[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 123 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9945-S9949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. Grams, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 3164. A bill to protect seniors from fraud; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                   protecting seniors from fraud act

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I rise as the author of the Protecting 
Seniors From Fraud Act, a bipartisan bill to prevent fraud against 
seniors.
  The Protecting Seniors From Fraud Act is extremely important because 
seniors are disproportionately victims of telemarketing and sweepstakes 
fraud. Even though Americans over the age of 50 account for 
approximately 27% of the United States population, they comprise 56% of 
the ``mooch lists'' used by fraudulent telemarketers. Unfortunately, 
fraudulent telemarketers prey upon the trusting nature of seniors and 
as a result seniors lose approximately $14.8 billion each year.
  This can be prevented if seniors are educated about their consumer 
rights and are informed about methods that are available to them to 
confirm the legitimacy of an investment or product. According to a 
national survey, 70% of older fraud victims say it is difficult to 
identify when fraud is happening and 40% of older Americans cannot 
distinguish between a legitimate and a fraudulent telemarketing sales 
call. There is a need to educate seniors about the dangers of fraud and 
how to avoid becoming a victim of fraud. As a first step to educate 
seniors in my state of Indiana about fraud prevention, I held a Special 
Committee on Aging field hearing on protecting seniors from fraud.
  I heard testimony from two victims of investment scams in which both 
lost a large sum of their retirement. Mrs. Georgeanne MaCurdy lost 
close to $150,000 and Mr. Owen Saltzgaver lost close to $50,000. Mr. 
Saltzgaver said ``It was a scam from the beginning, I wish I knew,'' 
and Mrs. Georgeanne MaCurdy stated ``It is the first thing I think of 
when I get up in the morning and the last thing I think of when I go to 
sleep. I thought I could trust him.''
  At this hearing I highlighted the Protecting Seniors From Fraud Act. 
This bill would provide necessary resources to local programs part of 
the National Association of TRIADs, a community-policing program that 
partners law enforcement agencies with senior volunteers to reduce 
crime and fraud against the elderly. There are 725 counties with TRIADs 
nationwide. They help more than 16 million seniors. During the field 
hearing, Captain Ed Friend, the leader of the TRIAD program in South 
Bend, Indiana, testified about the importance of combating fraud and 
how the South Bend TRIAD program has been providing seminars to Seniors 
on fraud prevention. He made clear that without federal funding TRIADs' 
nationwide efforts would have to cease. The authorization for Federal 
funding provided in this bill should ensure the continuation of TRIADs' 
efforts. In order to assist TRIAD with those efforts, this bill also 
requires the Health and Human Services Department to disseminate 
information to seniors on fraud prevention through the Area Agencies on 
Aging and other existing senior-focused programs.
  In addition to educating seniors, this bill contains provisions which 
would include seniors in the crime victimization survey and would 
require the United States Attorney General to conduct a study of crimes 
committed against seniors. I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on 
this issue. These provisions would allow Congress to gather more 
information on crimes against seniors in order to react with 
appropriate legislative action.
  Education is one of many steps that needs to be taken to prevent 
fraud. I also introduced the ``Combating Fraud Against Seniors Act'' 
this year to increase enforcement measures and toughen penalties 
against those promoting fraudulent schemes through mass-marketing. 
Education and tougher penalties will hopefully protect seniors from 
fraud.
  Protecting seniors from fraud is of growing importance as our 
population ages and more seniors save more money for their retirement. 
Our seniors deserve to be informed and their investments deserve to be 
secure. I urge the Senate to consider this bipartisan legislation and 
pass it prior to adjournment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join today with Senators Bayh, Grams, and 
Cleland in introducing the ``Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act of 
2000.'' I have been concerned for some time that even as the general 
crime rate has been declining steadily over the past eight years, the 
rate of crime against the elderly has remained unchanged. That is why I 
introduced the Seniors Safety Act, S. 751, with Senators Daschle, 
Kennedy, and Torricelli over a year ago.
  The Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act includes one of the titles from 
the Seniors Safety Act. This title does two things. First, it instructs 
the Attorney General to conduct a study relating to crimes against 
seniors, so that we can develop a coherent strategy to prevent and 
properly punish such crimes. Second, it mandates the inclusion of 
seniors in the National Crime Victimization Study. Both of these are 
important steps, and they should be made law.
  The Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act also includes important 
proposals for addressing the problem of crimes against the elderly, 
especially fraud

