
enrolled immediately in that program.
N.A.C.H. also supports your legislation's provision to give
states additional flexibility under SCHIP and Medicaid to
cover legal immigrant children. In states with high
proportions of uninsured children, such as California, Texas
and Florida, the federal government's bar on coverage of
legal immigrant children helps contribute to the fact that
Hispanic children represent the highest rate of uninsured
children of all major racial and ethnic minority groups. Your
provision to ensure coverage of legal immigrant children
would be extremely useful in improving this situation.
N.A.C.H. greatly appreciates all that you have done
throughout your years of service, and continue to do, to
provide all children with the best possible chance at
starting out and staying healthy. We welcome and look forward
to working with you to pass the ``FamilyCare Act of 2000.''
Sincerely,
Lawrence A. McAndrews.
____
March of Dimes,
Birth Defects Foundation,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of more than 3 million
volunteers and 1600 staff members of the March of Dimes, I
want to commend you for introducing the ``FamilyCare Act of
2000.'' The March of Dimes is committed to increasing access
to appropriate and affordable health care for women, infants
and children and supports the targeted approach to expanding
the State Children's Health Insurance Program contained in
the FamilyCare proposal.
The ``FamilyCare Act of 2000'' contains a number of
beneficial provisions that would expand and improve SCHIP.
The March of Dimes strongly supports giving states the option
to cover low-income pregnant women in Medicaid and SCHIP
programs with an enhanced matching rate. We understand that
FamilyCare would allow states to cover uninsured parents of
children enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP as well as uninsured
first-time pregnant women. SCHIP is the only major federally-
funded program that denies coverage to pregnant women while
providing coverage to their infants and children. We know
prenatal care improves birth outcomes. Expanding health
insurance coverage for low-income pregnant women has
bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.
The March of Dimes also supports FamilyCare provisions to
require automatic enrollment of children born to SCHIP
parents; automatic screening of every child who loses
coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP to determine eligibility for
other health programs; and distribution of information on the
availability of Medicaid and SCHIP through the school lunch
program. The March of Dimes also supports giving states the
option to provide Medicaid and SCHIP benefits to children and
pregnant women who arrived legally to the United States after
August 23, 1996, and to people ages 19 and 20.
We thank you for your leadership in introducing the
``FamilyCare Act of 2000'' and are eager to work with you to
achieve approval of this much needed legislation.
Sincerely,
Anna Eleanor Roosevelt,
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees; Chair, Public Affairs
Committee.
Dr. Jennifer L. Howse,
Presdient.
____
Association of Maternal and
Child Health Programs,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the Association of
Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP), I am writing to
express our support of the FamilyCare Act of 2000. We are
particularly supportive of the provisions that allow states
to include pregnant women in their SCHIP and Medicaid
programs.
We are also pleased with the provisions giving states the
flexibility to expand outreach activities as well as moving
towards greater equity in program payments.
AMCHP represents state officials in 59 states and
territories who administer public health programs aimed at
improving the health of all women, children, and adolescents.
In 1997, over 22 million women, children, adolescents and
children with special health care needs received services,
which were supported by the Maternal and Child Health Block
Grant.
We look forward to working with you and your staff on this
bill.
Sincerely,
Deborah Dietrich,
Director of Legislative Affairs.
____
American Dental
Hygienist Association,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Hon. Jay Rockefeller,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller: on behalf of the
American Dental Hygienists' Association (ADHA), I write to
express ADHA's support for the principles espoused in the
Family Care Act of 2000. This legislation is an important
step toward the goal of meaningful health insurance coverage,
including oral health insurance coverage, for all children
and their parents.
Regretfully, there is room for much improvement in our
children's oral health, a fundamental part of total health.
Studies show that oral disease currently afflicts the
majority of children in our country. Dental caries (tooth
decay), gingivitis, and periodontitis (gum and bone
disorders) are the most common oral diseases. The Public
Health Service reports that 50% of all children in the United
States experience dental caries in their permanent teeth and
two-thirds experience gingivitis.
[[Page
S7662]]
The percentages of children with dental disease are likely
far higher for the traditionally underserved Medicaid-
eligible population and for those eligible for the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). For example, one
of the most severe forms of gum disease--localized juvenile
periodontitis--disproportionately affects teenage African-
American males and can result in the loss of all teeth before
adulthood. If untreated, gum disease causes pain, bleeding,
loss of function, diminished appearance, possible systemic
infections, bone deterioration and eventual loss of teeth.
Yet, each of the three most common oral health disorders--
dental caries, gingivitis, and periodontitis--can be
prevented through the type of regular preventive care
provided by dental hygienists.
Despite the known benefits of preventive oral health
services and the inclusion of oral health benefits in
Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
Treatment (EPSDT) program, only one in 5 (4.2 million out of
21.2 million) Medicaid-eligible children actually received
preventive oral health services in 1993 according to a 1996
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report entitled
Children's Dental Services Under Medicaid: Access and
Utilization.
The nation simply must improve access to oral health
services and your legislation is an important building block
for all who care about our children's oral health, a
fundamental part of general health and well-being.
We in the dental hygiene community look forward to working
together toward our shared goal of health insurance coverage
for all of our nation's families. Please feel free to call
upon me or ADHA's Washington Counsel, Karen Sealander of
McDermott, Will & Emery (202-756-8024), at any time.
Sincerely,
Stanley B. Peck,
Executive Director.
____
Premier Inc.,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of Premier Inc., I am
writing to applaud your introduction of the ``FamilyCare Act
of 2000'' and express our strong support. Premier is a
strategic alliance of leading not-for-profit hospitals and
health systems across the nation. Premier provides group
purchasing and other services for more than 1,800 hospitals
and healthcare facilities.
As reported by the Urban Institute in the July/August issue
of Health Affairs, the population of non-elderly uninsured
grew by 4.2 million between 1994 and 1998. This hike in the
rate of uninsured occurred among children and adults. In the
same period, Medicaid coverage fell from 10 to 8.4 percent,
or about 3.1 million persons (1.9 million children and 1.2
million adults). Your legislation confronts and seeks to
address these disturbing trends head on.
The FamilyCare Act of 2000 not only expands coverage to
children--it also enables states to provide health insurance
to parents of children enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid. The
bill creates new opportunities for states to cover immigrant
children and pregnant women, and provides for the automatic
coverage of children born to CHIP-enrolled parents, thereby
enhancing presumptive eligibility.
This legislation provides for the mutual reinforcement of
the Medicaid and CHIP programs by integrating eligibility
determination and outreach efforts. A standard application
form and simple enrollment process for both programs will
raise the participation rate for both programs. Finally, the
bill provides grants to support broader outreach activities
and employer subsidies to offer health insurance packages,
thereby encouraging joint public/private market innovations
to reduce the population of uninsured.
Stifling the growth in the rate of uninsured and reversing
the trend remain a top priority for the hospital community.
Securing the appropriate preventative care for these
individuals will improve the quality and cost-effectiveness
of further care, as the uninsured are more likely to be
hospitalized for medical conditions that, initially, could
have been managed with physician care and/or medication.
Thank you for taking the lead in addressing the problem of
America's uninsured. We look forward to working with you
toward enactment of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Kerb Kuhn,
Vice President, Advocacy.
____
Families USA,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: We congratulate you on the
introduction of your bill, the Family Care Act of 2000, which
gives states the option to provide parents of children
enrolled in the Medicaid and CHIP programs with health
insurance. We believe that your bill is a crucial next step
in addressing the problem of our nation's uninsured, and we
offer our unequivocal support.
By covering parents through CHIP, the Family Care Act could
provide health insurance to over four million previously
uninsured Americans. We believe this is a cost-effective and
efficient way to provide quality healthcare to low- and
moderate-income working families. Children of CHIP-enrolled
parents will be automatically enrolled at birth, but, equally
importantly, research has shown that children are more likely
to have health coverage when their parents are insured. This
means that the Family Care Act could, in effect, cover many
more Americans than the estimated four million. Additionally,
the expansion of coverage to legal immigrant children and
pregnant women addresses the needs of two particularly
vulnerable groups.
Again, we applaud your ongoing leadership in tackling the
problem of the uninsured, and we support this important
legislation. Please let us know how we can help you to enact
this bill into law.
Sincerely,
Ronald F. Pollack,
Executive Director.
____
American Hospital Association,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The American Hospital Association
(AHA), which represents, 5,000 hospitals, health care
systems, networks, and other providers of care, is pleased to
support the FamilyCare Act of 2000. The AHA shares your goal
of expanding access to health care coverage for the 44
million uninsured Americans. We believe the federal budget
surplus offers a unique opportunity to fund solutions to the
health care problems of the uninsured.
Recent Medicaid expansions and the creation of the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) have greatly
improved access to health care coverage for millions of
children living in low-income families. But more needs to be
done. AHA strongly supports the objective of your legislation
that embraces, as one option to address the problems of the
uninsured, building on existing public programs to expand
coverage to the parents of the children covered by S-CHIP.
Furthermore, your provisions that include coverage for
legal immigrants, improve Medicaid coverage for those
transitioning from welfare-to-work, and create state grant
programs to encourage market innovation in health care
insurance are to be applauded. AHA believes these are good
first steps toward lowering the numbers of the uninsured.
In addition to expanding public programs, AHA supports
measures that make health care insurance more affordable for
low-income working families. Toward that end, AHA also
support
H.R. 4113, bipartisan legislation establishing
refundable tax credits to assist low-income families in the
purchase of health care insurance.
Our nation's hospitals see every day that the absence of
health coverage is a significant barrier to care, reducing
the likelihood that people will get appropriate preventive,
diagnostic and chronic care. With the uninsured growing in
numbers, AHA supports your effort to build on current public
programs as an important option to make it possible for more
low-income families to get needed health care coverage. We
thank you for your leadership and we look forward to working
with you on advancing the FamilyCare Act of 2000.
Sincerely,
Rick Pollack,
Executive Vice President.
____
Network,
Washington, DC, July 2000.
From NETWORK--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
Re: The Family Care Act of 2000.
Hon. Senator Ted Kennedy: Since 1975, NETWORK: A National
Catholic Social Justice Lobby has worked for universal access
to affordable, quality health care. NETWORK considers the
constant increase in the number of uninsured persons a
national disgrace and a serious moral and ethical issue.
Sadly, the political will to reform the nation's fragmented
non-system of health care is seriously lacking in the
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 26, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S7656-S7689]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2922. A bill to create a Pension Reform and Simplification
Commission to evaluate and suggest ways to enhance access to the
private pension plan system; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
the pension reform and simplification commission act
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce legislation
calling for the establishment of a Pension Reform and Simplification
Commission. The legislation derives directly from conversations I have
had with constituents and experts on three key issues.
First, there is the problem related to the current cost and
complexity of private pension plans. In my view current regulations
place an unnecessary burden on small and medium business as they
attempt to adopt pension plans. Indeed, even the most simple plans are
often so complicated in form and function as to be incomprehensive to
an everyday businessperson.
