May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1047

arena. This organization, an influential think

tank on disabled policy and research issues, is

dedicated to eliminating handicappism through

equity of opportunity, institutionalizing the full

participation of the disabled within our society

and ensuring economic parity for the disabled.

Under Roberts, the organization conducted research and training on major policy issues,

formulated new approaches to disabilities that

are based on real-life emergencies and needs,

began a disabled youth summer jobs and internship project, encouraged small businesses

to identify barriers faced by the disabled and

lobbied for small business loans for the disabled. His lobbying efforts gave rise to the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, section 504, and other important access laws for

the disabled. Carrying his message of independent living, Mr. Roberts traveled worldwide

pushing his message for disabled rights in Africa, Australia, Russia, El Salvador, and

Japan, just to name a few.

Edward V. Roberts positively changed the

perceptions of a whole society and revolutionized society’s idea of what persons with disabilities could be. As a role model and leader

with a vision, Roberts was committed to building an environment that supports the independence of people with disabilities. Roberts

plotted his course early and never veered from

his chartered path. He inaugurated a civil

rights movement that changed the life of every

disabled person and the structure of nearly

every street and building in this Nation.

Though there are no monuments to the man

who launched the disabilities rights movement,

we must recognize Mr. Roberts as the man

who tried to build a dream that we all could

share, now and in all generations to come. We

will all morn this loss.

ALDRICH AMES SPY CASE

fHON. LARRY COMBEST OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, on November

30, 1994, the Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence issued its report on the Aldrich

Ames espionage case. Among the findings of

that report was the fact that ‘‘the CIA failed to

keep the oversight committees fully and currently informed’’ about the case ‘‘despite several instances of pointed questioning by Committee members. The lack of notification extended to the end: Neither the CIA nor the FBI

advised the oversight committees of the investigation until shortly before Ames’ arrest.’’

This chilling finding left unanswered the

question as to why the oversight committees

had not been kept informed, as the law requires: Was it a witting coverup or inadvertent? Although neither answer would be comforting, the Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence deemed it necessary to close out

this unanswered question with regard to the

Ames case.

Despite the heavy press of business the

committee’s staff and Members made this a

priority at the outset of this Congress. After

extensive work by the staff and a review by

the committee, the committee voted unanimously on May 11, 1995, to release the following statement:

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE ALDRICH

AMES SPY CASE

On February 21, 1994, Aldrich Ames was arrested and charged with violating U.S. espionage laws and spying for the former Government of the Soviet Union and the Government of Russia. Since that date, the Committee has conducted an aggressive inquiry

to determine what went wrong in the Ames

case and how to fix it. In November 1994, we

issued an exhaustive report that had specific

recommendations for remedial action. The

Intelligence Community and the FBI have

taken significant steps to address problems

we highlighted in our report. The remedial

actions have had a positive effect on counterintelligence issues.

One issue, in particular, surfaced during

our inquiry that necessitated additional follow-up: that is, whether the CIA violated

Section 502 of the National Security Act of

1947 and whether that violation was intentional. Section 502 requires that the Congress be informed of ‘‘all intelligence activities . . . including . . . any significant intelligence failure.’’ At a full committee hearing

on February 7, 1995, and in correspondence

with this committee, Acting Director of

Central Intelligence Admiral Studeman has

stated that the CIA failed to meet this statutory obligation.

The CIA’s admission of its violation of Section 502 led us to the next question, whether

this failure was intentional. The Committee

has interviewed a wide range of current and

former CIA officials involved in the Ames

case. We also reviewed the voluminous reporting that we have received on the Ames

case. This examination produced no evidence

that any former Director of Central Intelligence, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, or Deputy Director for Operations

made a decision to withhold information

about the loss of Soviet assets in 1985 and

1986 and the resulting investigation from

this Committee.

