[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11287-S11291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 1595. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to
establish a program to control bovine Johne's disease; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Johne's
Disease Elimination Act, which would provide incentives to encourage
dairy producers to voluntarily begin testing for Johne's disease and to
remove infected and exposed animals from their dairy herds.
Johne's disease is a devastating infection that has adversely
impacted dairy herds across the country for many years.
Johne's disease was identified more than a century ago, yet remains a
common and costly infectious disease of dairy cattle.
Johne's disease starts as an infection in calves, though indications
do not appear until 2 to 5 years later. Over 20 percent of all dairy
herds may be infected with an animal pathogen that causes Johne's
disease, which causes losses in milk production and an eventual wasting
away of the animal. And if not detected and eliminated, the disease can
spread throughout the herd.
This animal disease, for which there is no cure, is projected to cost
U.S. diary producers in excess of $200 million annually.
Let me repeat, $200 million. The average cost to producers is about
$245 per cow. In other words, the cost for a 100 cow dairy with an
infected herd would be about $24,000.
One of the biggest challenge to eradicate Johne's disease is the lack
of a consistent national or industry-wide education or control program.
One of the more prominent recent efforts involves the Johne's Committee
of the U.S. Animal Health Association, which formed the National
Johne's Working Group to begin more cohesive education, research, and
control efforts to deal with the disease.
The legislation I am introducing today is based on the work of the
National Johne's Working Group. My legislation would authorize the
creation of a program to encourage dairy herd owners to be practically
free of Johne's disease in 7 years.
This program would be absolutely voluntary and confidential, as the
working group recommended.
This program would provide incentives to encourage dairy producers to
voluntarily begin testing for Johne's disease and to remove infected
and exposed animals from their dairy herds.
The incentives provided will also help farmers to perform herd risk
assessments and utilize best management practices to develop
appropriate Johne's Herd Management Plans to prevent further
introduction and spread of the disease.
We need to listen to America's dairy industry and follow their common
sense suggestions to eradicate a disease that hurts dairy farmers
across the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in
cosponsoring this legislation.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1598. To amend section 1706 of title 38, United States Code, to
enhance the management of the provision by the Department of Veterans
Affairs of specialized treatment and rehabilitation for disabled
veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am proud today to introduce
legislation that would improve upon the current requirement that the
Department of Veterans Affairs maintain specialized health care
services. It is my hope that the ``Veterans Specialized Treatment Act''
will finally settle the issue and that high quality, specialized health
care services will be readily available to our veterans at each and
every VA hospital.
From its inception, the Department of Veterans' Affairs' health care
system has been challenged to meet the special needs of its veteran
patients, such as spinal cord injuries, amputations, blindness, post-
traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, and homelessness. Over the
years, VA has developed widely recognized expertise in providing
specialized services to meet these needs. We have all been proud of
VA's expertise, some of which is unparalleled in the larger health care
community.
Unfortunately, in recent years, VA's specialized programs have come
under stress due to budget constraints, reorganizational changes, and
the introduction of a new resource allocation system. Budgetary
pressures, in particular, raised concerns back in 1996 that VA's costly
specialized programs may be particularly vulnerable and
disproportionately subject to reductions. As a result, Congress
recognized the need to include protections for the specialized services
programs. Public Law 104-262 specifically required the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to maintain capacity to provide for the specialized
treatment needs of disabled veterans at the level in existence at the
time the bill was passed, October 9, 1996 and to report annually to
Congress on the status of its efforts.
While each of the VA's required reports have proclaimed success in
maintaining capacity, some remain skeptical. The General Accounting
Office found that ``much more information and analyses are needed to
support VA's, 1998, conclusion, that capacity was up to par.'' The VA
Federal Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special Disability
Programs has in the past called VA's data ``flawed'' and has not
endorsed all of VA's report. In 1999, my own staff on the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs also examined VA's implementation of the law and
found that certain key programs, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
and substance abuse disorder programs, were not meeting the mandated
capacity levels.