Second, there is the problem involved in coverage. Although over-all
pension coverage may be consistent over the last decade and the assets
of private plans have been on the increase, my concern is with those
individuals of low to moderate income who are being left out of the
private pension plan equation. As companies move toward cheaper plans--
401(k)s being a salient example--and feel less obligated to offer
defined benefit-type plans, individuals who do not have the extra money
to contribute to their pension plans are
[[Page
S7657]]
unable to benefit from a plan's availability. This is if a plan is
available at all, and in many cases it is not.
Third, there is the problem of what kind of private pension plans are
best suited for the so-called ``New Economy''. Clearly there is
considerable debate as of late in terms of what kind of private pension
plans should be offered so as to increase saving, decrease mobility,
provide opportunity, enhance entrepreneurship, and so on, all of which
is apparent in the rise of hybrid pension plans. My foremost concern
here is that Congress now finds itself reacting to innovative private
pension plans rather than being pro-active in their creation.
Mr. President, in 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, known by most people by its acronym of ERISA, our
intention at the time being twofold. First, we wanted to protect the
assets held in private sector retirement plans. Second, we wanted to
create uniform rules that govern how these plans will be implemented in
each and every state.
From most accounts we have accomplished these two goals. There is no
question that ERISA has flaws that must be addressed--and I will
discuss these in detail later--but for all these flaws ERISA was
extremely significant in that it reaffirmed the government's commitment
to the importance of retirement plans for all Americans. Furthermore,
it created a comprehensive framework in this country under which the
expansion of private retirement plans could occur. Equally important,
the mechanisms it established for personal saving has added trillions
of dollars in available investment capital over the last decade alone,
fueling in a very tangible way the unprecedented economic growth that
we are seeing right now.
But for all the praise ERISA receives, it is also criticized widely
and, in my opinion, correctly on a number of counts. For this reason,
it is time to seriously re-evaluate whether it is addressing the needs
and concerns of all Americans. It is time to examine whether it fits
the demands of a changing, global, ``new'' economy.
As a specific example of these problems, the adoption of piecemeal,
narrow, and complicated statutes and regulations in the 26 years since
ERISA's implementation has made substantial portions of our retirement
system inefficient, expensive, and oftentimes incomprehensible to
anyone wishing to use it. It is well-known that we continue to add
provisions and plans with no effort at all to make them internally
compatible. We may have a broad vision about what we want to do with
retirement policy in this country, but we instead of revising
retirement policy in a comprehensive and strategic manner, we simply
add new ideas and language incrementally, hoping they will appeal to
businesses who wish to offer them to their employees.
Sadly, the end result is that for many businesses the cost of
compliance with ERISA regulations--the administrative and professional
costs of qualification--rival and even outweigh the costs of providing
the benefits themselves. This, in turn, has led to a decision by many
business owners that they can no longer afford to offer retirement
plans to their employees, this in spite of their desire to do so. For
these people, the current rules burden the system beyond the benefits
they provide. This has to change.
But the cost and complexity I have just mentioned has had a corollary
effect, that being a lack of access to pension plans on the part of
low- and middle-income workers, women and minorities in particular.
Rightly or wrongly, one of the foremost criticisms directed toward
ERISA is that it has accelerated the demise of traditional defined
benefit pensions and increased conversions to new forms of plans,
specifically defined contribution plans like 401(k)s. Employers
oftentimes no longer feel it is their role to provide retirement income
to their employees as they once did under defined benefit plans.
Instead they make defined contribution plans available and then educate
employees as to how to save for themselves.
The problem is that the retirement security of a great many workers
now lies in their ability to contribute individually to these plans,
and this is not always possible. Indeed, data suggests that if these
individuals are able to save adequately at all, they do so late in
their careers--this after paying for their homes, their childrens'
education, and other important spending priorities. Only then do they
have the opportunity to accumulate the money needed to supplement
Social Security and carry them through retirement. But these are the
lucky ones. The fact is a large portion of Americans simply no longer
have the capacity to save, this in spite of living in a time of
economic prosperity. This too needs to be changed.
There is a third reason to re-evaluate ERISA, and that is that the
dynamics of the New Economy demand a discussion of what retirement
policies best serve the economic interests of the United States. For a
good part of this century, private pension plans were seen by employers
as a way to keep their workforce intact, their employees' morale high,
and devotion to the company constant. Employees stayed with companies
because they identified with the company and were treated by employers
as family. Continuity and connection were the primary motivations for
individuals as they considered a job.
Recently, however, this rationale has changed, and has done so
significantly. According to most analysts, the main determinant for
most employees as they choose a job is personal development and
professional growth, the feeling being that economic security is best
attained by mobility--moving from one job to another, increasing
education, pay, and retirement savings as you go. Staying at one firm
is still an ideal for some but it is not essential for many. Perhaps
more importantly, given the dynamics of the New Economy, it may no
longer be practical to assume that you can find retirement security at
a single firm.
The bottom line, much as the recent debates over cash balance plans
suggest, is that some very basic issues concerning pension policy are
coming to the fore at this time, examples being the essence of the
employer-employee relationship, the ability of companies to attract and
maintain a skilled workforce, the benefits provided to short- and long-
term employees, the advisability of worker mobility seen in the context
of technological innovation and globalization, and so on. Here, we must
confront the reality of political economic change, and do so quickly
and coherently.
But Congress is not doing that. As I stated previously, we are
reacting to changes rather than planning for the future in a coherent
and strategic manner. In my view, this is an extremely serious problem
as it limits our ability to create the conditions necessary for
national economic growth and individual economic welfare.
As many of my colleagues know, the notion of a Pension Commission has
been discussed and debated for a number of years, but we have never
placed it high enough on our list of priorities to address it with
purpose. I would argue that we can no longer afford the luxury of
contemplation, and the time to act is now. Failure to adjust our
existing policies to meet the challenges we face both now and in the
future will result in several specific outcomes.
First, it will mean that many workers will see their retirement
expectations fade or disappear. Second, it will likely mean that these
individuals will be forced to rely on government sponsored programs
that are themselves financially overextended. Finally, it will mean
that the capacity of U.S. firms to compete in the global marketplace
will be diminished. In my view, none of these outcomes are acceptable.
We simply must become more thoughtful and pro-active.
The bill I introduce today has a number of purposes, but foremost
among them is to establish an affordable, accessible, equitable,
efficient, cost-effective, and easy to understand private pension plan
system in the United States. It is designed to conduct a complete top-
to-bottom evaluation of the current system and provide concrete
recommendations as to how we can reform it to serve the interests of
employers, employees, and the entire nation as a whole.
This Commission will be composed of fifteen members, all with
significant experience in areas related to retirement income policy. It
is mandated that the activities of the Commission
[[Page
S7658]]
will be concluded in a little over two years, with specific language to
be provided to Congress so that we can act on their recommendations
immediately. To ensure that the activities of the Commission are not
redundant or otherwise wasteful, it will be allowed to secure data from
any government agency or department dealing with retirement policy, and
furthermore, may request detailees from these agencies and departments
on a non-reimburseable basis. The Commission will also be allowed to
hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence as appropriate from
individuals who are able to contribute to this reform effort.
This bill has been created after detailed discussions with a number
of individuals and organizations interested in retirement policy, from
the Employee Benefits Research Institute, to the Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities, to the Association of Private Pension and Welfare
Plans. Although all of the organizations involved have their own
perspective on how retirement policy issues should be addressed in the
United States, I have made a concerted effort to make their concerns
compatible in this legislation. Significantly, all endorse the goals of
the bill, as does the American Academy of Actuaries, the Executive
Committee of the New York State Bar Association, and the Chairman of
the Special Commission on Pension Simplification of the New York State
Bar Association, Mr. Alvin D. Lurie.
Mr. President, although there is much to recommend concerning our
current pension system, it is common knowledge that this system is, in
many instances, too complicated for participants to understand, too
difficult for businesses to use, and too inaccessible for individuals
to join. We have added layer upon layer of legislation, to the point
that the system is not only unwieldy, but often of questionable
purpose. We have reached the point that its complexity and
inaccessibility is having a tangible impact on individuals and
businesses alike.
In my view, the status quo is no longer viable or acceptable. It is
time to meet the challenge that faces us in a direct and strategic
fashion. It is time to reform and simplify the system so that we have a
effective mechanism that serves employers and employees alike and
provides the means to guarantee all Americans income security in their
retirement years.
Mr. President, the time to act is now. I ask my colleagues to
recognize the importance of this legislation, and lend their support
for its passage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be
included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. I also ask
that the letters of support from the American Academy of Actuaries and
the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans be included in the
Record immediately following my floor statement.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2922
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pension Reform and
Simplification Commission Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The creation and implementation of an affordable,
accessible, equitable, efficient, cost-effective, and easy to
understand system is essential to the continuity and
viability of the current private pension plan system in the
United States.
(2) There is a near universal recognition in the United
States that the laws that regulate our pension system have
become unwieldy, complex, and burdensome, a condition that
hinders the achievement of increased saving and economic
growth and cannot be fixed by ad hoc improvements to ERISA
and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) Significant and effective improvement of laws can only
be accomplished through a coordinated, comprehensive, and
sustained effort to revise and simplify current laws by a
high-level body of pension experts, whose recommendations are
then transmitted to Congress.
(4) In recent years, the adoption of narrowly focused and
increasingly complex statutes through amendment of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (in this Act
referred to as ``ERISA'') and the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 has impeded the efforts of employers and employees to
save for their retirement and imposed significant challenges
for businesses which consider establishing pension plans for
their workforce.
(5) A high national savings rate can contribute
significantly to the economic security of the Nation as it
adds to available investment capital, fuels economic growth,
and enhances productivity, competitiveness, and prosperity.
(6) The Federal Government can potentially increase the
national savings rate through the implementation of policies
that create an effective framework for the spread of
voluntary retirement plans and the protection of the private
assets held in those plans.
(7) Private pension plans have been, and remain, the single
largest repository of private capital in the world and
potentially act as a significant inducement for personal
saving and investment.
(8) Pensions represent the only hope that most working
Americans have an adequate supplement to social security
benefits, and while the private pension system has been
greatly improved since the establishment of ERISA, many
inequities remain, and many workers are still not covered by
the system.
(9) It is essential that all Americans, no matter what
their income security level, have the opportunity to achieve
income security in their retirement years. Currently, many
tax and retirement incentives for private pension plans,
while benefiting higher income employees who can often save
adequately for their retirement, do not serve sufficiently
the needs of low and moderate income workers.
(10) The current pensions rules have tended to produce
disparate coverage rates for low and moderate income workers.
(11) The failure of the Government to modify current
pension policies will mean that many workers will be deprived
of the options needed to save for their retirement and will,
consequently, have their retirement expectations minimized or
eliminated.
(12) The failure of the Government to redress the burdens
imposed by over-regulation and complexity on employer-
sponsored pension plans will harm employees and their
families.
(13) The failure of the Government to redress the problems
related to private pension plans may erode the ability of
United States companies to compete effectively in the
international market and result in a decrease in the economic
health of the Nation.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
There is established a commission to be known as the
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission (in this Act
referred to as the ``Commission'').
