[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 138 (Monday, October 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10694-S10707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 1544. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to give
certain workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, priority in hiring for aviation-related
security positions; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President it's a privilege to introduce this bill to
ensure that laid-off aviation industry workers receive first priority
when the Federal Government and private security firms under Federal
contracts hire new employees. Identical legislation was introduced last
week in the House of Representatives by Representative Jane Harman of
California, and I commend her for her leadership.
Under our legislation, the Secretary of Transportation will develop
regulations giving priority in such hiring for aviation-related
security positions to qualified airline workers who were laid-off as a
result of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Those attacks have had a devastating impact on large numbers of the
men and women who work in aviation and related industries. Immense job
losses have taken place. Since September 11, layoffs of more than
140,000 aviation workers have been announced, and nearly 80,000 of
those workers are already out of work. Clearly, Congress should do all
it can to help the men and women in the industry who have lost their
jobs. These workers should get preference for training and new
employment opportunities.
Last week, the Senate passed the aviation security bill that
federalizes airport security, including 18,000 baggage screeners and
10,000 other security-related positions. The bill that Representative
Harman and I am sponsoring gives first priority in hiring for these
airport security jobs to the thousands of men and women who were
working in the aviation industry and at airports before September 11,
and who have been laid off as a result of the terrorist attacks.
The time to help these workers is now. We must help these workers get
back to work. One of the most effective ways to do that is by giving
preference to those who lost their jobs for these airport security
positions. I urge my colleagues to help these dedicated men and women
by supporting this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
S. 1544
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PRIORITY IN HIRING.
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue regulations
directing that the Department of Transportation, agencies
within the Department, and private companies contracted to
provide aviation-related security shall give first priority
in hiring, for employment related to security at airports and
on aircraft operated by air carriers in air transportation
and intrastate air transportation, to individuals who--
(1) were employed before September 11, 2001--
(A) in a security-related position at an airport;
(B) by an air carrier;
(C) at a facility at, or immediately adjacent to, an
airport;
(D) in providing transportation to or from an airport; or
(E) in other employment directly related to commercial
aviation;
(2) have been laid off, terminated, released, or otherwise
lost their jobs as a result of the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001; and
(3) are qualified for those positions or for training
programs needed to qualify for those positions.
______
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 1545. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide regulatory relief and contracting flexibility under the
Medicare Program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Today I rise to introduce the Medicare
Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of 2001.
I do so at this time because, within the past month, I have received
two letters from Medicare Contractors who are withdrawing their
services from some Oklahoma counties and other markets across the
country. One letter reads, ``. . .over-regulation will force health
plans to make the difficult decision to withdraw from some markets. .
.''. Nearly half a million seniors will lose their Medicare+Choice
health coverage this year. This is unacceptable. Over-regulation and
reimbursement issues plague many Medicare contractors and providers. If
we do not act to alleviate the ills of this system, more and more
Americans will suffer the consequence.
This legislation will substantially alter the current system to
reduce the regulatory burden on Medicare providers, carriers, fiscal
intermediaries and beneficiaries, and it will improve the efficiency
and quality of the contracting system by which Medicare operates on a
daily basis.
In order to help providers, carriers, and beneficiaries understand
and implement Medicare regulations, this legislation consolidates the
rule-making
[[Page S10695]]
process for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services, HHS. It also provides for the education and training of all
parties involved. Should this bill become law, the Secretary of HHS
will be required to utilize the mechanisms of competition and
incentives in the Medicare contracting process. Both competition and
incentives increase performance and quality of service. Streamlining
the claims-appeals process to expedite reviews and amending the process
of payment recovery will further benefit providers. This legislation
enhances the technical support for small rural providers that currently
do not have the resources to comply with electronic billing
requirements. Finally, to directly assist Medicare recipients, this
bill establishes a resource person to answer questions and work through
obstacles that arise in the health care process.
Passage of this legislation is necessary to stabilize and strengthen
a Medicare system that is disintegrating. I am confident that we can
bring about beneficial change for millions of Americans who depend on
Medicare. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1545
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT;
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare
Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of 2001''.
(b) Amendments to Social Security Act.--Except as otherwise
specifically provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is
expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of a section
or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be
made to that section or other provision of the Social
Security Act.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; amendments to Social Security Act; table of
contents.
Sec. 2. Issuance of regulations.
Sec. 3. Compliance with changes in regulations and policies.
Sec. 4. Increased flexibility in medicare administration.
Sec. 5. Provider education and technical assistance.
Sec. 6. Small provider technical assistance demonstration program.
Sec. 7. Medicare Provider Ombudsman.
Sec. 8. Provider appeals.
Sec. 9. Recovery of overpayments and prepayment review; enrollment of
providers.
Sec. 10. Beneficiary outreach demonstration program.
Sec. 11. Policy development regarding evaluation and management (E & M)
documentation guidelines.
(d) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to compromise or affect existing legal authority for
addressing fraud or abuse, whether it be criminal
prosecution, civil enforcement, or administrative remedies,
including under sections 3729 through 3733 of title 31,
United States Code (known as the False Claims Act); or
(2) to prevent or impede the Department of Health and Human
Services in any way from its ongoing efforts to eliminate
waste, fraud, and abuse in the medicare program.
Furthermore, the consolidation of medicare administrative
contracting set forth in this Act does not constitute
consolidation of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund or
reflect any position on that issue.
SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS.
(a) Consolidation of Promulgation to Once a Month.--
(1) In general.--Section 1871 (42 U.S.C. 1395hh) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) The Secretary shall issue proposed or final
(including interim final) regulations to carry out this title
only on one business day of every month unless publication on
another date is necessary to comply with requirements under
law.''.
(2) Report on publication of regulations on a quarterly
basis.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit to Congress a report on the feasibility
of requiring that regulations described in section 1871(d) of
the Social Security Act only be promulgated on a single day
every calendar quarter.
(3) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to regulations promulgated on or after the date
that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Regular Timeline for Publication of Final Rules.--
(1) In general.--Section 1871(a) (42 U.S.C. 1395hh(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The Secretary, in consultation with the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget, shall establish a
regular timeline for the publication of final regulations
based on the previous publication of a proposed regulation or
an interim final regulation. Such timeline may vary among
different regulations based on differences in the complexity
of the regulation, the number and scope of comments received,
and other relevant factors. In the case of interim final
regulations, upon the expiration of the regular timeline
established under this paragraph for the publication of a
final regulation after opportunity for public comment, the
interim final regulation shall not continue in effect
unless the Secretary publishes a notice of continuation of
the regulation that includes an explanation of why the
regular timeline was not complied with. If such a notice
is published, the regular timeline for publication of the
final regulation shall be treated as having begun again as
of the date of publication of the notice.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide for
an appropriation transition to take into account the backlog
of previously published interim final regulations.
(c) Limitations on New Matter in Final Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Section 1871(a) (42 U.S.C. 1395hh(a)), as
amended by subsection (b), is further amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Insofar as a final regulation (other than an interim
final regulation) includes a provision that is not a logical
outgrowth of the relevant notice of proposed rulemaking
relating to such regulation, that provision shall be treated
as a proposed regulation and shall not take effect until
there is the further opportunity for public comment and a
publication of the provision again as a final regulation.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to final regulations published on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH CHANGES IN REGULATIONS AND POLICIES.
(a) No Retroactive Application of Substantive Changes;
Timeline for Compliance With Substantive Changes After
Notice.--Section 1871 (42 U.S.C. 1395hh), as amended by
section 2(a), is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(e)(1)(A) A substantive change in regulations, manual
instructions, interpretative rules, statements of policy, or
guidelines of general applicability under this title shall
not be applied (by extrapolation or otherwise) retroactively
to items and services furnished before the date the change
was issued, unless the Secretary determines that such
retroactive application would have a positive impact on
beneficiaries or providers of services, physicians,
practitioners, and other suppliers or would be necessary to
comply with statutory requirements.
``(B) No compliance action shall be made against a provider
of services, physician, practitioner, or other supplier with
respect to noncompliance with such a substantive change for
items and services furnished on or before the date that is 30
days after the date of issuance of the change, unless the
Secretary provides otherwise.''.
(b) Reliance on Guidance.--Section 1871(e), as added by
subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(2) If--
``(A) a provider of services, physician, practitioner, or
other supplier follows the written guidance provided by the
Secretary or by a medicare contractor (as defined in section
1889(f)) acting within the scope of the contractor's contract
authority with respect to the furnishing of items or services
and submission of a claim for benefits for such items or
services;
``(B) the Secretary determines that the provider of
services, physician, practitioner, or supplier has accurately
presented the circumstances relating to such items, services,
and claim to the contractor in writing; and
``(C) the guidance was in error;
the provider of services, physician, practitioner or supplier
shall not be subject to any sanction if the provider of
services, physician, practitioner, or supplier reasonably
relied on such guidance.''.
SEC. 4. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY IN MEDICARE ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Consolidation and Flexibility in Medicare
Administration.--
(1) In general.--Title XVIII is amended by inserting after
section 1874 the following new section:
``contracts with medicare administrative contractors
``Sec. 1874A. (a) Authority.--
``(1) Authority to enter into contracts.--The Secretary may
enter into contracts with any entity to serve as a medicare
administrative contractor with respect to the performance of
any or all of the functions described in paragraph (3) or
parts of those functions (or, to the extent provided in a
contract, to secure performance thereof by other entities).
``(2) Medicare administrative contractor defined.--For
purposes of this title and title XI:
[[Page S10696]]
``(A) In general.--The term `medicare administrative
contractor' means an agency, organization, or other person
with a contract under this section.
``(B) Appropriate medicare administrative contractor.--With
respect to the performance of a particular function or
activity in relation to an individual entitled to benefits
under part A or enrolled under part B, or both, a specific
provider of services, physician, practitioner, or supplier
(or class of such providers of services, physicians,
practitioners, or suppliers), the `appropriate' medicare
administrative contractor is the medicare administrative
contractor that has a contract under this section with
respect to the performance of that function or activity in
relation to that individual, provider of services, physician,
practitioner, or supplier or class of provider of services,
physician, practitioner, or supplier.
``(3) Functions described.--The functions referred to in
paragraph (1) are payment functions, provider services
functions, and beneficiary services functions as follows:
``(A) Determination of payment amounts.--Determining
(subject to the provisions of section 1878 and to such review
by the Secretary as may be provided for by the contracts) the
amount of the payments required pursuant to this title to
be made to providers of services, physicians,
practitioners, and suppliers.
``(B) Making payments.--Making payments described in
subparagraph (A).
``(C) Beneficiary education and assistance.--Serving as a
center for, and communicating to individuals entitled to
benefits under part A or enrolled under part B, or both, with
respect to education and outreach for those individuals, and
assistance with specific issues, concerns or problems of
those individuals.
``(D) Provider consultative services.--Providing
consultative services to institutions, agencies, and other
persons to enable them to establish and maintain fiscal
records necessary for purposes of this title and otherwise to
qualify as providers of services, physicians, practitioners,
or suppliers.
``(E) Communication with providers.--Serving as a center
for, and communicating to providers of services, physicians,
practitioners, and suppliers, any information or instructions
furnished to the medicare administrative contractor by the
Secretary, and serving as a channel of communication from
such providers, physicians, practitioners, and suppliers to
the Secretary.
``(F) Provider education and technical assistance.--
Performing the functions described in subsections (e) and
(f), relating to provider education, training, and technical
assistance.