At lower levels of the CIA, where the counterintelligence investigation was being conducted, it appears that no one ever thought

to bring this matter to the Committee’s attention. Five Members of this Committee

asked precisely the right questions about espionage problems at CIA during the CIA’s

own investigation: former Chairman Anthony Beilenson; two ranking Members, Representatives Henry Hyde and Bud Shuster;

and two Committee members, Representative Dick Cheney and Larry Combest. At a

minimum, what is clear is that, at certain

levels, CIA officials did not understand the

requirements of the law. The CIA is taking

steps to ensure that all employees are aware

of Section 502. Moreover, it is important to

note that it is not the responsibility of the

Committee ‘‘to ask the right questions.’’ The

onus lies with the Intelligence Community

to be forthcoming vis-a-vis its oversight responsibilities.

The Committee is taking the following additional actions:

We have prepared a letter for the new DCI,

John Deutch, drawing his attention to Section 502 and the transcript of the February 7,

1995 hearing. We are confident that the new

DCI will be vigilant in ensuring that the

mandates of Section 502 are followed. Notification is not merely a matter of law, but is

also a matter of common sense. Senior CIA

officials must bring matters to the attention

of the Congress when there is any ‘‘significant intelligence failure.’’ This raises the

corollary issue of ensuring that all officers of

the CIA understand that they will be held accountable for the management of their operations, as Admiral Studeman has already informed personnel of the CIA. The new DCI

has also pledged to make accountability a

focus of his management policies.

The Committee has a continuing interest

in the Ames case. A full briefing on the results of the Intelligence Community’s damage assessment will be received later this

year. Following that briefing, the Committee will determine if there is additional legislative or other remedial action that is required.

The Committee will also continue to monitor the counterintelligence reforms that

have been put in place by the CIA, the Intelligence Community and the FBI to ensure

that there is no backsliding on this matter.

MEDICARE DEPENDENT HOSPITAL

RELIEF ACT OF 1995

f

HON. E. CLAY SHAW, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday May 16, 1995

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce timely legislation that will allow Medicare dependent hospitals, defined as hospitals

with Medicare patient loads of 60 percent or

more, to be reimbursed more fairly under the

Prospective Payment System [PPS]. These

hospitals, both rural and urban, have significantly higher Medicare losses and lower overall Medicare margins than other hospitals. This

disparity threatens the viability of these hospitals and the access to, and the quality of,

care for Medicare beneficiaries.

This legislation, which I am introducing in

conjunction with my good friend from Florida,

Senator BOB GRAHAM, is titled the Medicare

Dependent Hospital Relief Act of 1995. To

remedy the problem facing Medicare dependent hospitals, this bill includes three main provisions. First, Medicare dependent hospitals

will be statutorily defined as hospitals with

Medicare patients loads representing 60 percent or more of total patient days. Second,

each year the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission [ProPAC] will compute, and

the Health Care Financing Administration

[HCFA] will implement, separate PPS updates

for Medicare dependent hospitals and other

hospitals. The update for Medicare dependent

hospitals will have to make the average Medicare loss for those hospitals equal to the average Medicare loss for all hospitals. The computation and implementation will be budget

neutral, thus this bill will not create additional

costs. Third, ProPAC’s annual report to Congress will include recommendations to ensure

that beneficiaries served by Medicare dependent hospitals retain the same access and quality of care as Medicare hospital patients nationwide.

The need for this legislation is simple. Between 1983 and 1988, Medicare phased in the

PPS to replace cost-based reimbursements

with prospective, or pre-determined, payments

to contain costs and encourage efficiency.

Various PPS adjustments have produced wide

variations in hospital profits and losses from

Medicare. Medicare dependent hospitals, as a

group, have been at a distinct disadvantage.

While hospitals on average lose 2.73 percent

on their Medicare business, Medicare dependent hospitals lose much more: on average,

those Medicare dependent hospitals with 60–

64 percent Medicare loads lose 4.57 percent,

while those with 65 percent or greater Medicare loads lose 5.45 percent. Medicare dependent hospitals have less ability to offset
E 1048 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 16, 1995

Medicare losses with payments from other

payors because of their high Medicare patient

loads. With such low margins, Medicare dependent hospitals are faced with only two

choices: either close or reduce services. In either case, the ultimate losers will be the Medicare beneficiaries these hospitals serve.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask that this bill and these remarks

be inserted into the RECORD.