SEC. 4. DUTIES.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall--
(1) study the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges
involved in the regulation of the current private pension
system;
(2) review and assess Federal statutes relating to the
regulation of the current private pension system; and
(3) recommend changes in the law regarding the regulation
of the current private pension system to mitigate the
problems identified under subsection (b), with the goal of
making the system more affordable, accessible, efficient,
less costly, less complex, and, in general, to expand pension
coverage.
(b) Issues To Be Studied.--The Commission shall include in
the study under subsection (a) a consideration of--
(1) the manner in which the current rules impact private
pension coverage, how such coverage has changed over the last
25 years (since the enactment of ERISA), and reasons for such
change;
(2) the primary burdens placed on small and medium business
in the United States regarding administration of pension
plans, especially how such burdens affect the tenuous
position occupied by these organizations in the competitive
market;
(3) the simplification of existing pension rules in order
to eliminate undue costs on employers while providing
retirement security protection to employees;
(4) the primary obstacles to employees in gaining optimum
advantages from the current pension system, with particular
attention to the small and medium business sector and low and
moderate income employees, including minorities and women;
(5) the feasibility of providing innovative design options
to enable small and medium businesses to be relieved of
complex and costly legislative and regulatory burdens in
matters of adoption, operation, administration, and reporting
of pension plans, in order to increase affordable and
effective coverage in that sector, for low and moderate
income employees, with emphasis on minorities and women;
(6) the means of leveling distribution of private pension
plan coverage between high wage earners and low and moderate
income workers;
(7) the feasibility of forward-looking reforms that
anticipate the needs of small and medium businesses in the
United States given the obstacles and opportunities of the
new global economy, in particular issues related to the
mobility and retention of skilled workers;
(8) how pension plan benefits can be made more portable;
(9) the means of achieving the expansion and adoption of
pension plans by United States businesses, especially those
employing low and moderate income workers who currently lack
access to such plans;
[[Page
S7659]]
(10) the impact of expanding individual retirement account
contribution limits and income limits on private pension plan
coverage;
(11) the provision of innovative incentives that encourage
more employers to use existing private pension plans;
(12) the impact of qualified plan contribution and benefit
limits on coverage; and
(13) any proposals for major simplification of Federal
legislation and regulation regarding qualified pension plans,
in order to address and mitigate problem areas identified
under this subsection, with the goal of--
(A) strengthening the private pension system;
(B) expanding the availability, adoption, and retention of
tax-favored savings plans by all Americans;
(C) eliminating rules that burden the pension system beyond
the benefits they provide, for low and moderate income
workers, including minorities and women, with specific
emphasis on--
(i) eligibility and coverage;
(ii) contributions and benefits;
(iii) minimum distributions, withdrawals, and loans;
(iv) spousal and beneficiary benefits;
(v) portability between plans;
(vi) asset recapture;
(vii) plan compliance and termination;
(viii) income and excise taxation; and
(ix) reporting, disclosure, and penalties; and
(D) identification of the trade-offs involved in
simplification under subparagraph (C).
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the
designation of the chairperson under section 5(d), the
Commission shall transmit to the President and Congress a
report containing--
(A) the issues studied under subsection (b);
(B) the results of such study;
(C) draft legislation and commentary under paragraph (2);
and
(D) any other recommendations based on such study.
(2) Legislative recommendations.--The Commission shall
develop draft legislation and associated explanations and
commentary to achieve major simplification of Federal
legislation regarding regulation of pension plans (including
ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to implement any
findings or recommendations of the study conducted under
subsection (b).
(3) Recommendations.--Any official findings or
recommendations of the Commission shall be adopted by \2/3\
of the members of the Commission.
(4) Minority views.--All findings and recommendations of
the Commission formally proposed by any member of the
Commission and not adopted under paragraph (3) shall also be
included in the report.
SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION; RULES; POWERS.
(a) Composition.--
(1) Number.--The Commission shall be composed of 15
members, appointed not later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Appointments.--The membership of the Commission shall
be as follows:
(A) 3 individuals appointed by the President, after
consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
the Treasury, or their respective designees.
(B) 3 individuals appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate.
(C) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the
Senate.
(D) 3 individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(E) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives.
(b) Qualifications of Members.--
(1) In general.--Individuals appointed under subsection
(a)(2) shall be individuals who--
(A) have experience in actuarial disciplines, law,
economics, public policy, human relations, business,
manufacturing, labor, multiemployer pension plan
administration, single employer pension plan administration,
or academia, or have other distinctive and pertinent
qualifications or experience in retirement policy;
(B) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
(C) are selected without regard to political affiliation or
past partisan activity.
(2) Other considerations.--In the appointment of members
under subsection (a), every effort shall be made to ensure
that the individuals, as a group--
(A) are representatives of a broad cross-section of
perspectives on private pension plans within the United
States;
(B) have the capacity to provide significant analytical
insight into existing obstacles and opportunities of private
pension plans; and
(C) represent all of the areas of experience under
paragraph (1)(A).
(c) Terms; Vacancies.--
(1) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of
the Commission.
(2) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers and shall be filled in the same manner as
the appointment of the member causing the vacancy.
(d) Chairperson; Vice chairperson.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall
designate a chairperson and vice chairperson of the
Commission from the individuals appointed under subsection
(a)(2).
(e) Compensation.--
(1) Prohibition of pay.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission may
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or
regular place of business in the performance of services for
the Commission.
(f) Rules of the Commission.--
(1) Quorum.--Eight members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum for conducting the business of the
Commission, except 5 members of the Commission may hold
hearings, take testimony, or receive evidence.
(2) Notice.--Any meetings held by the Commission shall be
duly noticed in the Federal Register at least 14 days prior
to such meeting and shall be open to the public.
(3) Opportunities to testify.--The Commission shall provide
opportunities for representatives of the general public,
taxpayer groups, consumer groups, think tanks, and State and
local government officials to testify.
(4) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
chairperson of the Commission.
(5) Other rules.--The Commission shall adopt such other
rules as necessary.
(g) Powers of the Commission.--
(1) Information from federal agencies.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from
any Federal department or agency such materials, resources,
data, and other information as the Commission considers
necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. Upon
request of the chairperson of the Commission, the head of
such department or agency shall furnish such materials,
resources, data, and other information to the Commission.
(B) Coordination of research information.--The Commission
shall ensure effective use of such materials, resources,
data, and other information and avoid duplicative research by
coordinating and consulting with the head of the appropriate
research department of--
(i) the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration of the
Department of Labor;
(ii) the Department of the Treasury;
(iii) the Social Security Administration;
(iv) the Small Business Administration;
(v) the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;
(vi) the National Institute on Aging; and
(vii) private organizations which have conducted research
in the pension area.
(2) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as any other
Federal agency.
(3) Acceptance of services; gifts; and grants.--The
Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or grants of
services or property, both real and personal, for purposes of
aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts or
grants not used at the expiration of the Commission shall be
returned to the donor or grantor.
(4) Contract and procurement authority.--The Commission may
make purchases, and may contract with and compensate
government and private agencies or persons for property or
services, without regard to--
(A) section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5); and
(B) title III of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.).
(5) Volunteer services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of
title 31, United States Code, the Commission may accept and
use voluntary and uncompensated services as the Commission
determines necessary.
SEC. 6. STAFF AND SUPPORT SERVICES.
(a) Executive Director; Staff.--
(1) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to civil service laws and regulations and
after consultation with the Commission, appoint an executive
director of the Commission and such other additional
personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to
perform its duties.
(2) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
such title.
(b) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request by the
chairperson of the Commission, the head of any Federal
department or agency may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis,
any of the personnel of the department or agency to the
Commission to assist the Commission to carry out its duties
under this Act and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(c) Administrative Support Services.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a
reimbursable basis, any administrative support services that
are necessary to enable the Commission to carry out this Act.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate not later than 26 months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
[[Page
S7660]]
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
____
American Academy of Actuaries,
July 13, 2000.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The American Academy of Actuaries
would like to express its strong support for your idea of
establishing a national commission on pension reform and
simplification. The Academy has long advocated a
comprehensive and coordinated approach to retirement policy.
We believe the establishment of a bipartisan commission of
experts to analyze obstacles that weaken our private pension
system and recommend solutions is a positive first step. The
Academy also believes that slight modifications to your
proposal would make the commission more effective.
The Academy commends you for recognizing that, because the
laws that regulate our private pension system have become too
complex, they discourage employers from helping their workers
save for an adequate retirement. We strongly support the
concept of a bipartisan commission of experts that will
recommend specific ways to simplify the rules governing
private plans, thereby encouraging employers to expand
coverage to more workers.
The Academy believes that the commission called for in your
proposal could be made more effective if Congress was
required to have an up-or-down vote on its recommendations.
Furthermore, we believe that, given the expertise available
to the commission, it should be possible to formulate a
result in 12-18 months, rather than the 24 months specified
in your legislation. Finally, we would encourage the
commission to examine pension changes in the context of a
national retirement income policy, including Social Security,
since major changes to the private pension system undoubtedly
will affect Social Security.
The Academy believes that creation of a national commission
will be a positive first step toward our mutual goal of
increasing pension coverage for Americans. We appreciate your
recognition of the unique role that actuaries should play in
such a commission and look forward to providing any
assistance that may be of benefit to you and your staff.
Sincerely,
James E. Turpin,
Vice President, Pensions.
____
APPWP, Association of Private
Pension and Welfare Plans,
July 18, 2000.
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act
Senator Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the Association of
Private Pension and Welfare Plans (APPWP--The Benefits
Association), I want to express our appreciation for your
interest in, and support for, our nation's voluntary,
employer-sponsored retirement system as evidenced by the
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act that you
will soon introduce. APPWP is a public policy organization
representing principally Fortune 500 companies and other
organizations that assist companies of all sizes in providing
benefits to employees. Collectively, APPWP's members either
sponsor directly or provide services to retirement and health
plans that cover more than 100 million Americans. We
appreciate your past and continuing efforts to expand the
private, voluntary retirement system that currently enables
millions of working Americans to achieve financial security
in retirement.
As you know, the employer-based retirement system provides
an important source of income security for many Americans in
retirement, and, in many respects, has been successful in
meeting the challenges of an aging population. However, we
recognize that public policy can build and expand on this
success. Many employers, particularly small companies, find
it difficult to establish retirement plans because of cost
and administrative complexity. As a result, many workers do
not have access to private pensions and cannot save
adequately for retirement. Moreover, our pension laws have
not kept pace with the rapid developments in the business
world. New technologies, international competition, and many
types of corporate transactions pose unique pension
challenges that should be better accommodated by our nation's
retirement policy. APPWP has consistently campaigned for
expansion and reform of the nation's pension laws with the
express goals of expanding coverage, increasing portability,
reducing complexity, and reflecting business realities. We
are therefore pleased that you have made these goals the
central objective of the commission you propose.
In particular, APPWP commends you for putting the focus of
pension reform on expanding coverage. You correctly note that
our retirement system has become overly burdened with
unwieldy and complex rules that have impeded expanded
coverage and increased retirement security for all Americans.
Your advocacy on behalf of the goals of coverage and
simplification is an important step towards realizing a more
secure retirement for all Americans.
