[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 171 (Tuesday, December 11, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12859-S12865]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 1799. A bill to strengthen the national security by encouraging
and assisting in the expansion and improvement of educational programs
to meet critical needs at the elementary, secondary, and higher
education levels; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Akaka,
and Ms. Collins):
S. 1800. A bill to strengthen and improve the management of national
security, encourage Government service in areas of critical national
security, and to assist government agencies in addressing deficiencies
in personnel possessing specialized skills important to national
security and incorporating the goals and strategies for recruitment and
retention for such skilled personnel into the strategic and performance
management systems of Federal agencies; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
[[Page S12860]]
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the fall of 1957, the United States
received a national wake-up call. The Soviet Union launched sputnik
into orbit. The space race was on, and we were already behind. Not only
were we caught off guard by sputnik, it was suddenly clear that major
changes had to be made to preserve our national security and to pull
ahead in scientific and technological innovation.
One year later, Congress passed landmark legislation, the National
Defense Education Act. The purpose of the act was to ``strengthen the
national defense and to encourage and assist in the expansion and
improvement of educational program to meet critical national needs.''
The National Defense Education Act provided assistance to State and
local school systems to strengthen instruction in science, math,
foreign languages, and other critical subjects. It also created low-
interest student loan programs and fellowships to open the door to
higher education to a greater number of young people. This coordinated
national effort helped our Nation meet its goals.
By 1969, Americans had landed on the Moon. The United States was the
most technologically advanced Nation in the world. A new generation of
highly skilled mathematicians, scientists, and technology experts
staffed laboratories, universities, and Federal agencies. Colleges and
universities had established centers for foreign language study and
research.
Sadly, this Nation received another wake-up call on September 11,
2001.
The week after the attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller made a public
plea for Arabic and Farsi speakers to assist as translators,
illustrating the alarming deficiency in fluent speakers of languages
crucial to our national security needs. It does our Nation no good to
have sophisticated weapons programs if we don't have the scientists to
back them up. It does our Nation no good to have expanded intelligence
gathering capabilities if what we retrieve sits untranslated. The
United States must have the brainpower to match its firepower.
Today I join Senators Thompson and Akaka to introduce two initiatives
that serve two important purposes, to meet the immediate needs of the
Federal Government in areas of national security, and to make
investments in our future through investments in education.
The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act authorizes funds for key
national security agencies to repay student loans for employees in
national security positions who pledge to serve for a minimum of three
years. This expands the existing loan forgiveness program for
Federal employees by permitting these agencies to repay up to $10,000
per year in student loans.
The bill also establishes a National Security Fellowship Program for
graduate students who agree to enter Federal service in a position key
to national security upon the completion of their degree. The
fellowship program will also be open to current Federal employees,
encouraging the enhancement and development of their skills.
To give Federal employees more flexibility and experience, the bill
creates a National Security Service Corps to allow Federal employees to
serve in rotational assignments in other agencies with national
security responsibilities.
Along with these immediate remedies, homeland security and
preparedness depend on a well-educated citizenry who leave school with
the tools they need to succeed in science, math, technology, and
foreign languages. Unless broader education reforms are implemented, we
will continue to find ourselves playing catch-up to secure the skilled
professionals our government needs.
The Homeland Security Education Act would fund partnerships between
local school districts and foreign language departments in institutions
of higher education. These new foreign language partnerships will
provide intensive professional development opportunities for foreign
language teachers at every level from kindergarten to 12th grade. The
partnerships will foster contact and communication between university
faculty and K-12 teachers in order to improve teachers' knowledge of
the languages they teach as well as their teaching skills. Partnerships
would also use grant funds to recruit foreign language majors to the
classroom. Our bill will give priority to partnerships that include
high-need school districts and that put a focus on the less-commonly
taught languages.
Our bill will encourage more undergraduates to complete degrees in
mathematics, science, engineering, and the less-commonly taught foreign
languages by establishing a program to forgive the interest on a
borrower's student loans if he or she earns a degree in one of these
subjects. The program aims to provide an incentive for students who are
interested in these areas of study to earn their degrees.
