[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 42 (Monday, March 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3805-S3809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 629. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to assist 
individuals who have lost their 401(k) savings to make additional 
retirement savings through individual retirement account contributions, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over a year ago the greed of some senior 
executives at the Enron corporation finally caught up with them. 
Enron's financial house of cards began to tumble, and along with it 
went the pensions and retirement dreams of thousands of employees and 
investors. Among the employees whose pensions were crushed in Enron's 
accounting avalanche were nearly all of Portland General Electric, or 
PGE's 2,700 employees in Oregon.
  Enron took over PGE in June of 1997, and two years later merged the 
PGE employee 401(k) retirement plan into a single plan. That plan 
allowed employees to contribute up to 15 percent of their income, with 
the company matching in Enron stock. When Enron took over PGE in 1997, 
PGE's stock was trading at $27 a share; three years after the merger, 
Enron stock was trading at $85 a share, enticing employees to invest 
100 percent of their 401(k) money in Enron stock.
  Enron's stock had begun to slide in August 2001, and it was not until 
October that real panic set in. At that time the captains of the Enron 
ship knew it was sinking. In an effort to prevent a massive stock sell-
off, senior executives on the deck locked workers in the boiler room, 
preventing them from selling off 401(k) shares while they dumped their 
own. By the time the pension lockdown ended, an Enron share was worth 
less than ten dollars. In early December, Enron filed for bankruptcy.
  Earlier this year Congress enacted significant corporate 
accountability legislation so that executives and accountants can no 
longer use certified financial statements to play a game of financial 
hide-and-seek. But little was done for the workers who were locked in 
the boiler room. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing today, 
the ``Catch-Up Retirement Savings Act,'' is to give those PGE employees 
who were harmed by the greed of Enron executives the opportunity to 
catch-up on some of their lost retirement. My bill does two things to 
help workers. First, it allows employees to triple the deductible 
amount they may otherwise contribute to an IRA, and second, it gives 
employees a 50 percent tax credit on the amount they contribute to 
their IRA. The tax incentives would be available for five years to 
employees whose employer filed for bankruptcy and who was the subject 
of an indictment or conviction resulting from business transactions 
related to such case, and whose employer matched at least 50 percent of 
the employee's contributions to the pension plan.
  No act of Congress can ever respond fully to the egregious harm that 
has been caused to thousands of Oregonians by the collapse of Enron. 
But I believe that something must be done to help recoup some of the 
lost pension savings. The ``Catch-Up Lost Retirement Savings Act'' is a 
small but important step that Congress should take to help employees to 
begin to catch-up on their retirement savings.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a chart be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill and chart were ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 629

       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 ``Catch-Up Lost Retirement 
     Savings Act''.

     SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF CATCH-UP PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 219(b)(5) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to deductible amount) is amended by 
     redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D) and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Catch-up contributions for certain individuals.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of an eligible individual 
     who elects to make a qualified retirement contribution in 
     addition to the deductible amount determined under 
     subparagraph (A)--

       ``(I) the deductible amount for any taxable year shall be 
     increased by an amount equal to 3 times the applicable amount 
     determined under subparagraph (B) for such taxable year, and
       ``(I) subparagraph (B) shall not apply.

       ``(ii) Eligible individual.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `eligible individual' means, with 
     respect to any taxable year, any individual who was a 
     qualified participant in a qualified cash or deferred 
     arrangement (as defined in section 401(k)) of an employer 
     described in clause (ii) under which the employer matched at 
     least 50 percent of the employee's contributions to such 
     arrangement with stock of such employer.
       ``(iii) Employer described.--An employer is described in 
     this clause if, in any taxable year preceding the taxable 
     year described in clause (ii)--

       ``(I) such employer (or any controlling corporation of such 
     employer) was a debtor in a case under title 11 of the United 
     States Code, or similar Federal or State law, and
       ``(II) such employer (or any other person) was subject to 
     an indictment or conviction resulting from business 
     transactions related to such case.