We look forward to working with you on these important
issues. If we can be of further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
James A. Klein,
President.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Moynihan, Mr. L. Chafee, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Robb, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Schumer, and
Mr. Leahy):
S. 2923. A bill to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act
to provide for FamilyCare coverage for parents of enrolled children,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the family care act of 2000
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the introduction
of the Family Care Act of 2000, which takes the next logical step in
assuring access by as many citizens as possible to affordable health
insurance. I commend Congressman John Dingell and the rest of our
colleagues for their fine work in crafting this legislation.
The number of uninsured Americans is now more than 44 million, and
the figure is rising by an average of one million a year. America is
the only industrial country in the world, except South Africa, that
fails to guarantee health care for all it citizens.
It is a national scandal that lack of insurance coverage is the
seventh leading--and most preventable--cause of death in America today.
Three years ago, we worked together to create CHIP, the federal-state
Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage to
children in families with incomes too high for Medicaid and too low to
afford private health insurance.
More than two million children have been enrolled in that program,
and millions more have signed up for Medicaid as a result of outreach
activities. Soon, more than three-quarters of all uninsured children in
the nation will be eligible for assistance through either CHIP or
Medicaid.
But, despite this progress, the parents of these children, and too
many others, have been left behind. The time has come to take the next
step.
The overwhelming majority of uninsured low-wage parents are
struggling to support their families. I will ask unanimous consent to
insert a statement in the Record from Patricia Quezada, a parent of
three lovely girls, who would benefit from this legislation.
Parents who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should be
eligible for assistance to buy the health insurance they need in order
to protect their families. Our message to them today is that help is on
the way.
Often, they work for companies which don't offer insurance, or they
aren't eligible for insurance that is offered. Fewer than a quarter of
the jobs taken by those who have been forced off the welfare rolls by
welfare reform offer insurance as a benefit--and even when it is
offered too few companies make it available for dependents. The time
has come to take the next step.
The Family Care Act of 2000 will provide with the resources,
incentives and authority to extend Medicaid and CHIP to the parents of
children covered under those programs.
Coverage for parents also means better coverage for children. Parents
are much more likely to enroll their children in health insurance, if
the parents themselves can have coverage, too.
This step alone will give to six and a half million Americans the
coverage they need and deserve.
The Family Care Act will also improve the outreach and enrollment for
CHIP and Medicaid, and encourage states to extend coverage to other
vulnerable population, such as pregnant women, legal immigrants, and
children ages 19 and 20.
This program is affordable under current and projected budget
surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost will
be $11 billion over the next five years.
Last Monday, a majority of the Senate voted in favor of this proposal
as an amendment to the marriage penalty bill. We needed 60 votes, so it
was not successful then, but we clearly have a bipartisan majority of
the Senate.
The bottom line is that we have the resources to take this needed
step, and
[[Page
S7661]]
end the suffering and uncertainty that accompanies being uninsured.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements and letters of
support for this legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
statement of patricia quezada, july 21, 2000
Good morning. I am Patricia Quezada. I am a mother of three
girls (ages 9, 8 and 5). I work as a part-time parent liaison
at Weyanoke Elementary School in Fairfax, Virginia. My
husband is a self-employed general contractor. Because my
husband is self-employed and I work part-time, our family
does not have access to health insurance through our jobs.
In the past, we were able to purchase private insurance
that covered our family. But, in recent times, our family has
been unable to afford the high rates because it came down to
either paying for our home, transportation and other
necessities--including food--or purchasing this costly
insurance. On two occasions, the coverage was cancelled
because we were unable to meet the payments, which were
required in advance.
It was such a relief that my children are now able to
receive coverage through Medicaid and CMSIP, Virginia's SCHIP
Program. (As a parent-liaison, part of my job has been to
help other families sign up their children for health
insurance.) I feel extremely fortunate that my children are
now covered in case of an illness or accident, however I
continue to fear what could happen if my husband or I fall
sick or have an injury. While we both do our best to take
care of our health, we know how important it is to have
health insurance coverage if we should need it.
Thank you.
____
Children's Defense Fund,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: We are taking this opportunity to
thank you for introducing the FamilyCare Act of 2000 and to
express the strong support of the Children's Defense Fund for
this bipartisan initiative to provide and strengthen health
care coverage for uninsured children and their parents.
Building on the successes of Medicaid and the Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP), this legislation will
increase coverage for uninsured children, provide funding for
health insurance coverage for the uninsured parents of
Medicaid and CHIP-eligible children, and simplify the
enrollment process for Medicaid and CHIP to make the programs
more family friendly.
We want to extent our appreciation to Senators Chafee,
Collins, Daschle, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, and Snowe for co-
sponsoring this legislation in the Senate and to
Representatives Dingell, Stark, and Waxman for taking the
lead on this proposal in the House. We look forward to
working with you for passage of the FamilyCare Act of 2000.
Sincerely,
Gregg Haifley,
Deputy Director Health Division.
____
National Association of
Children's Hospitals,
Alexandria, VA, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the National Association
of Children's Hospital (N.A.C.H.), which represents over 100
children's hospitals nationwide, I want to express our strong
support for your introduction of the ``FamilyCare Act of
2000.''
As providers of care to all children, regardless of their
economic status, children's hospitals devote nearly half of
their patient care to children who rely on Medicaid or are
uninsured, and more than three-fourths of their patient-care
to children with chronic and congenital conditions. These
hospitals have extensive experience in assisting families to
enroll eligible children in Medicaid and SCHIP. They are
keenly aware of the importance of addressing the challenges
that states face in enrolling this often hard to reach
population of eligible children.
In particular, N.A.C.H. appreciates and strongly supports
your efforts to simplify and coordinate the application
process for SCHIP and Medicaid, as well as to provide new
tools for states to use in identifying and enrolling
families. In addition, N.A.C.H. applauds your provisions that
set a higher bar for covering children by: (1) requiring
states to first cover children up to 200% of poverty and
eliminating waiting lists in the SCHIP program before
covering parents; and (2) requiring every child who loses
coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP to be automatically screened
for other avenues of eligibility and if found eligible,
enrolled immediately in that program.
N.A.C.H. also supports your legislation's provision to give
states additional flexibility under SCHIP and Medicaid to
cover legal immigrant children. In states with high
proportions of uninsured children, such as California, Texas
and Florida, the federal government's bar on coverage of
legal immigrant children helps contribute to the fact that
Hispanic children represent the highest rate of uninsured
children of all major racial and ethnic minority groups. Your
provision to ensure coverage of legal immigrant children
would be extremely useful in improving this situation.
N.A.C.H. greatly appreciates all that you have done
throughout your years of service, and continue to do, to
provide all children with the best possible chance at
starting out and staying healthy. We welcome and look forward
to working with you to pass the ``FamilyCare Act of 2000.''
Sincerely,
Lawrence A. McAndrews.
____
March of Dimes,
Birth Defects Foundation,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of more than 3 million
volunteers and 1600 staff members of the March of Dimes, I
want to commend you for introducing the ``FamilyCare Act of
2000.'' The March of Dimes is committed to increasing access
to appropriate and affordable health care for women, infants
and children and supports the targeted approach to expanding
the State Children's Health Insurance Program contained in
the FamilyCare proposal.
The ``FamilyCare Act of 2000'' contains a number of
beneficial provisions that would expand and improve SCHIP.
The March of Dimes strongly supports giving states the option
to cover low-income pregnant women in Medicaid and SCHIP
programs with an enhanced matching rate. We understand that
FamilyCare would allow states to cover uninsured parents of
children enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP as well as uninsured
first-time pregnant women. SCHIP is the only major federally-
funded program that denies coverage to pregnant women while
providing coverage to their infants and children. We know
prenatal care improves birth outcomes. Expanding health
insurance coverage for low-income pregnant women has
bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.
The March of Dimes also supports FamilyCare provisions to
require automatic enrollment of children born to SCHIP
parents; automatic screening of every child who loses
coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP to determine eligibility for
other health programs; and distribution of information on the
availability of Medicaid and SCHIP through the school lunch
program. The March of Dimes also supports giving states the
option to provide Medicaid and SCHIP benefits to children and
pregnant women who arrived legally to the United States after
August 23, 1996, and to people ages 19 and 20.
We thank you for your leadership in introducing the
``FamilyCare Act of 2000'' and are eager to work with you to
achieve approval of this much needed legislation.
Sincerely,
Anna Eleanor Roosevelt,
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees; Chair, Public Affairs
Committee.
Dr. Jennifer L. Howse,
Presdient.
____
Association of Maternal and
Child Health Programs,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the Association of
Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP), I am writing to
express our support of the FamilyCare Act of 2000. We are
particularly supportive of the provisions that allow states
to include pregnant women in their SCHIP and Medicaid
programs.
We are also pleased with the provisions giving states the
flexibility to expand outreach activities as well as moving
towards greater equity in program payments.
AMCHP represents state officials in 59 states and
territories who administer public health programs aimed at
improving the health of all women, children, and adolescents.
In 1997, over 22 million women, children, adolescents and
children with special health care needs received services,
which were supported by the Maternal and Child Health Block
Grant.
We look forward to working with you and your staff on this
bill.
Sincerely,
Deborah Dietrich,
Director of Legislative Affairs.
____
American Dental
Hygienist Association,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Hon. Jay Rockefeller,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller: on behalf of the
American Dental Hygienists' Association (ADHA), I write to
express ADHA's support for the principles espoused in the
Family Care Act of 2000. This legislation is an important
step toward the goal of meaningful health insurance coverage,
including oral health insurance coverage, for all children
and their parents.
Regretfully, there is room for much improvement in our
children's oral health, a fundamental part of total health.
Studies show that oral disease currently afflicts the
majority of children in our country. Dental caries (tooth
decay), gingivitis, and periodontitis (gum and bone
disorders) are the most common oral diseases. The Public
Health Service reports that 50% of all children in the United
States experience dental caries in their permanent teeth and
two-thirds experience gingivitis.
[[Page
S7662]]
The percentages of children with dental disease are likely
far higher for the traditionally underserved Medicaid-
eligible population and for those eligible for the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). For example, one
of the most severe forms of gum disease--localized juvenile
periodontitis--disproportionately affects teenage African-
American males and can result in the loss of all teeth before
adulthood. If untreated, gum disease causes pain, bleeding,
loss of function, diminished appearance, possible systemic
infections, bone deterioration and eventual loss of teeth.
Yet, each of the three most common oral health disorders--
dental caries, gingivitis, and periodontitis--can be
prevented through the type of regular preventive care
provided by dental hygienists.
Despite the known benefits of preventive oral health
services and the inclusion of oral health benefits in
Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
Treatment (EPSDT) program, only one in 5 (4.2 million out of
21.2 million) Medicaid-eligible children actually received
preventive oral health services in 1993 according to a 1996
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report entitled
Children's Dental Services Under Medicaid: Access and
Utilization.
The nation simply must improve access to oral health
services and your legislation is an important building block
for all who care about our children's oral health, a
fundamental part of general health and well-being.
We in the dental hygiene community look forward to working
together toward our shared goal of health insurance coverage
for all of our nation's families. Please feel free to call
upon me or ADHA's Washington Counsel, Karen Sealander of
McDermott, Will & Emery (202-756-8024), at any time.