``(G) Additional functions.--Performing such other
functions as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this
title.
``(4) Relationship to mip contracts.--
``(A) Nonduplication of duties.--In entering into contracts
under this section, the Secretary shall assure that functions
of medicare administrative contractors in carrying out
activities under parts A and B do not duplicate functions
carried out under the Medicare Integrity Program under
section 1893. The previous sentence shall not apply with
respect to the activity described in section 1893(b)(5)
(relating to prior authorization of certain items of durable
medical equipment under section 1834(a)(15)).
``(B) Construction.--An entity shall not be treated as a
medicare administrative contractor merely by reason of having
entered into a contract with the Secretary under section
1893.
``(b) Contracting Requirements.--
``(1) Use of competitive procedures.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any law with general
applicability to Federal acquisition and procurement and
except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall
use competitive procedures when entering into contracts with
medicare administrative contractors under this section.
``(B) Renewal of contracts.--The Secretary may renew a
contract with a medicare administrative contractor under this
section from term to term without regard to section 5 of
title 41, United States Code, or any other provision of law
requiring competition, if the medicare administrative
contractor has met or exceeded the performance requirements
applicable with respect to the contract and contractor.
``(C) Transfer of functions.--Functions may be transferred
among medicare administrative contractors in accordance with
the provisions of this paragraph. The Secretary shall ensure
that performance quality is considered in such transfers.
``(D) Incentives for quality.--The Secretary shall provide
financial incentives and such other incentives as the
Secretary determines appropriate for medicare administrative
contractors to provide quality service and to promote
efficiency.
``(2) Compliance with requirements.--No contract under this
section shall be entered into with any medicare
administrative contractor unless the Secretary finds that
such medicare administrative contractor will perform its
obligations under the contract efficiently and effectively
and will meet such requirements as to financial
responsibility, legal authority, and other matters as the
Secretary finds pertinent.
``(3) Development of specific performance requirements.--In
developing contract performance requirements, the Secretary
shall develop performance requirements to carry out the
specific requirements applicable under this title to a
function described in subsection (a)(3).
``(4) Information requirements.--The Secretary shall not
enter into a contract with a medicare administrative
contractor under this section unless the contractor agrees--
``(A) to furnish to the Secretary such timely information
and reports as the Secretary may find necessary in performing
his functions under this title; and
``(B) to maintain such records and afford such access
thereto as the Secretary finds necessary to assure the
correctness and verification of the information and reports
under subparagraph (A) and otherwise to carry out the
purposes of this title.
``(5) Surety bond.--A contract with a medicare
administrative contractor under this section may require the
medicare administrative contractor, and any of its officers
or employees certifying payments or disbursing funds pursuant
to the contract, or otherwise participating in carrying out
the contract, to give surety bond to the United States in
such amount as the Secretary may deem appropriate.
``(c) Terms and Conditions.--
``(1) In general.--A contract with any medicare
administrative contractor under this section may contain such
terms and conditions as the Secretary finds necessary or
appropriate and may provide for advances of funds to the
medicare administrative contractor for the making of payments
by it under subsection (a)(3)(B).
``(2) Prohibition on mandates for certain data
collection.--The Secretary may not require, as a condition of
entering into a contract under this section, that the
medicare administrative contractor match data obtained other
than in its activities under this title with data used in the
administration of this title for purposes of identifying
situations in which the provisions of section 1862(b) may
apply.
``(d) Limitation on Liability of Medicare Administrative
Contractors and Certain Officers.--
``(1) Certifying officer.--No individual designated
pursuant to a contract under this section as a certifying
officer shall, in the absence of negligence or intent to
defraud the United States, be liable with respect to any
payments certified by the individual under this section.
``(2) Disbursing officer.--No disbursing officer shall, in
the absence of negligence or intent to defraud the United
States, be liable with respect to any payment by such officer
under this section if it was based upon an authorization
(which meets the applicable requirements for such internal
controls established by the Comptroller General) of a
certifying officer designated as provided in paragraph (1) of
this subsection.
``(3) Liability of medicare administrative contractor.--A
medicare administrative contractor shall be liable to the
United States for a payment referred to in paragraph (1) or
(2) if, in connection with such payment, an individual
referred to in either such paragraph acted with gross
negligence or intent to defraud the United States.''.
(2) Consideration of incorporation of current law
standards.--In developing contract performance requirements
under section 1874A(b) of the Social Security Act, as
inserted by paragraph (1), the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall consider inclusion of the performance
standards described in sections 1816(f)(2) of such Act
(relating to timely processing of reconsiderations and
applications for exemptions) and section 1842(b)(2)(B) of
such Act (relating to timely review of determinations and
fair hearing requests), as such sections were in effect
before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Section 1816 (Relating to
Fiscal Intermediaries).--Section 1816 (42 U.S.C. 1395h) is
amended as follows:
(1) The heading is amended to read as follows:
``provisions relating to the administration of part a''.
(2) Subsection (a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) The administration of this part shall be conducted
through contracts with medicare administrative contractors
under section 1874A.''.
(3) Subsection (b) is repealed.
(4) Subsection (c) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (1); and
(B) in each of paragraphs (2)(A) and (3)(A), by striking
``agreement under this section'' and inserting ``contract
under section 1874A that provides for making payments under
this part''.
(5) Subsections (d) through (i) are repealed.
(6) Subsections (j) and (k) are each amended--
(A) by striking ``An agreement with an agency or
organization under this section'' and inserting ``A contract
with a medicare administrative contractor under section 1874A
with respect to the administration of this part''; and
(B) by striking ``such agency or organization'' and
inserting ``such medicare administrative contractor'' each
place it appears.
(7) Subsection (l) is repealed.
(c) Conforming Amendments to Section 1842 (Relating to
Carriers).--Section 1842 (42 U.S.C. 1395u) is amended as
follows:
(1) The heading is amended to read as follows:
[[Page S10697]]
``provisions relating to the administration of part b''.
(2) Subsection (a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) The administration of this part shall be conducted
through contracts with medicare administrative contractors
under section 1874A.''.
(3) Subsection (b) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (1);
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B);
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``carriers'' and
inserting ``medicare administrative contractors''; and
(iii) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E);
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking
``Each such contract shall provide that the carrier'' and
inserting ``The Secretary'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), in the matter before clause (i),
by striking ``to the policyholders and subscribers of the
carrier'' and inserting ``to the policyholders and
subscribers of the medicare administrative contractor'';
(iii) by striking subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E);
(iv) in subparagraph (H)--
(I) by striking ``it'' and inserting ``the Secretary''; and
(II) by striking ``carrier'' and inserting ``medicare
administrative contractor''; and
(v) in the seventh sentence, by inserting ``medicare
administrative contractor,'' after ``carrier,''; and
(D) by striking paragraph (5); and
(E) in paragraph (7) and succeeding paragraphs, by striking
``the carrier'' and inserting ``the Secretary'' each place it
appears.
(4) Subsection (c) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (1);
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``contract under this
section which provides for the disbursement of funds, as
described in subsection (a)(1)(B),'' and inserting ``contract
under section 1874A that provides for making payments under
this part shall provide that the medicare administrative
contractor'';
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``a carrier'' and
inserting ``medicare administrative contractor'';
(D) in paragraph (5), by striking ``contract under this
section which provides for the disbursement of funds, as
described in subsection (a)(1)(B), shall require the
carrier'' and inserting ``contract under section 1874A that
provides for making payments under this part shall require
the medicare administrative contractor''; and
(E) by striking paragraph (6).
(5) Subsections (d), (e), and (f) are repealed.
(6) Subsection (g) is amended by striking ``carrier or
carriers'' and inserting ``medicare administrative contractor
or contractors''.
(7) Subsection (h) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``Each carrier having an agreement with the
Secretary under subsection (a)'' and inserting ``The
Secretary''; and
(ii) by striking ``Each such carrier'' and inserting ``The
Secretary''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(A)--
(i) by striking ``a carrier having an agreement with the
Secretary under subsection (a)'' and inserting ``medicare
administrative contractor having a contract under section
1874A that provides for making payments under this part'';
and
(ii) by striking ``such carrier'' and inserting ``such
contractor''.
(d) Effective Date; Transition Rule.--
(1) Effective date.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take
effect on October 1, 2003, and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services is authorized to take such steps before such
date as may be necessary to implement such amendments on a
timely basis.
(2) General transition rules.--(A) The Secretary shall take
such steps as are necessary to provide for an appropriate
transition from contracts under section 1816 and section 1842
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395h, 1395u) to
contracts under section 1874A, as added by subsection (a)(1).
(B) Any such contract under such sections 1816 or 1842
whose periods begin before or during the 1-year period that
begins on the first day of the fourth calendar month that
begins after the date of enactment of this Act may be entered
into without regard to any provision of law requiring the use
of competitive procedures.
(3) Authorizing continuation of mip functions under current
contracts and agreements and under rollover contracts.--The
provisions contained in the exception in section 1893(d)(2)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ddd(d)(2)) shall
continue to apply notwithstanding the amendments made by this
section, and any reference in such provisions to an agreement
or contract shall be deemed to include a contract under
section 1874A of such Act, as inserted by subsection (a)(1),
that continues the activities referred to in such provisions.
(e) References.--On and after the effective date provided
under subsection (d), any reference to a fiscal intermediary
or carrier under title XI or XVIII of the Social Security Act
(or any regulation, manual instruction, interpretative rule,
statement of policy, or guideline issued to carry out such
titles) shall be deemed a reference to an appropriate
medicare administrative contractor (as provided under section
1874A of the Social Security Act).
(f) Secretarial Submission of Legislative Proposal.--Not
later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a legislative
proposal providing for such technical and conforming
amendments in the law as are required by the provisions of
this section.
SEC. 5. PROVIDER EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Coordination of Education Funding.--
(1) In general.--The Social Security Act is amended by
inserting after section 1888 the following new section:
``provider education and technical assistance
``Sec. 1889. (a) Coordination of Education Funding.--The
Secretary shall coordinate the educational activities
provided through medicare contractors (as defined in
subsection (i), including under section 1893) in order to
maximize the effectiveness of Federal education efforts for
providers of services, physicians, practitioners, and
suppliers.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2002, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a
report that includes a description and evaluation of the
steps taken to coordinate the funding of provider education
under section 1889(a) of the Social Security Act, as added by
paragraph (1).
(b) Incentives To Improve Contractor Performance.--
(1) In general.--Section 1874A, as added by section
4(a)(1), is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(e) Incentives To Improve Contractor Performance in
Provider Education and Outreach.--
``(1) Methodology to measure contractor error rates.--In
order to give medicare administrative contractors an
incentive to implement effective education and outreach
programs for providers of services, physicians,
practitioners, and suppliers, the Secretary shall develop and
implement by October 1, 2002, a methodology to measure the
specific claims payment error rates of such contractors in
the processing or reviewing of medicare claims.
``(2) Identification of best practices.--The Secretary
shall identify the best practices developed by individual
medicare administrative contractors for educating providers
of services, physicians, practitioners, and suppliers and how
to encourage the use of such best practices nationwide.''.
(2) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2003, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a
report that describes how the Secretary intends to use the
methodology developed under section 1874A(e)(1) of the Social
Security Act, as added by paragraph (1), in assessing
medicare contractor performance in implementing effective
education and outreach programs, including whether to use
such methodology as the basis for performance bonuses.
