Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 162 (Wednesday, November 28, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 162 (Wednesday, November 28, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12101-S12109]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1737. A bill to provide for homeland security block grants; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise today to offer a helping hand
to communities in New York and around the country experiencing fiscal
distress as they struggle to respond to the heightened security needs
of our country.
Although the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks
targeted two of our cities, communities thousands of miles away from
Ground Zero now find themselves on the front lines in the war against
terrorism. Since the attacks, towns and cities, both large and small,
all across America have been overwhelmed by calls about potential
biological or chemical attacks or threats to infrastructure. Along with
this new responsibility comes a heavy burden that these communities
should not be forced to shoulder alone.
That is why today I am introducing legislation to provide relief to
State and local governments in their efforts to improve emergency
response and public safety locally. This Federal aid will ensure that
local communities will not have to bear the burden of a strong homeland
defense alone. Tomorrow, mayors from all around New York State will
meet in New York City to address these very concerns. The legislation
I'm introducing today, along with my colleagues Senators Feinstein,
Mikulski, Durbin, and Schumer, will go a long way in helping them and
communities across the country meet these needs.
Since the unimaginable acts of terrorism against American civilians
on U.S. soil that took place a few months ago, we have been forced to
reevaluate virtually every aspect of our homeland security. One
immediate change to emerge in post-September 11 America has been that
local communities are now charged with an enormous responsibility:
plugging in the gaps in our public safety system and securing our
homeland defense.
Our entire country witnessed it on September 11 when hundreds of
brave men and women in uniform went rushing towards burning buildings
to save peoples' lives. These courageous individuals were public safety
officers and emergency response personnel, and, on that day, America
and its towns and cities were forever changed.
Mayor Joseph Griffo of Rome, New York described this new phenomenon,
saying,

The mayors have become the leaders, the first responders in
this new war on terrorism. The police, the firefighters and
the emergency personnel are the first responders. We have a
role and a responsibility in being more keenly aware of what
potentially could happen to our communities.

Already, towns and cities in New York, and municipalities across the
country, have seen a glimpse of what homeland security's price tag
looks like and they are deeply concerned about how they will pay for
it. Rome Mayor Griffo has said,

The finances, of providing security, are going to be very
difficult. I think it may be tough to recoup all the costs
that we've incurred to date. . . . Beyond that, we have to
see where we can work in partnership with the feds and the
state.

Bills from skyrocketing police and fire fighter overtime costs are
saddling many local governments with unanticipated costs. Local law
enforcement agencies are struggling with expenses from a wide range of
security needs, including: properly securing major transportation
infrastructure, like tunnels and bridges; stepping up security at
facilities that store hazardous materials or drinking water; and
providing local health personnel with the resources

[[Page S12102]]

and training they need to respond to biological and chemical attacks.
Mayor Jerry Jennings of Albany, NY, estimates that increased patrols
at Alcove Reservoir in Coeymans to ensure that the city's water supply
is adequately protected will probably cost taxpayers $1 million. The
city of Buffalo, New York, has received 139 terrorist threats since
September 11. Buffalo Mayor Tony Masiello estimates these additional
threats will cost the city approximately $700 an hour.
Although the terrorist attacks of September 11 targeted New York and
Washington, DC, every single community in our country has been affected
by the attacks, Baltimore, for example, has incurred nearly $4 million
in security costs since the September 11 attacks, and city budget
officials predict that those costs could grow to $15.8 million for the
fiscal year.
New Orleans is contending with a $10 million budget gap due to
security costs for the city and the New Orleans airport. Dallas,
according to some estimates, has already spent $2 million on security
and could end up spending $6 million by the end of the year. In
Massachusetts, Acting Governor Jane Swift has approved $26 million for
homeland defense related spending, which includes state police
overtime.
According to the National Governors' Association, over the next six
months expenses resulting from the September 11 attacks could end up as
high as $10 billion in the 50 States, while the National League of
Cities projects a 4 percent decline in revenues for cities--a projected
$11.4 billion--from the disastrous effects the attacks have had on
local employment and tourism.
These figures point to what mayors have been saying for some time now
and what I repeated on this floor a few weeks ago after meeting with
mayors from all over the country: the cost of homeland security is
causing our cities to bleed dollars.
Of the 214 cities polled in late October, more than half said that
they increased spending on security after September 11 and that they
would have to dip into surpluses and cut programs as a result. It has
even been reported that some states are considering using their state
lottery funds to pay for the cost of bolstering local homeland defense
efforts.
Our homeland security cannot be left to chance and no city or town in
America should have to choose between adequately protecting its
citizens and funding important programs that benefit our children, the
most vulnerable among us. It's the responsibility of the Federal
Government to ensure our security and we must not let our cities and
towns bear the brunt of homeland defense alone.
These additional fiscal demands come at a time when we are already
facing a nationwide economic downturn and people are already
experiencing the pain of this economic uncertainty. Over the next 18
months, New York State will face an estimated $10 billion shortfall in
state revenues. To counter some of these pressures and help communities
recover more quickly from this economic slump, we must provide local
communities with the resources they need to meet these increased
demands.
Under the legislation I am introducing, cities, counties, and towns
across America will be able to access Federal funds to help make up
these anticipated revenue shortfalls. The Homeland Security Block Grant
Act provides $3 billion in funding to communities, with 70 percent
going directly to more than 1,000 cities and counties across the United
States. The remaining 30 percent will be funneled to States to direct
to smaller communities to help them improve security and public safety
locally.
Cities with a population of more than 50,000 and that are within
metropolitan areas and counties within metropolitan areas, regardless
of the size of the county, will receive funds directly. For example,
both Syracuse and Onondaga County will be eligible to receive grant
funds.
Some of my colleagues have asked whether a small state provision can
be included in the bill, one that would guarantee that less-populated
states would receive a minimum level funding. I am very much looking
forward to working with my colleagues on such a provision to include in
this bill.
This legislation gives local communities a lot of flexibility to
determine how grant funds will be used because local communities are
most knowledgeable about their security needs. For example, funds can
be used for overtime expenses for law enforcement, fire, and emergency
personnel incurred as a result of terrorist threats or to purchase
personal protective equipment for fire, police, and emergency
personnel.
Communities could also use these federal funds to acquire state-of-
the-art technology to improve communication between the first
responders, based at myriad local agencies, so that they can work
together closely and efficiently while responding to attacks. In
addition, funds could also be used to improve security or water
treatment plants, nuclear power plants, tunnels and bridges, and
chemical plants.
Towns and cities may also decide to use the funds to improve the
communication system used to provide information to the public in a
timely manner about the facts of any threat and the precautions the
public should take.
Finally, to encourage communities to use the homeland security block
grants effectively, communities will be required to match by 10 percent
the funds received from the Federal Government. Financially distressed
communities, however, will receive a waiver from the matching
requirement.
I'm proud that this legislation has the support of the International
Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Fire
Chiefs, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National
League of Cities, and U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Just as our Federal Government pays for defense overseas, it is our
duty to fund our defense at home. Our homeland defense can only be as
strong as the weakest link at the State and local level. By providing
our communities with the resources and tools they need to bolster
emergency response efforts and provide for other homeland security
initiatives, we will have a better-prepared home front and a stronger
America.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1737