The most recent report shows, again, that there is concern about
whether VA is adhering to the law. The VA Federal Committee on Care of
Severely Chronically Mentally Ill Veterans stated in an official
response that the 2000 report on capacity ``once again, documents the
Department's decline in maintaining specialized services for . . . high
priority patients, without explicitly acknowledging it.'' Committee
members also emphasized that based on the results of the report, it did
not appear that high-quality, system-wide access to specialized
services is being provided by VA.
I am disappointed that VA has still been unable to properly
demonstrate that adequate levels of care for those veterans with
specialized health care needs are being maintained. The legislation I
introduce today seeks to remedy this problem by closing loopholes in
the original law to ensure VA's compliance. Congress has spoken quite
clearly in the past: VA does not have the discretion about whether or
not to maintain capacity for specialized services.
My proposed legislation would modify the existing report and require
that VA submit information on the number of full-time staff providing
treatment and the number of dedicated staffed beds; the number of
veterans served by each such distinct program and facility; the number
of units of service provided to veterans by such program, including the
number of inpatient and residential days of care as well as the number
of outpatient visits; and the amount of money spent for the care of
veterans using these specialized services. Having this information for
each of the distinct specialized services will allow Congress to fully
understand how the specialized services are fairing. While I applaud
VA's use of outcome measures, I believe it is imperative that the
report contain hard data on the number of staffed beds and other
information.
VA would also be required to maintain capacity of the Department at
each and every medical center. Current law only requires that
``overall'' capacity be maintained.
Another key element of the legislation is that the Inspector General
of
[[Page S11288]]
VA would conduct an annual audit to ensure that the requirements of the
capacity law are carried out every year. The IG would also be required
to review the VA's yearly report and provide their assessment, on that
report, to Congress. Finally, in an effort to encourage VA managers to
comply with the legislation, VA would be required to look at the status
of the specialized services programs whenever job performance is
reviewed.
My colleagues, I ask for your support of this bill, as it would help
ensure that specialized services, a crucial segment of the health care
VA provides to veterans, are maintained at the necessary level.
______
By Mr. DAYTON:
S. 1600. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
Medicare beneficiaries a refundable credit against income tax for the
purchase of outpatient prescription drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, one of the groups consistently left out
of most current economic stimulus proposals are America's senior
citizens. Prescription drug prices continue to escalate, putting
enormous financial strains on seniors in Minnesota and throughout the
Nation. That is why I am introducing today The Rx Relief for Seniors
Act. It would give America's hard-pressed senior citizens a one-time,
refundable tax credit of up to $500 per individual and up to $1,000 per
married couple, to offset their payments for prescription drugs during
the year 2001.
Millions of senior citizens in my home state of Minnesota and
throughout this country have had their limited personal incomes ravaged
by the rising costs of prescription medicines. These escalating prices
force the elderly to reduce their expenditures for other essential
needs such as food, clothing, and utilities. They also prevent seniors
from spending money on additional discretionary items such as
recreation, travel, and other needed goods and services.
The assurance of this $500 refundable tax credit, either as a credit
on Federal taxes due next April 15, or as a cash refund from the
Internal Revenue Service shortly thereafter, would permit budget-
conscious senior citizens to increase immediately their purchases of
additional consumer goods and services. Seniors, especially the
majority who live on limited and fixed incomes, would be among the
people most likely to spend quickly any new tax relief and thus help
stimulate the economy. For this reason, the bill directs the Secretary
of Health and Human Services to notify all Medicare beneficiaries that
they are eligible for this refundable tax credit for their 2001
prescription drug purchases.
Since my election to the Senate a year ago, I have been urging my
colleagues to adopt some form of prescription drug coverage for
America's senior citizens. Regrettably, such permanent, comprehensive
coverage has been once again delayed by differences over the design of
such a program. Yet, for millions of elderly citizens, the financial
strains caused by escalating drug costs are urgent and acute. The Rx
Relief for Seniors Act would provide them with a one-time dose of
immediate relief. Hopefully, it would also provide a transition to
permanent, comprehensive prescription drug coverage legislation next
year.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs.