(c) Provision of Access to and Prompt Responses From
Medicare Administrative Contractors.--
(1) In general.--Section 1874A, as added by section 4(a)(1)
and as amended by subsection (b), is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Response to Inquiries; Toll-Free Lines.--
``(1) Contractor responsibility.--Each medicare
administrative contractor shall, for those providers of
services, physicians, practitioners, and suppliers which
submit claims to the contractor for claims processing--
``(A) respond in a clear, concise, and accurate manner to
specific billing and cost reporting questions of providers of
services, physicians, practitioners, and suppliers;
``(B) maintain a toll-free telephone number at which
providers of services, physicians, practitioners, and
suppliers may obtain information regarding billing, coding,
and other appropriate information under this title;
``(C) maintain a system for identifying who provides the
information referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
``(D) monitor the accuracy, consistency, and timeliness of
the information so provided.
``(2) Evaluation.--In conducting evaluations of individual
medicare administrative contractors, the Secretary shall take
into account the results of the monitoring conducted under
paragraph (1)(D). The Secretary shall, in consultation with
organizations representing providers of services, physicians,
practitioners, and suppliers, establish standards relating to
the accuracy, consistency, and timeliness of the information
so provided.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect October 1, 2002.
(d) Improved Provider Education and Training.--
(1) In general.--Section 1889, as added by subsection (a),
is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsections:
``(b) Enhanced Education and Training.--
``(1) Additional resources.--For each of fiscal years 2003
and 2004, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary (in appropriate part from the Federal Hospital
[[Page S10698]]
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund) $10,000,000.
``(2) Use.--The funds made available under paragraph (1)
shall be used to increase the conduct by medicare contractors
of education and training of providers of services,
physicians, practitioners, and suppliers regarding billing,
coding, and other appropriate items.
``(c) Tailoring Education and Training Activities for Small
Providers or Suppliers.--
``(1) In general.--Insofar as a medicare contractor
conducts education and training activities, it shall tailor
such activities to meet the special needs of small providers
of services or suppliers (as defined in paragraph (2)).
``(2) Small provider of services or supplier.--In this
subsection, the term `small provider of services or supplier'
means--
``(A) an institutional provider of services with fewer than
25 full-time-equivalent employees; or
``(B) a physician, practitioner, or supplier with fewer
than 10 full-time-equivalent employees.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on October 1, 2002.
(e) Requirement To Maintain Internet Sites.--
(1) In general.--Section 1889, as added by subsection (a)
and as amended by subsection (d), is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Internet Sites; FAQs.--The Secretary, and each
medicare contractor insofar as it provides services
(including claims processing) for providers of services,
physicians, practitioners, or suppliers, shall maintain an
Internet site which provides answers in an easily accessible
format to frequently asked questions relating to providers of
services, physicians, practitioners, and suppliers under the
programs under this title and title XI insofar as it relates
to such programs.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on October 1, 2002.
(f) Additional Provider Education Provisions.--
(1) In general.--Section 1889, as added by subsection (a)
and as amended by subsections (d) and (e), is further amended
by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(d) Encouragement of Participation in Education Program
Activities.--A medicare contractor may not use a record of
attendance at (or failure to attend) educational activities
or other information gathered during an educational program
conducted under this section or otherwise by the Secretary to
select or track providers of services, physicians,
practitioners, or suppliers for the purpose of conducting any
type of audit or prepayment review.
``(e) Construction.--Nothing in this section or section
1893(g) shall be construed as providing for disclosure by a
medicare contractor--
``(1) of the screens used for identifying claims that will
be subject to medical review; or
``(2) of information that would compromise pending law
enforcement activities or reveal findings of law enforcement-
related audits.
``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term
`medicare contractor' includes the following:
``(1) A medicare administrative contractor with a contract
under section 1874A, including a fiscal intermediary with a
contract under section 1816 and a carrier with a contract
under section 1842.
``(2) An eligible entity with a contract under section
1893.
Such term does not include, with respect to activities of a
specific provider of services, physician, practitioner, or
supplier an entity that has no authority under this title or
title IX with respect to such activities and such provider of
services, physician, practitioner, or supplier.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. SMALL PROVIDER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall establish a demonstration program (in this section
referred to as the ``demonstration program'') under which
technical assistance is made available, upon request on a
voluntary basis, to small providers of services or suppliers
to evaluate their billing and related systems for compliance
with the applicable requirements of the programs under
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act
(including provisions of title XI of such Act insofar as they
relate to such title and are not administered by the Office
of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services).
(2) Small providers of services or suppliers.--In this
section, the term ``small providers of services or
suppliers'' means--
(A) an institutional provider of services with fewer than
25 full-time-equivalent employees; or
(B) a physician, practitioner, or supplier with fewer than
10 full-time-equivalent employees.
(b) Qualification of Contractors.--In conducting the
demonstration program, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall enter into contracts with qualified
organizations (such as peer review organizations or entities
described in section 1889(f)(2) of the Social Security Act,
as inserted by section 5(f)(1)) with appropriate expertise
with billing systems of the full range of providers of
services, physicians, practitioners, and suppliers to provide
the technical assistance. In awarding such contracts, the
Secretary shall consider any prior investigations of the
entity's work by the Inspector General of Department of
Health and Human Services or the Comptroller General of the
United States.
(c) Description of Technical Assistance.--The technical
assistance provided under the demonstration program shall
include a direct and in-person examination of billing systems
and internal controls of small providers of services or
suppliers to determine program compliance and to suggest more
efficient or effective means of achieving such compliance.
(d) Avoidance of Recovery Actions for Problems Identified
as Corrected.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services may
provide that, absent evidence of fraud and notwithstanding
any other provision of law, any errors found in a compliance
review for a small provider of services or supplier that
participates in the demonstration program shall not be
subject to recovery action if the technical assistance
personnel under the program determine that--
(1) the problem that is the subject of the compliance
review has been corrected to their satisfaction within 30
days of the date of the visit by such personnel to the small
provider of services or supplier; and
(2) such problem remains corrected for such period as is
appropriate.
(e) GAO Evaluation.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of the date the demonstration program is first implemented,
the Comptroller General, in consultation with the Inspector
General of the Department of Health and Human Services, shall
conduct an evaluation of the demonstration program. The
evaluation shall include a determination of whether claims
error rates are reduced for small providers of services or
suppliers who participated in the program. The Comptroller
General shall submit a report to the Secretary and the
Congress on such evaluation and shall include in such report
recommendations regarding the continuation or extension of
the demonstration program.
(f) Financial Participation by Providers.--The provision of
technical assistance to a small provider of services or
supplier under the demonstration program is conditioned upon
the small provider of services or supplier paying for 25
percent of the cost of the technical assistance.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in appropriate part from the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund) to carry out the demonstration
program--
(1) for fiscal year 2003, $1,000,000, and
(2) for fiscal year 2004, $6,000,000.
SEC. 7. MEDICARE PROVIDER OMBUDSMAN.
(a) In General.--Section 1868 (42 U.S.C. 1395ee) is
amended--
(1) by adding at the end of the heading the following: ``;
medicare provider ombudsman'';
(2) by inserting ``Practicing Physicians Advisory
Council.--(1)'' after ``(a)'';
(3) in paragraph (1), as so redesignated under paragraph
(2), by striking ``in this section'' and inserting ``in this
subsection'';
(4) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Medicare Provider Ombudsman.--The Secretary shall
appoint a Medicare Provider Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall--
``(1) provide assistance, on a confidential basis, to
providers of services, physicians, practitioners, and
suppliers with respect to complaints, grievances, and
requests for information concerning the programs under this
title (including provisions of title XI insofar as they
relate to this title and are not administered by the Office
of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services) and in the resolution of unclear or
conflicting guidance given by the Secretary and medicare
contractors to such providers of services, physicians,
practitioners, and suppliers regarding such programs and
provisions and requirements under this title and such
provisions; and
``(2) submit recommendations to the Secretary for
improvement in the administration of this title and such
provisions, including--
``(A) recommendations to respond to recurring patterns of
confusion in this title and such provisions (including
recommendations regarding suspending imposition of sanctions
where there is widespread confusion in program
administration), and
``(B) recommendations to provide for an appropriate and
consistent response (including not providing for audits) in
cases of self-identified overpayments by providers of
services, physicians, practitioners, and suppliers.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in appropriate part from the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund) to carry out the provisions of
subsection (b) of section 1868 (relating to the Medicare
Provider Ombudsman), as added by subsection (a)(5), amounts
as follows:
[[Page S10699]]
(1) For fiscal year 2002, such sums as are necessary.
(2) For fiscal year 2003, $8,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2004, $17,000,000.
(c) Report on Additional Funding.--Not later than October
1, 2003, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
submit to Congress a report that includes the Secretary's
estimate of the amount of additional funding necessary to
carry out such provisions of subsection (b) of section 1868,
as so added, in fiscal year 2005 and subsequent fiscal years.
SEC. 8. PROVIDER APPEALS.
(a) Medicare Administrative Law Judges.--Section 1869 (42
U.S.C. 1395ff), as amended by section 521(a) of Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-534), as enacted into law by section
1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(g) Medicare Administrative Law Judges.--
``(1) Transition plan.--Not later than October 1, 2003, the
Commissioner of Social Security and the Secretary shall
develop and implement a plan under which administrative law
judges responsible solely for hearing cases under this title
(and related provisions in title XI) shall be transferred
from the responsibility of the Commissioner and the Social
Security Administration to the Secretary and the Department
of Health and Human Services. The plan shall include
recommendations with respect to--
``(A) the number of such administrative law judges and
support staff required to hear and decide such cases in a
timely manner; and
``(B) funding levels required for fiscal year 2004 and
subsequent fiscal years under this subsection to hear such
cases in a timely manner.
``(2) Increased financial support.--In addition to any
amounts otherwise appropriated, there are authorized to be
appropriated (in appropriate part from the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund) to the Secretary to increase the number
of administrative law judges under paragraph (1) and to
improve education and training opportunities for such judges
and their staffs, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and such
sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2004 and each
subsequent fiscal year.''.
(b) Process for Expedited Access to Judicial Review.--
(1) In general.--Section 1869(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395ff(b)) as
amended by Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement
and Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-534), as enacted
into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``, subject to
paragraph (2),'' before ``to judicial review of the
Secretary's final decision''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Expedited access to judicial review.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a process
under which a provider of service or supplier that furnishes
an item or service or a beneficiary who has filed an appeal
under paragraph (1) (other than an appeal filed under
paragraph (1)(F)) may obtain access to judicial review when a
review panel (described in subparagraph (D)), on its own
motion or at the request of the appellant, determines that it
does not have the authority to decide the question of law
or regulation relevant to the matters in controversy and
that there is no material issue of fact in dispute. The
appellant may make such request only once with respect to
a question of law or regulation in a case of an appeal.
``(B) Prompt determinations.--If, after or coincident with
appropriately filing a request for an administrative hearing,
the appellant requests a determination by the appropriate
review panel that no review panel has the authority to decide
the question of law or regulations relevant to the matters in
controversy and that there is no material issue of fact in
dispute and if such request is accompanied by the documents
and materials as the appropriate review panel shall require
for purposes of making such determination, such review panel
shall make a determination on the request in writing within
60 days after the date such review panel receives the request
and such accompanying documents and materials. Such a
determination by such review panel shall be considered a
final decision and not subject to review by the Secretary.