H.R.—

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare

Dependent Hospital Relief Act of 1995’’.

SEC. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF SEPARATE APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE INCREASES FOR

MEDICARE DEPENDENT HOSPITALS

AND OTHER HOSPITALS BY THE

PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT ASSESSMENT COMMISSION.

(a) DEVELOPMENT OF SEPARATE APPLICABLE

PERCENTAGE INCREASES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Prospective Payment

Assessment Commission established under

section 1886(e)(2) of the Social Security Act

(42 U.S.C. 139ww(e)(2)) (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Commission’’) shall, in accordance with paragraph (2), develop for fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter

separate applicable percentage increases described in section 1886(b)(3)(B) of such Act (42

U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)) for medicare dependent hospitals and subsection (d) hospitals

which are not medicare dependent hospitals.

(2) EQUALIZATION OF MEDICARE MARGINS.—

The Commission shall develop separate applicable percentage increases under paragraph (1) such that, if such factors were in

effect, the estimated average annual medicare margins of all medicare dependent hospitals in furnishing inpatient hospital services to medicare beneficiaries in such fiscal

year would be equal to the average annual

medicare margins of all subsection (d) hospitals which are not medicare dependent hospitals in furnishing inpatient hospital services to medicare beneficiaries in such fiscal

year.

BUDGET NEUTRALITY.—The Commission

shall provide that the separate applicable

percentage increases developed under paragraph (1) would, if in effect, not result in aggregate payments under section 1886 of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) to

medicare dependent hospitals and subsection

(d) hospitals which are not medicare dependent hospitals for the furnishing of inpatient

hospital services in a fiscal year in excess of

the aggregate payments under such section

to such hospitals in such fiscal year if such

factors were not in effect.

(b) REPORTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning in March 1996,

the Commission shall, in each of the Commission’s March reports to the Congress required under section 1886(e)(3) of the Social

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(e)(3)) include—

(A) the separate applicable percentage increases developed by the Commission under

subsection (a)(1) for the upcoming fiscal

year; and

(B) recommendations on methods to ensure

that medicare beneficiaries who receive services furnished by medicare dependent hospitals have the same access and quality of

care as medicare beneficiaries who are furnished services by subsection (d) hospitals

which are not medicare dependent hospitals.

(2) ANNUAL REVIEW OF MEDICARE MARGINS.—

The Commission shall develop the recommended methods under paragraph (1)(B)

after annually reviewing the average medicare margins in medicare dependent hospitals and the impact of such medicare margins on the medicare dependent hospitals’

overall profit margins.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions apply:

(1) MEDICARE BENEFICIARY.—The term

‘‘medicare beneficiary’’ means an individual

who is entitled to benefits under part A of

title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42

U.S.C. 1395c et seq.).

(2) MEDICARE DEPENDENT HOSPITAL.—The

term ‘‘medicare dependent hospital’’ means

any subsection (d) hospital—

(A) that is not classified as a sole community hospital under section 1886(d)(5)(D) of

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

1395ww(d)(5)(D)); and

(B) for which not less than 60 percent of its

inpatient days were attributable to medicare

beneficiaries during 2 of the last 3 preceding

fiscal years for which data is available.

(3) MEDICARE MARGIN.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘medicare margin’’ means for a fiscal year the ratio expressed as a percentage equal to—

(i) the difference between all medicare revenues paid to a hospital for the operating

costs of inpatient hospital services in a fiscal

year and all medicare program eligible expenses for such operating costs for such fiscal year (as shown by each hospital’s HCFA

2552 report submitted annually to the Health

Care Financing Administration); divided by

(ii) all medicare revenues paid to the hospital for the operating costs of inpatient hospital services for such fiscal year.

