[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 83 (Thursday, June 20, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5852-S5859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 2650. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
student loan borrowers with a choice of lender for loan consolidation;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce to my
colleagues, the Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act of 2002, a
bill of great importance to the hundreds and thousands of students
working to make the dream of a college education a reality. According
to a recent report published by the National Center for Higher
Education, the cost of attending two- and four-year public and private
colleges has grown more repidly than inflation, and faster than family
income. Poor families spent as much as 25 percent of their annual
income to send their children to a public, four-year colleges in 2000,
compared with 13 percent in 1980. What's worse, the Federal Pell Grant
program, designed to help alleviate the financial burden on low income
families, covered only 57 percent of the cost of tuition at public
four-year colleges in 1999, compared with 98 percent in 1986.
The most widespread response to the increasing costs, according to
the report, involves debt, more students are borrowing more money than
ever before. Since 1980, Federal financial assistance has been
transformed from a system characterized mainly by need based grants to
one dominated by loans. In 2000, loans represented 58 percent of
Federal student financial aid, and grants represented 41 percent.
Studies show that a major factor influencing a student's choice of
college and degree program is the amount of debt connected with the
type of institution or profession. Make no mistake, these choices not
only affect the lives of the students themselves but also impact
society as a whole. Efforts to attract college graduates into needed,
but not necessarily high paying careers, such as teaching, may be
undermined by substantial debt burdens.
School loans are an important and legitimate aspect of attending
college for many students, but it also raises several policy concerns.
One area of growing concern surrounds what is called the single lender
rule. The single lender rule is a provision in the Higher Education Act
that affects the ability of college graduates to consolidate multiple
student loans into a single new loan for the purpose of getting a lower
rate. Specifically, it provides that borrowers having all of their
loans held by a single lender have to consolidate with that lender, so
long as it offers consolidation loans. Therefore those borrowers with
all of their loans in one place can't go to other lenders offering
better rates or benefits, they have to stay where they are.
I would like to submit for the Record some numbers which demonstrate
how damaging the single lender rule is for students. Last year, 143,504
students were denied the benefits of loan consolidation because of the
single lender rule. In my home State of Louisiana, 3,329 students were
prevented from obtaining a lower-rate or more generous benefits because
of this rule. Many of these students are studying to be doctors,
nurses, teachers, and lawyers. These are conservative numbers,
collected from student loan providers, the reality is even more
staggering.
This restriction makes no sense and while it may benefit those
offering student loans, it sure isn't designed to provide students with
the power that choice and competition can bring. A few months ago we
acted to pass a package designed to stimulate the economy and secure
long term economic stability in America. I would be hard pressed to
think of a better way to ease the burden on our States and to secure a
brighter future for the U.S. economy than to make a college degree
[[Page S5853]]
an affordable option for all who seek to obtain one.
The Census Bureau has released new figures on the earnings gap
between people with a high school education and those with bachelor's
degrees. It's wide and growing. The bureau said that college graduates
made an average of $40,500 last year, while the average high school
graduate earned $22,900. People with bachelor's degrees now earn an
average of 76 percent more than high school graduates. In 1975, the gap
was 57 percent. One does not have to have a Ph.D. in math to understand
the impact that closing this gap would mean for the economy, more
people with college degrees means higher consumer spending and lower
unemployment.
Some of my colleagues may be asking, why now? Why not wait until next
year when we will be re-addressing the Higher Education Act? Here are
some of the reasons why I believe this is not a good idea for us to
wait until next year or the year after. To delay repealing the rule
until the H.E.A. Reauthorization would unnecessarily victimize hundreds
of thousands of student loan borrowers, depriving them of the ability
to manage their debt in an optimal way. Today's graduates are entering
a workplace where jobs are hard to get and salaries for starting
positions are lower than they have ever been before. In this
environment, we need to be building up opportunities for them to reduce
their debt not increase it.
This bill is an important first step to making college more
affordable for all American families. I hope my colleagues will join me
in making the dream of a college education a reality for all.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM:
S. 2652. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or
exchange certain land in the State of Florida, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, when the Spanish explorers surveyed
Florida in the early 16th century, this is what they saw: Massive
pines, measuring two to three feet in diameter that climbed into the
skies over 100 feet.
This was the landscape of the Apalachicola National Forest.
You could walk through the forest, especially early in the day as the
morning fog was rising, look up and see these silent giants create a
dense canopy overhead.
Some likened the forest's natural beauty to a cathedral of trees.
The sheer enormity of these tall stately trees was magnified by the
close cut landscape of wiregrass on the forest floor.