``(C) Access to judicial review.--
``(i) In general.--If the appropriate review panel--
``(I) determines that there are no material issues of fact
in dispute and that the only issue is one of law or
regulation that no review panel has the authority to decide;
or
``(II) fails to make such determination within the period
provided under subparagraph (B);
then the appellant may bring a civil action as described in
this subparagraph.
``(ii) Deadline for filing.--Such action shall be filed, in
the case described in--
``(I) clause (i)(I), within 60 days of date of the
determination described in such subparagraph; or
``(II) clause (i)(II), within 60 days of the end of the
period provided under subparagraph (B) for the determination.
``(iii) Venue.--Such action shall be brought in the
district court of the United States for the judicial district
in which the appellant is located (or, in the case of an
action brought jointly by more than one applicant, the
judicial district in which the greatest number of applicants
are located) or in the district court for the District of
Columbia.
``(iv) Interest on amounts in controversy.--Where a
provider of services or supplier seeks judicial review
pursuant to this paragraph, the amount in controversy shall
be subject to annual interest beginning on the first day of
the first month beginning after the 60-day period as
determined pursuant to clause (ii) and equal to the rate of
interest on obligations issued for purchase by the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for the month in which the
civil action authorized under this paragraph is commenced, to
be awarded by the reviewing court in favor of the prevailing
party. No interest awarded pursuant to the preceding sentence
shall be deemed income or cost for the purposes of
determining reimbursement due providers of services or
suppliers under this Act.
``(D) Review panels.--For purposes of this subsection, a
`review panel' is an administrative law judge, the
Departmental Appeals Board, a qualified independent
contractor (as defined in subsection (c)(2)), or an entity
designated by the Secretary for purposes of making
determinations under this paragraph.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to appeals filed on or after October 1, 2002.
(c) Requiring Full and Early Presentation of Evidence.--
(1) In general.--Section 1869(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395ff(b)), as
amended by Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement
and Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-534), as enacted
into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, and as
amended by subsection (b), is further amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Requiring full and early presentation of evidence by
providers.--A provider of services or supplier may not
introduce evidence in any appeal under this section that was
not presented at the first external hearing or appeal at
which it could be introduced under this section, unless there
is good cause which precluded the introduction of such
evidence at a previous hearing or appeal.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on October 1, 2002.
(d) Provider Appeals on Behalf of Deceased Beneficiaries.--
(1) In general.--Section 1869(b)(1)(C) (42 U.S.C.
1395ff(b)(1)(C)), as amended by Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2763A-534), as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public
Law 106-554, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The Secretary shall establish a process under which, if
such an individual is deceased, the individual is deemed to
have provided written consent to the assignment of the
individual's right of appeal under this section to the
provider of services or supplier of the item or service
involved, so long as the estate of the individual, and the
individual's family and heirs, are not liable for paying for
the item or service and are not liable for any
increased coinsurance or deductible amounts resulting from
any decision increasing the reimbursement amount for the
provider of services or supplier.''.
(2) Effective date.--Notwithstanding section 521(d) of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000, as enacted into law by section
1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, the amendment made by
paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 9. RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS AND PREPAYMENT REVIEW;
ENROLLMENT OF PROVIDERS.
(a) Recovery of Overpayments and Prepayment Review.--
Section 1893 (42 U.S.C. 1395ddd) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsections:
``(f) Recovery of Overpayments and Prepayment Review.--
``(1) Use of repayment plans.--
``(A) In general.--If the repayment, within 30 days by a
provider of services, physician, practitioner, or other
supplier, of an overpayment under this title would
constitute a hardship (as defined in subparagraph (B)),
subject to subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall enter
into a plan (which meets terms and conditions determined
to be appropriate by the Secretary) with the provider of
services, physician, practitioner, or supplier for the
offset or repayment of such overpayment over a period of
not longer than 3 years. Interest shall accrue on the
balance through the period of repayment.
``(B) Hardship.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
repayment of an overpayment (or overpayments) within 30 days
is deemed to constitute a hardship if--
``(I) in the case of a provider of services that files cost
reports, the aggregate amount of the overpayments exceeds 10
percent of the amount paid under this title to the provider
of services for the cost reporting period covered by the most
recently submitted cost report; or
``(II) in the case of another provider of services,
physician, practitioner, or supplier, the aggregate amount of
the overpayments exceeds 10 percent of the amount paid under
this title to the provider of services or supplier for the
previous calendar year.
``(ii) Rule of application.--The Secretary shall establish
rules for the application of this subparagraph in the case of
a provider of
[[Page S10700]]
services, physician, practitioner, or supplier that was not
paid under this title during the previous year or was paid
under this title only during a portion of that year.
``(iii) Treatment of previous overpayments.--If a provider
of services, physician, practitioner, or supplier has entered
into a repayment plan under subparagraph (A) with respect to
a specific overpayment amount, such payment amount shall not
be taken into account under clause (i) with respect to
subsequent overpayment amounts.
``(C) Exceptions.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if the
Secretary has reason to suspect that the provider of
services, physician, practitioner, or supplier may file for
bankruptcy or otherwise cease to do business or if there is
an indication of fraud or abuse committed against the
program.
``(D) Immediate collection if violation of repayment
plan.--If a provider of services, physician, practitioner, or
supplier fails to make a payment in accordance with a
repayment plan under this paragraph, the Secretary may
immediately seek to offset or otherwise recover the total
balance outstanding (including applicable interest) under the
repayment plan.
``(2) Limitation on recoupment until reconsideration
exercised.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a provider of services,
physician, practitioner, or supplier that is determined to
have received an overpayment under this title and that seeks
a reconsideration of such determination under section
1869(b)(1), the Secretary may not take any action (or
authorize any other person, including any medicare
contractor, as defined in paragraph (9)) to recoup the
overpayment until the date the decision on the
reconsideration has been rendered.
``(B) Collection with interest.--Insofar as the
determination on such appeal is against the provider of
services, physician, practitioner, or supplier, interest on
the overpayment shall accrue on and after the date of the
original notice of overpayment. Insofar as such determination
against the provider of services, physician, practitioner, or
supplier is later reversed, the Secretary shall provide for
repayment of the amount recouped plus interest at the same
rate as would apply under the previous sentence for the
period in which the amount was recouped.
``(3) Standardization of random prepayment review.--
``(A) In general.--A medicare contractor may conduct random
prepayment review only to develop a contractor-wide or
program-wide claims payment error rates.
``(B) Construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be
construed as preventing the denial of payments for claims
actually reviewed under a random prepayment review.
``(4) Limitation on use of extrapolation.--A medicare
contractor may not use extrapolation to determine overpayment
amounts to be recovered by recoupment, offset, or otherwise
unless--
``(A) there is a sustained or high level of payment error
(as defined by the Secretary); or
``(B) documented educational intervention has failed to
correct the payment error (as determined by the Secretary).
``(5) Provision of supporting documentation.--In the case
of a provider of services, physician, practitioner, or
supplier with respect to which amounts were previously
overpaid, a medicare contractor may request the periodic
production of records or supporting documentation for a
limited sample of submitted claims to ensure that the
previous practice is not continuing.
``(6) Consent settlement reforms.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may use a consent
settlement (as defined in subparagraph (D)) to settle a
projected overpayment.
``(B) Opportunity to submit additional information before
consent settlement offer.--Before offering a provider of
services, physician, practitioner, or supplier a consent
settlement, the Secretary shall--
``(i) communicate to the provider of services, physician,
practitioner, or supplier in a non-threatening manner that,
based on a review of the medical records requested by the
Secretary, a preliminary indication appears that there would
be an overpayment; and
``(ii) provide for a 45-day period during which the
provider of services, physician, practitioner, or supplier
may furnish additional information concerning the medical
records for the claims that had been reviewed.
``(C) Consent settlement offer.--The Secretary shall review
any additional information furnished by the provider of
services, physician, practitioner, or supplier under
subparagraph (B)(ii). Taking into consideration such
information, the Secretary shall determine if there still
appears to be an overpayment. If so, the Secretary--
``(i) shall provide notice of such determination to the
provider of services, physician, practitioner, or supplier,
including an explanation of the reason for such
determination; and
``(ii) in order to resolve the overpayment, may offer the
provider of services, physician, practitioner, or supplier--
``(I) the opportunity for a statistically valid random
sample; or
``(II) a consent settlement.
The opportunity provided under clause (ii)(I) does not waive
any appeal rights with respect to the alleged overpayment
involved.
``(D) Consent settlement defined.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `consent settlement' means an agreement
between the Secretary and a provider of services, physician,
practitioner, or supplier whereby both parties agree to
settle a projected overpayment based on less than a
statistically valid sample of claims and the provider of
services, physician, practitioner, or supplier agrees not to
appeal the claims involved.
``(7) Limitations on non-random prepayment review.--
``(A) Limitation on initiation of non-random prepayment
review.--A medicare contractor may not initiate non-random
prepayment review of a provider of services, physician,
practitioner, or supplier based on the initial identification
by that provider of services, physician, practitioner, or
supplier of an improper billing practice unless there is a
sustained or high level of payment error (as defined in
paragraph (4)(A)).
``(B) Termination of non-random prepayment review.--The
Secretary shall issue regulations relating to the
termination, including termination dates, of non-random
prepayment review. Such regulations may vary such a
termination date based upon the differences in the
circumstances triggering prepayment review.
``(8) Payment audits
``(A) Written notice for post-payment audits.--Subject to
subparagraph (C), if a medicare contractor decides to conduct
a post-payment audit of a provider of services, physician,
practitioner, or supplier under this title, the contractor
shall provide the provider of services, physician,
practitioner, or supplier with written notice of the intent
to conduct such an audit.
``(B) Explanation of findings for all audits.--Subject to
subparagraph (C), if a medicare contractor audits a provider
of services, physician, practitioner, or supplier under this
title, the contractor shall--
``(i) give the provider of services, physician,
practitioner, or supplier a full review and explanation of
the findings of the audit in a manner that is understandable
to the provider of services, physician, practitioner, or
supplier and permits the development of an appropriate
corrective action plan;
``(ii) inform the provider of services, physician,
practitioner, or supplier of the appeal rights under this
title; and
``(iii) give the provider of services, physician,
practitioner, or supplier an opportunity to provide
additional information to the contractor.
``(C) Exception.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply
if the provision of notice or findings would compromise
pending law enforcement activities or reveal findings of law
enforcement-related audits.
``(9) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Medicare contractor.--The term `medicare contractor'
has the meaning given such term in section 1889(f).
``(B) Random prepayment review.--The term `random
prepayment review' means a demand for the production of
records or documentation absent cause with respect to a
claim.
``(g) Notice of Over-Utilization of Codes.--The Secretary
shall establish a process under which the Secretary provides
for notice to classes of providers of services, physicians,
practitioners, and suppliers served by the contractor in
cases in which the contractor has identified that particular
billing codes may be overutilized by that class of providers
of services, physicians, practitioners, or suppliers under
the programs under this title (or provisions of title XI
insofar as they relate to such programs).''.
(b) Provider Enrollment Process; Right of Appeal.--
(1) In general.--Section 1866 (42 U.S.C. 1395cc) is
amended--
(A) by adding at the end of the heading the following: ``;
enrollment processes''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Enrollment Process for Providers of Services,
Physicians, Practitioners, and Suppliers.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish by
regulation a process for the enrollment of providers of
services, physicians, practitioners, and suppliers under this
title.