The bill establishes grants for partnerships between school districts
and private entities to help schools improve science and math
curriculum, upgrade laboratory facilities, and purchase scientific
equipment. In turn, the private sector partner will donate technology
or equipment to the school district; provide scholarships for district
students to study math, science, or engineering at college; establish
internship or mentoring opportunities for district students; or sponsor
programs aimed at young people who are under-represented in the fields
of math, science, and engineering.
In order to stay on top of innovations in science and technology,
more professionals in these fields will have to also be proficient in a
foreign language. This is imperative to our national security, even
some scientific documents and articles in the public domain are beyond
the translation capabilities of our government. The Homeland Security
Education Act would make grants available to colleges and universities
to establish programs in which students take courses in science, math
and technology taught in a foreign language. Funds will also support
immersion programs for students to take science and math courses in a
non-English speaking country.
The Homeland Security Education Act authorizes $20 million for the
National Flagship Language Initiative, which was funded as a one-year
pilot program in this year's Defense Appropriations bill. The funds
will be used to provide institutional grants to universities to
graduate specific numbers of students with the foreign language
proficiencies needed by the government. Participating institutions will
make available a negotiated number of slots to student applicants who
are Federal employees.
With these bills, we hope to address some of the gaps in homeland
security that have been identified by numerous experts and panels,
including the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st
century. We must do everything possible to ensure that our intellectual
preparedness is equal to that of our military preparedness. Without
these investments, we may find that the war against terrorism is
unwinnable, and our status in the global community severely diminished.
Our Nation has demonstrated that we have the moral resolve to fight a
war to end terrorism. We must match that resolve with the willingness
make investments in education and training that will pay off well into
the next century.
Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, I am
honored to work with my colleagues from the Governmental Affairs
Committee, Senator Durbin and Senator Thompson, to introduce the
Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act and the Homeland Security
Education Act.
Alarmed at the Soviet Union's successful launch of the first space
vehicle, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958.
Our country faced a changed national security landscape, and our
Government was determined to make certain the United States never came
up short again in the areas of math, science, technology and foreign
languages.
Although we face new national security threats, our Government's
response is built on the talents and dedication of our Federal
workforce. Recently the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st
Century, also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, concluded that ``. .
. the excellence of American public servants is the foundation upon
which an effective national security strategy must rest . . . because
future success will require
[[Page S12861]]
the mastery of advanced technology . . . as well as leading-edge
concepts of governance.''
The recent terrorist attacks strengthened our will and exposed the
weaknesses of our great country. We were quickly reminded of the
importance of our Federal Government and its workforce. For every
essential service these attacks disrupted, we expected our government
to respond quickly and effectively, and those in government did.
However, the events of September 11 and the anthrax attacks through
the mails underscored how much government needs people with the
critical skills to fill critical national security positions. We need
to recruit the best people with the best skills and ensure that
government service remains attractive. Our legislation does that.
The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act and the Homeland Security
Education Act provide needed tools and resources to agencies expressly
for hiring new employees in critical national security positions and
establishes a student loan repayment program and fellowships to future
and current federal employees in exchange for government service.
It provides additional training opportunities for the great people
already committed to the Federal service whose expertise guide agencies
daily in meeting their missions. For example, Federal employees in
national security positions will be eligible to apply for fellowships,
which includes full tuition and a stipend, to pursue degrees in fields
deemed critical to national security.
Our bills also respond to future national security needs by helping
schools better prepare students for the demands of the 21st century. We
must act now to identify and develop the right balance of skills in
science, math, and foreign languages. We must make resources available
to our schools and their teachers so that our students graduate with a
greater proficiency in these areas.
The bills will strengthen the specific foreign language skills that
the Government has identified as critical to our national security. We
would help establish an advanced foreign language program that matches
foreign language program efforts in leading universities with national
security requirements.
I would like to note that the University of Hawaii is recognized as a
model university in foreign language instruction and is noted for the
strength of its faculty and curriculum particularly in Mandarin
Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, language deemed important by the Defense
Language Institute. The University of Hawaii is also an authority in
the development of enhanced foreign language teaching methods.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this
bipartisan legislation is passed.
______
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr.
