[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 11 (Monday, February 11, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S587-S590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCTED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 1928. A bill to amend section 222 of the Communications Act of
1934 to require affirmative written consent by a customer to the
release of customer proprietary network information; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to require telecommunications firms to receive explicit written consent
from consumers prior to sharing their customer proprietary network
information, or CPNI, with other entities. This is a simple bill that
will provide consumers with the privacy protection that they deserve to
have and that I believe should already be required under the 1996
Telecommunications Act.
The 1996 Communications Act established as law that CPNI is
confidential personal information, requiring customer approval before
its release or being shared with others. Congress and the American
people count on the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to carry
out that mandate and to protect the privacy of American consumers who
use the country's telecommunications system. Therefore, I believe it
shouldn't really even be necessary to introduce this legislation,
clarifying that approval should mean ``express written consent'' or, in
other words, an ``opt-in'' approach to protecting privacy. But I share
the concern of consumer advocates and 39 State attorneys general that
the FCC, which is currently taking comment on the matter, could
otherwise adopt an ``opt-out'' approach to privacy as it relates to
CPNI. In my view, and in the view of the consumer advocates and the
state attorneys general, an opt-out approach cannot adequately protect
consumers'' privacy and would not meet Congress's intent in passing the
1996 Communications Act.
An opt-out approach would put the unfair burden on consumers to
protect their own confidential personal information that is in the
possession of large telecommunications companies, protect it from being
shared by those companies with other entities. This can be information
of the most sensitive kind, including lists of phone numbers dialed and
the duration and timing of calls. An opt-out approach presumes consumer
consent that such information could be shared unless the customer goes
through an unduly burdensome and uncertain process to request that the
provider not share it.
In recent months in Minnesota, for example, Qwest notified customers
that the company would begin to share customer information unless the
customers notified Qwest that they did not want it shared. The company
notice was often overlooked by customers, and it was difficult to
understand for many customers who did try to read it. Furthermore,
numerous customers reported problems getting through to the company's
800 number, or in navigating the options for opting out of the
information sharing scheme. Due to customer complaints, and to the
company's credit, Qwest recently reversed its position and will not
share any customer information until the FCC issues a final CPNI rule.
Meanwhile, however, Qwest and other telecommunications carriers have
been advocating heavily for adoption by the FCC of an ``opt-out''
approach.
I am not telling anyone whether they should want their CPNI shared
and made available to marketers. That is up to consumers themselves. I
do want to leave that choice to consumers. I believe that means that
they must have the opportunity to give their express consent on what
personal information and to whom it will be shared before such
information is shared.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL:
S. 1929. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security to permit
Kentucky to operate a separate retirement system for certain public
employees; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to add Kentucky to the list of States that are permitted to offer
``divided retirement'' plans under the Social Security Act.
Three weeks ago, I was contacted by Brian James, president of the
Louisville Fraternal Order of Police, FOP, and Tony Cobaugh, president
of the Jefferson County FOP. These two law enforcement leaders called
my attention to a problem that could jeopardize the retirement security
of many of our community's police, fire, and emergency personnel.
In November of 2000, the citizens of Jefferson County and the City of
Louisville, KY voted to merge their communities and respective
governments into a single entity, which will be known as Greater
Louisville. As one might expect, combining two large metropolitan
governments in such a short time frame cannot be done without
encountering a few difficulties along the way. Jefferson County and the
City of Louisville currently operate two very different retirement
programs for their police officers. When these two governments merge on
January 6, 2003, current Federal law will require the new government to
offer a single retirement plan that could dramatically increase the
cost of retirement for both our dedicated public safety officers and
the new Greater Louisville government.
Thankfully, when the FOP's leaders called this problem to my
attention, they also suggested a simply solution, let the police
officers and firefighters choose for themselves the retirement system
which best meets their needs.