This pattern of tall stately trees and lawn like underbrush, as the
first Spanish explorers described this impressive habitat, was common
throughout the southeast of North America--over 90 million acres of
pines and wiregrass.
Today, all but a fraction of these acres of the longleaf pine
ecosystem have been destroyed or altered.
The forest character has been transformed by thick palmetto and other
growth from that which was encountered by Florida's earliest settlers.
Why? Because of fires, or more precisely--the absence or containment
of fires to protect businesses and their property.
Natural fires created by thunderstorms are part of nature's cycle.
The longleaf pines and wiregrass have natural qualities which allowed
them to survive the fires while other plant life perished.
The result is dramatically depicted in this painting by Jacksonville,
FL artist Jim Draper who captures the landscape as it once looked and
how it looks in limited areas today.
I bring to the intention of my colleagues the landscape painting by
Mr. Draper of the area to be affected by the adoption of the
legislation by allowing us to bring into public ownership outholdings
which represent a potential threat through the possibility that they
might cause resistance to the necessary controlled fires which are
necessary in order to maintain this small piece of what had been 90
million acres of the southeastern United States.
It is an important part of our Nation's natural history, which we
have the opportunity to take a step to protect for future generations
during this session of Congress.
The painting is of one of those areas in the Apalachicola National
Forest in the eastern section of the Florida Panhandle. It is known as
Post Office Bay and retains the heritage of the American southeast of
the pre-Columbian era.
Like its predecessors, this special part of the Apalachicola is
preserved due to fires, now both natural and prescribed.
But those fires are now threatened by man. Private inholdings
adjacent to Post Office Bay are being considered for sale as small
acreage second homes and vacation sites. Should this occur, managed
fires would likely encounter serious resistance from the new owners and
the fires required to sustain this vestige of America's natural history
would be ended.
The 564,000 acre Apalachicola National Forest has a unique
opportunity to acquire the remainder of a 2,560 acre inholding within
the forest.
As of last month, 1,180 acres of this property has been acquired
through a land swap.
Now we need to finish the job, to permanently protect Post Office
Bay.
The Florida National Forest Lands Management Act of 2002 will do just
that.
The United States Forest Service has been left with several
noncontiguous parcels of land in Okaloosa County, further west in
Florida's Panhandle--that it must manage because former portions of the
Choctowahatchee National Forest were returned to the Forest Service by
the Department of Defense.
These parcels are high in value, some have potential buyers, and
several are encumbered with urban structures, such baseball fields and
the county fairgrounds.
Our legislation will allow the Forest Service to sell these parcels
and purchase the remainder of the Apalachicola inholdings and other
sensitive lands with the proceeds.
The land sale would have several benefits.
This legislation will make it easier for nature and man to continue
its cleansing process by fire without endangering private land or its
occupants.
By connecting the lands of the longleaf pine ecosystem, the regular
course of natural fires can resume safely, optimizing Mother Nature's
method of keeping this area beautiful.
Also, by allowing the regular cycle of fire to resume freely, the
regeneration process will continue.
Ultimately, the forest would be more easily and effectively managed.
The Florida National Forest Lands Management Act of 2002 is a
sensible way for the Apalachicola National Forest to acquire these vast
and important inholdings and preserve a natural treasure.
It will aid in expanding the 3 million acres of longleaf pine that
now cover the Southeastern United States.
This measure has the support of the Forest Service, and I urge my
colleagues to support it was well.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Miller):
S. 2653. A bill to reduce the amount of paperwork for special
education teachers, to make mediation mandatory for all legal disputes
related to individualized education programs, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to announce the
introduction, along with my colleague Senator Miller, of the bipartisan
Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002. During the 107th Congress, we
have been successful in legislating sweeping reforms in education with
the passage last year of the No Child Left Behind Act. We also hope to
complete reauthorization of another important Federal education
initiative, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, IDEA, this year. As we consider this legislation, our
greatest responsibility is to improve the quality of the education that
students with special needs receive.
One of the problems fostered by the current system, which stands in
direct contrast to our purpose, is the excessive paperwork burden
imposed on our special education teachers. This burden takes valuable
time away from classroom instruction and is a source of ongoing
frustration for the special education teachers working on the
[[Page S5854]]
frontlines. As a result, this undermines the goal of providing the best
quality education possible to all children. The Teacher Paperwork
Reduction Act addresses this problem and seeks to offer solutions that
will benefit special education teachers and most importantly the
children they instruct.