Clinton):
S. 1602. A bill to help protect the public against the threat of
chemical attack; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today I am introducing a bill, the
Chemical Security Act of 2001, that will reduce the vulnerability of
our communities to releases of hazardous chemicals.
In the past, concern about chemical facilities has largely focused on
accidental releases. Unfortunately, recent events have shown that the
potential for catastrophic accidents is still with us. As recently as
September 21, an accident at a chemical plant in France caused 300 tons
of nitrates to explode, killing 29, injuring thousands, and damaging
10,000 houses.
We need to ensure that we are taking all appropriate measures to
prevent such catastrophes from occurring accidentally. But today, in
the world of post 9/11, perhaps more importantly, we need to ensure
that we do what we can to prevent such catastrophes from being caused
intentionally by terrorists.
In the wake of the attacks in New York and Washington, it is clear
that wee need to look at all of our nation's assets and people as
potential terrorist targets. We need to get ahead of the curve as
quickly as we can. I believe that one of the places that we need to
look first is at our nation's chemical production, processing,
transportation and disposal infrastructure. Vulnerability of these
sectors to either terrorist attack or the theft of dangerous chemicals
can pose a serious threat to public health, safety and the environment.
This is not just my opinion, Madam President. The Department of
Justice studied this matter last year and concluded that there is a
``real and credible threat'' that terrorists would try to cause an
industrial chemical release in the foreseeable future. The Department
noted that attacking an existing chemical facility, for example,
presents an easier and more attractive alternative for terrorists than
constructing a weapon of mass destruction. In addition, the Department
concluded that many plants that contain hazardous chemicals would be
attractive targets for terrorists because of the plants' proximity to
densely populated areas. This is certainly the case in my home state of
New Jersey--the most densely populated State in the Nation.
Other studies also have shown that our nation's chemical facilities
are indeed vulnerable. For example, the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry studied over 60 chemical plants in West Virginia,
Georgia, and Nevada. The Agency found that security at those plants
ranged from fair to very poor.
As I noted earlier, beyond the new threat of terrorism is the
existing problem of chemical accidents. According to the National
Response Center of the United States Coast Guard, which is the sole
point of registry for reporting oil and chemical spills, there were
28,822 accidental industrial chemical releases in 1998. Those releases
caused 2,193 injuries and 170 deaths.
Remarkably, Madam President, despite this risk, the federal
government lacks mandatory security standards for any chemical
facilities. Even those in densely populated areas. Even those with
extremely hazardous chemicals. Now we do require owners and operators
of such facilities to prepare risk management plans that analyze the
potential off-site consequences of a release of regulated substances.
These reports must include plans to prevent an unintended release and
to mitigate the effects of such a release, should it occur. However, no
federal requirements are in place that require specific steps to
prevent releases caused by criminal or terrorist activity.
Madam President, the Chemical Security Act of 2001 would fill this
gap in current law by requiring common sense steps to address the
highest priority threats from accidents and attacks involving hazardous
chemicals.
To enable the federal government to take immediate action upon
enactment to address the most serious risks on a case-by-case basis,
the bill provides EPA and the Attorney General the authority to issue
administrative orders and secure relief through the courts to abate an
imminent and substantial endangerment from a potential accidental or
criminal release.
The bill directs the EPA Administrator to consult with the Attorney
General, states and localities to identify ``high priority'' categories
within our chemical production, processing, transportation and disposal
infrastructure. In designating these ``high priority'' categories, the
Administrator is to consider a set of factors, including the severity
of potential harm from a release, proximity to population centers,
threats to critical infrastructure and national security, and other
factors the Administrator considers appropriate.