Sincerely,
Stanley B. Peck,
Executive Director.
____
Premier Inc.,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of Premier Inc., I am
writing to applaud your introduction of the ``FamilyCare Act
of 2000'' and express our strong support. Premier is a
strategic alliance of leading not-for-profit hospitals and
health systems across the nation. Premier provides group
purchasing and other services for more than 1,800 hospitals
and healthcare facilities.
As reported by the Urban Institute in the July/August issue
of Health Affairs, the population of non-elderly uninsured
grew by 4.2 million between 1994 and 1998. This hike in the
rate of uninsured occurred among children and adults. In the
same period, Medicaid coverage fell from 10 to 8.4 percent,
or about 3.1 million persons (1.9 million children and 1.2
million adults). Your legislation confronts and seeks to
address these disturbing trends head on.
The FamilyCare Act of 2000 not only expands coverage to
children--it also enables states to provide health insurance
to parents of children enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid. The
bill creates new opportunities for states to cover immigrant
children and pregnant women, and provides for the automatic
coverage of children born to CHIP-enrolled parents, thereby
enhancing presumptive eligibility.
This legislation provides for the mutual reinforcement of
the Medicaid and CHIP programs by integrating eligibility
determination and outreach efforts. A standard application
form and simple enrollment process for both programs will
raise the participation rate for both programs. Finally, the
bill provides grants to support broader outreach activities
and employer subsidies to offer health insurance packages,
thereby encouraging joint public/private market innovations
to reduce the population of uninsured.
Stifling the growth in the rate of uninsured and reversing
the trend remain a top priority for the hospital community.
Securing the appropriate preventative care for these
individuals will improve the quality and cost-effectiveness
of further care, as the uninsured are more likely to be
hospitalized for medical conditions that, initially, could
have been managed with physician care and/or medication.
Thank you for taking the lead in addressing the problem of
America's uninsured. We look forward to working with you
toward enactment of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Kerb Kuhn,
Vice President, Advocacy.
____
Families USA,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: We congratulate you on the
introduction of your bill, the Family Care Act of 2000, which
gives states the option to provide parents of children
enrolled in the Medicaid and CHIP programs with health
insurance. We believe that your bill is a crucial next step
in addressing the problem of our nation's uninsured, and we
offer our unequivocal support.
By covering parents through CHIP, the Family Care Act could
provide health insurance to over four million previously
uninsured Americans. We believe this is a cost-effective and
efficient way to provide quality healthcare to low- and
moderate-income working families. Children of CHIP-enrolled
parents will be automatically enrolled at birth, but, equally
importantly, research has shown that children are more likely
to have health coverage when their parents are insured. This
means that the Family Care Act could, in effect, cover many
more Americans than the estimated four million. Additionally,
the expansion of coverage to legal immigrant children and
pregnant women addresses the needs of two particularly
vulnerable groups.
Again, we applaud your ongoing leadership in tackling the
problem of the uninsured, and we support this important
legislation. Please let us know how we can help you to enact
this bill into law.
Sincerely,
Ronald F. Pollack,
Executive Director.
____
American Hospital Association,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The American Hospital Association
(AHA), which represents, 5,000 hospitals, health care
systems, networks, and other providers of care, is pleased to
support the FamilyCare Act of 2000. The AHA shares your goal
of expanding access to health care coverage for the 44
million uninsured Americans. We believe the federal budget
surplus offers a unique opportunity to fund solutions to the
health care problems of the uninsured.
Recent Medicaid expansions and the creation of the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) have greatly
improved access to health care coverage for millions of
children living in low-income families. But more needs to be
done. AHA strongly supports the objective of your legislation
that embraces, as one option to address the problems of the
uninsured, building on existing public programs to expand
coverage to the parents of the children covered by S-CHIP.
Furthermore, your provisions that include coverage for
legal immigrants, improve Medicaid coverage for those
transitioning from welfare-to-work, and create state grant
programs to encourage market innovation in health care
insurance are to be applauded. AHA believes these are good
first steps toward lowering the numbers of the uninsured.
In addition to expanding public programs, AHA supports
measures that make health care insurance more affordable for
low-income working families. Toward that end, AHA also
support
H.R. 4113, bipartisan legislation establishing
refundable tax credits to assist low-income families in the
purchase of health care insurance.
Our nation's hospitals see every day that the absence of
health coverage is a significant barrier to care, reducing
the likelihood that people will get appropriate preventive,
diagnostic and chronic care. With the uninsured growing in
numbers, AHA supports your effort to build on current public
programs as an important option to make it possible for more
low-income families to get needed health care coverage. We
thank you for your leadership and we look forward to working
with you on advancing the FamilyCare Act of 2000.
Sincerely,
Rick Pollack,
Executive Vice President.
____
Network,
Washington, DC, July 2000.
From NETWORK--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
Re: The Family Care Act of 2000.
Hon. Senator Ted Kennedy: Since 1975, NETWORK: A National
Catholic Social Justice Lobby has worked for universal access
to affordable, quality health care. NETWORK considers the
constant increase in the number of uninsured persons a
national disgrace and a serious moral and ethical issue.
Sadly, the political will to reform the nation's fragmented
non-system of health care is seriously lacking in the current
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 26, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S7656-S7689]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2922. A bill to create a Pension Reform and Simplification
Commission to evaluate and suggest ways to enhance access to the
private pension plan system; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
the pension reform and simplification commission act
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce legislation
calling for the establishment of a Pension Reform and Simplification
Commission. The legislation derives directly from conversations I have
had with constituents and experts on three key issues.
First, there is the problem related to the current cost and
complexity of private pension plans. In my view current regulations
place an unnecessary burden on small and medium business as they
attempt to adopt pension plans. Indeed, even the most simple plans are
often so complicated in form and function as to be incomprehensive to
an everyday businessperson.
Second, there is the problem involved in coverage. Although over-all
pension coverage may be consistent over the last decade and the assets
of private plans have been on the increase, my concern is with those
individuals of low to moderate income who are being left out of the
private pension plan equation. As companies move toward cheaper plans--
401(k)s being a salient example--and feel less obligated to offer
defined benefit-type plans, individuals who do not have the extra money
to contribute to their pension plans are
[[Page
S7657]]
unable to benefit from a plan's availability. This is if a plan is
available at all, and in many cases it is not.
Third, there is the problem of what kind of private pension plans are
best suited for the so-called ``New Economy''. Clearly there is
considerable debate as of late in terms of what kind of private pension
plans should be offered so as to increase saving, decrease mobility,
provide opportunity, enhance entrepreneurship, and so on, all of which
is apparent in the rise of hybrid pension plans. My foremost concern
here is that Congress now finds itself reacting to innovative private
pension plans rather than being pro-active in their creation.
Mr. President, in 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, known by most people by its acronym of ERISA, our
intention at the time being twofold. First, we wanted to protect the
assets held in private sector retirement plans. Second, we wanted to
create uniform rules that govern how these plans will be implemented in
each and every state.
From most accounts we have accomplished these two goals. There is no
question that ERISA has flaws that must be addressed--and I will
discuss these in detail later--but for all these flaws ERISA was
extremely significant in that it reaffirmed the government's commitment
to the importance of retirement plans for all Americans. Furthermore,
it created a comprehensive framework in this country under which the
expansion of private retirement plans could occur. Equally important,
the mechanisms it established for personal saving has added trillions
of dollars in available investment capital over the last decade alone,
fueling in a very tangible way the unprecedented economic growth that
we are seeing right now.
But for all the praise ERISA receives, it is also criticized widely
and, in my opinion, correctly on a number of counts. For this reason,
it is time to seriously re-evaluate whether it is addressing the needs
and concerns of all Americans. It is time to examine whether it fits
the demands of a changing, global, ``new'' economy.
As a specific example of these problems, the adoption of piecemeal,
narrow, and complicated statutes and regulations in the 26 years since
ERISA's implementation has made substantial portions of our retirement
system inefficient, expensive, and oftentimes incomprehensible to
anyone wishing to use it. It is well-known that we continue to add
provisions and plans with no effort at all to make them internally
compatible. We may have a broad vision about what we want to do with
retirement policy in this country, but we instead of revising
retirement policy in a comprehensive and strategic manner, we simply
add new ideas and language incrementally, hoping they will appeal to
businesses who wish to offer them to their employees.
Sadly, the end result is that for many businesses the cost of
compliance with ERISA regulations--the administrative and professional
costs of qualification--rival and even outweigh the costs of providing
the benefits themselves. This, in turn, has led to a decision by many
business owners that they can no longer afford to offer retirement
plans to their employees, this in spite of their desire to do so. For
these people, the current rules burden the system beyond the benefits
they provide. This has to change.
But the cost and complexity I have just mentioned has had a corollary
effect, that being a lack of access to pension plans on the part of
low- and middle-income workers, women and minorities in particular.
Rightly or wrongly, one of the foremost criticisms directed toward
ERISA is that it has accelerated the demise of traditional defined
benefit pensions and increased conversions to new forms of plans,
specifically defined contribution plans like 401(k)s. Employers
oftentimes no longer feel it is their role to provide retirement income
to their employees as they once did under defined benefit plans.
Instead they make defined contribution plans available and then educate
employees as to how to save for themselves.
The problem is that the retirement security of a great many workers
now lies in their ability to contribute individually to these plans,
and this is not always possible. Indeed, data suggests that if these
individuals are able to save adequately at all, they do so late in
their careers--this after paying for their homes, their childrens'
education, and other important spending priorities. Only then do they
have the opportunity to accumulate the money needed to supplement
Social Security and carry them through retirement. But these are the
lucky ones. The fact is a large portion of Americans simply no longer
have the capacity to save, this in spite of living in a time of
economic prosperity. This too needs to be changed.
There is a third reason to re-evaluate ERISA, and that is that the
dynamics of the New Economy demand a discussion of what retirement
policies best serve the economic interests of the United States. For a
good part of this century, private pension plans were seen by employers
as a way to keep their workforce intact, their employees' morale high,
and devotion to the company constant. Employees stayed with companies
because they identified with the company and were treated by employers
as family. Continuity and connection were the primary motivations for
individuals as they considered a job.
Recently, however, this rationale has changed, and has done so
significantly. According to most analysts, the main determinant for
most employees as they choose a job is personal development and
professional growth, the feeling being that economic security is best
attained by mobility--moving from one job to another, increasing
education, pay, and retirement savings as you go. Staying at one firm
is still an ideal for some but it is not essential for many. Perhaps
more importantly, given the dynamics of the New Economy, it may no
longer be practical to assume that you can find retirement security at
a single firm.
The bottom line, much as the recent debates over cash balance plans
suggest, is that some very basic issues concerning pension policy are
coming to the fore at this time, examples being the essence of the
employer-employee relationship, the ability of companies to attract and
maintain a skilled workforce, the benefits provided to short- and long-
term employees, the advisability of worker mobility seen in the context
of technological innovation and globalization, and so on. Here, we must
confront the reality of political economic change, and do so quickly
and coherently.