This bipartisan legislation includes four main provisions to correct
the problem of burdensome paperwork. First, the Department of
Education, in cooperation with state and local educational agencies,
would be required to reduce the amount of paperwork by 50 percent
within 18 months of enactment of the legislation and would be
encouraged to make additional reductions. Second, the General
Accounting Office GAO, would conduct a study to determine how much of
the paperwork burden is caused by Federal regulations compared to State
and local regulations; the number of mediations that have been
conducted since mediations were required to be made available under the
1997 IDEA amendments; the use of technology in reducing the paperwork
burden; and GAO would make recommendations on steps that Congress, the
U.S. Department of Education, and the states and local districts can
take to reduce this burden within six months of the passage of this
legislation.
Third, mediation would be mandatory for all legal disputes related to
Individual Education Programs IEPs to better empower parents and
schools to focus resources on a quality education for children rather
than unnecessary litigation within one year of enactment of this
legislation. Fourth, the Department of Education is directed to conduct
research to determine best practices for successful mediation,
including training practices, that can help contribute to the effort to
reduce paperwork, improve student outcomes, and free up teacher
resources for teaching. The Department would also provide mediation
training support services to support state and local efforts. The
resources to fund these requirements would come from money appropriated
through Part D of IDEA.
The Council for Exceptional Children, CEC, states, ``No barrier is so
irksome to special educators as the paperwork that keeps them from
teaching.'' According to a CEC report, concerns about paperwork ranked
third among special education teachers, out of a list of 10 issues. The
CEC also reports that special education teachers are leaving the
profession at almost twice the rate of general educators. Statistics
concerning the amount of time special education teachers spend
completing paperwork are telling. 53 percent of special education
teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their
job to a great extent. They spend an average of five hours per week on
paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average
of two hours per week. More than 60 percent of special education
teachers spend a half to one and a half days a week completing
paperwork. One of the biggest sources of paperwork, the individualized
education program, IEP, averages between 8 and 16 pages long, and 83
percent of special education teachers report spending from a half to
one and a half days each week in IEP-related meetings.
There are three primary factors associated with burdensome paperwork.
The first factor is federal regulations. The 1997 IDEA regulations set
forth the necessary components of the IEP and require teachers to
complete an array of paperwork in addition to the IEP. According to the
National School Boards Association, NSBA, ``These requirements result
in consuming substantial hours per child and cumulatively are having a
negative impact on special educators and their function.'' Second,
there are misconceptions at the state and local levels regarding
federal regulations that result in additional requirements imposed by
the states and local school districts. The U.S. Department of Education
compiled a sample IEP with all the necessary components, and it is five
pages long. However, most IEPs are much longer. The third factor is
litigation and the threat of litigation. In order to be prepared for
due process hearings and court proceedings, school district officials
often require extensive documentation so that they are able to prove
that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) was provided to the
special education student.
A key provision of the bill makes mediation mandatory for all legal
disputes related to IEPs. There are several benefits to using mediation
as an alternative to due process hearings and court proceedings.
According to the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in
Special Education, CADRE, mediation is a constructive option for
children, parents, and teachers and allows families to maintain a
positive relationship with teachers and service providers. Parents have
the benefit of working together with educators and service providers as
partners instead of as adversaries. If an agreement cannot be reached
as a result of mediation, parties to the dispute would retain existing
due process and legal options.
Mediation is also a much less costly, less time consuming alternative
for all parties concerned. Parents do not have to pay for mediation
sessions, because under the 1997 IDEA amendments, states are required
to bear the cost for mediation. States and local districts save a lot
of money as well. According to the Michigan Special Education Mediation
Program, MSEMP, the average hearing cost to the state is $40,000; it
pays approximately $700 per mediation session. The NSBA reports that
attorney fees for school districts average between $10,000 to $25,000.
In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Education says that it pays
mediators $250 per session. The cost effectiveness of mediation is
apparent. Not only does mediation save money, it saves time as well.
According to the Washington State Department of Education, a mediation
session may generally be scheduled within 14 days of a parental
request, whereas it may take up to a year to secure a court date.
Most importantly, mediation is a successful alternative to due
process hearings. At least some form of agreement is reached in 80
percent of sessions nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 85 percent of
voluntary special education mediations end in agreement in which both
parties are satisfied. According to the New York State Dispute
Resolution Association, mediation ending in resolution of the conflict
occurs for 75 percent of referrals, and in Wisconsin, approximately 84
percent of those who chose mediation would use it again.
The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act is meant to alleviate a serious
problem that causes frustration and discouragement among dedicated
special education teachers who expend energy and countless hours in
order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to learn.
It is only fair and right to find ways to reduce paperwork in order to
give teachers more time to spend educating our students and changing
their lives, and less time wading through inanimate stacks of paper. I
would invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation
to help teachers, schools, and parents provide a better education for
all students so that no child is left behind.