Smith of New Hampshire):
S. 1804. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax incentives for economic recovery and provide for the payment of
emergency extended unemployment compensation; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the economy has been struggling for
about a year now. We have had a number of difficulties that have made
our economy not as healthy as we would like it to be. Oddly enough, for
the week of September 11, according to the hearing we had in the Joint
Economic Committee, unemployment actually dropped. There was an
increase in employment that week. So maybe our economy was moving in
the right direction. But immediately after September 11, and the shock
this Nation went through, we slipped back into what has now been called
a recession.
Factories are closing in a number of places. Quite a few have closed
in my State. It has been quite discouraging that this tends to happen
more often in small towns where you have just a few businesses. That is
where you see more of the closings than in the urban areas.
The National Bureau of Economic Research has declared that we have
slipped into recession. And the terrorist attacks have hurt us in a lot
of different ways involving jobs for families in America. So I have
been pushing for some time that we make sure we complete this Congress
with a good, healthy stimulus package.
I have raised that observation with quite a number of people. But we
are not, to my knowledge, making any progress. I have referred to the
people who I understand are working on it as ``the masters of the
universe.'' They are back there somewhere outside of this Chamber,
working and manipulating and talking to people about what ought to be
in the package. And, yes, they take input, and I have talked to them,
and other people have talked to them--and I did not suggest it is not a
tough job; it is a tough job--but we are getting close to the time when
we should recess, and people are suggesting that we might even complete
this Congress without a stimulus package. I think that would be a very
bad mistake.
Even the most conservative economists have suggested we would have a
one-half of 1 percent increase in the GDP if we have a stimulus package
of $75 billion to $100 billion. I believe that is clearly worth the
effort. That one-half of 1 percent, in an economy as large as ours, is
very significant. It means many people will continue to have jobs that
they would not have otherwise. It means that many people will be
working and paying taxes to the Government which will help us with our
deficit situation. It means many people will be working and taking care
of their families and not going into debt and will be buying things,
such as at the grocery store, that they would not otherwise be buying.
So I think we need to be sure we move in that direction. That is why
I have offered today S. 1804, which is cosponsored by Senators Tim
Hutchinson, George Allen, and Bob Smith. And I intend to move this bill
if we do not see progress. Really, I intend to seek a vote on it if it
is in any way appropriate and possible this session.
Let me mention a few things that are in the bill which I think are
common sense and would be good policy. One of the things I have been
wrestling with is the earned-income tax credit. This is a program that
began in 1975. It is now a $31 billion program that provides a tax
credit to low-income working Americans. It is designed to make work
more beneficial and more rewarding so that, particularly, families can
live off of low-income jobs. In fact, the program is quite generous for
a family of four or more who qualify appropriately. They can receive
$4,000 a year. An average family with one qualifying child, that
receives the earned-income tax credit, receives almost $2,000 a year.
On average, it is over $1,900 per year that they receive.
This totals out, if you figure it on an hourly basis for the average
family of four that receives the earned-income tax credit, to almost $1
an hour pay raise over whatever they are making. If they are making $6
an hour and they get another $1, that is a big increase. If you are at
$5 an hour and you get $1 an hour, that is a 20-percent increase in
your pay. It is more than that in take-home because you don't have any
withholding out of a tax credit.
The way this thing has been working, however, is not healthy. The way
this thing has been working is, the money goes to the worker when they
fill out their income-tax return the next year. In February or March,
when they fill out the tax return, they get this $1,900 in a lump sum
check sometime in the spring after they worked.
Congress wrestled with that. They didn't believe that was furthering
a policy of the Congress, and so they tried to provide the credit on
the worker's paycheck. In years past, in the 1970s and all, when this
passed, people didn't have the computers we have today, and requiring
small businesses to calculate this and put it on the paycheck caused
some grief. But today, because everything is automated, it is much
easier to do.
In recent years, Congress tried to do something about it. In 1978,
they passed legislation that said a worker could have it put on their
paycheck if they want to. Oddly enough, only 5 percent of workers have
chosen this or know they can.