I rise today to offer legislation that will provide retirement
stability to our public safety officers by allowing Kentucky to operate
what is known as a ``divided retirement system.'' I am pleased to be
joined in this effort by Congressman Ron Lewis and Congresswoman Anne
Northup who will soon introduce similar legislation in the House of
Representatives.
[[Page S588]]
With passage of my legislation and similar legislation by the
Kentucky General Assembly, Louisville's and Jefferson County's police
officers would decide whether or not they want to participate in Social
Security or remain in their traditional retirement plan. While future
employees will be automatically enrolled in Social Security, no current
officers would be forced into a new retirement system as a result of
the merger without their approval.
Current Federal law allows twenty-one states the option of offering
divided retirement systems. Unfortunately, Kentucky is not one of these
twenty-one States. The legislation I am offering today would change
that by adding Kentucky to list of states designated in the Social
Security Act.
It is critical that the Senate provide this retirement stability to
the brave men and women who protect the citizens of Louisville and
Jefferson County everyday. There is extensive precedent for granting
Kentucky this authority, and my legislation enjoys the broad, bi-
partisan support of policemen, firefighters, local and state officials.
I look forward to working with this coalition, as well as my colleagues
in the Senate, to see that this urgently needed legislation is enacted
into law this year.
I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Louisville
FOP, Jefferson County FOP, Louisville Firefighters Union, and State
Finance and Administration Cabinet, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Fraternal Order of Police,
Louisville Lodge 6,
Louisville, KY, January 7, 2002.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Louisville, KY.
Dear Mr. McConnell: Following a referendum held
approximately one year ago the voters in our community
approved a government merger of the City of Louisville and
Jefferson County Kentucky. Currently officers employed by the
City of Louisville working for the Louisville Division of
Police do not pay into Social Security, due to having been
exempted from making such payments by a previous law. On
January 06, 2003 when our new government become effective the
Louisville Police Officers who I am elected to represent will
no longer be excused from Social Security participation.
I would like to see our new government offer a ``Divided
Referendum'' vote that would allow each individual officer
the opportunity to choose his or her own preference in
participating in Social Security. This would make for a
smoother transition as it relates to our members and the new
government. For this to be possible there has to be federal
legislation sanctioning Kentucky as a ``Name State''. There
are currently twenty-one states that have such designation.
Also there has to be changes in the Kentucky. Revised
Statutes to allow for the ``Divided Referendum'' vote.
It is my hope that you would assist our organization in
making the necessary changes at both the federal and state
levels during this years Congressional Session as well as
Kentucky's Legislative Session.
If you have any questions regarding this issue please do
not hesitate to call me. Thank you in advance for any
consideration you can give this matter. I am looking forward
to seeing you in 2002.
Respectfully,
David James,
President.
____
Fraternal Order of Police,
Jefferson County Lodge No. 14,
Louisville, KY, January 15, 2002.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Louisville, KY.
Dear Mr. McConnell: The voters of Louisville and Jefferson
County approved the referendum for a consolidated government
over one year ago. Now the monumental task of organizing that
future government is quickly upon us. As the leader of this
labor organization, I must focus on those labor-related
issues that affect my membership.
The biggest issue raised to this point is the area of
social security. Louisville police officers do not
participate in Social Security. However, Jefferson County
police officers do participate. Both FOP lodges are working
closely on the very probable police merger that will most
likely follow the government merger.
Both FOP lodges believe that the members should have the
opportunity to decide their futures in reference to Social
Security through a ``divided referendum''. It is our
understanding that a change must occur on the state and
federal level. Will you help us by changing Kentucky to a
``Name State''? Hopefully, we can count on your support for
enabling changes at the state or federal level during the
2002 United States Congress or at the Kentucky General
Assembly.
Respectfully,
Anthony J. Cobaugh,
President.
Louisville Professional Fire
Fighters Union Local 345,
Louisville, January 28, 2002.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Louisville KY.