But Congress is not doing that. As I stated previously, we are
reacting to changes rather than planning for the future in a coherent
and strategic manner. In my view, this is an extremely serious problem
as it limits our ability to create the conditions necessary for
national economic growth and individual economic welfare.
As many of my colleagues know, the notion of a Pension Commission has
been discussed and debated for a number of years, but we have never
placed it high enough on our list of priorities to address it with
purpose. I would argue that we can no longer afford the luxury of
contemplation, and the time to act is now. Failure to adjust our
existing policies to meet the challenges we face both now and in the
future will result in several specific outcomes.
First, it will mean that many workers will see their retirement
expectations fade or disappear. Second, it will likely mean that these
individuals will be forced to rely on government sponsored programs
that are themselves financially overextended. Finally, it will mean
that the capacity of U.S. firms to compete in the global marketplace
will be diminished. In my view, none of these outcomes are acceptable.
We simply must become more thoughtful and pro-active.
The bill I introduce today has a number of purposes, but foremost
among them is to establish an affordable, accessible, equitable,
efficient, cost-effective, and easy to understand private pension plan
system in the United States. It is designed to conduct a complete top-
to-bottom evaluation of the current system and provide concrete
recommendations as to how we can reform it to serve the interests of
employers, employees, and the entire nation as a whole.
This Commission will be composed of fifteen members, all with
significant experience in areas related to retirement income policy. It
is mandated that the activities of the Commission
[[Page
S7658]]
will be concluded in a little over two years, with specific language to
be provided to Congress so that we can act on their recommendations
immediately. To ensure that the activities of the Commission are not
redundant or otherwise wasteful, it will be allowed to secure data from
any government agency or department dealing with retirement policy, and
furthermore, may request detailees from these agencies and departments
on a non-reimburseable basis. The Commission will also be allowed to
hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence as appropriate from
individuals who are able to contribute to this reform effort.
This bill has been created after detailed discussions with a number
of individuals and organizations interested in retirement policy, from
the Employee Benefits Research Institute, to the Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities, to the Association of Private Pension and Welfare
Plans. Although all of the organizations involved have their own
perspective on how retirement policy issues should be addressed in the
United States, I have made a concerted effort to make their concerns
compatible in this legislation. Significantly, all endorse the goals of
the bill, as does the American Academy of Actuaries, the Executive
Committee of the New York State Bar Association, and the Chairman of
the Special Commission on Pension Simplification of the New York State
Bar Association, Mr. Alvin D. Lurie.
Mr. President, although there is much to recommend concerning our
current pension system, it is common knowledge that this system is, in
many instances, too complicated for participants to understand, too
difficult for businesses to use, and too inaccessible for individuals
to join. We have added layer upon layer of legislation, to the point
that the system is not only unwieldy, but often of questionable
purpose. We have reached the point that its complexity and
inaccessibility is having a tangible impact on individuals and
businesses alike.
In my view, the status quo is no longer viable or acceptable. It is
time to meet the challenge that faces us in a direct and strategic
fashion. It is time to reform and simplify the system so that we have a
effective mechanism that serves employers and employees alike and
provides the means to guarantee all Americans income security in their
retirement years.
Mr. President, the time to act is now. I ask my colleagues to
recognize the importance of this legislation, and lend their support
for its passage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be
included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. I also ask
that the letters of support from the American Academy of Actuaries and
the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans be included in the
Record immediately following my floor statement.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2922
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pension Reform and
Simplification Commission Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The creation and implementation of an affordable,
accessible, equitable, efficient, cost-effective, and easy to
understand system is essential to the continuity and
viability of the current private pension plan system in the
United States.
(2) There is a near universal recognition in the United
States that the laws that regulate our pension system have
become unwieldy, complex, and burdensome, a condition that
hinders the achievement of increased saving and economic
growth and cannot be fixed by ad hoc improvements to ERISA
and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) Significant and effective improvement of laws can only
be accomplished through a coordinated, comprehensive, and
sustained effort to revise and simplify current laws by a
high-level body of pension experts, whose recommendations are
then transmitted to Congress.
(4) In recent years, the adoption of narrowly focused and
increasingly complex statutes through amendment of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (in this Act
referred to as ``ERISA'') and the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 has impeded the efforts of employers and employees to
save for their retirement and imposed significant challenges
for businesses which consider establishing pension plans for
their workforce.
(5) A high national savings rate can contribute
significantly to the economic security of the Nation as it
adds to available investment capital, fuels economic growth,
and enhances productivity, competitiveness, and prosperity.
(6) The Federal Government can potentially increase the
national savings rate through the implementation of policies
that create an effective framework for the spread of
voluntary retirement plans and the protection of the private
assets held in those plans.
(7) Private pension plans have been, and remain, the single
largest repository of private capital in the world and
potentially act as a significant inducement for personal
saving and investment.
(8) Pensions represent the only hope that most working
Americans have an adequate supplement to social security
benefits, and while the private pension system has been
greatly improved since the establishment of ERISA, many
inequities remain, and many workers are still not covered by
the system.
(9) It is essential that all Americans, no matter what
their income security level, have the opportunity to achieve
income security in their retirement years. Currently, many
tax and retirement incentives for private pension plans,
while benefiting higher income employees who can often save
adequately for their retirement, do not serve sufficiently
the needs of low and moderate income workers.
(10) The current pensions rules have tended to produce
disparate coverage rates for low and moderate income workers.
(11) The failure of the Government to modify current
pension policies will mean that many workers will be deprived
of the options needed to save for their retirement and will,
consequently, have their retirement expectations minimized or
eliminated.
(12) The failure of the Government to redress the burdens
imposed by over-regulation and complexity on employer-
sponsored pension plans will harm employees and their
families.
(13) The failure of the Government to redress the problems
related to private pension plans may erode the ability of
United States companies to compete effectively in the
international market and result in a decrease in the economic
health of the Nation.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
There is established a commission to be known as the
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission (in this Act
referred to as the ``Commission'').
SEC. 4. DUTIES.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall--
(1) study the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges
involved in the regulation of the current private pension
system;
(2) review and assess Federal statutes relating to the
regulation of the current private pension system; and
(3) recommend changes in the law regarding the regulation
of the current private pension system to mitigate the
problems identified under subsection (b), with the goal of
making the system more affordable, accessible, efficient,
less costly, less complex, and, in general, to expand pension
coverage.
(b) Issues To Be Studied.--The Commission shall include in
the study under subsection (a) a consideration of--
(1) the manner in which the current rules impact private
pension coverage, how such coverage has changed over the last
25 years (since the enactment of ERISA), and reasons for such
change;
(2) the primary burdens placed on small and medium business
in the United States regarding administration of pension
plans, especially how such burdens affect the tenuous
position occupied by these organizations in the competitive
market;
(3) the simplification of existing pension rules in order
to eliminate undue costs on employers while providing
retirement security protection to employees;
(4) the primary obstacles to employees in gaining optimum
advantages from the current pension system, with particular
attention to the small and medium business sector and low and
moderate income employees, including minorities and women;
(5) the feasibility of providing innovative design options
to enable small and medium businesses to be relieved of
complex and costly legislative and regulatory burdens in
matters of adoption, operation, administration, and reporting
of pension plans, in order to increase affordable and
effective coverage in that sector, for low and moderate
income employees, with emphasis on minorities and women;
(6) the means of leveling distribution of private pension
plan coverage between high wage earners and low and moderate
income workers;
(7) the feasibility of forward-looking reforms that
anticipate the needs of small and medium businesses in the
United States given the obstacles and opportunities of the
new global economy, in particular issues related to the
mobility and retention of skilled workers;
(8) how pension plan benefits can be made more portable;
(9) the means of achieving the expansion and adoption of
pension plans by United States businesses, especially those
employing low and moderate income workers who currently lack
access to such plans;
[[Page
S7659]]
(10) the impact of expanding individual retirement account
contribution limits and income limits on private pension plan
coverage;
(11) the provision of innovative incentives that encourage
more employers to use existing private pension plans;
(12) the impact of qualified plan contribution and benefit
limits on coverage; and
(13) any proposals for major simplification of Federal
legislation and regulation regarding qualified pension plans,
in order to address and mitigate problem areas identified
under this subsection, with the goal of--
(A) strengthening the private pension system;
(B) expanding the availability, adoption, and retention of
tax-favored savings plans by all Americans;
(C) eliminating rules that burden the pension system beyond
the benefits they provide, for low and moderate income
workers, including minorities and women, with specific
emphasis on--
(i) eligibility and coverage;
(ii) contributions and benefits;
(iii) minimum distributions, withdrawals, and loans;
(iv) spousal and beneficiary benefits;
(v) portability between plans;
(vi) asset recapture;
(vii) plan compliance and termination;
(viii) income and excise taxation; and
(ix) reporting, disclosure, and penalties; and
(D) identification of the trade-offs involved in
simplification under subparagraph (C).
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the
designation of the chairperson under section 5(d), the
Commission shall transmit to the President and Congress a
report containing--
(A) the issues studied under subsection (b);
(B) the results of such study;
(C) draft legislation and commentary under paragraph (2);
and
(D) any other recommendations based on such study.
(2) Legislative recommendations.--The Commission shall
develop draft legislation and associated explanations and
commentary to achieve major simplification of Federal
legislation regarding regulation of pension plans (including
ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to implement any
findings or recommendations of the study conducted under
subsection (b).
(3) Recommendations.--Any official findings or
recommendations of the Commission shall be adopted by \2/3\
of the members of the Commission.
(4) Minority views.--All findings and recommendations of
the Commission formally proposed by any member of the
Commission and not adopted under paragraph (3) shall also be
included in the report.
SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION; RULES; POWERS.
(a) Composition.--
(1) Number.--The Commission shall be composed of 15
members, appointed not later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Appointments.--The membership of the Commission shall
be as follows:
(A) 3 individuals appointed by the President, after
consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
the Treasury, or their respective designees.
(B) 3 individuals appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate.
(C) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the
Senate.
(D) 3 individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(E) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives.
(b) Qualifications of Members.--
(1) In general.--Individuals appointed under subsection
(a)(2) shall be individuals who--
(A) have experience in actuarial disciplines, law,
economics, public policy, human relations, business,
manufacturing, labor, multiemployer pension plan
administration, single employer pension plan administration,
or academia, or have other distinctive and pertinent
qualifications or experience in retirement policy;
(B) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
(C) are selected without regard to political affiliation or
past partisan activity.
(2) Other considerations.--In the appointment of members
under subsection (a), every effort shall be made to ensure
that the individuals, as a group--
(A) are representatives of a broad cross-section of
perspectives on private pension plans within the United
States;
(B) have the capacity to provide significant analytical
insight into existing obstacles and opportunities of private
pension plans; and
(C) represent all of the areas of experience under
paragraph (1)(A).
(c) Terms; Vacancies.--
(1) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of
the Commission.
(2) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers and shall be filled in the same manner as
the appointment of the member causing the vacancy.
(d) Chairperson; Vice chairperson.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall
designate a chairperson and vice chairperson of the
Commission from the individuals appointed under subsection
(a)(2).
(e) Compensation.--
(1) Prohibition of pay.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission may
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or
regular place of business in the performance of services for
the Commission.