Therein lies a problem, and there are several reasons. One, they
probably don't know about it. Another one is that oftentimes they are
told that if you get this advanced payment on your check instead of
getting a refund next year, you may owe money to the Government next
year. And that caused some to not take advantage of it. At
[[Page S12862]]
any rate, only 5 percent of Americans are taking advantage of this
policy.
I believe it ought to be the policy. I believe the policy was founded
to begin with, with the idea of helping people, encouraging people to
go to work. If you are not making much more than the minimum wage,
sometimes people may wonder if they are not better staying at home on
welfare. The money should be put on there. Most economists, most good
public policy students of the situation believe that.
That is one of the points of this stimulus bill that I have. Let me
tell you why it is such a good stimulus package. It is good because the
money for people who have worked this year, who receive the benefit of
the earned-income tax credit, they will get their refund next year.
What my proposal says is in January, they would begin to receive next
year's $1,900, on their paycheck. Current law allows a recipient to get
about 60 percent of their earned income tax credit in advance, on their
paycheck. We calculate, of the $31 billion that is annually being spent
on the earned income tax credit, this proposal would bring to the
average worker, infused into the economy next fiscal year, $15 billion,
a year before the time it would normally be in the economy. I believe
that is good public policy. It is good to encourage work. It will help
people who need money now to take care of their families. It will be
coming to them in a regular way, and it will help them take care of
their families.
That would be a good stimulus package. It would help us next year
when we have to balance the budget because we would have $15 billion
less to spend on the tax refunds because it would have been paid out
throughout this fiscal year. It would help us get back into a balanced
budget which is important. This year, we are not going to be in a
balanced budget. We are going to be in deficit unfortunately. Next
year, we have an opportunity to get out. This package in that regard
would help us do so.
I strongly believe that is a good thing that should be considered. It
would infuse money into the economy and have a net drain on the economy
of zero over a 2-year period, except perhaps some interest loss to the
Government.
Another matter that we believe should be in this package is a
proposal for relief for those who are unemployed. Everybody has been
talking about that. We ought to be able to reach agreement on that.
Senator Baucus had a proposal. The House Republicans had a proposal
that came out of that chamber. A centrist proposal has been put forward
by Senators Collins, Smith and Landrieu that hits the area about right.
It increases the weeks for unemployment for up to 13 additional weeks,
and it begins calculating that for anybody who was unemployed at the
time of September 11. It is more expansive in that regard. We have a
good bipartisan unemployment compensation package.
Another thing it is time for us to do would be to complete the
reduction of the 27-percent tax bracket down to the 25-percent tax
bracket. We committed to doing that over the 10-year tax plan. This
would accelerate that next year, and working Americans would receive a
little more take-home money every week as a result of a reduction in
that tax rate. That has a lot of support.
One thing that has not been mentioned, but I strongly believe would
be one of the most beneficial proposals, is to advance the child tax
credit. Under our current 10-year tax reduction package that passed, we
will increase the child tax credit for families to $1,000, but it will
take nine years for it to become $1,000. I believe for next year alone
we ought to do that. So every family who obviously is hurt the most in
a recessionary environment would receive an additional $400 per child
tax credit that they could use to help their families. That would be a
good impact.
The cost of that is about $20 billion in terms of estimated revenue
lost to the Government, but it is a real stimulus into the economy,
into the hands of families who will be spending it on their children.
It will help keep the economy moving in a healthy way. That is a good
step. It is good public policy. Families trying to raise children would
have additional income to take care of them.
A lot of people are at a point where they have had to cash in stocks
and other investments that they have and have taken losses for it. For
individuals, this allows them to deduct those losses on their tax
return, but the limit on loss deductions is $3,000 per year. We believe
that, particularly in light of the fact that many people may be cashing
in investments, we should at least raise it up to $5,000 per year which
could be helpful to people in desperate circumstances.
One other thing that is important--and Senator Allen has been a
champion of this and has won me over--is the need to provide a tax
credit to encourage American families to become technologically
literate, to encourage American families to purchase computers for
children who are in school so they will have a computer at home so they
can become a part of the high-tech world that is all about us today. He
has proposed, and we have put as a part of this bill, a $500 tax credit
for the purchase of software or computer systems for a family. To
really get a jolt out of it, we are only going to propose that for a 3-
month period. And the computer companies, I am sure, and all the
marketing companies and the stores will be promoting that you have a
$500 rebate on your purchase of a computer for your family, if you have
a student in school.