``(2) Appeal process.--Such process shall provide--
``(A) a method by which providers of services, physicians,
practitioners, and suppliers whose application to enroll (or,
if applicable, to renew enrollment) are denied are provided a
mechanism to appeal such denial; and
``(B) prompt deadlines for actions on applications for
enrollment (and, if applicable, renewal of enrollment) and
for consideration of appeals.''.
(2) Effective date.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall provide for the establishment of the
enrollment and appeal process under the amendment made by
paragraph (1) within 6 months after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(c) Process for Correction of Minor Errors and Omissions on
Claims Without Pursuing Appeals Process.--The Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall develop, in consultation with
appropriate medicare contractors (as defined in section
1889(f) of the Social Security Act, as inserted by section
5(f)(1)) and representatives of providers of services,
physicians, practitioners, and suppliers, a process whereby,
in the case of minor errors or omissions that are detected in
the submission of claims under the programs under title XVIII
of such Act, a provider of services, physician, practitioner,
or
[[Page S10701]]
supplier is given an opportunity to correct such an error or
omission without the need to initiate an appeal. Such process
may include the ability to resubmit corrected claims.
SEC. 10. BENEFICIARY OUTREACH DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall establish a demonstration program (in this section
referred to as the ``demonstration program'') under which
medicare specialists employed by the Department of Health and
Human Services provide advice and assistance to medicare
beneficiaries at the location of existing local offices of
the Social Security Administration.
(b) Locations.--
(1) In general.--The demonstration program shall be
conducted in at least 6 offices or areas. Subject to
paragraph (2), in selecting such offices and areas, the
Secretary shall provide preference for offices with a high
volume of visits by medicare beneficiaries.
(2) Assistance for rural beneficiaries.--The Secretary
shall provide for the selection of at least 2 rural areas to
participate in the demonstration program. In conducting the
demonstration program in such rural areas, the Secretary
shall provide for medicare specialists to travel among local
offices in a rural area on a scheduled basis.
(c) Duration.--The demonstration program shall be conducted
over a 3-year period.
(d) Evaluation and Report.--
(1) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall provide for an
evaluation of the demonstration program. Such evaluation
shall include an analysis of--
(A) utilization of, and beneficiary satisfaction with, the
assistance provided under the program; and
(B) the cost-effectiveness of providing beneficiary
assistance through out-stationing medicare specialists at
local social security offices.
(2) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report on such evaluation and shall include in such report
recommendations regarding the feasibility of permanently out-
stationing medical specialists at local social security
offices.
SEC. 11. POLICY DEVELOPMENT REGARDING EVALUATION AND
MANAGEMENT (E & M) DOCUMENTATION GUIDELINES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
may not implement any documentation guidelines for evaluation
and management physician services under the title XVIII of
the Social Security Act on or after the date of the enactment
of this Act unless the Secretary--
(1) has developed the guidelines in collaboration with
practicing physicians and provided for an assessment of the
proposed guidelines by the physician community;
(2) has established a plan that contains specific goals,
including a schedule, for improving the use of such
guidelines;
(3) has conducted appropriate and representative pilot
projects under subsection (b) to test modifications to the
evaluation and management documentation guidelines; and
(4) finds that the objectives described in subsection (c)
will be met in the implementation of such guidelines.
The Secretary may make changes to the manner in which
existing evaluation and management documentation guidelines
are implemented to reduce paperwork burdens on physicians.
(b) Pilot Projects To Test Evaluation and Management
Documentation Guidelines.--
(1) Length and consultation.--Each pilot project under this
subsection shall--
(A) be of sufficient length to allow for preparatory
physician and medicare contractor education, analysis, and
use and assessment of potential evaluation and management
guidelines; and
(B) be conducted, in development and throughout the
planning and operational stages of the project, in
consultation with practicing physicians.
(2) Range of pilot projects.--Of the pilot projects
conducted under this subsection--
(A) at least one shall focus on a peer review method by
physicians (not employed by a medicare contractor) which
evaluates medical record information for claims submitted by
physicians identified as statistical outliers relative to
definitions published in the Current Procedures Terminology
(CPT) code book of the American Medical Association;
(B) at least one shall be conducted for services furnished
in a rural area and at least one for services furnished
outside such an area; and
(C) at least one shall be conducted in a setting where
physicians bill under physicians services in teaching
settings and at one shall be conducted in a setting other
than a teaching setting.
(3) Banning of targeting of pilot project participants.--
Data collected under this subsection shall not be used as the
basis for overpayment demands or post-payment audits.
(4) Study of impact.--Each pilot project shall examine the
effect of the modified evaluation and management
documentation guidelines on--
(A) different types of physician practices, including those
with fewer than 10 full-time-equivalent employees (including
physicians); and
(B) the costs of physician compliance, including education,
implementation, auditing, and monitoring.
(c) Objectives for Evaluation and Management Guidelines.--
The objectives for modified evaluation and management
documentation guidelines developed by the Secretary shall be
to--
(1) enhance clinically relevant documentation needed to
code accurately and assess coding levels accurately;
(2) decrease the level of non-clinically pertinent and
burdensome documentation time and content in the physician's
medical record;
(3) increase accuracy by reviewers; and
(4) educate both physicians and reviewers.
(d) Study of Simpler, Alternative Systems of Documentation
for Physician Claims.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall carry out a study of the matters described in paragraph
(2).
(2) Matters described.--The matters referred to in
paragraph (1) are--
(A) the development of a simpler, alternative system of
requirements for documentation accompanying claims for
evaluation and management physician services for which
payment is made under title XVIII of the Social Security Act;
and
(B) consideration of systems other than current coding and
documentation requirements for payment for such physician
services.
(3) Consultation with practicing physicians.--In designing
and carrying out the study under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall consult with practicing physicians, including
physicians who are part of group practices.
(4) Application of hipaa uniform coding requirements.--In
developing an alternative system under paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall consider requirements of administrative
simplification under part C of title XI of the Social
Security Act.
(5) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under
paragraph (1).
(e) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``rural area'' has the meaning given that term
in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(2)(D); and
(2) the term ``teaching settings'' are those settings
described in section 415.150 of title 42, Code of Federal
Regulations.
______
By Mr. ROBERTS:
S. 1546. A bill to provide additional funding to combat bioterrorism;
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bio-
Security in Agriculture Act of 2001. I refer to the security of
agriculture, our crops, our livestock production.
In the wake of September 11, we increased security of the Capitol,
our government buildings, airports, sports venues, and businesses.
We should do the same for our agriculture and our nation's food
supply.
I served 2 years as chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats, and now as ranking member of the subcommittee. I'm
also on the Intelligence Committee and a member of the Agriculture
Committee.
In numerous hearings on terrorism, we repeatedly asked top scientists
and biowarfare experts to assess the greatest threats to our nation.
One of their greatest concerns has been the susceptibility of U.S.
agriculture and the impact an attack on it could have on the
agriculture economy and the Nation's food supply.
It would not be difficult to take a disease such as foot-and-mouth so
prevalent in Europe and introduce it into the U.S. livestock herd. With
the large number of cattle and livestock operations in close proximity
to each other in our feedlots and hog facilities it could quickly
become an epidemic.
I consider this threat to be real. I know of no specific threat, but
I can tell you 2 years ago, when we asked the FBI where is the
probability and where is the risk, the probability was rather low.
Since the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic overseas and since the events
of September 11, I can assure my colleagues the probability is rated
much higher. I am not going to get into classified information, but the
risk would cause utter chaos in our country.
Such an attack would be devastating. One estimate for California is a
loss of $14 billion should foot and mouth disease break out in that
state.
We know that the former Soviet Union developed ``tons'' of biowarfare
agents aimed at North American agriculture. These include FMD,
glanders, rust diseases for wheat and rice, and Karnal Bunt in wheat.
There are other diseases that could be introduced as well.
The threat is real. Yet, our federal facilities to test and do
research on
[[Page S10702]]
both containment and prevention of these diseases are outdated and in
need of repair. We have approximately $700 million in the pipeline to
upgrade these facilities over the next 6 to 10 years. But we cannot
wait for 6 to 10 years. We need to make the investment in these
facilities and the research dollars now.
Why is protecting agriculture from terrorist attack important? There
are several reasons: Agriculture is one of the few sectors of the
economy with a trade surplus; using numbers from 1999; agriculture and
agribusiness related industries accounted for approximately 22 million
jobs and 16.4 percent of GDP; The overall contribution to the Nation's
GDP in 1999 was $1.5 trillion; and the cheap U.S. food supply kept the
total portion of individual income spent on food to 10.4 percent, or 10
and one half cents of every dollar, on food in 1999. The lowest percent
of income spent on food of any country in the world.
The loss of export markets resulting from the intentional
introduction of these pathogens would be dramatic. The introduction of
FMD or Karmal Bunt on a widespread basis could mean the total collapse
of U.S. export markets.
This would be devastating for a commodity such as wheat where 32
percent of total production was exported in 1999 and to agriculture in
general which is one of the few sectors of the economy that operates in
a trade surplus. Also, when an outbreak of FMD occurs, many of the
animals are often killed to control the spread of the disease.
If a massive herd reduction occurred, it could take several years to
replace the lost numbers. Again the ripple effects are enormous.
Individual producers will be impacted, feedlots and hog operations
could be devastated, meat packers and their employees could be put out
of business due to reduced slaughter numbers, and the grain markets
would take enormous hits as there would be no where for the excess feed
usage to go.
The impact on our Nation of a widespread attack on agriculture could
dwarf the airline and travel industry's loss from September 11.
To keep this nightmare scenario from occurring, legislation is
necessary to complete the facility upgrades needed to deal with this
threat and to provide funding for the additional research to develop
risk control methods, first responder response mechanisms, and
development of vaccines and plant resistant varieties that are immune
to these threats. The need is real, the timing is crucial, and it needs
to be done now.
The legislation I am introducing today will provide approximately
$3.5 billion to improve and invest on a ``crash course'' to do the
building upgrades and research we should have been doing for years.
In fiscal year 2002, the bill calls for $1.1 billion, including: $101
million to allow USDA to meet the security levels required under
Presidential Decision Directive, PDD-67, for the animal and plant
disease facilities at: Plum Island, NY; the National Animal Disease
Center, Ames, IA; the Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, Athens,
GA; the Arthropod-Borne Animal Disease Research Laboratory, Laramie,
WY; and the Foreign Disease Weed Science Laboratory, Fort Detrick, MD.
We also provide $722.8 million in fiscal year 2002 to accelerate the
planning, upgrading, and construction of four of the above named
facilities, including: $234 million for the Plum Island facility; $129
million to renovate the existing Biolevel 3 facilities and $105 million
for planning and construction of a Biosafety level 4 facility; $381
million for modernization of the facilities in Ames, IA; $78 million
for the planning and design of the biocontainment laboratory for
poultry research in Athens, GA; and $29.8 million for the Arthropod-
Born Animal Disease Laboratory, Laramie, WY.
The bill provides $10 million in fiscal year 2002 for USDA to
purchase, and distribute to each of the states, rapid diagnostic field
tests that can give a definitive answer on suspected cases of FMD,
Karnal bunt, anthrax, etc., in only 45 minutes.
These test would represent a strengthened line of security replacing
the current process where the sample is trucked to an airport, flown to
one of the disease labs, tested, and then results are released anywhere
from a day to 4 or 5 days later.
