[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.
____________________