The bill also directs the Administrator to consider threshold
quantities of chemicals in establishing high priority categories. This
is to ensure that small businesses like gas stations and photo shops
are not swept up in the regulations.
Those businesses that are designated as high priorities are subject
to two
[[Page S11289]]
other provisions of the bill designed to reduce the threat of chemical
attacks.
First, a general duty is placed on any owner or operator of a
facility that falls within a high priority category to identify
hazards, take measures to prevent a criminal release, and minimize the
consequences of any criminal release that occurs.
Second, the EPA is directed to develop regulations for the high
priority categories that will require them to take adequate actions to
prevent, control, and minimize the potential consequences of an
accident or attack.
The bill includes other provisions to enable the EPA and the Attorney
General to carry out and enforce the act, such as the authority to
obtain information that may be needed, while providing for protection
of trades secrets and national security information.
Madam President, the legislation is not overly prescriptive, and this
is intentional. I believe that in the wake of September 11, it is self-
evident that we need to do a better job safeguarding our communities
from terrorism. And I believe that the possibility of chemical attacks
is something we need to look at. So the heart of the bill is a
requirement that EPA and DOJ work with state and local agencies to
ensure that the highest priority threats from chemical facilities are
being addressed. But I don't want to tie the hands of the executive
branch. I think that they should have wide latitude in determining what
types of chemicals and facilities need to implement better security
measures. But this latitude should not be misconstrued as a mandate to
regulate gas stations, photo shops, and everyone under the sun who uses
hazardous chemicals. Rather, the latitude is there to give EPA and DOJ
broad enough authority so that they are able to address the most
pressing threats, wherever they may be.
Madam President, strengthening security at high priority chemical
sources is an immediate and necessary step to safeguard our
communities. Over the longer, term, however, I believe that our desire
to protect our communities and our environment will be best served by
reducing the use of hazardous chemicals. That's why this bill includes
provisions to require high priority chemical sources to reduce risks
where practicable by using inherently safer technology, well-maintained
secondary control equipment, robust security measures, and buffer
zones.
We have seen this type of approach work in New Jersey, where the
legislature enacted a law requiring facilities to implement alternate
processes that would reduce the risk of a release of extremely
hazardous substances. After the enactment of this law, the number of
water treatment plants using levels of chlorine at a level considered
extremely hazardous decreased from 575 in 1988 to 22 in September of
2001. Chlorine, which can cause a number of problems include burning of
the skin and eyes, nosebleeds, chest pain, and death, was replaced by
sodium hypochlorite or other much less hazardous chemicals or
processes. Although I believe this New Jersey law has afforded my
constituents a high level of safety with regard to accidents, the
current federal and state security requirements in New Jersey do not
address the threat of terrorist attacks. I suspect that this is most if
not all of our states, Madam President. That's why it's critical for
Congress to act.
I am glad to note, Madam President, that the chemical industry has
indicated a willingness to engage the federal government on the issue
of security. On October 4, 2001, the American Chemistry Council sent a
letter to President Bush, requesting that the federal government
immediately begin a comprehensive assessment of security at chemical
plants. On October 10, a representative of the American Chemistry
Council who testified before the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water and the Environment reiterated
this message, stating that ``Our industry believes it will benefit from
a comprehensive assessment conducted by appropriate federal law
enforcement, national security and safety experts. While we are taking
aggressive steps to make our operations more secure, we recognize that
we cannot achieve this objective by ourselves.'' Madam President, I
agree with the American Chemistry Council's on this point, and I look
forward to working with industry to ensure that the federal government
has the tools that it needs to play its proper role.
In conclusion, Madam President, reducing the threat of a terrorist
attack against a chemical facility, or an accidental release of
hazardous substances, is critically important to ensure the safety of
all Americans. We should not wait any longer before beginning to
address this problem, and I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 1604. A bill to establish a national historic barn preservation
program; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the National
Historic Barn Preservation Act of 2001.