____
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Cleland, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Hagel, Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr.
Rockefeller, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 2654. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
from gross income loan payments received under the National Health
Service Corps Loan Repayment Program established in the Public Health
Service Act; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas
to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made
through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am
pleased that Senators Cleland, Snowe, Johnson, Gordon Smith, Landrieu,
Hagel, Conrad, Roberts, Durbin, Torricelli, Rockefeller, and Wyden are
also cosponsoring this important legislation.
There have been many developments in the area of health care in the
last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical
research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new
technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In
fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new
scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great
[[Page S5855]]
strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the
access to health care for so many.
The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans
without health insurance coverage, 9.2 million of whom are children. In
Washington, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacks
health insurance. Many of the 42.6 million uninsured Americans are
lower-income workers who do not have employer-sponsored coverage for
themselves, but earn too much to be eligible for public programs like
Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost
importance, we know that at the very least, health insurance means the
difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between
life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the
insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six
times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care.
But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers.
Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing
an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is
increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work
with underserved communities, especially in rural areas. In addition to
economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues
involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated,
and trained in an urban setting.
The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator
Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from
Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in
rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this
program to fill that need.
Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in
rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt
that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In
fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of
providers continued to provide services to underserved communities
after their Corps obligation was fulfilled, 80 percent of these health
care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally
been placed.
Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides
scholarships, loan-repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to
serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health
care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the
program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate
detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out
of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001.
And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income
to the IRS, the loan-repayments and stipends are.
By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax
assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount,
which is to be used by the recipient offset his or her tax liability
resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40
percent of the federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the
loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these federal payments were not
taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students
could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed
in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both
urban and rural areas.
This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the
National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent
to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not
want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300
applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not
fully fund the loan repayment program.
The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service
Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the
Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby
bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are
excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have
greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan
repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in
underserved areas.
There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service
Corps is a ``win-win'' situation. Corps scholarships help finance
education for future primary care providers interested in serving the
underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the
need for primary health care is greatest.
This bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including
the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of
Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges,
and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased
that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the
Record after my statement.
I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join me in expanding
this vitally important and imminently successful program.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act Endorsements
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners.
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.
American Academy of Physician Assistants.
American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.
American Association for Dental Research.
American College of Nurse-Midwives.
American College of Nurse Practitioners.
American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians.
American Counseling Association.
American Dental Association.
American Dental Education Association.
American Medical Student Association.
American Optometric Association.
American Organization of Nurse Executives.
American Osteopathic Association.
American Psychological Association.
American Student Dental Association.
Association of Academic Health Centers.
Association of American Medical Colleges.
Association of Clinicians for the Underserved.
Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry.
National Association of Community Health Centers.
National Association of Graduate-Professional Students.
National Rural Health Association.
Washington State Medical Association.
Mr. THOMAS. I am pleased to rise today to introduce the National
Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 with my colleague from
Washington, Ms. Cantwell. Specifically, this legislation will exclude
loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps (NHSC)
program from taxable income. Enactment of the National Health Service
Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 would increase the amount of federal
dollars available so more students could participate in the NHSC
program.
Under current law, the NHSC provides scholarships, loan-repayments,
and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in national designated
underserved urban and rural communities. The tax law changes in 1986
resulted in the IRS ruling that all NHSC payments were taxable.
Congress eliminated the tax on the scholarship in 2001, but the loan-
repayments and stipends continue to be taxed.
To assist loan repayment recipients with their tax burden, the NHSC
loan program includes an additional payment equal to 39 percent of the
loan repayment amount so the loan repayment recipient can pay his or
her taxes. Close to 40 percent of the NHSC Federal loan repayment
budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income.'' The current
situation should not be allowed to continue. Given the fiscal
restraints we are facing, we must ensure that federal dollars are spent
efficiently and effectively. It is obvious that today's NHSC loan
repayment structure does not meet that goal. Our legislation resolves
this issue.
For over 30 years, the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) program
has literally been a lifeline for many underserved communities across
the country that otherwise would not have a health care provider. I
know this program is critically important to my
[[Page S5856]]
state of Wyoming and to many other rural states that has difficulties
recruiting and retaining primary health care clinicians.
There are 2,800 Health Professional Shortage Areas, 740 Mental Health
Shortage Areas and 1,200 Dental Health Shortage Areas now designated
across the country. However, the NHSC program is meeting less than 13
percent of the current need for primary care providers and less than
six percent of need for mental health and dental services. The National
Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 would increase the
number of students in the program and allow more provides to be placed
in these shortage areas.