Dear Mr. McConnell: Following a referendum held
approximately one year ago, the voters in our community
approved a government merger of the city of Louisville and
Jefferson County, Kentucky. An issue has come up concerning
Social Security, involving police and fire fighters. Due to a
previous law exempting fire fighters, we do not pay into
social security. On January 6, 2003 when our new government
becomes effective, the members of the Louisville Professional
Fire Fighters, Local #345 will no longer be excused from
Social Security participation.
I would like to see our newly formed metro government offer
a ``Divided Referendum'' vote that would allow each
individual the opportunity to choose his or her own
preference in participating in Social Security. For this to
be possible there has to be federal legislation sanctioning
Kentucky as a ``Name State''. There are currently twenty-one
states that have such legislation. In addition,there has to
be changes in the Kentucky Revised Statutes to allow for the
``Divided Referendum'' vote. If ``Name State'' status is not
obtained, the new government will be forced to match the
Social Security, contribution made by more than 1,300 of its
employees, including the fire fighters, who currently do not
pay into the Social Security, System.
It is my hope that you would assist the Louisville
Professional Fire Fighters in making the necessary changes at
both the federal and state levels during this years US
Congressional Session as well as Kentucky's Legislative
Session.
If you have any questions concerning this issue; please do
not hesitate to call me. Thank you in advance for any
consideration you can give this matter.
Respectfully,
Michael J. ``Howdy'' Kurtsinger,
President.
____
Commonwealth of Kentucky,
Office of the Controller,
Frankfort, KY, February 6, 2002.
Hon. A.M. ``Mitch'' McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: The Kentucky Division of Social
Security is responsible for administering the social security
and Medicare program for all public employees in the
Commonwealth. This includes not only state employees, but
also the employees of all political subdivisions such as
school boards, counties, cities, libraries, water districts,
etc.
Those public employees who are participating in an employer
provided retirement system and not covered for social
security and Medicare may join the program via an employee
referendum. There are several steps that must be taken during
this process, but, under current federal and state statutes,
it boils down to a simple majority of the eligible employees
approving coverage for all employees of a coverage group.
There is, however, a second mechanism available to certain
states that are specifically named in the federal Social
Security Act. A referendum of the employees is also
conducted, but the outcome of the election differs in that
those employees voting for coverage become eligible for
participation in the social security and/or Medicare program.
Those employees voting against social security coverage are
exempt. This is referred as ``divided coverage''.
Last November, the voters of Jefferson County voted to
merge the governments of the City of Louisville and Jefferson
County, effective January 6, 2003. The success of the merger
efforts, however, also present a problem that must be
resolved, that is, the social security and Medicare coverage
of several groups of public servants.
Some of the City of Louisville Police and firefighters
contribute only the Medicare program, not social security.
Other city police and firefighters contribute to neither. The
Jefferson County Police and corrections employees contribute
to both social security and Medicare. When the merger become
effective next year all these coverage groups will be
considered as a single group for social security coverage
purposes.
The new government, under the current legal situation, will
face the dilemma of adversely affecting the employee benefits
(eliminating social security coverage) of some of these
public servants or bring an additional financial burden on
the second group (forcing them to contribute to social
security) as well as on the new government (additional
employer contributions to social security).
The preferred remedy to this situation is to utilize
divided coverage. This would allow each employee to decide
for his or herself whether to pay into social security. All
new employees hired after a divided referendum is conducted
would automatically be enrolled in social security.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky is not included as a ``named''
state in the Social Security Act and, therefore, its public
employers cannot utilize the divided coverage option. We
requesting support for federal legislation amended 42 U.S.C.
418 to include Kentucky as a ``named'' state and enable
Greater Louisville and their employees to take advantage of
the divided coverage concept. This would add Kentucky to a
list of 21
[[Page S589]]
states included in section 218(d)(6)(C) of the Social
Security Act that are currently permitted to conduct divided
referendums. The Kentucky General Assembly is proceeding with
amendments to the Kentucky Revised Statutes to authorize a
divided referendum, contingent upon federal legislative
changes.