As I am sure my colleagues agree, historic barns are some of
America's greatest national treasures symbolizing the agriculture
foundations upon which our Nation was founded. Unfortunately, many are
in danger of falling beyond repair. These symbols of the American
spirit are a vital component of our cultural heritage and must be
preserved.
From our agricultural beginnings in Colonial times to the
frontiersmen' expansion to the West, barns have been a fixture of the
rural American landscape. Unfortunately, Agriculture and farm
production has weathered many painful changes over the past decades.
These changes have been particularly difficult for small and medium
sized farms where most of our nation's historic barns reside. According
to a survey conducted by Successful Farming, 65 percent of the farmers
surveyed had barns over 50 years old on their property.
Our legislation allows these farmers to receive funds administered
through States and non-profit organizations to bring their barns into
productive use. Preserving these barns will not only ensure their
survival for generations to come, it will also provide many practical
benefits to the communities and economies that surround them.
Specifically, this bill will allow small and medium-sized farms to
make necessary investments in their production facilities to keep their
farms working by providing direct grants. In hard times, small and
medium-sized farms have had to choose between making improvements on a
historic structure on their property or investing in machinery to keep
their existing operations running. Between 1982 and 1997, our nation
saw a 15 percent decline in the number of farms in use, averaging a
loss of 22,000 farms per year. This bill will ensure the economic
viability of these farms by helping farmers preserve their historic
structures and maintain essential investments. Given our current
economic outlook, this bill will be particularly beneficial.
Also, preserving historic barns helps ensure that farmers keep their
land in agricultural use. This has a tremendous effect in preventing
sprawl from encroaching on rural communities. It is estimated that 3.6
million acres of farmland is removed from agricultural use each year.
This is a sensible bill that ensures the preservation of historic
barns in ways individual farmers want. The National Trust for Historic
Preservation recently conducted a survey asking farmers how they could
preserve historic barns on their property. The number one response from
these farmers was to create a national grant program, exactly what this
legislation does.
This bill enjoys wide support and has been endorsed by the National
Trust for Historic Preservation. I invite my colleagues to join me in
my efforts to preserve our Nation's historic barns for the prosperity
of future generations and the well-being of our rural communities. I
ask that a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Bill Summary
The bill would instruct the Secretary of Agriculture to act
through the Undersecretary of Rural Development to: Assist
states in developing a listing of historic barns; collect and
disseminate information concerning historic barns; foster
educational programs relating to historic barns and their
preservation; sponsor and conduct research on the history of
barns; and sponsor or conduct research, and study techniques,
on protecting historic barns.
[[Page S11290]]
The bill would authorize the Office of Rural Development of
USDA to award $25 million in grants over FY 2002 through 2006
for barn preservation projects to the following agencies:
State Departments of Agriculture, National or State Non-
profits that have been determined by the Secretary of
Agriculture to have experience in historic barn preservation,
and a State Historic Preservation Office.
While most of the $25 million authorized would be awarded
for grants used to rehabilitate or repair historic barns, the
bill would allow some of the funds to be used to: Install
fire detection systems and/or sprinklers; install systems to
prevent vandalism; and identify, document and conduct
research on historic barns to develop and evaluate
appropriate techniques or best practices for protecting
historic barns.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1607. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide coverage of remote monitoring services under the Medicare
Program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a small
bill, but one with important consequences. My measure, the ``Medicare
Remote Monitoring Services Act of 2001,'' seeks to increase access to
remote management technologies by providing equal payment for these
services under Medicare. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Snowe in
introducing this measure.
As my colleagues know, many new technologies that collect, analyze,
and transmit clinical health information are in development or have
recently been introduced to the market. These remote management
technologies hold clear promise: Better information on the patient's
condition, collected and stored electronically, analyzed for clinical
value, and transmitted to the physician or the patient, should improve
patient care and access. Instead of a time-consuming 20-mile trips to
the doctor's office, it takes the patient 10 minutes to transmit the
data by computer. This is not going to replace hands-on medicine, but
when it's not possible for the physician to be there, this can be a
tool. It's a more aggressive way to be with the patient and help avoid
a crisis.