The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 is
crucial to the future well being of many of our rural communities. I
strongly urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2655. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act to improve access to long-term care services under the Medicare and
Medicaid Programs; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce ``A First
Step to Long-Term Care Act of 2002.'' This is a targeted long-term care
package--a first step in the direction of long-term care reform. This
legislation is about protecting assets, expanding home care, and
modestly expanding Medicare to address the need for adult day health
care.
Government coverage for nursing home care operates primarily, and
most substantially, through the Medicaid program the safety net for the
poor. Despite what many Americans believe or hope, Medicare is not
designed or financed to cover long-term care needs. Medicare is, in
fact, the universal health care program for the elderly, which covers
all health care needs, save prescription drugs and long-term care.
Just this morning, I testified before the Senate Special Committee on
Aging about the need to find real solutions to attack the issue of
long-term care coverage. This legislation is a step in that direction.
Today, the home care benefit under Medicare offers skilled care and
possibly home health aides on a part-time or intermittent basis.
Beneficiaries also must be confined to the home, despite the fact that
many could leave the home with assistance. ``A First Step to Long-Term
Care Reform'' retains the requirement that leaving the home requires a
considerable and taxing effort, but it obviates the difficult choice
that patients face: either be imprisoned in their home or risk losing
Medicare coverage.
We also need to begin to provide options to nursing home care under
the Medicare benefit, such as the payment for adult day health care.
This is something Senator Santorum has been working on as well. Doing
so would provide a measure of respite and will reduce the bias towards
institutionalizing those who can, with the right circumstances--stay at
home.
Giving states relief from the mandate that they must pursue and sell-
off the estates of Medicaid beneficiaries is another first step. In the
short-term, we can provide states with the option of whether or not to
do so. West Virginia is one State, in particular, which is seeking
relief from this harsh and unnecessary mandate. I recognize Congressman
Nick Rahall, my good friend and colleague from West Virginia, for his
leadership on this issue.
Mr. President, there are few issues that are as challenging as
providing a solution for the long-term care problem, but we simply must
have the courage to find solutions. 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. 2655
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 ``A First Step to Long-Term
Care Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. MAKING MEDICAID ESTATE RECOVERY OPTIONAL.
(a) In General.--Section 1917(b)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``shall
seek'' each place it appears and inserting ``may seek''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. A
State (as defined for purposes of title XIX of the Social
Security Act) may apply such amendments to estates and sales
occurring at such earlier date as the State may specify.
SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF SUBSTITUTE ADULT DAY CARE SERVICES UNDER
THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.
(a) Substitute Adult Day Care Services Benefit.--
(1) In general.--Section 1861(m) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395x(m)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``or (8)'' after ``paragraph (7)'';
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in paragraph (7), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (7), the following new
paragraph:
``(8) substitute adult day care services (as defined in
subsection (ww));''.
(2) Substitute adult day care services defined.--Section
1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``Substitute Adult Day Care Services; Adult Day Care Facility
``(ww)(1)(A) The term `substitute adult day care services'
means the items and services described in subparagraph (B)
that are furnished to an individual by an adult day care
facility as a part of a plan under subsection (m) that
substitutes such services for a portion of the items and
services described in subparagraph (B)(i) furnished by a home
health agency under the plan, as determined by the physician
establishing the plan.
``(B) The items and services described in this subparagraph
are the following items and services:
``(i) Items and services described in paragraphs (1)
through (7) of subsection (m).
``(ii) Meals.
``(iii) A program of supervised activities designed to
promote physical and mental health and furnished to the
individual by the adult day care facility in a group
setting for a period of not fewer than 4 and not greater
than 12 hours per day.
``(iv) A medication management program (as defined in
subparagraph (C)).
``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B)(iv), the term
`medication management program' means a program of services,
including medicine screening and patient and health care
provider education programs, that provides services to
minimize--
``(i) unnecessary or inappropriate use of prescription
drugs; and
``(ii) adverse events due to unintended prescription drug-
to-drug interactions.
``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C),
the term `adult day care facility' means a public agency or
private organization, or a subdivision of such an agency or
organization, that--
``(i) is engaged in providing skilled nursing services and
other therapeutic services directly or under arrangement with
a home health agency;
``(ii) meets such standards established by the Secretary to
ensure quality of care and such other requirements as the
Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and
safety of individuals who are furnished services in the
facility;
``(iii) provides the items and services described in
paragraph (1)(B); and
``(iv) meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) through (8)
of subsection (o).
``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term `adult day
care facility' shall include a home health agency in which
the items and services described in clauses (ii) through (iv)
of paragraph (1)(B) are provided--
``(i) by an adult day-care program that is licensed or
certified by a State, or accredited, to furnish such items
and services in the State; and
``(ii) under arrangements with that program made by such
agency.