We also make a significant investment in research with $2.71 billion
provided over the next 10 years to continue work ARS is already doing
with state universities and private industry, provide competitive
grants for USDA to award to qualified universities and private
organizations, and general funding for USDA to use in those areas where
it determines we have the most pressing need.
We have worked to keep from tying USDA's hands on this in order to
allow them to respond to future needs or threats that may arise, but
generally the research could include: Expanding on-the-spot diagnostic
capabilities; conducting mapping of microorganisms and pests to
pinpoint their geographical origins; genetically engineer diseases that
will be effective against agents of bioterrorism concerns; improve
plant resistance to potential introduced pathogens; create mass vaccine
delivery systems for animals, poultry, and fish; conduct research with
foreign countries to help reduce disease threats at the source and
remove the natural sources of infectious agents and pests that
terrorists or nations might easily access to threaten the United
States; develop counter toxins; and develop economic models to assist
in risk assessment and prioritization of efforts. Currently, it is
difficult to determine the exact economic effect of an attack on the
United States because the proper economic models do not exist.
Finally, the bill provides $12 million each year for USDA to work in
collaboration with the Oklahoma City counter-terrorism Institute.
This is a significant amount of money. But it is an investment that
requires our immediate attention. I do not want us to ignore this issue
until it is too late.
Nearly 2\1/2\ years ago, as chairman of the Emerging Threats
Subcommittee, I warned at our first hearing that the World Trade Center
was at risk of terrorist attack because of its symbolism of U.S.
economic strength and indulgence. At the time, no one wanted to listen
to the warning.
I take no please in my prediction and the events of September 11. But
I do not want us to ignore similar warnings and threats on
agroterrorism until it is too late. If we do our 10.5 percent of
disposable income spent on food in this country could well be a thing
of the past.
I urge my colleagues to support me in enacting the Biosecurity for
Agriculture Act of 2001.
______
By Mr. SHELBY:
S. 1547. A bill amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and
modify the credit for producing fuel from a nonconventional source, to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Nonconventional Natural Gas Reliability Act. This body has moved
forcefully and responsibly since the tragic events of September 11 to
address the most pressing and immediate needs of the country. However,
action on priorities such as comprehensive energy legislation, has been
delayed but remains vitally important. As Congress moves forward to
address this pressing issue, it is my belief that any comprehensive
energy legislation must include provisions designed to increase access
to North American natural gas supplies.
Following the energy crisis of the 1970's, Section 29 of the Internal
Revenue Code was enacted to provide a tax credit to encourage
production of oil and gas from unconventional sources such as Coalbed
Methane, Devonian Shale, Tight Rock Formations, and Tight Gas Sands.
This credit has helped the industry invest in new technologies that
allow us to recover large oil and gas deposits locked in various
formations that are very expensive to develop.
In 1998, the United States consumed 22 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas. Over the next fifteen years that number is expected to exceed 31
trillion cubic feet. Significant growth in consumption will be
particularly evident in the area of electric generation, where
environmental issues make natural gas the fuel of choice. The National
Petroleum Council predicts that natural gas production by conventional
means will remain relatively constant
[[Page S10703]]
over the next several years, ultimately falling 7 to 9 trillion cubic
feet short of what is needed.
The Gas Technology Institute and the National Petroleum Council
estimate that economic incentives may allow nonconventional natural gas
to bridge to gap by providing an annual addition of 7 to 9 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas to our domestic supply. Section 29 of the
Internal Revenue code was designed to provide this economic incentive.
For current production, ``section 29'' benefits expire at the end of
next year and there are no incentives for new production.
Today I am introducing ``section 29'' legislation which is designed
to keep current ``section 29'' wells in production and provide the
incentive for new wells to be brought on line. Providing a ``clean''
alternative to conventional natural gas, and keeping all of our
existing sources of energy online will continue to be a priority for
this great nation in the years to come. My legislation would provide
section 29 credits for qualifying new wells and facilities through
2009, and for the continuation of benefits to wells and facilities
currently in production through 2006.
Whether it is artificial fracturing of gas bearing formations,
extensive dewatering, gas clean-up issues, these nonconventional
resources can be significant more expensive to drill, to maintain, and
to produce. Thus, it is important to support continued production at
existing wells and facilities.
There are few instances where the facts are more compelling and the
conclusion so clear. Giving section 29 a new lease on life is a wise
investment of taxpayer dollars that will result in lower natural gas
prices and greater domestic energy supply. I encourage my colleagues to
join with me in support of the Nonconventional Natural Gas Reliability
Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1547
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 ``Nonconventional Natural Gas
Reliability Act''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING
FUEL FROM A NONCONVENTIONAL SOURCE.
(a) In General.--Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to credit for producing fuel from a
nonconventional source) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(h) Extension for Other Facilities.--
``(1) Extension for oil and certain gas.--In the case of a
well for producing qualified fuels described in subparagraph
(A) or (B)(i) of subsection (c)(1)--
``(A) Application of credit for new wells.--Notwithstanding
subsection (f), this section shall apply with respect to such
fuels--
``(i) which are produced from a well drilled after the date
of the enactment of this subsection and before January 1,
2007, and
``(ii) which are sold not later than the close of the 4-
year period beginning on the date that such well is drilled,
or, if earlier, December 31, 2009.
``(B) Extension of credit for old wells.--Subsection (f)(2)
shall be applied by substituting `2007' for `2003' with
respect to wells described in subsection (f)(1)(A) with
respect to such fuels.
``(2) Extension period to commence with unadjusted credit
amount.--In determining the amount of credit allowable under
this section solely by reason of this subsection--
``(A) in the case of fuels sold during 2001 and 2002, the
dollar amount applicable under subsection (a)(1) shall be $3
(without regard to subsection (b)(2)), and
``(B) in the case of fuels sold after 2002, subparagraph
(B) of subsection (d)(2) shall be applied by substituting
`2002' for `1979'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to fuel sold after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bond, Mr. Frist,
and Mr. Domenici):
S. 1549. A bill to provide for increasing the technically trained
workforce in the United States; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Mikulski,
Bond, Frist, and Domenici in introducing an innovative response to one
of the greatest challenges to the growth of the Innovation Economy,
America's widening talent gap.
Our technological prowess is unequaled in the world today, which is
why, despite our recent slowdown and the aftershocks of the September
11 attacks, we still have the strongest, most vibrant economy on the
planet, and we obviously have no deficit of ingenuity and
inventiveness.
But our long-term competitive standing and economic security could
well be at risk if we do not address a troubling trendline in our
workforce, the mismatch between the demand and supply of workers with
science and engineering training.
The fact is, the number of jobs requiring significant technical
skills is projected to grow by more than 50 percent in the United
States over the next ten years. But outside of the life sciences, the
number of degrees awarded in science and engineering has been flat or
declining.
This has helped fuel a well-chronicled shortage of qualified New
Economy workers. We have tried to temporarily plug this human capital
hole with a stopgap of foreign workers. But there is a broad consensus
among high-tech leaders and policymakers that it would be a serious
mistake to prolong this dependence and essentially put our GDP at the
mercy of H1B's.
That may sound like a bit of an overstatement to some. But the
reality is that technological innovation is now widely understood to be
the major driver of economic growth, not to mention a critical factor
in our military superiority. And it is widely understood that we cannot
expand our economy in the future if we don't take steps now to expand
our domestic pool of brainpower, the next generation of people who will
incubate and implement the next generation of ideas.
Now, most answers to serious economic challenges flow from the
private sector, which is where growth ultimately occurs. But there are
things that the federal government can do to help, particularly when it
comes to educating and training our workforce. We can provide
leadership, focus, and not least of all resources, and that is the
purpose of the bill we are introducing today.
Our plan aims to fix a critical link in this ``tech talent'' gap,
undergraduate education in science, math, engineering, and technology.
It would create a new competitive grant program within the National
Science Foundation that would encourage institutions of higher
learning, from universities to community colleges, to increase the
number of graduates in these disciplines.
This is not another scholarship program, but a targeted, results-
driven initiative that goes straight to the gatekeepers. We're not
asking them to change their admissions policies, but, in effect, to
design new ``e-missions'' policies. Come up with effective ideas, and
we will provide the dollars to make them work.
For example, institutions could propose to add or strengthen the
interdisciplinary components of undergraduate science education. Or
they could establish targeted support programs for women and
minorities, who are 54 percent of our total workforce, but only 22
percent of scientists and engineers, to increase enrollment in these
fields. Or they could partner with local technology companies to
provide summer industry internships for ongoing research experience.
The pilot program is authorized at $25 million for Fiscal Year 2002,
but our bipartisan coalition hopes the level will rise over the next
several years to approximately $200 million annually, based upon pilot
program results. With that kind of seed money, we're optimistic
thousands of promising new scientists and engineers will soon bloom.
We realize that solving the undergraduate problem is not going to
singlehandedly close our talent gap. We must also dramatically reform
our K-12 public education system, through innovative initiatives such
as Congressman Boehlert's math and science partnerships bill, and
strengthen our national investment in R&D. But it is a vitally
important piece of the productivity puzzle.
For evidence of that, just look at the collection of letters of
support we have received from industry, academia, and professional
organizations, including letters from TechNet, a national network of
CEOs and senior executives from the leading technology and
biotechnology companies; the National Alliance of Business; and STANCO
25 Professor of Economics at Stanford University, Paul Romer, a leading
[[Page S10704]]
growth economist, whose pioneering research underscores the long-term
talent crisis facing our Nation, and who helped us think through this
bill.
These industry, academic, and educational leaders recognize as do we,
that in our knowledge-based economy, we must have people who know what
they're doing, and that is why they have made this problem and our
legislation a top priority. We are grateful for their knowledge and
their support, and we look forward to working with them to better
harvest the enormous potential of America's workforce.
I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for the Tech Talent
bill, from the following organizations and individuals, be printed in
the Record: TechNet, Professor Paul Romer, National Alliance of
Business, Semiconductor Industry Association, American Astronomical
Society, K-12 Science, Mathematics, Engineering & Technology Coalition,
General Electric, American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, and the American Society for Engineering Education.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
TechNet,
Palo Alto, CA, October 8, 2001.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Hon. Bill Frist,
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
Hon. Christopher S. ``Kit'' Bond,
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
Hon. John B. Larson.
Dear Senators Lieberman, Frist, Mikulski, Bond, and
Domenici, and Representatives Boehlert, and Larson: On behalf
of TechNet's 250 technology industry executives, we are
writing to lend our strong endorsement and support for your
legislation to increase the technically trained workforce in
the United States: the Tech Talent Bill. TechNet considers
the lack of a highly skilled American workforce a serious
threat to our nation's future economic and technology growth.
Recent economic studies have shown that technological
progress accounts for more then half of the U.S. economic
growth in the post-war period. Correspondingly, a workforce
highly trained in science, mathematics, engineering and
technology (SMET) is fundamental to our nation's ability to
remain competitive. Yet despite predictions that the number
of jobs requiring technical skills will grow by 51% over the
next decade, from the late 80's to the late 90's the number
of earned bachelor's degrees has decreased by 18% in
engineering and by 36% in math and computer science.
We commend you for taking the lead with a bold and
innovative approach to reverse this perilous trend. The Tech
Talent bill would authorize funding for the National Science
Foundation (NSF) to distribute grants to colleges and
universities that agree to specific increases in the number
of students who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents
obtaining degrees in science, math, engineering and
technology. The NSF would solicit and competitively award
grants, based on a peer-review evaluation, to proposals from
colleges and universities with promising and innovative
programs to increase the number of graduates in the specified
disciplines.