I think that is a good step. The computer industry has been hurting
badly, and having this money available could get them off the ground,
get them moving again and, at the same time, help children, help them
become educated and to become an active part of the high-tech world in
which we now live.
Some of the matters that are in the legislation we proposed, I don't
believe there is a single thing in it that somebody could say is a
special interest. It has a business provision. It has Senator Baucus's
10-percent advance depreciation, which would encourage businesses to
purchase equipment and allow them to depreciate a little faster, and
encourage them, perhaps, to recapitalize in their business. That was
Senator Baucus's 1-year proposal.
I don't believe there is anything in this bill that does violence to
fairness or justice. I don't think there is anything in this bill that
in any way could be considered special interest or unfair. I believe we
have a simple package--myself and the three Senators who have
introduced this with me--that would infuse $75 billion into the
economy, with virtually no bureaucracy, virtually no overhead, targeted
to middle and lower income America--putting $75 billion into their
hands early, allowing them to spend it and get this economy going
again.
I am not sure businesses--and I have heard a number of economists say
this--are in a mood to do a lot of investing in new equipment to
produce a lot more product if there is nobody to buy. So I think that
the way we proceed would be to allow people who have families and who
work every day, and who need every dollar they get to survive--give
them a little bit more to take home. If they do, they will spend it and
help get the economy moving again. If nothing else, it will help them
get by, whether it improves the economy or not.
Of course, we do have $5 billion in grant money to the States that
would allow them to deal with emergency situations in their States for
people who are hurting also. That has been a bipartisan project, and it
has a little more than has been proposed in the President's request. We
think that is a good figure that everybody can rally around.
I believe getting a tax stimulus package together and passed is not
that hard. It doesn't have to be lockstep the way everybody is
negotiating now. They have dug in on every position. Some of the issues
in my package they are dealing with and some of them they are not
considering. My provisions do the job just as well--in fact, better
than what I am hearing discussed in a lot of ways.
I think the majority leader needs to be sure we don't get to the end
of this session without time to bring this up. If they can't reach an
agreement, we are going to have a problem. The bill was up and
amendments were being offered. When debate and amendments were not shut
off, the bill was pulled down. It has gone behind closed doors and we
are sitting around here saying: Maybe they will reach an agreement;
maybe they will not reach an agreement.
[[Page S12863]]
I have a bill that I think we need to vote on if we can't get some
agreement with which I and other Members are comfortable. We need to
vote on this bill because it is a good bill. It is not that complicated
in any way to administer or put together.
I thank the Chair for her attention. I look forward to further
discussions on this issue. I certainly look forward to making sure
before this Congress recesses we bring up and pass legislation that
will help this economy. I don't know how much it would take to do it.
The experts say $75 billion is worth half a GDP percentage point in
growth. That is good news. I think it is exactly the kind of shot that
might be helpful.
If we don't pass something, that could be a sad event also. In fact,
the markets and people might lose confidence even more than they have
already if we don't pass a stimulus package. It is a double burden to
move that forward.
I thank the Chair for listening. I thank my colleagues in the Senate
for their consideration of this legislation. We look forward to making
sure a stimulus package clears before we recess.
I yield the floor.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Graham, Ms. Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 1806. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect
to health professions programs regarding the practice of pharmacy; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today, joined by my colleagues,
Senator Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Enzi of Wyoming, to
introduce legislation that will address the growing shortage of
pharmacists.
The Pharmacists Education Act takes a multi-faceted approach to the
problem of workforce shortages in the pharmacy sector. In December
2000, the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, Bureau of
Health Professions published a report entitled, ``The Pharmacist
Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Pharmacists''. This
study considered the factors influencing the demand for pharmacists in
the health care sector and also looked at the ability of our academic
institutions to supply the quantity of pharmacy students required to
meet this growing demand. The report concluded that there was indeed
evidence of a shortage in the field, due primarily to the rapid
increase in demand for pharmacists and the array of services they
provide, coupled with a constrained ability to expand the number of
pharmacy education programs to accommodate the need for more practicing
pharmacists. The study also indicated that the shortage was unlikely to
abate in the future without significant changes to the current system.