``(C) The Secretary may waive the requirement of a surety
bond under paragraph (7) of subsection (o) in the case of an
agency or organization that provides a comparable surety bond
under State law.
``(D) For purposes of payment for home health services
consisting of substitute adult day care services furnished
under this title, any reference to a home health agency is
deemed to be a reference to an adult day care facility.''.
(b) Payment for Substitute Adult Day Care Services.--
Section 1895 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Payment Rate for Substitute Adult Day Care
Services.--In the case of home health services consisting of
substitute adult day care services (as defined in section
1861(ww)), the following rules apply:
``(1) The Secretary shall estimate the amount that would
otherwise be payable under this section for all home health
services under that plan of care other than substitute adult
day care services for a period specified by the Secretary.
``(2) The total amount payable for home health services
consisting of substitute adult day care services under such
plan may not exceed 95 percent of the amount estimated to be
payable under paragraph (1) furnished under the plan by a
home health agency.''.
(c) Adjustment in Case of Overutilization of Substitute
Adult Day Care Services.--
[[Page S5857]]
(1) Monitoring expenditures.--Beginning with fiscal year
2004, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
monitor the expenditures made under the Medicare Program
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395
et seq.) for home health services (as defined in section
1861(m) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m))) for the fiscal
year, including substitute adult day care services under
paragraph (8) of such section (as added by subsection (a)),
and shall compare such expenditures to expenditures that the
Secretary estimates would have been made for home health
services for that fiscal year if subsection (a) had not been
enacted.
(2) Required reduction in payment rate.--If the Secretary
determines, after making the comparison under paragraph (1)
and making such adjustments for changes in demographics and
age of the Medicare beneficiary population as the Secretary
determines appropriate, that expenditures for home health
services under the Medicare Program, including such
substitute adult day care services, exceed expenditures that
would have been made under such program for home health
services for a year if subsection (a) had not been enacted,
then the Secretary shall adjust the rate of payment to adult
day care facilities so that total expenditures for home
health services under such program in a fiscal year does not
exceed the Secretary's estimate of such expenditures if
subsection (a) had not been enacted.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to items and services furnished on or after
January 1, 2003.
SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF HOMEBOUND FOR
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR HOME
HEALTH SERVICES UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.
(a) Clarification.--Sections 1814(a) and 1835(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a); 1395n(a)) are each
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding
the preceding sentences, in the case of an individual that
requires technological assistance or the assistance of
another individual to leave the home, the Secretary may not
disqualify such individual from being considered to be
`confined to his home' based on the frequency or duration of
the absences from the home.''.
(b) Technical Amendments.--(1) Sections 1814(a) and 1835(a)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a); 1395n(a)) are
each amended in the sixth sentence by striking ``leave
home,'' and inserting ``leave home and''.
(2) Section 1814(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395f(a)), as amended by subsection (a), is amended by moving
the seventh sentence, as added by section 322(a)(1) of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (appendix F, 114 Stat. 2763A-501), as
enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, to
the end of that section.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to items and services furnished on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 2656. A bill to require the Secretary of Transportation to develop
and implement plan to provide security for cargo entering the United
States or being transported in intrastate or interstate commerce; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed
at closing the dangerous cargo security loophole in our Nation's
aviation security network.
Last year, with the passage of the Aviation and Security Act of 2001,
we reinvented aviation security. We overturned the status quo, and I am
proud of the work we did. We put the Federal Government in charge of
security and we have made significant strides toward restoring the
confidence of the American people that it is safe to fly.
We no longer have a system in which the financial ``bottom line''
interferes with protecting the flying public. We also addressed the
gamut of critical issues, including baggage screening, additional air
marshals, cockpit security, and numerous other issues.
But there is more work to be done. We must not lose focus. If we are
to fully confront the aviation security challenges we face in the
aftermath of September 11, we must remain aggressive. We need a ``must-
do'' attitude, not excuses about what ``can't be done'', because we are
only as safe as the weakest link in our aviation security system.
I believe one of the most troubling shortcomings, which persists to
this day, is the lax cargo security infrastructure. The Department of
Transportation Inspector General will warn in a soon-to-be-released
report that the existing system is ``easily circumvented.'' This must
not be allowed to stand.
Moreover, according to a June 10 Washington Post report, internal
Transportation Security Administration documents warn of an increased
risk of an attack designed to exploit this vulnerability because TSA
has been focused primarily on meeting its new mandates to screen
passengers and luggage.