If should also be noted that providing the Commonwealth
with the ability to conduct divided coverage would in no way
effect the members of the Kentucky Teachers Retirement
System. State statutes prohibit social security coverage
under the Commonwealth Section 218 agreement with the Social
Security Administration to any individual covered by KTRS.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky and the citizens of Jefferson
County need your support for designating Kentucky as a
``Named State'' by the Congress. I will be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Patrick L. Doyle,
Director, Kentucky Division of Social Security.
____
Commonwealth of Kentucky,
Office of the Secretary,
Frankfort, KY, February 6, 2002.
Senator Mitch McConnell,
U.S Senate, Senate Russell Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: Last November, the voters of
Jefferson County voted to merge the governments of the City
of Louisville and Jefferson County, effective January 6,
2003. The success of the merger efforts, however, requires
that certain issues involving the social security and
Medicare coverage of several groups of public servants be
resolved.
Some of the City of Louisville Police and firefighters
contribute only to the Medicare program, not social security.
Other city police and firefighters contribute to neither. The
Jefferson County Police and corrections employees contribute
to both social security and Medicare. When the merger becomes
effective next year all these coverage groups will be
considered as a single group for social security purposes.
The preferred remedy to this situation is to utilize what
is termed a ``divided referendum''. This would allow each
employee to decide for his or herself whether to pay into
social security. All new employees hired after a divided
referendum is conducted would automatically be enrolled in
social security.
Before the new government can conduct a divided referendum,
the federal Social Security Act must be amended to designate
Kentucky a ``Named State''. This would add Kentucky to a list
of 21 states included in section 218(d)(6)(C) of the Social
Security Act that are currently permitted to conduct divided
referendums. The Greater Louisville Merger Transition Office
has recommended this option and is pursuing legislation with
the Kentucky General Assembly to authorize divided
referendums, contingent on Federal legislative changes.
We support the Greater Louisville Merger Transition Office
recommendation and the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the
citizens of Jefferson County need your support for
designating Kentucky as a ``Named State'' by the Congress. I
will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
T. Kevin Flanery,
Secretary.
______
By Mr. CONRAD:
S. 1930. A bill to promote the production of energy from wind; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to promote
the development of wind energy production across our Nation. My ``Wind
Energy Promotion Act of 2002'' would provide incentives and clear
regulatory hurdles to allow this economically feasible and
environmentally friendly electricity source to help meet our National
energy needs.
As the Senate begins work to enact a comprehensive National energy
policy, we must take advantage of the enormous potential that wind
energy offers. Wind is an abundant an inexhaustible renewable resource
across our country. North Dakota alone has the potential to produce
more than 460,000 megawatts of electricity from wind annually, the
highest potential in the Nation.
Wind production costs have fallen dramatically over the last two
decades, making production affordable, investment logical, and
electricity consumption from wind economical for our Nation. Production
costs have declined more than 80 percent since the 1980s, from an
average of 38 cents per kilowatt-hour to an average of 3-6 cents per
kilowatt-hour today. These costs are predicted to fall even lower in
the near future. In addition, wind energy produces no pollution,
providing a clean, environmentally friendly power option for the
Nation.
However, wind energy development faces a number of obstacles, which
my legislation is designed to overcome. First, my bill will extend the
valuable wind energy tax credit for five years. The credit expired at
the end of last year, and renewal is simply crucial to the industry.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in wind energy in my
State of North Dakota are on hold because the Senate has not yet acted
to extend this credit. It is time to extend the credit now, for a full
five years, in order to ensure substantial investment in the industry
across the Nation.
Further, my legislation makes it easier for farmers and ranchers to
develop wind energy resources. It provides grants and loans to farmers
and ranchers and allows producers to put wind turbines on CRP lands.
And, because better technology will make investing in both large and
small wind harnessing operations more attractive, my bill authorizes
more than $500 million over the next four years for wind energy
research. My bill also calls for breaking down federal regulatory
barriers to wind energy development. The Federal Government should
help, not hinder the development of the Nation's wind potential.