Pharmacists represent the third largest health professional group in
the United States with about 190,000 active pharmacists last year. This
figure is expected to grow to 224, 500 by 2010. Yet, despite this
anticipated increase in the number of practicing pharmacists, the
demand for the services is expected to continue to outpace supply. A
recent employment survey conducted by the National Association of Chain
Drug stores found that the number of vacancies among their member
companies had increased by 1,000 positions in the last six months
alone.
Remarkable advancements in medical science have made treatments for
diseases once thought impossible to treat a reality. And what is
possible is quickly what is practiced in the medical profession. Many
of these dynamic breakthroughs have been in the area of
pharmaceuticals.
These remarkable changes in health care have resulted in dramatic
upswings in the number of retail prescriptions dispensed annually, from
1.9 billion in 1992 to 2.8 billion in 1999. Moreover, as medications
become more complex and diverse, and our population becomes older and
sicker, the role of the pharmacist in the health care setting has
become evermore important. For these reasons, my colleagues and I felt
it was very important that steps be taken to avert a more serious
shortage of these critical health professionals.
The Pharmacy Education Act seeks to enhance not only the supply of
pharmacists, by providing much needed support to Colleges of Pharmacy,
it also aims to improve the distribution of pharmacists by building
upon the National Health Service Corps. Specifically, the bill expands
eligibility of certain existing Federal grant programs to Colleges of
Pharmacy to upgrade and expand facilities and laboratory space and
recruit and retain talented faculty to educate pharmacy students.
The bill also provides a number of new sources of financial aid to
students interested in pursuing a career in pharmacy. First, the bill
allows students entering pharmacy school and students who have
graduated with a PharmD degree to apply for National Health Service
Corps, NHSC, Scholarship and Loan Repayment funds. Second, it allows
students who demonstrate financial need to apply for scholarships to
qualifying schools of pharmacy.
This bill is endorsed by a number of organizations, including the
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, the National Association
of Chain Drug Stores, National Community Pharmacists Association,
American College of Clinical Pharmacy and American Society of Health-
System Pharmacists.
Increasing demand for pharmacists makes it imperative that a
proactive response to current trends be undertaken before the situation
becomes critical. I hope my colleagues will join me in seeking
expeditious consideration and passage of this timely and important
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Pharmacy Education Act
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1806
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 ``Pharmacy Education Aid Act
of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Pharmacists are an important link in our Nation's
health care system. A critical shortage of pharmacists is
threatening the ability of pharmacies to continue to provide
important prescription related services.
(2) In the landmark report entitled ``To Err is Human:
Building a Safer Health System'', the Institute of Medicine
reported that medication errors can be partially attributed
to factors that are indicative of a shortage of pharmacists
(such as too many customers, numerous distractions, and staff
shortages).
(3) Congress acknowledged in the Healthcare Research and
Quality Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-129) a growing demand for
pharmacists by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to conduct a study to determine whether there is a
shortage of pharmacists in the United States and, if so, to
what extent.
(4) As a result of Congress' concern about how a shortage
of pharmacists would impact the public health, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services published a report entitled
``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study in Supply and Demand for
Pharmacists'' in December of 2000.
(5) The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study in Supply and Demand
for Pharmacists'' found that ``While the overall supply of
pharmacists has increased in the past decade, there has been
an unprecedented demand for pharmacists and for
pharmaceutical care services, which has not been met by the
currently available supply'' and that the ``evidence clearly
indicates the emergence of a shortage of pharmacists over the
past two years''.
(6) The same study also found that ``The factors causing
the current shortage are of a nature not likely to abate in
the near future without fundamental changes in pharmacy
practice and education.'' The study projects that the number
of prescriptions filled by community pharmacists will
increase by 20 percent by 2004. In contrast, the number of
community pharmacists is expected to increase by only 6
percent by 2005.
(7) The demand for pharmacists will increase as
prescription drug use continues to grow.
SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF PRACTICE OF PHARMACY IN PROGRAM FOR
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS.