This is clear evidence that cargo security needs to be bolstered. And
time is not on our side. We must act now. The legislation I am
introducing today is designed to tackle this issue by directing the
Transportation Security Administration to submit a detailed cargo
security plan to Congress that will address the shortcomings in the
current system.
And while the TSA is designing and implementing this plan, my bill
would require interim security measures to be put in place immediately.
The interim security plan would include random screening of at least 5
percent of all cargo, an authentication policy designed to ensure that
terrorists are not able to impersonate legitimate shippers, audits of
each phase of the shipping process in order to police compliance,
training and background checks for cargo handlers. and funding for
screening and detection equipment.
On September 11, terrorists exposed the vulnerability of our
commercial aviation network in the most horrific fashion. The Aviation
and Transportation Security Act of 2001 was a major step in the right
direction, but we must always stay one step ahead of those who would
commit vicious acts of violence on our soil aimed at innocent men,
women, and children.
This bill is designed to build on the foundation we set last year. I
urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this critical matter.
______
By Mr. DeWINE:
S. 2659. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding
non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion;
to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. DeWine. 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. 2659
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF BURDEN OF PROOF FOR ISSUANCE OF
ORDERS ON NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS UNDER
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.
(a) Orders of Electronic Surveillance.--Section 105 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1805) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following new paragraph (3):
``(3) on the basis of facts submitted by the applicant--
``(A) in the case of a target of electronic surveillance
that is a United States person, there is probable cause to
believe that--
``(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power, provided that no United States person may be
considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power
solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first
amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
``(ii) each of the facilities or places at which the
electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is
about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign
power; or
``(B) in the case of a target of electronic surveillance
that is a non-United States person, there is reasonable
suspicion to believe that--
``(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power; and
``(ii) each of the facilities or places at which the
electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is
about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign
power;'';
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or reasonable
suspicion'' after ``probable cause''; and
(3) in subsection (e)(2), by inserting ``, or reasonable
suspicion in the case of a non-United States person,'' after
``probable cause''.
(b) Physical Searches.--Section 304 of that Act (50 U.S.C.
1824) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following
new paragraph (3):
``(3) on the basis of facts submitted by the applicant--
``(A) in the case of a target of a physical search that is
a United States person, there is probable cause to believe
that--
``(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power, except that no United States person may be
considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power
solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first
amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
``(ii) the premises or property to be searched is owned,
used, possessed by, or is
[[Page S5858]]
in transit to or from an agent of a foreign power or foreign
power; or
``(B) in the case of a target of a physical search that is
a non-United States person, there is reasonable suspicion to
believe that--
``(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power; and
``(ii) the premises or property to be searched is owned,
used, possessed by, or is in transit to or from an agent of a
foreign power or foreign power;'';
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or reasonable
suspicion'' after ``probable cause''; and
(3) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``, or reasonable
suspicion in the case of a non-United States person,'' after
``probable cause''.
______
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
S. 2660. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act to increase the number of children participating in the summer food
service program; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act that will
streamline, nationwide, management of the Summer Food Service Program.
The proposed administrative changes are expected to increase the number
of local organizations stepping forward to sponsor a summer feeding
program in their communities and, thus, serve many more children in
poor neighborhoods.
Children in low-income communities are eligible to receive free or
reduced price meals during the school year through the National School
Lunch and Breakfast Programs. During the 2000-2001 school year, 15.3
million children received such assistance. But, unless children attend
school during the summer, access to meals through these programs ends.
The Summer Food Service Program, which is administered at the federal
level by USDA, helps to fill the resulting hunger gap and helps
children get the nutrition they need to learn, play and grow throughout
the summer months. This is an entitlement program which funds the meal
and snack service provided by the sponsors of diverse, summer activity
programs.
Although the Summer Food Service Program is the largest Federal
resource used to feed children during the summer months, we know that
there is substantial unmet need. Among the more than 15 million
children getting free and reduced-price meals during the school year,
only about 20 percent of these three million children received free
meals during the summer months.
State administering agencies report that a major obstacle to serving
more low-income children is the relatively small and static number of
local organizations serving as program sponsors or meal providers.
During the last several years, the total number of Summer Food Service
Program sponsors across the country ranged between 28,000 and a little
over 31,000.
Two important factors contribute to this situation. Many schools and
summer recreation programs remain unaware that federal funding is
available to provide free meals and snacks to needy children. Others
find the requirements for budget and cost reporting, which are
different from those used in the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs,
to be unusually complex and burdensome.