Because North Dakota and other western States contain large tracts of
public lands that contain great wind energy potential, my bill would
allow for the development of facilities on public lands. Finally, my
legislation would authorize studies on several aspects of developing
the Nation's wind energy potential, including one to determine the best
possible way to overcome the barriers to adequate transmission of power
generated from wind.
My bill is not only a key component to providing energy security for
the country; it would provide a much-needed economic stimulus to rural
America.
According to the American Wind Energy Association, every 100
megawatts of wind energy development will produce 500 job years of
employment. In addition, payments to farmers and ranchers could equal
$4 million for every 2,000 megawatts of wind energy production, money
our Nation's producers would get simply for allowing wind development
on their land. This would be a critical boost to our Nation's rural
economy.
Wind energy development would also play a key role in the economy of
North Dakota. Extending the production tax credit alone will mean more
than $100 million in sales for DMI Industries, LM Glasfiber, and other
industry participants in my state in the next year. Using only
conservative estimates, the wind industry has the potential to add a
half billion dollars to North Dakota's economy in 2002, but only if the
Senate acts soon to extend the wind energy production tax credit, the
most important component of the legislation I am introducing today.
The Senate will be taking up energy legislation this week. As this
debate begins, I will be working to include the provisions of my wind
energy legislation in a comprehensive energy policy that our Nation
seriously needs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
development of wind energy in the United States through the provisions
of my Wind Energy Promotion Act.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Torricelli, Ms. Snowe,
and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1931. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve patient access to, and utilization of, the colorectal cancer
screening benefit under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Colon Cancer
Screen for Life Act of 2002.'' I am pleased that my colleagues Senators
Collins, Torricelli, Snowe and Cochran have joined me in introducing
this very important bill.
As many of my colleagues know from personal experience, colon cancer
is a devastating disease. Nearly 57,000 people die each year from colon
cancer. It is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in both men and
women and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in
America.
But colon cancer can be combated, controlled and potentially
conquered if it's caught in the earliest stages. In fact, colon cancer
is a rare form of cancer in that it can even be prevented through
screening, if pre-cancerous polyps are quickly identified and removed.
[[Page S590]]
The survival rate when colon cancer is detected at an early,
localized stage is 90 percent. But only 37 percent of such cancers are
discovered at that stage. The later the disease is caught, the lower
the survival rate.
That's why in 1997, Congress led the fight against colon cancer by
making screening for the disease a covered benefit for every Medicare
recipient. That is especially significant because the risk of colon
cancer rises with age.
Heightened awareness and greater access to treatment are working.
Over the last 15 years, we've seen steady, if slow, annual declines in
both incidence rates and mortality rates tied to colon cancer.
But we can do more, because barriers to screening still exist. Modern
technology has blessed us with extremely accurate screening tools, in
particular the colonoscopy, which results in higher colon cancer
identification rates and better long-term survival rates due to early
detection. A consultation with a doctor before a colonoscopy is
required to ensure that patients are properly prepared before they
undergo the procedure.
Unfortunately, Medicare does not pay for that consultation before a
screening, creating an obvious obstacle to preventive treatment for
many men and women. The Colon Cancer ``Screen for Life'' Act would
cover these medical visits so that more Medicare beneficiaries will
have easy access to screening.
Further, with this legislation, just as Congress has done for
screening mammography, screening colonoscopy will not count toward a
senior's Medicare deductible. This will remove additional financial
disincentives to screening.
Finally, with this bill, we're breaking through another big barrier
to early detection and treatment.
The medical reality is that colonoscopy procedures are invasive and
require sedation to perform, making it safer for them to be conducted
in the hospital or an outpatient setting, where safety standards and
emergency procedures are in place, rather than in a private doctor's
office. But when doctors perform colonoscopies for Medicare patients in
an outpatient setting, they take a hit on cost, because reimbursement
for the procedure performed there has decreased by nearly 36 percent
since 1997, while reimbursement for the procedure performed in a
doctor's private office has increased by 52 percent.