Despite these innovations, many new clinical information and remote
management technologies have failed to diffuse rapidly. A significant
barrier to wider adoption and evolution of the technologies is the
relative lack of payment mechanisms under Medicare for services
provided by a physician related to these technologies.
The June 2001 ``MedPAC report to Congress on Medicare in Rural
America'' raises concerns about access to health care in rural areas.
The report states that if policymakers are interested in expanding the
use of telemedicine approaches to improve access to care, one avenue
that could be explored is the coverage of technology that enables a
diagnostic test to be performed on a patient remotely and then be sent
electronically to the consulting physician for review at a later time.
In addition, in its March 2001 report, ``Crossing the Quality
Chasm,'' the Institute of Medicine stated that the automation of
clinical and other health transactions was an essential factor for
improving quality, preventing errors, enhancing consumer confidence,
and improving efficiency, yet ``health care delivery has been
relatively untouched by the revolution in information technology that
has been transforming nearly every other aspect of society.''
Under this legislation remote monitoring services that are found to
be comparable to face to face, encounter-based, monitoring services
will be given the same coverage and level of Medicare payment as the
comparable encounter-based physician service. The provision will be
implemented in a budget-neutral manner. I urge my colleagues to
cosponsor this legislation that will improve patient access, care, and
management, as well as spur the development of new technologies that
will improve services further.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I am joining with Senator
Rockefeller in introducing the Medicare Remote Monitoring Service
Coverage Act of 2001. This bill is designed to place Medicare on the
cutting edge of technology and ensure that our Nation's seniors have
access to the best treatment options available.
Ever since the first stethoscope was developed in Paris in 1816,
medical technology has had a dramatic impact on health care. Over the
past twenty-five years, the technology of medical devices has improved
dramatically. The resulting changes in the practice of medicine and the
improvements in the quality of patient care of have been dramatic and
this trend will continue as we move into the future.
Once such important improvement is in the ability of new cutting-edge
medical devices to electronically monitor a patient's response to
treatment. The new devices will collect, analyze and transmit clinical
health information to the patient's physician. As a result, the
physician will have access to better information on the patient's
condition, which will improve patient care. These innovative devices
will also monitor their own internal performance and transmit this
information in real-time to the physician's office. Physicians can use
this data to assess a patient's response to treatment and determine if
new interventions are required.
One such device that is under development is an advanced version of
the internal cardiac defibrillator or ICD similar to the one used by
Vice President Cheney. These devices monitor the heart and respond
automatically when indicated. When the heart's rhythm triggers certain
interventions, the patient is required to immediately contact their
physician and must travel to the emergency room to determine if a more
serious problem has developed. It is also crucial at these times to
determine that the device is working properly. Access to care in these
circumstances is imperative.
With these new devices, this important information can be transmitted
electronically to the physician. The physician can then analyze this
clinical data and determine if further intervention is required. As a
result of this innovation, costly emergency room visits are avoided and
patients can receive their physician's assessment more quickly. This
reduces the cost of the health care intervention by avoiding the
emergency room visit and provides piece of mind to the patient that the
life-saving device is working properly. One can easily see that this is
of greatest value to patients in rural areas who would otherwise have
to travel great distances to the emergency room for evaluation, many
times in the middle of the night.
While these new technologies hold great promise, Medicare
reimbursement policies are an unfortunate barrier to their use. Under
current Medicare payment policy, most physician billing codes are
limited to face-to-face interactions between physician and patient. The
physician payment system does not provide reimbursement for time spent
on a clinical evaluation when a face-to-face encounter is not needed.
As a result, Medicare payment rules will inhibit the adoption of this
promising technology. This is unfortunate when one considers that, in
many cases, costly emergency room visits can be avoided while the
identical clinical analysis and interpretation takes place using data
that is transmitted electronically to the physician.