(f) Rules of the Commission.--
(1) Quorum.--Eight members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum for conducting the business of the
Commission, except 5 members of the Commission may hold
hearings, take testimony, or receive evidence.
(2) Notice.--Any meetings held by the Commission shall be
duly noticed in the Federal Register at least 14 days prior
to such meeting and shall be open to the public.
(3) Opportunities to testify.--The Commission shall provide
opportunities for representatives of the general public,
taxpayer groups, consumer groups, think tanks, and State and
local government officials to testify.
(4) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
chairperson of the Commission.
(5) Other rules.--The Commission shall adopt such other
rules as necessary.
(g) Powers of the Commission.--
(1) Information from federal agencies.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from
any Federal department or agency such materials, resources,
data, and other information as the Commission considers
necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. Upon
request of the chairperson of the Commission, the head of
such department or agency shall furnish such materials,
resources, data, and other information to the Commission.
(B) Coordination of research information.--The Commission
shall ensure effective use of such materials, resources,
data, and other information and avoid duplicative research by
coordinating and consulting with the head of the appropriate
research department of--
(i) the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration of the
Department of Labor;
(ii) the Department of the Treasury;
(iii) the Social Security Administration;
(iv) the Small Business Administration;
(v) the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;
(vi) the National Institute on Aging; and
(vii) private organizations which have conducted research
in the pension area.
(2) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as any other
Federal agency.
(3) Acceptance of services; gifts; and grants.--The
Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or grants of
services or property, both real and personal, for purposes of
aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts or
grants not used at the expiration of the Commission shall be
returned to the donor or grantor.
(4) Contract and procurement authority.--The Commission may
make purchases, and may contract with and compensate
government and private agencies or persons for property or
services, without regard to--
(A) section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5); and
(B) title III of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.).
(5) Volunteer services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of
title 31, United States Code, the Commission may accept and
use voluntary and uncompensated services as the Commission
determines necessary.
SEC. 6. STAFF AND SUPPORT SERVICES.
(a) Executive Director; Staff.--
(1) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to civil service laws and regulations and
after consultation with the Commission, appoint an executive
director of the Commission and such other additional
personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to
perform its duties.
(2) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
such title.
(b) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request by the
chairperson of the Commission, the head of any Federal
department or agency may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis,
any of the personnel of the department or agency to the
Commission to assist the Commission to carry out its duties
under this Act and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(c) Administrative Support Services.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a
reimbursable basis, any administrative support services that
are necessary to enable the Commission to carry out this Act.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate not later than 26 months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
[[Page
S7660]]
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
____
American Academy of Actuaries,
July 13, 2000.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The American Academy of Actuaries
would like to express its strong support for your idea of
establishing a national commission on pension reform and
simplification. The Academy has long advocated a
comprehensive and coordinated approach to retirement policy.
We believe the establishment of a bipartisan commission of
experts to analyze obstacles that weaken our private pension
system and recommend solutions is a positive first step. The
Academy also believes that slight modifications to your
proposal would make the commission more effective.
The Academy commends you for recognizing that, because the
laws that regulate our private pension system have become too
complex, they discourage employers from helping their workers
save for an adequate retirement. We strongly support the
concept of a bipartisan commission of experts that will
recommend specific ways to simplify the rules governing
private plans, thereby encouraging employers to expand
coverage to more workers.
The Academy believes that the commission called for in your
proposal could be made more effective if Congress was
required to have an up-or-down vote on its recommendations.
Furthermore, we believe that, given the expertise available
to the commission, it should be possible to formulate a
result in 12-18 months, rather than the 24 months specified
in your legislation. Finally, we would encourage the
commission to examine pension changes in the context of a
national retirement income policy, including Social Security,
since major changes to the private pension system undoubtedly
will affect Social Security.
The Academy believes that creation of a national commission
will be a positive first step toward our mutual goal of
increasing pension coverage for Americans. We appreciate your
recognition of the unique role that actuaries should play in
such a commission and look forward to providing any
assistance that may be of benefit to you and your staff.
Sincerely,
James E. Turpin,
Vice President, Pensions.
____
APPWP, Association of Private
Pension and Welfare Plans,
July 18, 2000.
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act
Senator Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the Association of
Private Pension and Welfare Plans (APPWP--The Benefits
Association), I want to express our appreciation for your
interest in, and support for, our nation's voluntary,
employer-sponsored retirement system as evidenced by the
Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act that you
will soon introduce. APPWP is a public policy organization
representing principally Fortune 500 companies and other
organizations that assist companies of all sizes in providing
benefits to employees. Collectively, APPWP's members either
sponsor directly or provide services to retirement and health
plans that cover more than 100 million Americans. We
appreciate your past and continuing efforts to expand the
private, voluntary retirement system that currently enables
millions of working Americans to achieve financial security
in retirement.
As you know, the employer-based retirement system provides
an important source of income security for many Americans in
retirement, and, in many respects, has been successful in
meeting the challenges of an aging population. However, we
recognize that public policy can build and expand on this
success. Many employers, particularly small companies, find
it difficult to establish retirement plans because of cost
and administrative complexity. As a result, many workers do
not have access to private pensions and cannot save
adequately for retirement. Moreover, our pension laws have
not kept pace with the rapid developments in the business
world. New technologies, international competition, and many
types of corporate transactions pose unique pension
challenges that should be better accommodated by our nation's
retirement policy. APPWP has consistently campaigned for
expansion and reform of the nation's pension laws with the
express goals of expanding coverage, increasing portability,
reducing complexity, and reflecting business realities. We
are therefore pleased that you have made these goals the
central objective of the commission you propose.
In particular, APPWP commends you for putting the focus of
pension reform on expanding coverage. You correctly note that
our retirement system has become overly burdened with
unwieldy and complex rules that have impeded expanded
coverage and increased retirement security for all Americans.
Your advocacy on behalf of the goals of coverage and
simplification is an important step towards realizing a more
secure retirement for all Americans.
We look forward to working with you on these important
issues. If we can be of further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
James A. Klein,
President.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Moynihan, Mr. L. Chafee, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Robb, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Schumer, and
Mr. Leahy):
S. 2923. A bill to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act
to provide for FamilyCare coverage for parents of enrolled children,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the family care act of 2000
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the introduction
of the Family Care Act of 2000, which takes the next logical step in
assuring access by as many citizens as possible to affordable health
insurance. I commend Congressman John Dingell and the rest of our
colleagues for their fine work in crafting this legislation.
The number of uninsured Americans is now more than 44 million, and
the figure is rising by an average of one million a year. America is
the only industrial country in the world, except South Africa, that
fails to guarantee health care for all it citizens.
It is a national scandal that lack of insurance coverage is the
seventh leading--and most preventable--cause of death in America today.
Three years ago, we worked together to create CHIP, the federal-state
Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage to
children in families with incomes too high for Medicaid and too low to
afford private health insurance.
More than two million children have been enrolled in that program,
and millions more have signed up for Medicaid as a result of outreach
activities. Soon, more than three-quarters of all uninsured children in
the nation will be eligible for assistance through either CHIP or
Medicaid.
But, despite this progress, the parents of these children, and too
many others, have been left behind. The time has come to take the next
step.
The overwhelming majority of uninsured low-wage parents are
struggling to support their families. I will ask unanimous consent to
insert a statement in the Record from Patricia Quezada, a parent of
three lovely girls, who would benefit from this legislation.
Parents who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should be
eligible for assistance to buy the health insurance they need in order
to protect their families. Our message to them today is that help is on
the way.
Often, they work for companies which don't offer insurance, or they
aren't eligible for insurance that is offered. Fewer than a quarter of
the jobs taken by those who have been forced off the welfare rolls by
welfare reform offer insurance as a benefit--and even when it is
offered too few companies make it available for dependents. The time
has come to take the next step.
The Family Care Act of 2000 will provide with the resources,
incentives and authority to extend Medicaid and CHIP to the parents of
children covered under those programs.
Coverage for parents also means better coverage for children. Parents
are much more likely to enroll their children in health insurance, if
the parents themselves can have coverage, too.
This step alone will give to six and a half million Americans the
coverage they need and deserve.
The Family Care Act will also improve the outreach and enrollment for
CHIP and Medicaid, and encourage states to extend coverage to other
vulnerable population, such as pregnant women, legal immigrants, and
children ages 19 and 20.
This program is affordable under current and projected budget
surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost will
be $11 billion over the next five years.
Last Monday, a majority of the Senate voted in favor of this proposal
as an amendment to the marriage penalty bill. We needed 60 votes, so it
was not successful then, but we clearly have a bipartisan majority of
the Senate.
The bottom line is that we have the resources to take this needed
step, and
[[Page
S7661]]
end the suffering and uncertainty that accompanies being uninsured.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements and letters of
support for this legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
statement of patricia quezada, july 21, 2000
Good morning. I am Patricia Quezada. I am a mother of three
girls (ages 9, 8 and 5). I work as a part-time parent liaison
at Weyanoke Elementary School in Fairfax, Virginia. My
husband is a self-employed general contractor. Because my
husband is self-employed and I work part-time, our family
does not have access to health insurance through our jobs.
In the past, we were able to purchase private insurance
that covered our family. But, in recent times, our family has
been unable to afford the high rates because it came down to
either paying for our home, transportation and other
necessities--including food--or purchasing this costly
insurance. On two occasions, the coverage was cancelled
because we were unable to meet the payments, which were
required in advance.
It was such a relief that my children are now able to
receive coverage through Medicaid and CMSIP, Virginia's SCHIP
Program. (As a parent-liaison, part of my job has been to
help other families sign up their children for health
insurance.) I feel extremely fortunate that my children are
now covered in case of an illness or accident, however I
continue to fear what could happen if my husband or I fall
sick or have an injury. While we both do our best to take
care of our health, we know how important it is to have
health insurance coverage if we should need it.
Thank you.
____
Children's Defense Fund,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: We are taking this opportunity to
thank you for introducing the FamilyCare Act of 2000 and to
express the strong support of the Children's Defense Fund for
this bipartisan initiative to provide and strengthen health
care coverage for uninsured children and their parents.
Building on the successes of Medicaid and the Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP), this legislation will
increase coverage for uninsured children, provide funding for
health insurance coverage for the uninsured parents of
Medicaid and CHIP-eligible children, and simplify the
enrollment process for Medicaid and CHIP to make the programs
more family friendly.
We want to extent our appreciation to Senators Chafee,
Collins, Daschle, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, and Snowe for co-
sponsoring this legislation in the Senate and to
Representatives Dingell, Stark, and Waxman for taking the
lead on this proposal in the House. We look forward to
working with you for passage of the FamilyCare Act of 2000.
Sincerely,
Gregg Haifley,
Deputy Director Health Division.
____
National Association of
Children's Hospitals,
Alexandria, VA, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the National Association
of Children's Hospital (N.A.C.H.), which represents over 100
children's hospitals nationwide, I want to express our strong
support for your introduction of the ``FamilyCare Act of
2000.''