As a result, to balance their budgets, doctors and hospitals are
typically forced to space out their Medicare patients, creating long
waits for and limited access to these vital screenings. That financial
incentive structure is indefensible.
The job of medical services should be cutting cancer, not cutting
costs. Unfortunately, today something as critical as colon cancer
screening is moderated not by the real needs of patients and their
medical doctors, but by market incentives.
To address the problem, the ``Screen for Life'' Act would increase
the payment rates for colonoscopies performed in hospitals and
outpatient facilities by 30 percent. The result will be more access to
early detection and treatment and thousands of lives saved.
Colon cancer is a formidable foe, but we can make a difference in the
fight against it. Early detection and treatment is our first line of
defense.
With the help of the Colon Cancer ``Screen for Life'' Act, I hope
that in a decade we'll have fewer cancer cases to contend with and more
survivors to celebrate the simple fact that screening saves lives.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman,
Torricelli, Snowe, and Cochran in introducing the Colon Cancer Screen
for Life Act of 2002 to improve patients' access to the colorectal
cancer screening benefit under Medicare.
Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related
deaths in the United States for both men and women: more than 57,000
Americans will die from this disease this year, yet it is a disease
that many of us feel uncomfortable discussing.
The sad irony is that cancer of the colon is probably the most
treatable and survivable of all cancers, but only if it is caught
early. If detected and treated early, colon cancer is curable in more
than 90 percent of diagnosed cases. Conversely, if the cancer is
detected in an advanced stage, death rates are high. As many as 92
percent of these patients will die within five years.
Despite the fact that we have extremely effective screening tests for
colon cancer, our screening rates for colon cancer, even among those
Americans who are most at risk, are woefully low. Moreover, even the
addition in 1998 of a new Medicare benefit covering these services has
not improved the situation.
In 2000, the General Accounting Office, GAO, conducted a review of
claims data to determine the extent to which this new preventive health
service has been used. According to the GAO, only 3.8 percent of
Medicare patients received either a screening or diagnostic colonoscopy
in 1999, far below the recommended use rates and just a one percent
increase over the rate in 1995.
Clearly we must find ways to heighten public awareness about the
importance of colon cancer screening and remove any remaining barriers
that may be preventing Medicare beneficiaries from receiving these
critically important services. While the GAO identified a lack of
patient awareness, understanding and inclination as the most
significant factors inhibiting the use of colorectal cancer screening
services, it also found that physician practices affect rates of
screening. One factor is the inadequate Medicare reimbursement rates to
cover the costs involved.
Medicare reimbursement rates for this procedure have declined in
recent years and are almost universally lower than reimbursements under
private insurance. Moreover, in many States, the Medicare rates are
lower than Medicaid rates. Our legislation will therefore increase the
Medicare payment rates for colonoscopies performed both in hospitals
and outpatient settings. Specifically, the payment rates in hospitals
and outpatient facilities would be increased by 30 percent, while
payment for procedures done in physicians' offices would be increased
by 10 percent.
Our legislation will also require Medicare to provide reimbursements
for pre-procedure consultations to ensure that beneficiaries are
properly prepared and educated before they undergo a screening
colonoscopy. Medicare currently only pays for the pre-procedure
appointment prior to a diagnostic colonoscopy. This pre-procedure visit
is no less necessary in the case of a screening colonoscopy and should
be covered.
Finally, under our legislation, the normal Part B deductible will not
apply for screening colonoscopy, just as it does not apply for
screening mammography. This will remove a financial disincentive for
seniors to seek screening and increase the likelihood that they will
undergo screening colonoscopy.
The Colon Cancer Screen for Your Life Act of 2002 will not only help
to ensure the safety of colorectal cancer screenings, but it will also
increase Medicare patients' access to this life-saving procedure, and I
urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
____________________