       ``(iv) Qualified participant.--For purposes of clause (ii), 
     the term `qualified participant' means any eligible 
     individual who was a participant in the cash or deferred 
     arrangement described in clause (i) at least 6 months before 
     the filing of the case described in clause (iii).
       ``(v) Termination.--This subparagraph shall not apply to 
     taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.''.
       (b) Credit Allowed for Catch-Up Contributions.--Subpart A 
     of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal 
     credits) is amended by inserting after section 25B the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 25C. CERTAIN CATCH-UP IRA CONTRIBUTIONS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible 
     individual who makes an election under section 219(b)(5)(C) 
     for the taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this chapter for such taxable year 
     an amount equal to 50 percent of so much of the qualified 
     retirement savings contributions of the eligible individual 
     for the taxable year as do not exceed the increase in the 
     deductible amount determined under section 219(b)(5)(C) .
       ``(b) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction or other 
     credit shall be allowed with respect to any contribution to 
     which a credit is allowed under subsection (a).
       ``(c) Investment in the Contract.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, a qualified retirement savings 
     contribution shall not fail to be included in determining the 
     investment in the contract for purposes of section 72 by 
     reason of the credit under this section.
       ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 2007.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 25B the following new item:


[[Page S3806]]


``Sec. 25C. Certain catch-up IRA contributions.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
                                  ____


                  ``Catch-Up'' Savings Amounts Allowed

       For Years 2003-2004: IRA Contribution, $3,000; Catch-up 
     amount, $1,500; and Credit, 50% = $750/year.
       For Years 2005: IRA Contribution, $4,000; Catch-up amount, 
     $1,500; and Credit, 50% = $750/year.
       For Years 2006 and 07: IRA Contribution, $4,000; Catch-up 
     amount, $3,000; and Credit, 50% = $1,500/year.
       Total amount from credit for years 2003 through 2007, 
     assuming maximum amount saved, equals $5,250.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Warner, Ms. Collins, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Rockefeller).
  S. 632. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
expand coverage of medical nutrition therapy services under the 
medicare program for beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill I am introducing today, on medical nutrition therapy, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 632

       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 ``Medicare Medical Nutrition 
     Therapy Amendment Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF MEDICAL NUTRITION THERAPY SERVICES FOR 
                   BENEFICIARIES WITH CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1861(s)(2)(V) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(V)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(V) medical nutrition therapy services (as defined in 
     subsection (vv)(1)) in the case of a beneficiary--
       ``(i) with a cardiovascular disease (including congestive 
     heart failure, arteriosclerosis, hyperlipidemia, 
     hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia), diabetes, or a renal 
     disease (or a combination of such conditions) who--
       ``(I) has not received diabetes outpatient self-management 
     training services within a time period determined by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(II) is not receiving maintenance dialysis for which 
     payment is made under section 1881; and
       ``(III) meets such other criteria determined by the 
     Secretary after consideration of protocols established by 
     dietitian or nutrition professional organizations; or
       ``(ii) with a combination of such conditions who--
       ``(I) is not described in clause (i) because of the 
     application of subclause (I) or (II) of such clause;
       ``(II) receives such medical nutrition therapy services in 
     a coordinated manner (as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary) with any services described in such subclauses 
     that the beneficiary is receiving; and
       ``(III) meets such other criteria determined by the 
     Secretary after consideration of protocols established by 
     dietitian or nutrition professional organizations.