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland
Security Block Grant Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Grants to States, units of general local government and Indian
tribes; authorizations.
Sec. 5. Statement of activities and review.
Sec. 6. Activities eligible for assistance.
Sec. 7. Allocation and distribution of funds.
Sec. 8. Nondiscrimination in programs and activities.
Sec. 9. Remedies for noncompliance with requirements.
Sec. 10. Reporting requirements.
Sec. 11. Consultation by Attorney General.
Sec. 12. Interstate agreements or compacts; purposes.
Sec. 13. Matching requirements; suspension of requirements for
economically distressed areas.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks on our country, communities all across American now
find themselves on the front lines in the war against
terrorism on United States soil.
(2) We recognize that these communities will be forced to
shoulder a significant portion of the burden that goes along
with that responsibility. We believe that local governments
should not have to bear that responsibility alone.
(3) Our homeland defense will only be as strong as the
weakest link at the State and local level. By providing our
communities with the resources and tools they need to bolster
emergency response efforts and provide for other emergency
response initiatives, we will have a better-prepared home
front and a stronger America.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Attorney general.--The term ``Attorney General'' means
the United States Attorney General.
(2) City.--The term ``city'' means--
(A) any unit of general local government that is classified
as a municipality by the United States Bureau of the Census;
or
(B) any other unit of general local government that is a
town or township and which, in the determination of the
Attorney General--
(i) possesses powers and performs functions comparable to
those associated with municipalities;

[[Page S12103]]

(ii) is closely settled; and
(iii) contains within its boundaries no incorporated places
as defined by the United States Bureau of the Census that
have not entered into cooperation agreements with such town
or township to undertake or to assist in the performance of
homeland security objectives.
(3) Extent of poverty.--The term ``extent of poverty''
means the number of persons whose incomes are below the
poverty level. Poverty levels shall be determined by the
Attorney General pursuant to criteria provided by the Office
of Management and Budget taking into account and making
adjustments, if feasible and appropriate and in the sole
discretion of the Attorney General, for regional or area
variations in income and cost of living, and shall be based
on data referable to the same point or period in time.
(4) Federal grant-in-aid program.--The term ``Federal
grant-in-aid program'' means a program of Federal financial
assistance other than loans and other than the assistance
provided by this Act.
(5) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
Indian tribe, band, group, and nation, including Alaska
Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and any Alaskan Native Village,
of the United States, which is considered an eligible
recipient under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638) or was considered an
eligible recipient under chapter 67 of title 31, United
States Code, prior to the repeal of such chapter.
(6) Metropolitan area.--The term ``metropolitan area''
means a standard metropolitan statistical area as established
by the Office of Management and Budget.
(7) Metropolitan city.--The term ``metropolitan city''
means--
(A) a city within a metropolitan area that is the central
city of such area, as defined and used by the Office of
Management and Budget; or
(B) any other city, within a metropolitan area, which has a
population of fifty thousand or more.

Any city that was classified as a metropolitan city for at
least 2 years pursuant to the first sentence of this
paragraph shall remain classified as a metropolitan city. Any
unit of general local government that becomes eligible to be
classified as a metropolitan city, and was not classified as
a metropolitan city in the immediately preceding fiscal year,
may, upon submission of written notification to the Attorney
General, defer its classification as a metropolitan city for
all purposes under this Act, if it elects to have its
population included in an urban county under subsection (d).
Notwithstanding the second sentence of this paragraph, a city
may elect not to retain its classification as a metropolitan
city. Any unit of general local government that was
classified as a metropolitan city in any year, may, upon
submission of written notification to the Attorney General,
relinquish such classification for all purposes under this
Act if it elects to have its population included with the
population of a county for purposes of qualifying for
assistance (for such following fiscal year) under section
5(e) as an urban county.
(8) Non-qualifying community.--The term ``nonqualifying
community'' means an area that is not a metropolitan city or
part of an urban county and does not include Indian tribes.
(9) Population.--The term ``population'' means total
resident population based on data compiled by the United
States Bureau of the Census and referable to the same point
or period of time.
(10) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States, or any instrumentality thereof approved by the
Governor; and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(11) Unit of general local government.--The term ``unit of
general local government'' means any city, county, town,
township, parish, village, or other general purpose political
subdivision of a State; a combination of such political
subdivisions is recognized by the Secretary; and the District
of Columbia.
(12) Urban county.--The term ``urban county'' means any
county within a metropolitan area.
(b) Basis and Modification of Definitions.--Where
appropriate, the definitions in subsection (a) shall be
based, with respect to any fiscal year, 0on the most recent
data compiled by the United States Bureau of the Census and
the latest published reports of the Office of Management and
Budget available ninety days prior to the beginning of such
fiscal year. The Attorney General may by regulation change or
otherwise modify the meaning of the terms defined in
subsection (a) in order to reflect any technical change or
modification thereof made subsequent to such date by the
United States Bureau of the Census or the Office of
Management and Budget.
(c) Designation of Public Agencies.--One or more public
agencies, including existing local public agencies, may be
designated by the chief executive officer of a State or a
unit of general local government to undertake activities
assisted under this Act.
(d) Local Governments, Inclusion in Urban County
Population.--With respect to program years beginning with the
program year for which grants are made available from amounts
appropriated for fiscal year 2002 under section 4, the
population of any unit of general local government which is
included in that of an urban county as provided in subsection
(a)(6) shall be included in the population of such urban
county for three program years beginning with the program
year in which its population was first so included and shall
not otherwise be eligible for a grant as a separate entity,
unless the urban county does not receive a grant for any year
during such three-year period.
(e) Urban County.--Any county seeking qualification as an
urban county, including any urban county seeking to continue
such qualification, shall notify, as provided in this
subsection, each unit of general local government, which is
included therein and is eligible to elect to have its
population excluded from that of an urban county, of its
opportunity to make such an election. Such notification
shall, at a time and in a manner prescribed by the Attorney
General, be provided so as to provide a reasonable period for
response prior to the period for which such qualification is
sought. The population of any unit of general local
government which is provided such notification and which does
not inform, at a time and in a manner prescribed by the
Attorney General, the county of its election to exclude its
population from that of the county shall, if the county
qualifies as an urban county, be included in the population
of such urban county as provided in subsection (d).

SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATES, UNITS OF GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND INDIAN TRIBES; AUTHORIZATIONS.

The Attorney General is authorized to make grants to
States, units of general local government, and Indian tribes
to carry out activities in accordance with the provisions of
this Act. For purposes of assistance under section 7, there
is authorized to be appropriated $3,000,000,000 in fiscal
year 2002, and such additional sums as are authorized
thereafter.

SEC. 5. STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES AND REVIEW.