A well-prepared workforce coupled with a strong emphasis on
R&D is the only way to ensure a healthier, economically
solid, and technologically advanced future for America. We
appreciate your steadfast support of policies toward this
end, and we urge you to press forward with this legislation
in both chambers. Please let us know how we can best support
a swift passage of the Tech Talent bill. Thank you for
considering our views on this important issue.
Best regards,
Jim Barksdale, Partner, The Barksdale Group.
John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Claufield, & Byers.
Rick White, President & CEO, TechNet.
Carol Bartz, CEO & Chairman of the Board, Autodesk, Inc.
Craig Barrett, CEO, Intel Corporation.
Eric Benhamou, Chairman, 3Com.
Hale Boggs, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.
Bob Brisco, CEO, CARSDIRECT.COM.
Sheryle Bolton, Chairman & CEO, Scientific Learning
Corporation.
Richard M. Burnes, Jr., Partner, Charles River Ventures.
Daniel H. Case III, Chairman & CEO, JP Morgan H & Q.
Bruce Claflin, President & CEO, 3Com.
Ron Conway, Founder and General Partner, Angel Investors,
LLP.
Joe Cullinane, CEO Telum Group, Inc.
Dean DeBiase, Chairman Autoweb.
Aart de Geus, CEO and Chairman, Synopsys.
Paul Deninger, Chairman & CEO, Broadview International LLC.
Gary Dickerson, Chief Operating Officer, KLA-Tencor
Corporation.
William H. Draper III, General Partner, Draper Richards
L.P.
Thomas J. Engibous, Chairman, President & CEO, Texas
Instruments.
Carl Feldbaum, President, Biotechnology Industry
Organization.
Boris Feldman, Partner, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati.
Ken Goldman, CFO, Siebel Systems.
Christopher Greene, President & CEO, Greene Engineers.
Michael D. Goldberg, Managing Director, JasperCapital.
Nancy Heinen, Senior VP, General Counsel, Apple.
Jeffrey O. Henley, Executive VP & CFO, Oracle Corporation.
Bob Herbold, Executive Vice President & COO, Microsoft
Corporation.
Casey Hoffman, CEO & Founder, Supportkids.com.
Guy Hoffman, Venture Partner, TL Ventures.
Kingdon R. Hughes, President, Rush Network.
Scott Jones, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Escient.
Nicholas Konidaris, CEO, Advantest America, Inc.
David Lane, Partner, Diamondhead Venture Management LLC.
Paul Lippe, CEO, SKOLAR.
Arthur D. Levinson, PhD, Chairman & CEO, Genetech.
Ken Levy, Chairman, KLA-Tencor Corporation.
Lori P. Mirek, President & CEO, Currenex--Global Financial
Exchange.
Henry Samueli, PhD, Co-Chairman & CTO, Broadcom
Corporation.
Douglas G. Scrivner, General Counsel, Accenture.
Stratton Sclavos, President & CEO, VeriSign Inc.
Gary Shapiro, President & CEO, Consumer Electronics
Association.
Rohit Shukla, President & CEO, LARTA.
Gregory W. Slayton, President and CEO, ClickAction.
Ted Smith, Chairman, FileNET.
Robert W. Sterns, Principal, Sternhill Partners.
George Sundheim III, President, Doty, Sundheim & Gilmore.
John Young, Retired President & CEO, Hewlett Packard.
____
Stanford University,
Graduate School of Business,
Stanford, CA, October 10, 2001.
Senator Christopher Bond,
Senator Pete Domenici,
Senator William Frist,
Senator Joseph Lieberman,
Senator Barbara Mikulski,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Bond, Domenici, Frist, Lieberman, and
Mikulski: Your Tech Talent bill will reinvigorate one of the
most successful policies in the history of our nation--
government support for broad undergraduate training in
science and engineering. Since the end of the 19th century,
people trained in these areas have turned scientific
opportunity into technological progress. With their help, we
harnessed the twin engines of the market and technology.
Together, these engines powered the United States into our
current position of unchallenged worldwide political and
economic leadership.
Unfortunately, success breeds complacency. In recent
decades, our achievements in undergraduate science education
have fallen behind those in many other countries.
In the domain of the market, our government fostered growth
by doing less. It stood aside and gave people the freedom to
start new ventures, introduce new products, and improve on
old ways of doing things. By contrast, in the domain of
technology, our government fostered growth by doing more, but
in a way that supported market competition. The Morrill Acts
of 1862 and 1890 created a new type of university, one
committed not to an elite study of art or science for its own
sake. Instead, these new institutions emphasized the
practical application of knowledge. They offered instruction
in the ``agricultural and mechanic arts'' and the various
branches of science, with ``special reference to their
application in the industries of life.'' The land grant
universities created and supported by these acts helped many
more farmers and miners, tinkerers and inventors,
entrepreneurs and managers, engineers and researchers compete
in the market by developing new technologies or applying
technologies developed by others.
Since World War II, the federal government has wisely
increased its support for basic research by current
university professors and graduate training of future
professors. Unfortunately, this support seems to have come at
the expense of our early commitment to undergraduate
education in science and engineering. At the beginning of the
20th century, this commitment put us far ahead of the rest of
the world. At the beginning of the 21st century, we lag
behind many other countries according to such basic measures
as the fraction of all 24-year-olds who receive an
undergraduate degree in engineering or the natural sciences.
Your bill can begin our return to worldwide leadership in
undergraduate science and engineering education. It will
reward colleges and universities that devote more effort to
teaching, that develop innovative instructional materials,
that pull students into science instead of ``weeding them
out.''
If we can increase the number of undergraduates who receive
science and engineering degrees our companies will have more
highly skilled workers. Our schools will have more math and
science teachers. Our Ph.D.
[[Page S10705]]
programs will have more qualified applicants. Our economy
will grow faster and our nation will be stronger.
Sincerely yours,
Paul M. Romer.
____
October 5, 2001.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lieberman: We commend you for your leadership
in sponsoring the Technology Talent bill. This bill focuses
attention on an important workforce issue for business and
for America's growing knowledge-based economy--the need to
increase the number of U.S. students graduating with degrees
in mathematics, science, engineering, and technology from the
nation's universities and community colleges.
American businesses face a constant challenge to find
sufficient numbers of professionals with proficiency in these
key disciplines. The number of students graduating with
degrees in these fields has both failed to keep pace with an
ever-increasing demand, and actually declined. Since 1990,
for example the number of bachelor degrees in electrical
engineering awarded at U.S. universities has declined 37
percent. We must address this need if the United States is to
maintain its economic and technological leadership.
The demonstration grant program established by the Tech
Talent bill will provide new incentives for universities,
colleges, and community colleges to increase the number of
graduates with bachelor and associate degrees in science,
mathematics, engineering and technology. The bill also will
encourage mentoring, bridge programs from secondary to
postsecondary education, and creative approaches for
traditionally underrepresented groups to earn degrees in
these disciplines.
We look forward to working with you and your colleagues to
secure enactment of this legislation.
Sincerely,
3M Company; AeA.; AT&T.; Business-Higher Education Forum;
Compaq Computer Corporation; IBM Corporation;
Information Technology Association of America; Intel
Corporation; Minority Business RoundTable; Motorola;
National Alliance of Business; National Venture Capital
Association; Northern Virginia Technology Council;
SchoolTone Alliance; Semiconductor Industry
Association; Software and Information Industry
Association; TechNet; Texas Instruments; Verizon; and
Williams.
____
SIA,
San Jose, CA, October 3, 2001.
Re Tech Talent Act.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lieberman: The Semiconductor Industry
Association applauds your introduction of the Technology
Talent Act as an important action to expand the technically
trained workforce in the United States.
Over the next five to fifteen years, the semiconductor
manufacturing process that the industry has used for the past
thirty years will have reached its physical limits. It will
take significant investments to develop the human resources
necessary to develop replacement processes and electronic
device structures. Absent these investments, the continued
productivity gains that our economy has enjoyed from
information technology advances will be lost.
The demonstration program established by the Tech Talent
bill will provide incentive for universities, colleges and
community colleges to increase the number of graduates with
bachelors and associates' degrees in science, mathematics,
engineering and technology. We are pleased that the bill
encourages mentoring programs, bridge programs and other
innovative approaches to helping increase the number of U.S.
students graduating with degrees in these disciplines. That
should not only help to increase the supply by retaining more
of the students who are already enrolled, but also help
attract more students from traditionally under-represented
groups to pursue careers in our industry and other high tech
sectors.
We look forward to working with you and your colleagues to
help ensure the legislation's swift and favorable
consideration. Thank you again for your leadership on this
issue.
Sincerely,
George Scalise,
President.
____
AAS,
Pasadena, CA, September 10, 2001.
Re Tech Talent Bill.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lieberman: I am writing to thank you and your
colleagues for introducing the ``Tech Talent Bill''. I will
work to support this legislation as it moves through
Congress.
As you know, the decline in our technical workforce is
negatively affecting our national economy and worldwide
competitiveness. The American Institute of Physics (AIP) has
tracked the number of students earning doctorates from U.S.
institutions in the physical sciences since 1962. Today,
roughly 1,350 doctorates are awarded each year. In 1970, this
number was nearly 1,600. Although this statistic does
fluctuate from year to year, it has steadily declined over
the last several years, dropping 11% between 1994 and 1998.
Additionally, the fraction of foreign students earning
doctorates has increased dramatically. According to AIP
statistics, 46% of physics doctorates are foreign nationals.
The Administrator of NASA, Dan Goldin, highlighted this
problem in a recent article in the Atlantic magazine
(September 2001). In this article, he points out that due to
the small number of qualified engineers and physical
scientists, design, construction and operation of space
probes is becoming difficult. Although not for certain, he
suggests that this shortage may have played a role in the
recent failures of the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate
Orbiter. According to Mr. Goldin, nearly as many students
earn undergraduate degrees in parks, recreation and leisure
as earn degrees in electrical engineering. This is a shocking
fact for a Nation built on technology and science.
By motivating universities to increase the number of
students earning physical science degrees, this legislation
will have a direct impact on this problem. I strongly support
the ``Tech Talent Bill'' and hope to work with you to ensure
its passage in this Congressional term.
Sincerely,
Anneila Sargent,
President.
____
K-12 Science, Mathematics, Engineering & Technology
Education Coalition,
October 15, 2001.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lieberman: The K-12 Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology Education Coalition commends you
and Senators Frist, Mikulski, and Bond for introducing the
``Tech Talent'' bill, designed to increase the United States'
technically trained workforce. It is imperative to develop a
highly skilled workforce to maintain our national security
and foster future economic growth. We believe that the
journey begins before college.
We are pleased that your legislation encourages
universities to partner with community colleges, industry
organizations, professional societies and local schools to
pave the way for students of all ages and backgrounds to
further their interests in science, mathematics, engineering
and technology (SMET) coursework and career paths.
In October of this year, the deans of engineering and the
deans of education from 50 universities met in concert to
develop strategic collaborations to enhance K-12 teacher
preparation in SMET and to invigorate engineering education.
Collaborations of this type can and should be replicated by
more universities and across all science, mathematics,
engineering, and technological disciplines.
This bill will assist in the development and implementation
of innovative approaches to increasing enrollments and
graduates in key SMET degrees, which is critical to our
economy, our national security, and the future job prospects
of our children. Providing incentives and rewards to
educational institutions for increasing SMET enrollments and
graduates is an excellent approach to jumpstart that process.