As providers of care to all children, regardless of their
economic status, children's hospitals devote nearly half of
their patient care to children who rely on Medicaid or are
uninsured, and more than three-fourths of their patient-care
to children with chronic and congenital conditions. These
hospitals have extensive experience in assisting families to
enroll eligible children in Medicaid and SCHIP. They are
keenly aware of the importance of addressing the challenges
that states face in enrolling this often hard to reach
population of eligible children.
In particular, N.A.C.H. appreciates and strongly supports
your efforts to simplify and coordinate the application
process for SCHIP and Medicaid, as well as to provide new
tools for states to use in identifying and enrolling
families. In addition, N.A.C.H. applauds your provisions that
set a higher bar for covering children by: (1) requiring
states to first cover children up to 200% of poverty and
eliminating waiting lists in the SCHIP program before
covering parents; and (2) requiring every child who loses
coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP to be automatically screened
for other avenues of eligibility and if found eligible,
enrolled immediately in that program.
N.A.C.H. also supports your legislation's provision to give
states additional flexibility under SCHIP and Medicaid to
cover legal immigrant children. In states with high
proportions of uninsured children, such as California, Texas
and Florida, the federal government's bar on coverage of
legal immigrant children helps contribute to the fact that
Hispanic children represent the highest rate of uninsured
children of all major racial and ethnic minority groups. Your
provision to ensure coverage of legal immigrant children
would be extremely useful in improving this situation.
N.A.C.H. greatly appreciates all that you have done
throughout your years of service, and continue to do, to
provide all children with the best possible chance at
starting out and staying healthy. We welcome and look forward
to working with you to pass the ``FamilyCare Act of 2000.''
Sincerely,
Lawrence A. McAndrews.
____
March of Dimes,
Birth Defects Foundation,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of more than 3 million
volunteers and 1600 staff members of the March of Dimes, I
want to commend you for introducing the ``FamilyCare Act of
2000.'' The March of Dimes is committed to increasing access
to appropriate and affordable health care for women, infants
and children and supports the targeted approach to expanding
the State Children's Health Insurance Program contained in
the FamilyCare proposal.
The ``FamilyCare Act of 2000'' contains a number of
beneficial provisions that would expand and improve SCHIP.
The March of Dimes strongly supports giving states the option
to cover low-income pregnant women in Medicaid and SCHIP
programs with an enhanced matching rate. We understand that
FamilyCare would allow states to cover uninsured parents of
children enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP as well as uninsured
first-time pregnant women. SCHIP is the only major federally-
funded program that denies coverage to pregnant women while
providing coverage to their infants and children. We know
prenatal care improves birth outcomes. Expanding health
insurance coverage for low-income pregnant women has
bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.
The March of Dimes also supports FamilyCare provisions to
require automatic enrollment of children born to SCHIP
parents; automatic screening of every child who loses
coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP to determine eligibility for
other health programs; and distribution of information on the
availability of Medicaid and SCHIP through the school lunch
program. The March of Dimes also supports giving states the
option to provide Medicaid and SCHIP benefits to children and
pregnant women who arrived legally to the United States after
August 23, 1996, and to people ages 19 and 20.
We thank you for your leadership in introducing the
``FamilyCare Act of 2000'' and are eager to work with you to
achieve approval of this much needed legislation.
Sincerely,
Anna Eleanor Roosevelt,
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees; Chair, Public Affairs
Committee.
Dr. Jennifer L. Howse,
Presdient.
____
Association of Maternal and
Child Health Programs,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the Association of
Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP), I am writing to
express our support of the FamilyCare Act of 2000. We are
particularly supportive of the provisions that allow states
to include pregnant women in their SCHIP and Medicaid
programs.
We are also pleased with the provisions giving states the
flexibility to expand outreach activities as well as moving
towards greater equity in program payments.
AMCHP represents state officials in 59 states and
territories who administer public health programs aimed at
improving the health of all women, children, and adolescents.
In 1997, over 22 million women, children, adolescents and
children with special health care needs received services,
which were supported by the Maternal and Child Health Block
Grant.
We look forward to working with you and your staff on this
bill.
Sincerely,
Deborah Dietrich,
Director of Legislative Affairs.
____
American Dental
Hygienist Association,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Hon. Jay Rockefeller,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller: on behalf of the
American Dental Hygienists' Association (ADHA), I write to
express ADHA's support for the principles espoused in the
Family Care Act of 2000. This legislation is an important
step toward the goal of meaningful health insurance coverage,
including oral health insurance coverage, for all children
and their parents.
Regretfully, there is room for much improvement in our
children's oral health, a fundamental part of total health.
Studies show that oral disease currently afflicts the
majority of children in our country. Dental caries (tooth
decay), gingivitis, and periodontitis (gum and bone
disorders) are the most common oral diseases. The Public
Health Service reports that 50% of all children in the United
States experience dental caries in their permanent teeth and
two-thirds experience gingivitis.
[[Page
S7662]]
The percentages of children with dental disease are likely
far higher for the traditionally underserved Medicaid-
eligible population and for those eligible for the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). For example, one
of the most severe forms of gum disease--localized juvenile
periodontitis--disproportionately affects teenage African-
American males and can result in the loss of all teeth before
adulthood. If untreated, gum disease causes pain, bleeding,
loss of function, diminished appearance, possible systemic
infections, bone deterioration and eventual loss of teeth.
Yet, each of the three most common oral health disorders--
dental caries, gingivitis, and periodontitis--can be
prevented through the type of regular preventive care
provided by dental hygienists.
Despite the known benefits of preventive oral health
services and the inclusion of oral health benefits in
Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
Treatment (EPSDT) program, only one in 5 (4.2 million out of
21.2 million) Medicaid-eligible children actually received
preventive oral health services in 1993 according to a 1996
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report entitled
Children's Dental Services Under Medicaid: Access and
Utilization.
The nation simply must improve access to oral health
services and your legislation is an important building block
for all who care about our children's oral health, a
fundamental part of general health and well-being.
We in the dental hygiene community look forward to working
together toward our shared goal of health insurance coverage
for all of our nation's families. Please feel free to call
upon me or ADHA's Washington Counsel, Karen Sealander of
McDermott, Will & Emery (202-756-8024), at any time.
Sincerely,
Stanley B. Peck,
Executive Director.
____
Premier Inc.,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of Premier Inc., I am
writing to applaud your introduction of the ``FamilyCare Act
of 2000'' and express our strong support. Premier is a
strategic alliance of leading not-for-profit hospitals and
health systems across the nation. Premier provides group
purchasing and other services for more than 1,800 hospitals
and healthcare facilities.
As reported by the Urban Institute in the July/August issue
of Health Affairs, the population of non-elderly uninsured
grew by 4.2 million between 1994 and 1998. This hike in the
rate of uninsured occurred among children and adults. In the
same period, Medicaid coverage fell from 10 to 8.4 percent,
or about 3.1 million persons (1.9 million children and 1.2
million adults). Your legislation confronts and seeks to
address these disturbing trends head on.
The FamilyCare Act of 2000 not only expands coverage to
children--it also enables states to provide health insurance
to parents of children enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid. The
bill creates new opportunities for states to cover immigrant
children and pregnant women, and provides for the automatic
coverage of children born to CHIP-enrolled parents, thereby
enhancing presumptive eligibility.
This legislation provides for the mutual reinforcement of
the Medicaid and CHIP programs by integrating eligibility
determination and outreach efforts. A standard application
form and simple enrollment process for both programs will
raise the participation rate for both programs. Finally, the
bill provides grants to support broader outreach activities
and employer subsidies to offer health insurance packages,
thereby encouraging joint public/private market innovations
to reduce the population of uninsured.
Stifling the growth in the rate of uninsured and reversing
the trend remain a top priority for the hospital community.
Securing the appropriate preventative care for these
individuals will improve the quality and cost-effectiveness
of further care, as the uninsured are more likely to be
hospitalized for medical conditions that, initially, could
have been managed with physician care and/or medication.
Thank you for taking the lead in addressing the problem of
America's uninsured. We look forward to working with you
toward enactment of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Kerb Kuhn,
Vice President, Advocacy.
____
Families USA,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: We congratulate you on the
introduction of your bill, the Family Care Act of 2000, which
gives states the option to provide parents of children
enrolled in the Medicaid and CHIP programs with health
insurance. We believe that your bill is a crucial next step
in addressing the problem of our nation's uninsured, and we
offer our unequivocal support.
By covering parents through CHIP, the Family Care Act could
provide health insurance to over four million previously
uninsured Americans. We believe this is a cost-effective and
efficient way to provide quality healthcare to low- and
moderate-income working families. Children of CHIP-enrolled
parents will be automatically enrolled at birth, but, equally
importantly, research has shown that children are more likely
to have health coverage when their parents are insured. This
means that the Family Care Act could, in effect, cover many
more Americans than the estimated four million. Additionally,
the expansion of coverage to legal immigrant children and
pregnant women addresses the needs of two particularly
vulnerable groups.
Again, we applaud your ongoing leadership in tackling the
problem of the uninsured, and we support this important
legislation. Please let us know how we can help you to enact
this bill into law.
Sincerely,
Ronald F. Pollack,
Executive Director.
____
American Hospital Association,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The American Hospital Association
(AHA), which represents, 5,000 hospitals, health care
systems, networks, and other providers of care, is pleased to
support the FamilyCare Act of 2000. The AHA shares your goal
of expanding access to health care coverage for the 44
million uninsured Americans. We believe the federal budget
surplus offers a unique opportunity to fund solutions to the
health care problems of the uninsured.
Recent Medicaid expansions and the creation of the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) have greatly
improved access to health care coverage for millions of
children living in low-income families. But more needs to be
done. AHA strongly supports the objective of your legislation
that embraces, as one option to address the problems of the
uninsured, building on existing public programs to expand
coverage to the parents of the children covered by S-CHIP.
Furthermore, your provisions that include coverage for
legal immigrants, improve Medicaid coverage for those
transitioning from welfare-to-work, and create state grant
programs to encourage market innovation in health care
insurance are to be applauded. AHA believes these are good
first steps toward lowering the numbers of the uninsured.
In addition to expanding public programs, AHA supports
measures that make health care insurance more affordable for
low-income working families. Toward that end, AHA also
support
H.R. 4113, bipartisan legislation establishing
refundable tax credits to assist low-income families in the
purchase of health care insurance.
Our nation's hospitals see every day that the absence of
health coverage is a significant barrier to care, reducing
the likelihood that people will get appropriate preventive,
diagnostic and chronic care. With the uninsured growing in
numbers, AHA supports your effort to build on current public
programs as an important option to make it possible for more
low-income families to get needed health care coverage. We
thank you for your leadership and we look forward to working
with you on advancing the FamilyCare Act of 2000.
Sincerely,
Rick Pollack,
Executive Vice President.
____
Network,
Washington, DC, July 2000.
From NETWORK--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
Re: The Family Care Act of 2000.
Hon. Senator Ted Kennedy: Since 1975, NETWORK: A National
Catholic Social Justice Lobby has worked for universal access
to affordable, quality health care. NETWORK considers the
constant increase in the number of uninsured persons a
national disgrace and a serious moral and ethical issue.
Sadly, the political will to reform the nation's fragmented
non-system of health care is seriously lacking in the
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