(a) Application.--Prior to the receipt in any fiscal year
of a grant under section 7(b) by any metropolitan city or
urban county, under section 7(d) by any State, or under
section 7(d)(2) by any unit of general local government, the
grantee shall have indicated its interest in receiving funds
by preparing a statement of homeland security objectives and
projected use of funds and shall have provided the Attorney
General with the certifications required in subsection (b)
and, where appropriate, subsection (c). In the case of
metropolitan cities and urban counties receiving grants
pursuant to section 7(b) and in the case of units of general
local government receiving grants pursuant to section
7(d)(2), the statement of projected use of funds shall
consist of proposed homeland security activities. In the case
of States receiving grants pursuant to section 7(d), the
statement of projected use of funds shall consist of the
method by which the States will distribute funds to units of
general local government. In preparing the statement, the
grantee shall consider any view of appropriate law
enforcement, and emergency response authorities and may, if
deemed appropriate by the grantee, modify the proposed
statement. A copy of the final statement shall be furnished
to the Attorney General and the Office of Homeland Security
together with the certifications required under subsection
(b) and, where appropriate, subsection (c). Any final
statement of activities may be modified or amended from time
to time by the grantee in accordance with the same procedures
required in this paragraph for the preparation and submission
of such statement.
(b) Certification of Enumerated Criteria by Grantee to
Secretary.--Any grant under section 7 shall be made only if
the grantee certifies to the satisfaction of the Attorney
General that--
(1) it has developed a homeland security plan pursuant to
section 5 that identifies both short- and long-term homeland
security needs that have been developed in accordance with
the primary objective and requirements of this Act; and
(2) the grantee will comply with the other provisions of
this Act and with other applicable laws.
(c) Submission of Annual Performance Reports, Audits and
Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--Each grantee shall submit to the Attorney
General, at a time determined by the Attorney General, a
performance and evaluation report concerning the use of funds
made available under section 7, together with an assessment
by the grantee of the relationship of such use to the
objectives identified in the grantee's statement under
subsection (a). The Attorney General shall encourage and
assist national associations of grantees eligible under
section 7, national associations of States, and national
associations of units of general local government in
nonqualifying areas to develop and recommend to the Attorney
General, within 1 year after the effective date of this
sentence, uniform recordkeeping, performance reporting,
evaluation reporting, and auditing requirements for such
grantees, States, and units of general local government,
respectively. Based on the Attorney General's approval of
these recommendations, the Attorney General shall establish
such requirements for use by such grantees, States, and units
of general local government.
(2) Reviews and audits.--The Attorney General shall, at
least on an annual basis, make such reviews and audits as may
be necessary or appropriate to determine--
(A) in the case of grants made under section 7(b), whether
the grantee has carried out its activities and, where
applicable, whether the grantee has carried out those
activities and its certifications in accordance with the
requirements and the primary

[[Page S12104]]

objectives of this Act and with other applicable laws, and
whether the grantee has a continuing capacity to carry out
those activities in a timely manner; and
(B) in the case of grants to States made under section
7(d), whether the State has distributed funds to units of
general local government in a timely manner and in
conformance to the method of distribution described in its
statement, whether the State has carried out its
certifications in compliance with the requirements of this
Act and other applicable laws, and whether the State has made
such reviews and audits of the units of general local
government as may be necessary or appropriate to determine
whether they have satisfied the applicable performance
criteria described in subparagraph (A).
(3) Adjustments.--The Attorney General may make appropriate
adjustments in the amount of the annual grants in accordance
with the Attorney General's findings under this subsection.
With respect to assistance made available to units of general
local government under section 7(d), the Attorney General may
adjust, reduce, or withdraw such assistance, or take other
action as appropriate in accordance with the Attorney
General's reviews and audits under this subsection, except
that funds already expended on eligible activities under this
Act shall not be recaptured or deducted from future
assistance to such units of general local government.
(d) Audits.--Insofar as they relate to funds provided under
this Act, the financial transactions of recipients of such
funds may be audited by the General Accounting Office under
such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the
Comptroller General of the United States. The representatives
of the General Accounting Office shall have access to all
books, accounts, records, reports, files, and other papers,
things, or property belonging to or in use by such recipients
pertaining to such financial transactions and necessary to
facilitate the audit.
(e) Metropolitan City as Part of Urban County.--In any case
in which a metropolitan city is located, in whole or in part,
within an urban county, the Attorney General may, upon the
joint request of such city and county, approve the inclusion
of the metropolitan city as part of the urban county for
purposes of submitting a statement under section 5 and
carrying out activities under this Act.

SEC. 6. ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.

Activities assisted under this Act may include only--
(1) funding additional law enforcement, fire, and emergency
resources, including covering overtime expenses;
(2) purchasing and refurbishing personal protective
equipment for fire, police, and emergency personnel and
acquire state-of-the-art technology to improve communication
and streamline efforts;
(3) improving cyber and infrastructure security by
improving--
(A) security for water treatment plants, distribution
systems, and other water infrastructure; nuclear power plants
and other power infrastructure;
(B) tunnels and bridges;
(C) oil and gas pipelines and storage facilities; and
(D) chemical plants and transportation of hazardous
substances;
(4) assisting Local Emergency Planning Committees so that
local public agencies can design, review, and improve
disaster response systems;
(5) assisting communities in coordinating their efforts and
sharing information with all relevant agencies involved in
responding to terrorist attacks;
(6) establishing timely notification systems that enable
communities to communicate with each other when a threat
emerges;
(7) improving communication systems to provide information
to the public in a timely manner about the facts of any
threat and the precautions the public should take; and
(8) devising a homeland security plan, including
determining long-term goals and short-term objectives,
evaluating the progress of the plan, and carrying out the
management, coordination, and monitoring of activities
necessary for effective planning implementation.

SEC. 7. ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

(a) Allocation and Distribution of Funds; Set-Aside for
Indian Tribes.--
(1) Allocation.--For each fiscal year, of the amount
approved in an appropriation Act under section 4 for grants
in a year (excluding the amounts provided for use in
accordance with section 6), the Attorney General shall
reserve for grants to Indian tribes 1 percent of the amount
appropriated under such section. The Attorney General shall
provide for distribution of amounts under this paragraph to
Indian tribes on the basis of a competition conducted
pursuant to specific criteria for the selection of Indian
tribes to receive such amounts. The criteria shall be
contained in a regulation promulgated by the Attorney General
after notice and public comment.
(2) Remaining allocation.--Of the amount remaining after
allocations pursuant to paragraph (1), 70 percent shall be
allocated by the Attorney General to metropolitan cities and
urban counties. Except as otherwise specifically authorized,
each metropolitan city and urban county shall be entitled to
an annual grant, to the extent authorized beyond fiscal year
2002, from such allocation in an amount not exceeding its
basic amount computed pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (b).
(b) Computation of Amount Allocated to Metropolitan Cities
and Urban Counties.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall determine the
amount to be allocated to each metropolitan city based on the
population of that metropolitan city.
(2) Urban counties.--The Attorney General shall determine
the amount to be allocated to each urban county based on the
population of that urban county.
(3) Exclusions.--In computing amounts or exclusions under
this section with respect to any urban county, there shall be
excluded units of general local government located in the
county the populations that are not counted in determining
the eligibility of the urban county to receive a grant under
this subsection, except that there shall be included any
independent city (as defined by the Bureau of the Census)
which--
(A) is not part of any county;
(B) is not eligible for a grant pursuant to subsection
(b)(1);
(C) is contiguous to the urban county;
(D) has entered into cooperation agreements with the urban
county which provide that the urban county is to undertake or
to assist in the undertaking of essential community
development and housing assistance activities with respect to
such independent city; and
(E) is not included as a part of any other unit of general
local government for purposes of this section.