[[Page S9946]]

crimes. In addition to the provisions described above, the bill 
authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to 
establish local programs to prevent fraud against seniors and educate 
them about the risk of fraud, as well as to provide information about 
telemarketing and sweepstakes fraud to seniors, both directly and 
through State Attorneys General. These are two common-sense provisions 
that will help seniors protect themselves against crime.
  I hope that we can also take the time to consider the rest of the 
Seniors Safety Act, and enact even more comprehensive protections for 
our seniors. The Seniors Safety Act offers a comprehensive approach 
that would increase law enforcement's ability to battle telemarketing, 
pension, and health care fraud, as well as to police nursing homes with 
a record of mistreating their residents. The Justice Department has 
said that the Seniors Safety Act would ``be of assistance in a number 
of ways.'' I asked Senator Hatch to hold Judiciary Committee hearings 
on the bill as long ago as October 1999, and again this past February, 
but my requests have thus far not been granted. I ask again today for 
hearings on this important and comprehensive proposal.
  First, the Seniors Safety Act provides additional protections to 
nursing home residents. Nursing homes provide an important service for 
our seniors--indeed, more than 40 percent of Americans turning 65 this 
year will need nursing home care at some point in their lives. Many 
nursing homes do a wonderful job with a very difficult task--this 
legislation simply looks to protect seniors and their families by 
isolating the bad providers in operation. It does this by giving 
federal law enforcement the authority to investigate and prosecute 
operators of those nursing homes that engage in a pattern of health and 
safety violations. This authority is all the more important given the 
study prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services and 
reported this summer in the New York Times showing that 54 percent of 
American nursing homes fail to meet the Department's ``proposed minimum 
standard'' for patient care. The study also showed that 92 percent of 
nursing homes have less staff than necessary to provide optimal care.
  Second, the Seniors Safety Act helps protect seniors from 
telemarketing fraud, which costs billions of dollars every year. My 
bill would give the Attorney General the authority to block or 
terminate telephone service where that service is being used to defraud 
seniors. If someone takes your money at gunpoint, the law says we can 
take away their gun. If someone uses their phone to take away your 
money, the law should allow us to protect other victims by taking their 
phone away. In addition, my proposal would establish a Better Business 
Bureau-style clearinghouse that would keep track of complaints made 
about telemarketing companies. With a simple phone call, seniors could 
fine out whether the company trying to sell to them over the phone or 
over the Internet has been the subject of complaints or been convinced 
of fraud. Senator Bayh has recently introduced another bill, S. 3025, 
the Combating Fraud Against Seniors Act, which includes the part of the 
Seniors Safety Act that establishes the clearinghouse for telemarketing 
fraud information.
  Third, the Seniors Safety Act punishes pension fraud. Seniors who 
have worked hard for years should not have to worry that their hard-
earned retirement savings will not be there when they need them. The 
bill would create new criminal and civil penalties for those who 
defraud pension plans, and increase the penalties for bribery and graft 
in connection with employee benefit plans.
  Fourth and finally, the Seniors Safety Act strengthens law 
enforcement's ability to fight health care fraud. A recent study by the 
National Institute for Justice reports that many health care fraud 
schemes ``deliberately target vulnerable populations, such as the 
elderly or Alzheimer's patients, who are less willing or able to 
complain or alert law enforcement.'' This legislation gives law 
enforcement the additional investigatory tools it needs to uncover, 
investigate, and prosecute health care offenses in both criminal and 
civil proceedings. It also protects whistle-blowers who alert law 
enforcement officers to examples of health care fraud.
  In conclusion, I would like to commend Senators Bayh and Cleland for 
working to take steps to improve the safety and security of America's 
seniors. I call upon my colleagues to pass this bipartisan legislation 
and begin the fight to lower the crime rate against seniors. I also 
urge them to consider and pass the Seniors Safety Act. Taken together, 
these two bills would provide a comprehensive approach toward giving 
law enforcement and older Americans the tools they need to prevent 
crime.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 3165. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to make corrections 
and refinements in the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP health insurance 
programs, as revised by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the 
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, 
and for other purposes; read the first time.


         Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Improvements Act of 2000

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join Senator 
Moynihan and my other colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee in 
introducing the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Improvements Act of 2000. 
This is important, bipartisan legislation intended to address needed 
health care funding and other improvements in these programs that are 
so important to millions of Americans. Every year on the Finance 
Committee we maintain watchful oversight of these critical programs to 
make sure that beneficiary access to services is maintained, and that 
payments and benefits are adjusted to meet beneficiaries' needs. This 
bill would add about $28 billion in funds to these programs over the 
next five years. Following are some of the highlights of this 
legislation.
  (1) Medicare beneficiary assistance provisions would reduce 
coinsurance liability for hospital outpatient services; improve access 
to Medigap coverage; permit Medicare+Choice plans to give beneficiaries 
cash rebates of Part B premiums; protect access to immunosuppressive, 
cancer, hemophilia and other drugs, and extend Part B premium 
assistance for lower-income beneficiaries.
  (2) Preventive health benefits would expand existing or add new 
coverage for pap smears, colorectal cancer screening, and nutrition 
therapy, and request further work on effective preventive benefits for 
later consideration in Medicare.
  (3) Rural health care improvements address service capacity and 
access to services through increased payments for critical access, 
sole-community and Medicare-dependent hospitals. The package also 
includes provisions for rural health clinics, ambulance services, and 
telemedicine. Rural hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home 
health agencies also benefit from general financing improvements 
detailed in other sections.
  (4) Medicare+Choice provisions stabilize and improve funding for 
beneficiaries electing to enroll in privately-offered Medicare+Choice 
plans, with special attention to rural communities; restore funding for 
beneficiary education campaigns; and provide additional assistance for 
frail, disabled and rural beneficiaries.
  (5) Hospital funding improvements increase annual payment updates; 
improve disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments under Medicare 
and Medicaid for providing uncompensated care to uninsured patients; 
reform Medicare's DSH program to reduce disparities in the treatment of 
rural and urban hospitals; add funding for rehabilition hospitals; and 
protect payments for teaching hospitals.
  (6) Skilled nursing facility (SNF) provisions improve funding, 
maintain access to therapy services, and reduce regulatory burdens by 
delaying implementation of consolidated billing.
  (7) Home health and hospice provisions protect funding for home 
health services by delaying a scheduled 15% cut in payments; increasing 
funding for high-cost outlier cases, and making special temporary 
payments to rural agencies. Hospice provisions improve funding, require 
research on issues related to eligibility for the benefit and

[[Page S9947]]