We applaud your dedication and foresight in protecting and
enhancing America's future workforce.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Patti
Burgio at 202.785.7385.
____
GE Corporate Research & Development, The General Electric
Company,
October 12, 2001.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lieberman: The General Electric Company highly
commends you, along with Senators Bond, Mikulski, Frist, and
Domenici and Representatives Boehlert and Larson, for
introducing the ``Tech Talent'' bill. We fully endorse and
support the revival of a highly technical workforce in the
United States.
While our company embraces technical expertise from around
the globe, we believe it is vital to our nation's long-term
economic strength to grow and develop our domestic talent as
well. This legislation will create that strength without
discriminating against global technical talent.
We applaud your approach to creating a grant program that
itself inspires colleges and universities to take a creative
and innovative approach to broadening science, mathematics,
engineering and technology enrollment. We believe that this
approach will not result in a one-time spike in enrollment,
instead it enables a fundamental change in philosophy for a
long-term increase in technical education.
There is no better time for this legislation. Our nation's
economy is heavily dependent on a highly skilled workforce,
with more than 50 percent of our economic growth stemming
from technological progress. We look forward to assisting you
in any way possible with this legislation. Thank you for your
continued support of technology and innovation initiatives in
America.
Sincerely,
Scott C. Donnelly,
Senior Vice President.
[[Page S10706]]
____
American Association of
State Colleges and Universities,
Washington, DC, October 12, 2001.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lieberman: On behalf of the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) I am
writing to express our strong support for the, ``Technology
Talent Act of 2001.'' AASCU is comprised of more than 430
public colleges, universities and systems of public higher
education located throughout the United States and its
territories. Our Connecticut members include: Central
Connecticut State University, Eastern Connecticut State
University, Southern Connecticut State University, Western
Connecticut State University and the Connecticut State
University System.
AASCU truly appreciates your leadership in recognizing the
need to increase the nation's technically trained workforce,
as well as your commitment to address this need by
introducing legislation that will, if adequately funded, go a
long way towards achieving this goal. AASCU strongly supports
the legislation's requirement that at least one principal
investigator be in a position of administrative leadership at
the institution of higher education. This requirement will
ensure that the commitment for increasing the number of
bachelor's degrees will be institution wide. Additionally, we
believe the legislation's priority to award grants to
institutions that draw on previous and existing efforts in
improving undergraduate learning and teaching is right on
target.
Again, thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look
forward to working with you as the ``Technology Talent Act of
2001'' progresses through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Elmendorf,
Vice President for Government
Relations and Policy Analysis.
____
American Society for
Engineering Education,
Washington, DC, October 12, 2001.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lieberman: On behalf of the members of the
Engineering Deans Council (EDC) of the American Society for
Engineering Education (ASEE), we are writing to thank you for
introducing the Tech Talent bill, which is intended to
increase the technically trained workforce of our nation. Now
more than ever it is important for Americans to focus on
strengthening and increasing the science and technology
workforce of the United States.
Engineering schools have a major role to play in efforts to
expand the nation's technical workforce. We are very
interested in examining the provisions of the competitive
grant program to be established at the National Science
Foundation. Those that are intended to increase the number of
U.S. citizens or permanent residents obtaining degrees in
science, mathematics, engineering or technology (SMET) can be
helpful to all of us in engineering education. The incentives
to degree-granting institutions to encourage creative ways of
recruiting students who may not earlier have felt they could
succeed in these fields will insure innovative, aggressive
program proposal submissions. We are glad to see that strong
emphasis will be placed on an evaluation of methods employed
in the grant activities.
This legislation will provide an opportunity to build on
the activities that many of our colleges have underway,
including mentoring high school students and engaging them in
other activities designed to interest them in enrolling in
SMET programs. Earlier this year we held the first
Engineering Deans Council panel discussion on opportunities
for collaboration between engineering and education schools.
At the beginning of October pairs of deans of engineering and
deans of education met for the ``Deans Summit'' in Baltimore.
The purpose of this conference was to stimulate these deans
to develop collaborations, which would result in programs to
improve the quality of preparation of students for SMET
careers. As participants in the Deans Summit, we can testify
that many innovative programs were developed by pairs of
deans from the institutions represented. We think this
legislation will be very helpful to these collaborations.
Many of the institutions will be very eager to develop
proposals in response to its provisions. The incentives
provided in this bill will certainly attract attention, and
we think will achieve the purpose of increasing enrollments
as well as improve the quality of preparation.
The Engineering Deans Council of the American Society for
Engineering Education (ASEE) is the leadership organization
of the more than 300 deans of engineering in the United
States. Founded in 1893, ASEE is a nonprofit association
dedicated to the improvement of engineering and engineering
technology education.
We greatly appreciate your strong and continuing interest
in and support for the development of our nation's scientific
and technical workforce. If we can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to get in touch with us.
Sincerely,
Carl E. Locke, Jr.,
Dean of Engineering, University of Kansas-Lawrence, Chair,
Engineering Deans Council.
David N. Wormley,
Dean of Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, Vice
Chair, Engineering Deans Council.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Lieberman,
Mikulski, Bond and Domenici in introducing the Tech Talent bill. This
legislation will build on and compliment legislation I introduced
earlier this year, the Math and Science Partnership Act.
Today, we are talking about college math and science majors and their
role in our economic and scientific future. But, precollege science and
math instruction has an important relationship to the future supply of
U.S. scientific and technological personnel as well. For example,
students who take rigorous mathematics and science courses in high
school are much more likely to go on to college than those who do not.
Data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study reveal that 83
percent of students who took algebra I and geometry, and nearly 89
percent of students who took chemistry, went on to college, compared to
only 36 percent of students who did not take algebra and geometry and
43 percent of students who did not take chemistry. Yet 31 percent of
our college bound high school seniors did not take four years or more
of mathematics, and 51 percent of college bound high school seniors did
not take four years or more of science.
There is another link between precollege and college math and science
instruction: before you can major in science or math in college, you
must have a strong understanding of the basics. Yet, the most recent
NAEP science assessments showed that only approximately one-third of
our 4th, 8th and 12th grade students were performing at the basic
level. And only 3 percent of the students at all three grade levels
reached the advanced level of scientific proficiency.
The Math and Science Partnership program, which is now part of the
education reform bill, authorizes $900 million in 2002 to enhance K-12
math and science education. It will help more of our children learn the
basics of math and science and encourage more of them to go to college.
The Tech Talent Bill will make sure that once they get to college,
they are encouraged to complete the loop: major in science, engineering
or computer science so that we can fill the high tech jobs that are
fundamental to our nation's future prosperity and to our ability to
remain competitive in an increasingly global marketplace.
The Tech Talent Bill rewards colleges and universities that increase
the number of math and science majors that graduate. And the bill lets
the universities figure out the best way to do so. It will not stifle
creativity. Our economy needs a workforce highly trained in science,
mathematics, engineering and technology, and that is why I believe this
bill is very important, and should be a top priority.
I am proud to support this bill, and I commend Senator Lieberman for
his leadership on this issue.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, innovation drives a significant part of
our domestic economy; it's absolutely vital in maintaining our standard
of living. Estimates are that at least half of our economic growth in
the post-WWII period was driven by advanced technologies.
Innovation is especially critical today at a time when our economy
has shown significant weaknesses. We need to continue to look toward
our ability to innovate, to bring new products and processes to the
market place, to help spur recovery.
Innovation depends on many factors, ranging from the research done in
our superb universities and laboratories to the flow of capital
investments into entrepreneurial start-up companies. One of the very
key factors is the existence of a well qualified workforce, ready to
support high technology industries. Increasingly, preparation of that
workforce is at risk in the United States, this should be cause for
great concern.
That's why I welcome this opportunity to join with Senators
Lieberman, Bond, Mikulski, and Frist, as well as with Congressmen
Boehlert and Larson, to provide my support as an original co-sponsor of
the
[[Page S10707]]
Tech Talent Bill. This bill can help to reverse disturbing trends in
the technical credentials of our future workforce.
Studies show that the number of jobs requiring technical training
will increase by 51 percent over the next decade. Six million new
technical openings are projected to be needed by 2008. But the trend is
exactly the opposite, our number of bachelor's degrees has dropped 21
percent in engineering and 32 percent in math and computer science over
the last decade.
In the last few years, we've filled many technical positions with
foreign workers, and we've heard repeated cries from our high tech
industries about their need for larger visa programs to allow these
workers to enter the country. In addition, increasing numbers of our
undergraduate and graduate students are citizens of another country.
Frequently, both foreign students who have completed technical
studies in the United States and foreign technical workers admitted
under special visas return to their native lands. That fuels a
continuing outflow of technical expertise from our country.
That's good for other countries, who are striving to build up their
technical capabilities, but it sure isn't good for the United States.
The trend is ominous. In 1985, we led most countries in the number of
research personnel as a percent of our workforce. In 1998, we were well
behind countries like Japan.
This trend is even worse if we look at young technical workers,
because much of our strength is from older workers from past years when
technical education was more popular here. If we look at the fraction
of 24 year-old workers with technical training, the U.S. lags behind
many countries including Japan, Korea, Germany, Ireland, Canada, France
and the United Kingdom.
This problem is even more evident if we look at the fraction of
bachelor-level degrees awarded in science and engineering. In the
United States, the figure is about one-third. But in China, our one-
third is replaced by their 72 percent, and Japan, Russia and Brazil
exceed 60 percent. In all of Asia, 47 percent of all degrees are in
science and engineering. It's even worse if we focus on engineering,
where 5 percent of our bachelor's degrees are awarded. In China, that
figure is 46 percent. And that figure is 30 or more percent in
countries like Germany, Russia, Singapore, and Finland, and over 20
percent in many countries including Japan, France and Sweden.
Traditionally, the United States has led the world in patents. But if
we look at the growth in patenting in the U.S. and elsewhere, the trend
is serious. Countries like Japan have higher growth rates in patenting
then we do.
I already noted the importance of innovation in driving our economic
growth. We don't compete well in the international marketplace on
manufacture of low-tech goods. In fact, where a product has been on the
market for awhile, other countries tend to capture the manufacturing
market. That's why it's so critical that we maintain a strong flow of
innovative products it's in the newest, highest technology, products
that we are most competitive.
We can't afford to maintain some of the current trends. We were
graduating about 18,000 students a year with bachelor's degrees in the
physical sciences in the 1970s, today that figure is around 15,000. As
another bad example, our graduates in mathematics have fallen to about
half the 25,000 graduates per year in the 1970s.
We need to reverse these trends. We need to excite more students to
pursue technical careers. We need to do far better at showing students
the opportunities that can open for them if they pursue technical paths
in their education.
This bill will help in this quest. By providing grants to schools and
community colleges to increase their production of technical workers,
we are providing direct motivation to the schools which have a
significant hand in guiding students into various fields. These grants
will serve to challenge schools to find better, more convincing,
approaches to encourage student behavior.
It was particularly important to me that this bill offer these
incentives at the community college level. Students are increasingly
finding that these institutions offer the best match to their
educational needs. It will be at the community college level that we
can excite many new students who might have chosen other specialities.
Reversing the trends I've described won't happen overnight, it will
take many years. But the future benefits to our your people and to our
nation are immense. I'm pleased to join the co-sponsors of this
important bill in seeking to address this very real issue.
____________________