Any independent city that is included in any fiscal year for
purposes of computing amounts pursuant to the preceding
sentence shall not be eligible to receive assistance under
subsection (d) with respect to such fiscal year.
(4) Inclusions.--In computing amounts under this section
with respect to any urban county, there shall be included all
of the area of any unit of local government which is part of,
but is not located entirely within the boundaries of, such
urban county if the part of such unit of local government
which is within the boundaries of such urban county would
otherwise be included in computing the amount for such urban
county under this section, and if the part of such unit of
local government that is not within the boundaries of such
urban county is not included as a part of any other unit of
local government for the purpose of this section. Any amount
received by such urban county under this section may be used
with respect to the part of such unit of local government
that is outside the boundaries of such urban county.
(5)Population.--(A) Where data are available, the amount
determined under paragraph (1) for a metropolitan city that
has been formed by the consolidation of one or more
metropolitan cities with an urban county shall be equal to
the sum of the amounts that would have been determined under
paragraph (1) for the metropolitan city or cities and the
balance of the consolidated government, if such consolidation
had not occurred. This paragraph shall apply only to any
consolidation that--
(i) included all metropolitan cities that received grants
under this section for the fiscal year preceding such
consolidation and that were located within the urban county;
(ii) included the entire urban county that received a grant
under this section for the fiscal year preceding such
consolidation; and
(iii) took place on or after January 1, 2002.
(B) The population growth rate of all metropolitan cities
referred to in section 3 shall be based on the population
of--
(i) metropolitan cities other than consolidated governments
the grant for which is determined under this paragraph; and
(ii) cities that were metropolitan cities before their
incorporation into consolidated governments. For purposes of
calculating the entitlement share for the balance of the
consolidated government under this paragraph, the entire
balance shall be considered to have been an urban county.
(c) Reallocation.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
amounts allocated to a metropolitan city or an urban county
pursuant to the preceding provisions of this section that are
not received by the city or county for a fiscal year because
of failure to meet the requirements of subsections (a) and
(b) of section 5, or that otherwise became available, shall
be reallocated in the succeeding fiscal year to the other
metropolitan cities and urban counties in the same
metropolitan area that certify to the satisfaction of the
Attorney General that they would be adversely affected by the
loss of such amounts from the metropolitan area. The amount
of the share of funds reallocated under this paragraph for
any metropolitan city or urban county shall bear the same
ratio to the total of such reallocated funds in the
metropolitan area as the amount of funds awarded to the city
or county for the fiscal year in which the reallocated funds
become available bears to the total amount of funds awarded
to all metropolitan cities and urban counties in the same
metropolitan area for that fiscal year.
(2) Transfer.--Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
(1), the Attorney General may upon request transfer
responsibility to any metropolitan city for the
administration of any amounts received, but not obligated, by
the urban county in which such city is located if--
(A) such city was an included unit of general local
government in such county prior

[[Page S12105]]

to the qualification of such city as a metropolitan city;
(B) such amounts were designated and received by such
county for use in such city prior to the qualification of
such city as a metropolitan city; and
(C) such city and county agree to such transfer of
responsibility for the administration of such amounts.
(d) Allocation to States on Behalf of Non-qualifying
Communities.--
(1) In general.--Of the amount approved in an appropriation
Act under section 4 that remains after allocations pursuant
to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), 30 percent shall
be allocated among the States for use in nonqualifying areas.
The allocation for each State shall be based on the
population of that State, factoring in the population of
qualifying communities in that State, and the population of
qualifying communities of all States. The Attorney General
shall, in order to compensate for the discrepancy between the
total of the amounts to be allocated under this paragraph and
the total of the amounts available under such paragraph, make
a pro rata reduction of each amount allocated to the
nonqualifying communities in each State under such paragraph
so that the nonqualifying communities in each State will
receive an amount that represents the same percentage of the
total amount available under such paragraph as the percentage
which the nonqualifying areas of the same State would have
received under such paragraph if the total amount available
under such paragraph had equaled the total amount which was
allocated under such paragraph.
(2) Distribution.--(A) Amounts allocated under paragraph
(1) shall be distributed to units of general local government
located in nonqualifying areas of the State to carry out
activities in accordance with the provisions of this Act--
(i) by a State that has elected, in such manner and at such
time as the Attorney General shall prescribe, to distribute
such amounts consistent with the statement submitted under
section 5(a); or
(ii) by the Attorney General, in any case described in
subparagraph (B), for use by units of general local
government in accordance with paragraph (3)(B).
(B) The Attorney General shall distribute amounts allocated
under paragraph (1) if the State has not elected to
distribute such amounts.
(C) To receive and distribute amounts allocated under
paragraph (1), the State must certify that it, with respect
to units of general local government in nonqualifying areas--
(i) provides or will provide technical assistance to units
of general local government in connection with homeland
security initiatives;
(ii) will not refuse to distribute such amounts to any unit
of general local government on the basis of the particular
eligible activity selected by such unit of general local
government to meet its homeland security objectives, except
that this clause may not be considered to prevent a State
from establishing priorities in distributing such amounts on
the basis of the activities selected; and
(iii) has consulted with local elected officials from among
units of general local government located in nonqualifying
areas of that State in determining the method of distribution
of funds required by subparagraph (A).
(D) To receive and distribute amounts allocated under
paragraph (1), the State shall certify that each unit of
general local government to be distributed funds will be
required to identify its homeland security objectives, and
the activities to be undertaken to meet such objectives.
(3) Administration.-- (A) If the State receives and
distributes such amounts, it shall be responsible for the
administration of funds so distributed. The State shall pay
from its own resources all administrative expenses incurred
by the State in carrying out its responsibilities under this
Act, except that from the amounts received for distribution
in nonqualifying areas, the State may deduct an amount to
cover such expenses and its administrative expenses not to
exceed the sum of $150,000 plus 50 percent of any such
expenses under this Act in excess of $150,000. Amounts
deducted in excess of $150,000 shall not exceed 2 percent of
the amount so received.
(B) If the Attorney General distributes such amounts, the
distribution shall be made in accordance with determinations
of the Attorney General pursuant to statements submitted and
the other requirements of section 5 (other than subsection
(c)) and in accordance with regulations and procedures
prescribed by the Attorney General.
(C) Any amounts allocated for use in a State under
paragraph (1) that are not received by the State for any
fiscal year because of failure to meet the requirements of
subsection (a) or (b) of section 5 shall be added to amounts
allocated to all States under paragraph (1) for the
succeeding fiscal year.
(D) Any amounts allocated for use in a State under
paragraph (1) that become available as a result of the
closeout of a grant made by the Attorney General under this
section in nonqualifying areas of the State shall be added to
amounts allocated to the State under paragraph (1) for the
fiscal year in which the amounts become so available.
(4) Single unit.--Any combination of units of general local
governments may not be required to obtain recognition by the
Attorney General pursuant to section 3(2) to be treated as a
single unit of general local government for purposes of this
subsection.
(5) Deduction.--From the amounts received under paragraph
(1) for distribution in nonqualifying areas, the State may
deduct an amount, not to exceed 1 percent of the amount so
received, to provide technical assistance to local
governments.
(6) Applicability.--Any activities conducted with amounts
received by a unit of general local government under this
subsection shall be subject to the applicable provisions of
this Act and other Federal law in the same manner and to the
same extent as activities conducted with amounts received by
a unit of general local government under subsection (a).
(e) Qualifications and Determinations.--The Attorney
General may fix such qualification or submission dates as he
determines are necessary to permit the computations and
determinations required by this section to be made in a
timely manner, and all such computations and determinations
shall be final and conclusive.
(f) Pro Rata Reduction and Increase.--If the total amount
available for distribution in any fiscal year to metropolitan
cities and urban counties under this section is insufficient
to provide the amounts to which metropolitan cities and urban
counties would be entitled under subsection (b), and funds
are not otherwise appropriated to meet the deficiency, the
Attorney General shall meet the deficiency through a pro rata
reduction of all amounts determined under subsection (b). If
the total amount available for distribution in any fiscal
year to metropolitan cities and urban counties under this
section exceeds the amounts to which metropolitan cities and
urban counties would be entitled under subsection (b), the
Attorney General shall distribute the excess through a pro
rata increase of all amounts determined under subsection (b).