(B) OPERATING COSTS OF INPATIENT HOSPITAL SERVICES.—The term ‘‘operating costs

of inpatient hospital services’’ has the meaning given such term in section 1886(a)(4) of

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

1395ww(a)(4)).

(4) SUBSECTION (d) HOSPITAL.—The term

‘‘subsection (d) hospital’’ has the meaning

given such term in section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

IN RECOGNITION OF THE SUCCESS1395ww(d)(1)(B)).

FUL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN

fANCHORAGE NEIGHBORHOOD

HOUSING SERVICES AND THE

NATIONAL BANK OF ALASKA

HON. DON YOUNG OF ALASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to congratulate both the Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services and the National

Bank of Alaska for being nationally recognized

by the Social Compact in its 1995 Outstanding

Community Investment Awards program for

their partnership achievement: the rehabilitation of a historic downtown property into a

mixed-use rental and retail development.

ANHS and NBA were selected from over 160

applicants from across the country for their

highly effective and innovative community investment strategies.

The project, known as the Loussac-Sogn

Limited Partnership, marked a series of firsts

in Anchorage: National Bank of Alaska [NBA]

was the first financial institution in Alaska to

purchase historic and low-income housing tax

credits, Loussac-Sogn was the first housing

built downtown since 1980, and it was the first

limited partnership between a nonprofit and financial institution to provide for the housing

needs of low-income individuals.

The shortage of affordable housing in Anchorage is critical. Significant increases in

number of low- and moderate-income residents and a concurrent loss of almost 1,000

substandard housing units between 1988 and

1990 created the severe shortage. A decline

in per capita income caused by a shift in the

economy from oil-based jobs to service jobs

also contributed to the problem. The affordable housing available in the Loussac-Sogn

Single Rental Occupancy [SRO] building is

helping alleviate the situation.

Located in Anchorage’s downtown business

district, this historically significant, 42,000

square foot art moderne structure was rehabilitated and preserved according to national

historic standards. The building will be placed

on the National Historic Register in 1996. It includes retail businesses on the ground floor

and 52 renovated and furnished single room

occupancy housing units on the upper floors.

Residents, very-low income adults, will stay at

Loussac-Sogn as the first step in a continuum

of housing provided by Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services [ANHS]. Support services, provided through a case management

system, will also help the residents more successfully bridge a transitional period before

finding permanent, independent housing.

The project could not have been completed

without NBA’s leadership and participation

throughout the process. They assisted with the

complex acquisition of the land and building.

The bank convinced the landowner that the

creation of low-income housing would be within its purpose as a charitable organization,

and then they negotiated with the building’s

owners to settle litigation so that it could sell

the property to ANHS at a reasonable price.

NBA also provided funds in acquisition and

renovation equity and a construction loan with

$1.55 million in financing through the Alaska

Housing Finance Corporation. The additional

financing needed to complete Loussac-Sogn

was obtained through taxable bond financing

and grants from the local historic preservation

nonprofit, the Neighborhood Reinvestment

Corporation, and the Federal Home Loan

Bank of Seattle. NBA also stepped in with

needed support when ANHS assumed the role

of general contractor in order to address unexpected hazardous materials abatement requirements.

The Loussac-Sogn SRO is an asset and enhancement of downtown Anchorage. The residents take an active part in the community

and focus on particular problems such as

crime prevention. Thanks to Loussac-Sogn,

businesses have learned about the positive effects of low-income housing.

TRIBUTE TO JESS DAMESWORTH

fHON. SANDER M. LEVIN OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it has become

widely accepted in our Nation that when people become unemployed through no fault of

their own, there should be a bridge for them

and their family until a return to remunerative

work.

It took considerable effort to weave that

principle into America’s economic fabric and it

has taken constant effort to maintain it.

Jess Damesworth has been in the center of

that endeavor. As unemployment compensation director for the United Automobile Workers for over a decade, he has devoted his