The administrative obstacles are both familiar to the Congress and
one we have taken an initial step to address. In early fiscal year
2001, I authored a provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act
that authorizes a pilot to try out simpler accounting and reimbursement
procedures. The pilot replaces a sponsor's usual obligation to provide
detailed and separate documentation of actual administrative and
operating costs up to specified limits. In practice, this documentation
has little effect, since a large majority of sponsors qualify for the
maximum reimbursement. In the pilot states, sponsors report the number
of meals and are reimbursed at a flat rate of $2.50 per meal. This
allows sponsors in the 13 pilot States to combine both cost categories
and follow procedure used in the school meals programs for
reimbursement.
Although the pilot test is not over, the initial results are
positive. The Food Research Acton Center released findings today in
their annual summer nutrition status report, Hunger Does Not Take a
Vacation. The number of sponsors increased by eight percent in the
pilot areas compared to one percent across all other states. Most
important, children's participation in the Summer Food Service Program
increase by 8.9 percent across the pilot States. This contrasts with a
3.3 percent decline for the rest of the nation.
USDA's Secretary Veneman and Under Secretary Bost used their
authority to facilitate sponsorship and announced, last March, that all
states may seek waivers to adopt more streamlined administrative
procedures.
I think it is now time for Congress to step up and take action to
further improve the capacity of the Summer Food Service Program. I am
introducing a new bill, along with Senator Harkin, the Chairman of the
Agriculture Committee. Our proposed legislation makes the procedural
simplifications in the pilot a part of the Program's regular operating
rules. This eliminates the need for waiver requests and waiver
approval.
If we are truly committed to the principle that no child will be left
behind, this is a small step that can make a large difference in
encouraging local organizations to sponsor a summer feeding program and
in meeting the nutrition needs of low-income children.
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. 2660
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN.
(a) Food Service.--Section 13(b)(1) of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(1)) is
amended by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Private nonprofit organizations.--Subject to
subparagraphs (B) and (C), payments to a private nonprofit
organization described in subsection (a)(7) shall be equal to
the full cost of food service operations (which cost shall
include the costs of obtaining, preparing, and serving food,
but shall not include administrative costs).
``(ii) Service institutions.--Payments to a service
institution shall be equal to the maximum amounts for food
service under subparagraphs (B) and (C).''.
(b) Administrative Costs.--Section 13(b) of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(b)) is
amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the
following:
``(3) Administrative costs.--
``(A) Private nonprofit institutions.--
``(i) Budget.--A private nonprofit organization described
in subsection (a)(7), when applying for participation in the
program, shall submit a complete budget for administrative
costs related to the program, which shall be subject to
approval by the State.
``(ii) Amount.--Payment to a private nonprofit organization
described in subsection (a)(7) for administrative costs shall
be equal to the full amount of State-approved administrative
costs incurred, except that the payment to the service
institution may not exceed the maximum allowable levels
determined by the Secretary under the study required under
paragraph (4).
``(B) Service institutions.--Payment to a service
institution for administrative costs shall be equal to the
maximum allowable levels determined by the Secretary under
the study required under paragraph (4).''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 13(a)(7)(A) of the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(a)(7)(A)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Private'' and inserting ``Subject to
paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (b), private''; and
(B) by striking ``other service institutions'' and
inserting ``service institutions''.
(2) Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) is amended by striking subsection
(f).
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section take effect on October 1,
2003.
(2) Summer food pilot projects.--The amendment made by
subsection (c)(2) takes effect on May 1, 2004.
______
By Mr. DeWINE:
S. 2661. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
video voyeurism in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DeWine. 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:
[[Page S5859]]
S. 2661
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 ``Video Voyeurism Act of
2002''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF VIDEO VOYEURISM.
(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 87 the following new chapter:
``CHAPTER 88--PRIVACY
``Sec.
``1801. Video voyeurism.
``Sec. 1801. Video voyeurism
``(a) Whoever, except as provided in subsection (b), in the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, videotapes, photographs, films, or records by any
electronic means, any nonconsenting person, in circumstances
in which that person has a reasonable expectation of
privacy--
``(1) if that person is totally nude, clad in
undergarments, or in a state of undress that exposes the
genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast; or
``(2) under that person's clothing so as to expose the
genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both.
``(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to conduct--
``(1) of law enforcement officers pursuant to a criminal
investigation which is otherwise lawful; or
``(2) of correctional officials for security purposes or
for investigations of alleged misconduct involving a person
committed to their custody.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the
beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 87
the following new item:
``88. Privacy...............................................1801''.....
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Warner, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr.
Allen):
S. 2662. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
increase the above-the-line deduction for teacher classroom supplies
and to expand such deduction to include qualified professional
development expenses; to the Committee on Finance.
____________________