SEC. 8. NONDISCRIMINATION IN PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.

No person in the United States shall on the ground of race,
color, national origin, religion, or sex be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program or activity funded in
whole or in part with funds made available under this Act.
Any prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age
under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et
seq.) or with respect to an otherwise qualified handicapped
individual as provided in section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) shall also apply to any such
program or activity.

SEC. 9. REMEDIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS.

If the Attorney General finds after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing that a recipient of assistance under
this Act has failed to comply substantially with any
provision of this Act, the Attorney General, until he is
satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply,
shall--
(1) terminate payments to the recipient under this Act;
(2) reduce payments to the recipient under this Act by an
amount equal to the amount of such payments which were not
expended in accordance with this Act; or
(3) limit the availability of payments under this Act to
programs, projects, or activities not affected by such
failure to comply.

SEC. 10. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the close of
each fiscal year in which assistance under this Act is
furnished, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a
report which shall contain--
(1) a description of the progress made in accomplishing the
objectives of this Act;
(2) a summary of the use of such funds during the preceding
fiscal year; and
(3) a description of the activities carried out under
section 7.
(b) Reports to the Attorney General.--The Attorney General
is authorized to require recipients of assistance under this
Act to submit to him such reports and other information as
may be necessary in order for the Attorney General to make
the report required by subsection (a).

SEC. 11. CONSULTATION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

In carrying out the provisions of this Act including the
issuance of regulations, the Attorney General shall consult
with the Office of Homeland Security and other Federal
departments and agencies administering Federal grant-in-aid
programs.

SEC. 12. INTERSTATE AGREEMENTS OR COMPACTS; PURPOSES.

The consent of the Congress is hereby given to any two or
more States to enter into agreements or compacts, not in
conflict with any law of the United States, for cooperative
effort and mutual assistance in support of homeland security
planning and programs carried out under this Act as they
pertain to interstate areas and to localities within such
States, and to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise,
as they may deem desirable for making such agreements and
compacts effective.

SEC. 13. MATCHING REQUIREMENTS; SUSPENSION OF REQUIREMENTS
FOR ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS.

(a) Requirement.--Grant recipients shall contribute from
funds, other than those received under this Act, 10 percent
of the total funds received under this Act. Such funds shall
be used in accordance with the grantee's statement of
homeland security objectives.

[[Page S12106]]

(b) Economic Distress.--Grant recipients that are deemed
economically distressed shall be waived from the matching
requirement set forth in this section.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Breaux, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Inhofe,
Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Carper, Mr.
Johnson, and Mr. Hatch):
S. 1738. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide regulatory relief appeals process reforms, contracting
flexibility, and education improvements under the Medicare Program, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues
Senators Murkowski, Baucus and Grassley in introducing the Medicare
Appeals, Regulatory and Contracting Improvement Act, MARCIA. This
legislation will give health care providers relief from unnecessary and
burdensome government regulations that threaten to interfere with the
delivery of health care to our nation's Medicare beneficiaries.
Medicare provides health care coverage for over 40 million senior and
disabled Americans, relying on thousands of health care providers,
including doctors, nurses, hospitals, nursing homes, home care
agencies, and hospices, to deliver services, and more than fifty
private health insurance companies to process millions of claims. While
this public-private partnership forms the linchpin of the Medicare
program, it is not as strong as it could be.
Health care providers rightfully complain that Medicare has become
too complex, with changes to claims payment systems made so frequently
that they can not keep up. Today, Medicare providers are subjected to
over 100,000 pages of regulations that are continuously being modified.
Many providers complain that they have less time to spend on patient
care because they are spending more time trying to understand how to
comply with massive amounts of paperwork and constantly evolving
regulatory requirements.
The current Medicare appeals process is also problematic. It takes
far too long to appeal an incorrect Medicare decision, often taking
several years to complete. This system, coupled with some of the
tactics used by the Federal Government and its contractors in
collecting Medicare overpayments, leaves providers feeling frustrated,
confused, and besieged. Regulations necessary to ensuring the integrity
and efficiency of the Medicare program must be maintained and enforced,
however, the occasionally aggressive means through which these
regulations are administered has discouraged many providers from
wanting to participate in the Medicare program.
The Medicare Appeals, Regulatory and Contracting Improvement Act,
MARCIA, will strengthen the Medicare public-private partnership. The
bill has five primary components. First, it relieves burdens on
beneficiaries and providers by requiring the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, CMS, to issue new rules and policies in an orderly
and reasonable manner. Second, it provides new appeals protections for
all Medicare fee-for-service providers and beneficiaries. Third, it
allows CMS to use competition to select the best available
administrative contractors to serve beneficiaries and providers.
Fourth, it requires Medicare contractors and CMS to place a greater
emphasis on provider education and outreach. Finally, it makes the
Medicare overpayment collection and extrapolation process more fair.
The bill accomplishes all of these objectives without undermining the
False Claims Act or other Medicare fraud recovery efforts, and I urge
my colleagues to join with me to secure its passage.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, right now, all across America,
Medicare beneficiaries are seeking medical care from a flawed health
care system. Reduced benefit packages, ever escalating costs, and
limited access in rural areas are just a few of the problems our system
faces on a daily basis. For these reasons, Congress must continue to
move towards the modernization of Medicare. But as we address the needs
of beneficiaries, we must not turn our back upon the very providers
that seniors rely upon for their care.
Who are providers? They are the physicians, the hospitals, the
nursing homes, and others who deliver quality care to our needy
Medicare population. They are the backbone of our complex health care
network. When our Nation's seniors need care, it is the provider who
heals, not the health insurer--and certainly not the federal
government.
But more, and more often, seniors are being told by providers that
they don't accept Medicare. This is becoming even more common in rural
areas, where the number of physicians is limited and access to quality
care is extremely restricted. Quite simply, beneficiaries are being
told that their insurance is simply not wanted. Why? Well it's not as
simple as low reimbursement rates. In fact it's much more complex.
The infrastructure that manages the Medicare program, the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and its network of contractors,
are working with a system that was designed to block care and micro-
manage independent practices. Providers simply cannot afford to keep up
with the seemingly endless number of complex, redundant, and
unnecessary regulations. And if providers do participate? Well, a
simple administrative error in submitting a claim could subject them to
heavy-handed audits and the financial devastation of their practice.
Should we force providers to choose between protecting their practice
and caring for seniors?
I believe the answer is no. For this reason, I am pleased to
introduce the ``Medicare Appeals, Regulatory and Contracting
Improvements Act of 2001.'' I am joined by my colleagues Senator Kerry,
Senator Baucus, and Senator Grassley. This legislation is a bipartisan
compromise, based upon legislation I offered earlier this year. It will
allow providers to practice medicine without fearing the threats,
intimidation, and aggressive tactics of a faceless bureaucratic
machine.
Most importantly, this bill will reform the flawed appeals process
within CMS. Currently, a provider who allegedly has received an
overpayment is forced to choose between three options: admit the
overpayment, submit additional information to mitigate the charge, or
appeal the decision. However, providers who choose to submit additional
evidence must subject their entire practice to review and waive their
appeal rights. That's right, to submit additional evidence you must
waive your right to an appeal!
And what is the result of this maddening system that runs contrary to
our Nation's history of fair and just administrative decisions? Often,
providers are intimidated into accepting the arbitrary decision of an
auditor employed by a CMS contractor. Sometimes, they are even forced
to pull out of the Medicare program. In the end, our senior population
suffers.
To bring additional fairness to the system, the bill provides new
appeal protections for all Medicare fee-for-service providers and
beneficiaries. It also requires the Medicare administrative contractors
and CMS to place a greater emphasis on provider education and outreach.
And most importantly, it reforms the Medicare overpayment collection
and extrapolation process. All of this is accomplished without
undermining the False Claims Act or current Medicare fraud enforcement
efforts.
It is with the goal of protecting our Medicare population, and the
providers who tend care, that leads us to introduce this bipartisan
compromise. This bill will ensure that providers are treated with the
respect that they deserve, and that Medicare beneficiaries aren't told
that their health insurance isn't wanted. We owe it to our nation's
seniors. I urge immediate action on this worthy bill.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the
Medicare Appeals, Regulatory and Contracting Improvements Act of 2001.
Medicare is one of the Federal Government's greatest successes. It
provides health care for nearly 40 million seniors and disabled
beneficiaries. Medicare is often considered the gold-standard of health
insurance programs around the nation and the world. And it has lifted
millions of individuals out of poverty since its enactment in 1965.
Medicare's success is due to its public-private partnership, which is
the