(a) Inclusion in Corps Mission.--Section 331(a)(3) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by adding at the end the
following: ``Such term includes pharmacist services.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(E)(i) The term `pharmacist services' includes drug
therapy management services furnished by a pharmacist,
individually or on behalf of a pharmacy provider, and such
services and supplies furnished incident to
[[Page S12864]]
the pharmacist's drug therapy management services, that the
pharmacist is legally authorized to perform (in the State in
which the individual performs such services) in accordance
with State law (or the State regulatory mechanism provided
for by State law).''.
(b) Scholarship Program.--Section 338A of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``pharmacists,''
after ``physicians,''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``pharmacy'' after
``dentistry,''.
(c) Loan Repayment Program.--Section 338B of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l-1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``pharmacists,''
after ``physicians,''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``pharmacy,'' after
``dentistry,''.
(d) Funding.--Section 338H(b)(2) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254q(b)(2)) is amended in subparagraph
(A), by inserting before the period the following: ``, which
may include such contracts for individuals who are in a
course of study or program leading to a pharmacy degree''.
SEC. 4. CERTAIN HEALTH PROFESSIONS PROGRAMS REGARDING
PRACTICE OF PHARMACY.
(a) In General.--Part E of title VII of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294n et seq) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 770 as section 771; and
(2) by adding at the end the following subpart:
``Subpart 3--Certain Workforce Programs
``SEC. 771. PRACTICING PHARMACIST WORKFORCE.
``(a) Recruiting and Retaining Students and Faculty.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make awards of grants
or contracts to qualifying schools of pharmacy (as defined in
subsection (f)) for the purpose of carrying out programs for
recruiting and retaining students and faculty for such
schools, including programs to provide scholarships for
attendance at such schools to full-time students who have
financial need for the scholarships and who demonstrate a
commitment to becoming practicing pharmacists or faculty.
``(2) Preference in providing scholarships.--An award may
not be made under paragraph (1) unless the qualifying school
of pharmacy involved agrees that, in providing scholarships
pursuant to the award, the school will give preference to
students for whom the costs of attending the school would
constitute a severe financial hardship.
``(b) Loan Repayment Program Regarding Faculty Positions.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may establish a program of
entering into contracts with individuals described in
paragraph (2) under which the individuals agree to serve as
members of the faculties of qualifying schools of pharmacy in
consideration of the Federal Government agreeing to pay, for
each year of such service, not more than $20,000 of the
principal and interest of the educational loans of such
individuals.
``(2) Eligible individuals.--The individuals referred to in
paragraph (1) are individuals who--
``(A) have a doctoral degree in pharmacy or the
pharmaceutical sciences; or
``(B) are enrolled in a school of pharmacy and are in the
final academic year of such school in a program leading to
such a doctoral degree.
``(3) Requirements regarding faculty positions.--The
Secretary may not enter into a contract under paragraph (1)
unless--
``(A) the individual involved has entered into a contract
with a qualifying school of pharmacy to serve as a member of
the faculty of the school for not less than 2 years;
``(B) the contract referred to in subparagraph (A) provides
that, in serving as a member of the faculty pursuant to such
subparagraph, the individual will--
``(i) serve full time; or
``(ii) serve as a member of the adjunct clinical faculty
and in so serving will actively supervise pharmacy students
for 25 academic weeks per year (or such greater number of
academic weeks as may be specified in the contract); and
``(C) such contract provides that--
``(i) the school will, for each year for which the
individual will serve as a member of the faculty under the
contract with the school, make payments of the principal and
interest due on the educational loans of the individual for
such year in an amount equal to the amount of such payments
made by the Secretary for the year;
``(ii) the payments made by the school pursuant to clause
(i) on behalf of the individual will be in addition to the
pay that the individual would otherwise receive for serving
as a member of such faculty; and
``(iii) the school, in making a determination of the amount
of compensation to be provided by the school to the
individual for serving as a member of the faculty, will make
the determination without regard to the amount of payments
made (or to be made) to the individual by the Federal
Government under paragraph (1).