establish a hospice demonstration program.
  (8) Dialysis and durable medical equipment (DME) provisions improve 
payments for DME for all Medicare beneficiaries, and for services 
received by individuals with end-stage renal disease, as well as 
enhancing their opportunities to participate in the Medicare+Choice 
program.
  (9) Additional provisions address physician, laboratory, ambulatory 
surgery center and other medical services. The package also creates a 
Joint Committee on Health Care Financing to provide professional 
support to the Congress in addressing the burgeoning cost and 
legislative complexity of the Medicare, Medicaid and State Children's 
Health Insurance programs and monitoring the viability of safety net 
providers.
  (10) Medicaid and SCHIP provisions improve the financing of and 
access to services provided by federally qualified health centers and 
rural health clinics; establish policies for the retention and 
redistribution of unspent SCHIP funds; increase authorization for the 
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant; and add funding for special 
diabetes programs for children and Native Americans.
  I would like to accomplish even more this year, especially in the 
Medicare program. For instance, I remain committed to securing 
comprehensive drug benefits for the aged and disabled beneficiaries in 
Medicare. I will continue to work towards that goal. However, I am 
pleased that we were able to achieve bipartisan support for these 
improvements and I will continue my efforts to build the bipartisan 
consensus needed to proceed on larger Medicare reforms in the near 
future.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Roth, 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, in sponsoring the 
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Improvement Act of 2000.
  As part of the effort to balance the Federal Budget, the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) provided for reduction in Medicare payments 
for medical services. At the time of enactment, the Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO) estimated that these provisions would reduce 
Medicare outlays by $112 billion over 5 years. We now know that these 
BBA cuts have been much larger than originally anticipated--some argue 
twice as large, although it's difficult to determine this with any 
precision.
  Hospital industry representatives and other providers of health care 
services have asserted that the magnitude of the reductions are having 
unintended consequences which are seriously impacting the quantity and 
quality of health care services available to our citizens.
  Last year, the Congress addressed some of those unintended 
consequences, by enacting the Balanced Budget Refinement Act (BBRA), 
which added back $16 billion over 5 years in payments to various 
Medicare providers, including: Teaching Hospitals; Hospital Outpatient 
Departments; Medicare HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations); Skilled 
Nursing Facilities; Rural Health Providers; and Home Health Agencies.
  However, Members of Congress are continuing to hear from providers 
who argue that the 1997 reductions are still having serious 
unanticipated consequences.
  To respond to these continuing problems, the President last June 
proposed additional BBA relief in the amount of $21 billion over the 
next 5 years. On September 20, Senator Daschle and I, along with 32 of 
our Democratic colleagues, introduced a similar, but more substantial, 
BBA relief package that would provide about $40 billion over 5 years in 
relief to health care providers and beneficiaries. Today, along with 
Senator Roth, I am pleased to be cosponsoring a bipartisan BBA relief 
bill to provider about $28 billion in relief over 5 years.
  I want, in particular, to highlight that this legislation would--for 
fiscal years 2001 and 2002--prevent further reductions in the special 
Medicare payments to our Nation's teaching hospitals. A little 
background is in order.
  Medicare provides support to our Nation's teaching hospitals by 
adjusting its payments upward to reflect Medicare's share of costs 
associated with care provided by medical residents. This is 
accomplished under two mechanisms: direct graduate medical education 
(direct GME) payments; and indirect medical education (IME) 
adjustments. Direct GME costs include items such as salaries of 
residents, interns, and faculty and overhead costs for classroom 
training. The separate IME adjustment was established in 1983 and 
pertains to residency training costs that are not directly attributable 
to medical education expenses, but are nevertheless associated with 
teaching activities and the teaching hospital's research mission--for 
example, extra demands placed on hospital staff, additional tests 
ordered by residents, and increased use of diagnostic testing and 
advanced technology. Prior to the BBA, the IME adjustment increased 
Medicare's hospital payments by approximately 7.7 percent for each 10 
percent increase in a hospital's ratio of interns and residents to 
hospital beds.
  The BBA included a reduction in the IME adjustment from the previous 
7.7 percent to 7.0 percent in FY 1998; to 6.5 percent in FY 1999; to 
6.0 percent in FY 2000; and to 5.5 percent in FY 2001 and subsequent 
years. In my judgment, these cuts would have seriously impaired the 
cutting edge research conducted by teaching hospitals, as well as 
impaired their ability to train doctors and to serve so many of our 
nation's indigent.
  Last year, in the BBRA, we mitigated the scheduled reduction in FY 
2000--freezing the IME adjustment at 6.5 percent; and the IME 
adjustment was set at 6.25 percent for FY 2001, and 5.5 percent 
thereafter. The package we are introducing today, would restore $600 
million in funds for FY 2001 and FY 2002 by setting the IME adjustment 
at 6.5 percent in both years. The IME adjustment would then fall to 5.5 
percent thereafter--a reduction which I had hoped to cancel this year, 
and sincerely hope the congress will cancel in future legislation.
  I have stood before my colleagues on countless occasions to bring 
attention to the financial plight of medical schools and teaching 
hospitals. Yet, I regret that the fate of the 144 accredited medical 
schools and 1416 graduate medical education teaching institutions still 
remains uncertain. The proposals in this bill will provide critically 
needed financing--at least in the short-run.
  In the long-run, however, we need to restructure the financing of 
graduate medical education along the lines I have proposed in the 
Graduate Medical Education Trust fund Act (S. 210). What is needed is 
explicit and dedicated funding for these institutions, which will 
ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in this era 
of medical discovery. The Graduate Medical Education Trust Fund Act 
would require that the public sector, through the Medicare and Medicaid 
programs, and the private sector through an assessment on health 
insurance premiums, provide broad-based financial support for graduate 
medical education. S. 210 would roughly double current funding levels 
for Graduate Medical Education and would establish a Medical Education 
Advisory Commission to make recommendations on the operation of the 
Medical Education Trust Fund, on alternative payment sources for 
funding graduate medical education and teaching hospitals, and on 
policies designed to maintain superior research and educational 
capacities.
  In addition to restoring much needed funding to our Nation's teaching 
hospitals for the next two years, this bill would add back funding in 
many vital areas of health care. Key provisions of the bill we are 
introducing today would: provide full market basket (inflation) 
adjustments to hospitals for 2001 and 2002; target additional relief to 
rural hospitals; reduce cuts in payments to hospitals for handling 
large numbers of low-income patients (referred to as ``disproportionate 
share (DSH) hospital payments''); delay the scheduled 15 percent cut in 
payments to home health agencies; improve funding for skilled nursing 
facilities; and assist beneficiaries through preventive benefits and 
smaller coinsurance payments.
  Let me close by again complimenting Senator Roth on developing this 
bill on a bipartisan basis and expressing my hope that the forthcoming 
information negotiations with committees of the House will be similarly 
conducted on a bipartisan basis.