[[Page S12107]]

foundation of the program. While Medicare is almost entirely federally
financed, it relies on thousands of private hospitals, private
physicians, and other health care providers and suppliers to deliver
health care services. Moreover, it relies on more than 50 private
health insurance companies to process millions of claims every year.
Every so often Congress needs to evaluate this public-private
partnership to see how its working. And this past year, Senator Kerry,
Senator Murkowski, Senator Grassley, and I have undertaken this
evaluation.
I have heard from hundreds of health care providers who have levied
legitimate complaints about the operation of Medicare. They argue that
Medicare has become too complex. Changes to the claims payment systems
are made every day, and health care organization simply cannot keep up.
This is especially true for small rural hospitals and other health care
providers in my state of Montana. They do not have the staff to stay
abreast of the constant changes to the Medicare payment systems.
I have also heard from providers about the current Medicare appeals
process. The Medicare appeals process is broken. It takes too long to
appeal an incorrect Medicare decision. Providers often have to file
lengthy and expensive appeals, sometimes taking several years to
settle.
And finally, I have heard from health care providers about the
aggressive tactics that are sometimes used by Federal Government and
its contractors in collecting Medicare overpayments. Medicare needs to
realize that mistakes happen, especially with this very complex
program. When providers make honest mistakes, they should be treated as
mistakes, not criminal fraud.
Earlier this year, my colleagues Senators Kerry and Murkowski
introduced a version of this bill, the ``Medicare Education and
Regulatory Fairness Act of 2001.'' I commend Senators Kerry and
Murkowski for their hard work on this bill; it made a very important
contribution to our understanding of this issue and the need for
reform. However, I had some concerns with their original bill, namely
that it unintentionally created some new loopholes for truly dishonest
providers to commit fraud.
Rather than oppose their bill, I asked my staff along with Senator
Grassley's staff to work with Senator Kerry and Senator Murkowki's
office to redraft their bill to address some of my concerns. And I am
proud to say that we have developed a bill that everyone can support.
The Medicare Appeals, Regulatory and Contracting Improvements Act of
2001 will make necessary and overdue improvements to the Medicare
public-private partnership. The bill does five things. First, it
improves the CMS rule-making process, for example, by requiring CMS to
publish its regulations on one business day of each month. Second, It
provides new appeal protections for all Medicare fee-for-service
providers and beneficiaries. Third, it grants new competitive
administrative contracting authority to CMS. Fourth, it requires the
Medicare administrative contractors and CMS to place a greater emphasis
on provider education and outreach. And fifth, it reforms the Medicare
overpayment collection and extrapolation process.
The bill accomplishes all five of these important objectives without
undermining the False Claims Act of current Medicare fraud enforcement
efforts. We have received assurances from the Department of Justice,
the HHS Office of Inspector General, and the CMS that this is so.
This is a good bill, a bill that will receive the support of provider
groups and the support of the Federal agencies that oversee the
Medicare program.
While this bill is primarily focused on health care provider issues,
I agree with my colleagues in the Senate and House that Congress also
needs to ensure that beneficiaries are able to navigate and understand
Medicare. I commend current efforts in the House to include provisions
that would guarantee that beneficiaries have the right to find out
whether Medicare services are covered before they become financially
liable for them. Currently, when a doctor informs a patient that a
service may not be covered by Medicare, the patient has no way to
verify if this is the case. I will work to include these provisions in
any enacted legislation.
I commend my colleagues Senator Kerry, Senator Murkowski, and Senator
Grassley for their commitment and their hard work on this bill. As
chairman of the Finance Committee, I remain committed to quick
consideration of this bill in my committee. I urge all of my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am pleased to join today as an original
cosponsor of the Medicare Appeals, Regulatory and Contracting
Improvements Act, MARCIA. This legislation represents a clear and
useful first step toward serious reform of the way Medicare does
business with America's health care professionals and Medicare
beneficiaries.
I have heard from literally hundreds of doctors, hospitals, and other
health care professionals in Idaho about the truly appalling paperwork
and regulatory burdens imposed by the Medicare program, and even more
troubling, about how these mounting regulatory burdens are causing many
doctors to limit their participation in Medicare or to leave the
program altogether.
Also, as ranking member on the Senate's Special Committee on Aging, I
have made examination of Medicare's paperwork and provider enforcement
systems a key priority. In July, our committee held the first of what I
hope may be a series of hearings looking into these problems, and this
fall, members of my Aging Committee staff traveled across Idaho,
talking with more than 60 Idaho providers about their concerns with
Medicare.
Most recently, I was pleased to have Tom Scully, the energetic and
thoughtful new administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, CMS, join me in Boise to talk about Medicare with Idaho
health professionals and senior citizens. We heard a great deal of
frustration, and not a little anger.
At the same time, it was very clear to me that Tom Scully and the
Bush administration are serious about tackling Medicare's many
shortcomings. Indeed, Tom Scully and the administration have worked
closely with Congress to help develop the legislation we are
introducing today.
Today, the number of pages of Medicare rules and regulations is
now more than 110,000, approximately three times that of Federal tax
laws and regulations. Moreover, for every hour spent on Medicare
patient care in outpatient settings, doctors and their staffs now spend
approximately 36 minutes on Medicare-related paperwork. And in hospital
emergency care settings, that ratio is now 1 hour of paperwork for
every 1 hour of patient care.