This legislation, which we are introducing today, would create
reimbursement parity between physician visits on a face-to-face basis
and equivalent interventions resulting from remote patient management
made possible by these devices. The legislation would provide the same
Medicare coverage and level of reimbursement for remote monitoring
services that are found to be comparable to face-to-face, encounter-
based, services specifically for data collection and analysis. This new
reimbursement policy will be implemented in a budget-neutral manner and
simply designed to pay for remote monitoring when a face-to-face
physician encounter would be reimbursed for the same services under the
same set of circumstances.
This proposal will improve patient care and promote the adoption of
this innovative new technology. Moreover, it will provide better access
and improved quality of care for patients who rely on these devices,
particularly in rural areas. This is especially true in cases when an
immediate evaluation is required. We believe this is a sensible
proposal that will reduce costs in the long-run and will ensure that
seniors have access to cutting edge, life-saving technologies. We are
hopeful that this legislation can be adopted quickly to assure that
Medicare beneficiaries are
[[Page S11291]]
not prevented from accessing this technology.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Graham, and Mr. Crapo):
S. 1608. A bill to establish a program to provide grants to drinking
water and wastewater facilities to meet immediate security needs; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam 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. 1608
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WATER SECURITY GRANTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
publicly- or privately-owned drinking water or wastewater
facility.
(3) Eligible project or activity.--
(A) In general.--The term ``eligible project or activity''
means a project or activity carried out by an eligible entity
to address an immediate physical security need.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``eligible project or activity''
includes a project or activity relating to--
(i) security staffing;
(ii) detection of intruders;
(iii) installation and maintenance of fencing, gating, or
lighting;
(iv) installation of and monitoring on closed-circuit
television;
(v) rekeying of doors and locks;
(vi) site maintenance, such as maintenance to increase
visibility around facilities, windows, and doorways;
(vii) development, acquisition, or use of guidance manuals,
educational videos, or training programs; and
(viii) a program established by a State to provide
technical assistance or training to water and wastewater
facility managers, especially such a program that emphasizes
small or rural eligible entities.
(C) Exclusions.--The term ``eligible project or activity''
does not include any large-scale or system-wide project that
includes a large capital improvement or vulnerability
assessment.
(b) Establishment of Program.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a
program to allocate to States, in accordance with paragraph
(2), funds for use in awarding grants to eligible entities
under subsection (c).
(2) Allocation to states.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which funds are made available to carry out this
section, the Administrator shall allocate the funds to States
in accordance with the formula for the distribution of funds
described in section 1452(a)(1)(D) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(1)(D)).
(3) Notice.--Not later than 30 days after the date
described in paragraph (2), each State shall provide to each
eligible entity in the State a notice that funds are
available to assist the eligible entity in addressing
immediate physical security needs.
(c) Award of Grants.--
(1) Application.--An eligible entity that seeks to receive
a grant under this section shall submit to the State in which
the eligible entity is located an application for the grant
in such form and containing such information as the State may
prescribe.
(2) Condition for receipt of grant.--An eligible entity
that receives a grant under this section shall agree to
expend all funds provided by the grant not later than
September 30, 2002.
(3) Disadvantaged, small, and rural eligible entities.--A
State that awards a grant under this section shall ensure, to
the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the income
and population distribution of the State, that a sufficient
percentage of the funds allocated to the State under
subsection (b)(2) are available for disadvantaged, small, and
rural eligible entities in the State.
(d) Eligible Projects and Activities.--
(1) In general.--A grant awarded by a State under
subsection (c) shall be used by an eligible entity to carry
out 1 or more eligible projects or activities.
(2) Coordination with existing training programs.--In
awarding a grant for an eligible project or activity
described in subsection (a)(3)(B)(vii), a State shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, coordinate with training programs
of rural water associations of the State that are in effect
as of the date on which the grant is awarded.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002.
____________________