``(4) Applicability of certain provisions.--The provisions
of sections 338C, 338G, and 338I shall apply to the program
established in paragraph (1) to the same extent and in the
same manner as such provisions apply to the National Health
Service Corps Loan Repayment Program established in subpart
III of part D of title III, including the applicability of
provisions regarding reimbursements for increased tax
liability and provisions regarding bankruptcy.
``(5) Waiver regarding school contributions.--The Secretary
may waive the requirement established in paragraph (3)(C) if
the Secretary determines that the requirement will impose an
undue financial hardship on the school involved.
``(c) Information Technology.--The Secretary may make
awards of grants or contracts to qualifying schools of
pharmacy for the purpose of assisting such schools in
acquiring and installing computer-based systems to provide
pharmaceutical education. Education provided through such
systems may be graduate education, professional education, or
continuing education. The computer-based systems may be
designed to provide on-site education, or education at remote
sites (commonly referred to as distance learning), or both.
``(d) Facilities.--The Secretary may award grants under
section 1610 for construction projects to expand, remodel,
renovate, or alter existing facilities for qualifying schools
of pharmacy or to provide new facilities for the schools.
``(e) Requirement Regarding Education in Practice of
Pharmacy.--With respect to the qualifying school of pharmacy
involved, the Secretary shall ensure that programs and
activities carried out with Federal funds provided under this
section have the goal of educating students to become
licensed pharmacists, or the goal of providing for faculty to
recruit, retain, and educate students to become licensed
pharmacists.
``(f) Qualifying School of Pharmacy.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualifying school of pharmacy' means a
college or school of pharmacy (as defined in section 799B)
that, in providing clinical experience for students, requires
that the students serve in a clinical rotation in which
pharmacist services (as defined in section 331(a)(3)(E)) are
provided at or for--
``(1) a medical facility that serves a substantial number
of individuals who reside in or are members of a medically
underserved community (as so defined);
``(2) an entity described in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (L) of section 340B(a)(4) (relating to the definition
of covered entity);
``(3) a health care facility of the Department of Veterans
Affairs or of any of the Armed Forces of the United States;
``(4) a health care facility of the Bureau of Prisons;
``(5) a health care facility operated by, or with funds
received from, the Indian Health Service; or
``(6) a disproportionate share hospital under section 1923
of the Social Security Act.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2002 through 2006.''.
(b) Technical and Conform Amendments.--Section 1610(a) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300r(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end thereof;
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) expand, remodel, renovate, or alter existing
facilities for qualifying schools of pharmacy or to provide
new facilities for the schools in accordance with section
771(d).'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end thereof;
(ii) in clause (ii)(II), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) a qualifying school of pharmacy (as defined in
section 771(f)).'';
(2) by striking the first sentence of paragraph (3) and
inserting the following: ``There are authorized to be
appropriated for grants under paragraph (1)(A)(iii), such
sums as may be necessary.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Recapture of payments.--If, during the 20-year period
beginning on the date of the completion of construction
pursuant to a grant under paragraph (1)(A)(iii)--
``(A) the school of pharmacy involved, or other owner of
the facility, ceases to be a public or nonprofit private
entity; or
``(B) the facility involved ceases to be used for the
purposes for which it was constructed (unless the Secretary
determines, in accordance with regulations, that there is
good cause for releasing the school or other owner from such
obligation);
the United States is entitled to recover from the school or
other owner of the facility the amount bearing the same ratio
to the current value (as determined by an agreement between
the parties or by action brought in the United States
District Court for the district in which such facility is
situated) of the facility as the amount of the Federal
participation bore to the cost of the construction of such
facility.''.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 1807. A bill to amend the National Capital Revitalization and
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 to permit any Federal law
enforcement agency to enter into a cooperative agreement with the
Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia to assist
the Department in carrying out crime prevention and law
[[Page S12865]]
enforcement activities in the District of Columbia if deemed
appropriate by the Chief of the Department and the United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1807
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 ``District of Columbia Police
Coordination Amendment Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
TO ENTER INTO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.
Section 11712(d) of the National Capital Revitalization and
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 4-
192(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(33) Any other law enforcement agency of the Federal
government that the Chief of the Metropolitan Police
Department and the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia deem appropriate to enter into an agreement pursuant
to this section.''.
____________________