These problems are genuinely daunting, and today's legislation is not
a panacea. Rather, it is a promising beginning in what I hope will be
an ongoing cooperative effort to make Medicare more responsive, more
rational, and more efficient.
Finally, let me be crystal clear: We must continue to devote
significant resources to combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare
program. Those who violate the public trust must be punished to the
fullest extent of the law, and this legislation would in no way
undercut these critical efforts.
Rather, this bill would relieve complex and unreasonable burdens on
providers and beneficiaries by requiring CMS to issue new rules in an
orderly and reasonable manner, and would provide new appeal protections
for many Medicare providers and beneficiaries. Further, this
legislation would require CMS to use competition to select the best
administrative contractors, and it would require CMS and its
contractors to place greater emphasis on provider education and
outreach. In addition, the bill would implement needed improvements in
the way Medicare oversees alleged provider overpayments, principally by
reforming current Medicare overpayment collection and extrapolation
processes.
I am pleased to join my colleagues in sponsoring this much needed
legislation, and I look forward to continuing progress on these
important issues in the coming year.
______

By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 1739. A bill to authorize grants to improve security on over-the-
road buses; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
help

[[Page S12108]]

secure an often overlooked mode of passenger transportation, intercity
buses.
In the wake of the current challenge to our Nation's security, it is
the duty of Congress to ensure that all modes of passenger
transportation, especially mass transportation vehicles including
buses, are safe and secure. Already, buses have been assaulted, and
innocent passengers have died. While these attacks have not so far been
directly linked to the tragic events of September 11, I believe
Congress would be negligent if we do not act on this issue while we
have this opportunity. Additionally, in many cities, bus terminals
share facilities with rail and/or air terminals. The Congress has
addressed airport security and the Senate is working on rail security,
but this work will not be complete without securing the third
component. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support my legislation to
accomplish this goal.
Clearly, bus service, which transports almost 800 million passengers
annually, deserves Congress's attention. For many people throughout the
country, motorcoaches are the only viable means of transportation.
Greyhound, the largest carrier, and its interline partners serve over
4,000 communities, roughly 8 times more than either the airlines or
Amtrak. Many of the other bus companies that serve these communities
are small businesses with fewer than ten motorcoaches, and these
businesses, in particular, are more affected by the decrease in
passenger demand due to concerns over safety. While many of these
companies have already spent their own funds to upgrade security, they
need help to finish the job so that people will feel comfortable
returning to bus travel.
One of the main elements of my legislation provides grants for the
installation of adequate communications equipment to alert law
enforcement personnel if there is an onboard problem. Not only would an
alarm be sounded to law enforcement but also current technology would
be employed to report the precise location of the bus in question.
Speedy deployment to deal with problems as they are happening could
save lives. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, CVSA, an
association of State, provincial and Federal law enforcement officials,
believes that improved communication capability is among the top goals
to improve the safety and security of passenger buses.
The legislation also will provide grants for research into methods to
protect the drivers. Some of the recent security incidents involve
compromising the safety of the driver. We must find out what options
are available to protect and secure the drivers so that a bus can be
stopped safely if there are problems. Additionally, these grants can be
used to maintain the integrity of bus terminals, facilities, and
coaches, and conduct passenger screening, among other things.
This legislation also dedicates $3-5 million annually in funding to
the Secretary of Transportation to evaluate and coordinate current
public and private efforts to improve bus security and safety by
establishing ``best practices,'' including efforts to isolate the
driver and to detect potential chemical and biological elements.
Portions of this funding could also be used to support additional
research and development initiatives, and the recommendations developed
could be applied to both over-the-road and transit buses.
This funding is not a government ``handout'' to an industry that has
not been acting on its own to improve its facilities, but rather it
will supplement ongoing efforts. Since September 11, Greyhound has
spent at least $5 million on enhanced security. Steps taken include
screening of passengers and baggage at selected terminals; requiring
ticket identification; providing cell phones to drivers as an interim
emergency communications system; increasing security personnel in
terminals; prohibiting passengers from sitting in the first row of
seats behind the driver, and establishing information and
communications systems to aid and coordinate with law enforcement. My
legislation would supplement and expand these initial efforts and
assist with implementing these measures at additional terminals.
My legislation also provides needed assistance to an industry that is
struggling along with other segments of the travel and tourism sector.
After the October 3 Nashville accident that resulted in 7 passenger
fatalities, Greyhound's passenger sales dropped 15 percent and remain
well below last year's levels. According to a survey conducted by the
Travel Business Roundtable, intercity bus transportation is the only
mode of transportation that dropped in ``safety perception'' when
compared with air, auto, rail, and cruise travel. Incorporating the new
security costs, which are necessary to bring passengers back, while
revenue is down, will make it difficult for bus companies to maintain
current service levels. This Federal support will allow bus companies
to dedicate resources to continuing service to smaller communities
rather than reducing schedules to cut costs.
Additionally, this legislation instructs the Department of Labor to
ensure that grants under this section are certified in an expeditious
manner in accordance with its guidelines for processing grants to bus
operators. As provided for under the Department's existing guidelines,
previously certified arrangements for assistance to intercity bus
operators applicable to applicants for security improvement grants,
shall be the basis for processing such grants by the Department. The
Secretary of Transportation will have the discretion to administer this
program directly or through a security administration that may be
established at the Department of Transportation.
This bus security legislation is supported by the American Bus
Association, Greyhound, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, Coach
USA, and the Amalgamated Transit Union. Protecting bus passengers is a
vital part of ensuring a vibrant transportation industry, and it is the
third component to the safe passenger transportation equation. I urge
my Senate colleagues, all of whom have many communities in your state
served by intercity buses, to support this legislation.
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. 1739

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EMERGENCY OVER-THE-ROAD BUS SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 311 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 31109. Over-the-road bus security grant program