[[Page S9948]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 3166. A bill to amend the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 to provide 
individual federal agencies and the executive branch as a whole with 
increased incentives to use the share-in-savings program under that 
Act, to ease the use of such program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


information technology share-in-savings program improvement act of 2000

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I'm introducing a bill designed to 
lower the cost of the government's information technology systems and 
improve how those systems serve our citizens by encouraging greater use 
of a ``share-in-savings'' approach to contracting for information 
technology (IT).
  Under a share-in-savings approach, the government contracts with a 
company to provide an improved, lower cost IT service and the company 
pays the up-front costs of the project, which is not the usual 
practice. In return, the contractor gets paid a portion of the money 
saved by the government under the new arrangement. Essentially, the 
contractor bears the capital costs needed for the government to save 
some money and has a strong incentive to decrease the government's 
costs because they get paid a portion of any savings.
  Although this approach to IT contracting is authorized as a pilot 
program under the Clinger-Cohen Act, I understand the executive branch 
has not made much use of this approach to date. Hence, I believe there 
are opportunities for greater creativity in this area if we give the 
agencies greater incentives.
  Basically, my bill does three things. First, and most importantly, it 
gives agencies an incentive to try a share-in-savings approach by 
letting them keep up to half the government's net savings to use for 
additional IT projects, rather than having all the net savings going 
back to the Treasury. It's just human nature that if you ask someone to 
do something risky--like a new IT system--but all the benefits go 
elsewhere, they're not going to be very inclined to do it. That is, 
unless they get to keep some of the benefits to improve their own 
operations--which is what this bill let's them do. The point here is 
that the more agency managers actually are willing to use this 
approach, the more money the taxpayer will save in the long run.

  There's precedent for this with regard to certain Energy Savings 
Performance Contracts. Under a provision applicable to the Department 
of Defense, local base commanders can keep a portion of the savings 
from those contracts to purchase more energy saving equipment or even 
for morale and recreation purposes.
  Second, my bill gives the executive branch as a whole an incentive to 
try share-in-savings contracting for IT by allowing the pilot program 
to graduate to a regular authority once a significant number of 
projects have been done, the approach has been found to be useful, and 
guidance on how to use the authority has been issued. This gives the 
top levels of the executive branch a goal to push toward.
  Finally, my bill will ease implementation of share-in-savings 
contracting by allowing agency program managers to approve the 
projects, thereby giving them greater autonomy and streamlining the 
selection process. Currently, share-in-savings IT projects must be 
approved by the Administrator of Federal Procurement, a very high level 
in the executive branch.
  In sum, my bill will encourage greater use of the share-in-savings 
approach to IT contracting under the Clinger-Cohen Act by giving the 
agencies a portion of the savings to reinvest; the executive branch a 
goal; and the program managers more autonomy.

  I had originally planned to introduce this as an amendment to the 
Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill. But, because it doesn't look like 
we'll have a chance to really debate that bill this year, I've decided 
to introduce this bill today to get my proposal before the Senate.
  Now, to give some credit where credit is due, I got interested in 
this topic because of a piece I saw in Roll Call on E-Government by 
Patricia McGinnis of the Council for Excellence in Government. In it 
she mentioned the idea of letting agencies retain some of the IT 
savings they achieve in order to reinvest it in more IT.
  I also understand that the Governmental Affairs Committee recently 
put up a web site to discuss potential e-government policies and 
legislation. And, I was glad to learn that the share-in-savings 
approach to IT is one of its topics.
  So, I hope the Governmental Affairs committee will take a thorough 
look at the ideas in my bill. I look forward to working with them to 
find new ways to save the taxpayer money while improving the services 
they are provided.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill and a 
letter from Ms. McGinnis in support of the amendment I'd planned be 
included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3166

       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 ``Information Technology 
     Share-in-Savings Program Improvement Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to provide individual federal 
     agencies and the executive branch as a whole with increased 
     incentives to use the share-in-savings program under the 
     Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and to ease the use of such 
     program.

     SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY.

       Section 5311 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions D 
     and E of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 692; 40 U.S.C. 1491) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``the heads of two executive agencies to 
     carry out '' and inserting ``heads of executive agencies to 
     carry out a total of five projects under'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) encouraging the use of the contracting and sharing 
     approach described in paragraphs (1) and (2) by allowing the 
     head of the executive agency conducting a project under the 
     pilot program--
       ``(A) to retain, out of the appropriation accounts of the 
     executive agency in which savings computed under paragraph 
     (2) are realized as a result of the project, up to the amount 
     equal to half of the excess of--
       ``(i) the total amount of the savings, over
       ``(ii) the total amount of the portion of the savings paid 
     to the private sector source for such project under paragraph 
     (2); and
       ``(B) to use the retained amount to acquire additional 
     information technology.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting ``a project under'' after ``authorized to 
     carry out''; and
       (B) by striking ``carry out one project and''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Evolution Beyond Pilot Program.--(1) The 
     Administrator may provide general authority to the heads of 
     executive agencies to use a share-in-savings contracting 
     approach to the acquisition of information technology 
     solutions for improving mission-related or administrative 
     processes of the Federal Government if--
       ``(A) after reviewing the experience under the five 
     projects carried out under the pilot program under subsection 
     (a), the Administrator finds that the approach offers the 
     Federal Government an opportunity to improve its use of 
     information technology and to reduce costs; and
       ``(B) issues guidance for the exercise of that authority.
       ``(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a share-in-savings 
     contracting approach provides for contracting as described in 
     paragraph (1) of subsection (a) together with the sharing and 
     retention of amounts saved as described in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3) of that subsection.
       ``(3) In exercising the authority provided to the 
     Administrator in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall 
     consult with the Administrator for the Office of Information 
     and Regulatory Affairs.
       ``(d) Availability of Retained Savings.--Amounts retained 
     by the head of an executive agency under subsection (a)(3) or 
     subsection (c) shall, without further appropriation, be 
     available for the executive agency for the acquisition of 
     information technology and shall remain available until 
     expended. Amounts so retained from any appropriation of the 
     executive agency not otherwise available for the acquisition 
     of information technology shall be transferred to any 
     appropriation of the executive agency that is available for 
     such purpose.''.
                                  ____

                                        The Council for Excellence


                                                in Government,

                                  Washington, DC, August 10, 2000.
     Sen. Jeff Bingaman,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: The Council for Excellence in 
     Government applauds your interest in legislation to encourage 
     federal

[[Page S9949]]

     agencies to conduct pilot ``share-in-savings'' partnerships 
     under the Clinger-Cohen Act. We agree that making greater use 
     of ``share-in-savings'' projects will lead to successful 
     public-private joint ventures that can produce savings for 
     the agencies and better results for the American people.
       In particular, we think the approach to encouraging greater 
     use of ``share-in-savings'' partnerships embodied in your 
     planned amendment to this year's Treasury and General 
     Government appropriations bill--allowing agencies to retain 
     some of the savings, and the pilots to easily graduate to a 
     regular authority--deserves serious consideration by 
     Congress.
       As you move forward, you may also want to look at the work 
     of the General Service Administration's (GSA) Federal 
     Technology Center. Ken Buck, Director of Business 
     Innovations, Office of the Commissioner at GSA, is very 
     knowledgeable about the successful methods of contracting and 
     procurement using this approach.
       In fact, the Council is working with GSA to develop case 
     studies of best practices using share-in-savings methods for 
     use by federal agencies. We will share that work with you as 
     soon as it is available.
       Again, thanks for your leadership on this very important 
     issue, which will not only promote e-government but also 
     excellence in government.
           Sincerely,
                                                Patricia McGinnis,
                                                President and CEO.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 3167. A bill to establish a physician recruitment and retention 
demonstration project under the Medicare Program under title XVIII of 
the Social Security Act; to the Committee on Finance.

                          ____________________