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Fund established.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall establish an Over-the-road Bus Security Fund account in
the Treasury into which the Secretary of the Transportation
shall deposit amounts appropriated under paragraph (2).
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and
$200,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, for deposit into the
account established under paragraph (1). Amounts deposited
into the account shall remain available until expended.
``(b) Grant Program.--Without further appropriation,
amounts in the Over-the-road Bus Security Fund account are
available to the Secretary of Transportation for direct
grants to persons engaged in the business of providing over-
the-road bus transportation for system-wide security
upgrades, including the reimbursement of extraordinary
security-related costs determined by the Secretary to have
been incurred by such operators since September 11, 2001,
including--
``(1) establishing an emergency communications and
notification system linked to law enforcement or emergency
response personnel;
``(2) protecting or isolating the driver;
``(3) implementing and operating passenger screening
programs at terminals and on over-the-road buses (as defined
in section 3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 nt));
``(4) acquiring, upgrading, installing, or operating
equipment, software, or accessorial services for collection,
storage, or exchange of passenger and driver information
through ticketing systems or otherwise, and information links
with government agencies;
``(5) constructing or modifying terminals, garages,
facilities, or over-the-road buses to assure their security;
``(6) training employees in recognizing and responding to
terrorist threats, evacuation procedures, passenger screening
procedures, and baggage inspection;
``(7) hiring and training security officers;
``(8) installing cameras and video surveillance equipment
on over-the-road buses and at terminals, garages and over-
the-road bus facilities; and

[[Page S12109]]

``(9) creating a program for employee identification and
background investigation.
``(c) Applications.--To receive a grant under subsection
(b), an applicant shall submit an application, at such time,
in such manner, in such form, and containing such
information, as the Secretary may require, and a plan that
meets the requirements of subsection (c) for the project to
be funded, in whole or in part, by the grant.
``(d) Plan Required.--The Secretary may not make a grant
under subsection (b) for a system-wide security upgrade
project until the applicant has submitted to the Secretary,
and the Secretary has approved, a plan for the project, and
the applicant has submitted to the Secretary such additional
information as the Secretary may require in order to ensure
full accountability for the obligation or expenditure of
grant amounts.
``(e) Federal Standards.--Section 5333 of this title
applies to any work financed with a grant under this section
to the same extent as if it were financed with a grant under
chapter 53 of this title. The application of that section
does not affect or discharge any other responsibility of the
Secretary under this title with respect to work financed by a
grant under this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The chapter analysis for chapter 311 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``state'' in the heading for subchapter I;
and
(B) by inserting after the item relating to section 31108
the following:

``31109. Over-the-road bus security grant program.''.

SEC. 2. BUS SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may use
not less than $3,000,000 and not more than $5,000,000 of the
amounts deposited in the Over-the-road Bus Security Fund
account established under section 31109 of title 49, United
States Code, for research and development of security
recommendations for over-the-road buses (as defined in
section 3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 nt)), including--
(1) a review of actions already taken to address identified
security issues by both public and private entities;
(2) research on engine shut-off mechanisms, chemical and
biological weapon detection technology, and the feasibility
of compartmentalization of the driver; and
(3) compilation, review, and dissemination of industry best
practices.
(b) Consultation With Industry, Labor, and Other Groups.--
In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult
with over-the-road bus management and labor representatives,
public safety and law enforcement officials, and the National
Academy of Sciences.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Baucus, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Wellstone, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Miller, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Smith of Oregon,
Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Cochran, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Murkowski, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 1741. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
clarify that Indian women with breast or cervical cancer who are
eligible for health services provided under a medical care program of
the Indian Health Service or of a tribal organization are included in
the optional Medicaid eligibility category of breast or cervical cancer
patients added by the Breast and Cervical Prevention and Treatment Act
of 2000; considered and passed.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, due to a jurisdiction concern raised
with the committee referral of S. 535, I am reintroducing the Native
American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act
of 2001 today with Senator McCain and 23 other bipartisan cosponsors.
To ensure the availability of life-saving breast and cervical cancer
treatment to American Indian and Alaska Native women, I urge the bill's
immediate passage.
I request unanimous consent that a fact sheet and the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1741

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 ``Native American Breast and
Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INCLUSION OF INDIAN WOMEN WITH
BREAST OR CERVICAL CANCER IN OPTIONAL MEDICAID
ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY.

(a) Technical Amendment.--The subsection (aa) of section
1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) added by
section 2(a)(2) of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention
and Treatment Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-354; 114 Stat.
1381) is amended in paragraph (4) by inserting ``, but
applied without regard to paragraph (1)(F) of such section''
before the period at the end.
(b) BIPA Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section 1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a), as amended by section 702(b) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-572) (as enacted into law by section
1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554), is amended by redesignating
the subsection (aa) added by such section as subsection (bb).
(2) Section 1902(a)(15) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396a(a)(15)), as added by section 702(a)(2) of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-572) (as so enacted
into law), is amended by striking ``subsection (aa)'' and
inserting ``subsection (bb)''.
(3) Section 1915(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396n(b)), as amended by section 702(c)(2) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-574) (as so enacted into law), is
amended by striking ``1902(aa)'' and inserting ``1902(bb)''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Bccpta technical amendment.--The amendment made by
subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and
Treatment Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-354; 114 Stat. 1381).
(2) Bipa technical amendments.--The amendments made by
subsection (b) shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of section 702 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2763A-572) (as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public
Law 106-554).
____

Fact Sheet--Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment
Technical Amendment Act of 2001

Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), John McCain (R-AZ), and 23
additional bipartisan cosponsors are reintroducing the
``Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment
Technical Amendment Act of 2001.'' The bill is identical to
the original bill, S. 535, and makes a simple but extremely
important technical change to the ``Breast and Cervical
Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act'' (P.L. 106-354) to
ensure the coverage of breast and cervical cancer treatment
for American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Need for Legislation

The ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention
Act,'' which passed the Senate by unanimous consent and had
76 cosponsors, gives states the option to extend coverage to
certain women who have been screened by programs operated
under Title XV of the Public Health Service Act (the National
Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program) and who
have no ``creditable coverage.'' The term ``creditable
coverage'' was established by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA). Under the
HIPPA definition, creditable coverage includes a reference to
the medical care program of the Indian Health Service (IHS).
In short, the reference to ``creditable coverage'' in the law
effectively excludes Indian women from receiving Medicaid
breast and cervical cancer treatment as provided for under
this Act.
The Indian health reference to IHS/tribal care was
originally included in HIPPA so that members of Indian Tribes
eligible for IHS would not be treated as having a break in
coverage (and thus subject to pre-existing exclusions and
waiting periods when seeking health insurance) simply because
they had received care through Indian health programs, rather
than through a conventional health insurance program. Thus,
in the HIPPA context, the inclusion of the IHS/tribal
provision was intended to benefit American Indians and Alaska
Natives, not penalize them.
However, use of the HIPPA definition in the recent ``Breast
and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act'' has the
exact opposite effect. In fact, the many Indian women, who
rely on IHS/tribal programs for basic health care, are
excluded from the new law's eligibility for Medicaid. Not
only does the definition deny coverage to Indian women, but
the provision runs counter to the general Medicaid rule
treating IHS facilities as full Medicaid providers.
The legislation would resolve these problems by clarifying
that, for purposes of the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer
Prevention and Treatment Act,'' the term ``creditable
coverage'' shall not include IHS-funded care so that American
Indian and Alaska Native women can be covered by Medicaid for
breast and cervical cancer treatment. Since a number of
states are currently moving forward to provide Medicaid
coverage under the state option, the need for this
legislation is immediate to ensure that American Indian and
Alaska Native women are not denied from receiving life-saving
breast and cervical cancer treatment.

____________________