     for such member of hours as the Secretary may specify, except 
     that, in the case of a beneficiary with a cardiovascular 
     disease, such number may not exceed 3 hours in a year without 
     a determination of a physician that additional hours are 
     medically necessary in that year due to a change in medically 
     necessary in that year due to a change in medical condition, 
     diagnosis, or treatment regime of the patient;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to services furnished on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 630. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
a study of the San Gabriel River Watershed, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be re-introducing today a 
bill that will take an important first step in restoring the San 
Gabriel River, which runs through Los Angeles, CA. During the 107th 
Congress, this bill received unanimous support from the House of 
Representatives and from the Senate as part of an omnibus California 
Parks bill. However, due to a technical error, unrelated to this 
legislation, the bill was never sent to the President. I am hopeful 
that this legislation will quickly receive the consideration it 
deserves so it can be enacted into law.
  The San Gabriel River has suffered from years of abuse and neglect 
and needs our help. For far too long, we have channeled, redirected, 
constricted, polluted, and simply ignored it. The result is that 
substantial portions of the river look nothing like its natural form. 
Instead of soft bottoms covered with aquatic grasses, stream banks 
lined with trees and bushes, and waters teaming with fish, these rivers 
have cement bottoms, cement banks, and little remaining wildlife.
  Today, we begin what will be a long, slow process in turning the tide 
for this urban watershed. This bill directs the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct a study of the San Gabriel River watershed to 
consider various mechanisms for providing federal protection and 
assistance to this river and its watershed.
  It is particularly important to restore the San Gabriel River so it 
can serve as a source of outdoor recreation for one of our Nation's 
most congested urban areas. Most communities in Los Angeles are 
desperate for open space. They seek outdoor areas where children can 
play, adults can meet, and people of all ages can find respite from the 
daily hustle and bustle of some of our most economically and socially 
stressed neighborhoods. The San Gabriel River system can and should 
provide that to them.
  This vision is shared by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, who first 
introduced this bill in the House of Representatives in the last 
Congress. I look forward to working with her on passing this bill 
quickly and then taking the additional steps needed to restore the San 
Gabriel River.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. 
        Cantwell, and Mr. Pryor):
  S. 633. A bill to modify the contract consolidation requirements in 
the Small Business Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be re-introducing 
legislation, the ``Small Business Federal Contractor Safeguard Act,'' 
designed to protect the interests of small businesses in the Federal 
marketplace.
  Currently as the Ranking Member, and last Congress as Chairman, of 
the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have 
focused a considerable amount of energy on increasing the role of small 
businesses in the Federal marketplace. Not only is it an issue of 
fairness, but it is in the best interest of our economy and our 
national security. In fact, the Small Business Administration was 
created after World War II to ensure that small businesses would be 
viable for defense-related production, to build a diverse pool of 
suppliers so that the country would not be dependent on only a handful 
of companies. As this country prepares for war in Iraq and continues 
the on-going war on terrorism, we should be improving that viability 
and expanding that diverse pool. We should be increasing our business 
with small business, not reducing it.
  It is no secret that the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship places a great deal of importance on moving 
legislation forward in a bipartisan manner--the members of my Committee 
understand we represent the interests of all of our nation's small 
businesses, the most important and dynamic segment of our economy. And 
nowhere is the bipartisan consensus stronger than in the area of 
Federal procurement and ensuring that our nation's small businesses 
receive their fair share of procurement opportunities.
  The legislation we are introducing today has one ultimate purpose, to 
prevent Federal agencies from circumventing small business protections 
with regard to the practice known as contract bundling. Few issues have 
so strongly galvanized the small businesses contacting community as the 
practice of contract bundling, which occurs when procurement contracts 
are combined to form large contracts, often spread over large 
geographic areas, and results in minimal or no small business 
participation.
  Many supporters of the practice of contract bundling point to its 
cost savings--they claim it saves the taxpayer money to lump contracts 
together. Unfortunately, there is little evidence supporting this 
claim, and too many contracts are bundled without the required economic 
research designed to determine if a bundled contract will actually 
result in a cost savings.

[[Page S3807]]

  The SBA's Office of Advocacy, an independent body within the SBA, 
estimated that for every increase of 100 bundled contracts, there was a 
decrease of over 106 individual contracts issued to small firms. For 
every $100 awarded on a bundled contract, there was a decrease of $33 
to small business. This cost small businesses an estimated $13 billion 
in 2001. The Office of Advocacy arrived at these conclusions using a 
conservative definition of what constitutes a bundled contract. 
Therefore, the negative impact on small businesses from contract 
bundling is likely more severe.
  While seemingly an efficient and cost-effective means for Federal 
agencies to conduct business, bundled contracts are anti-competitive. 
And they are anti-small business. When a Federal agency bundles 
contracts, it limits small businesses' ability to bid for the new 
bundled contract, thus limiting competition. Small businesses are 
consistently touted as more innovative, providing better and cheaper 
services than their larger counterparts. But when forced to bid for 
mega-contracts, at times across large geographic areas, few, if any, 
small businesses can be expected to compete. By driving small business 
from the Federal marketplace, contract bundling will actually drive up 
the costs of goods and services purchased by the Federal government 
because competition will be limited and our economy will be deprived of 
possible innovations brought about by small businesses.

  While there are current laws in place intended to require Federal 
agencies to conduct market research before bundling a contract, 
loopholes in the current definition of a bundled contract allow them to 
often skirt these safeguards.
  Our legislation changes the name ``bundled contract'' to 
``consolidated contract,'' strengthens the definition of a consolidated 
contract, and closes the loopholes in the existing definition to 
prevent Federal agencies from circumventing statutory safeguards 
intended to ensure that separate contracts are consolidated for 
economic reasons, not administrative expediency.
  The new definition relies on a simple premise: if you combine 
contracts, be it new contracts, existing contracts or a combination 
thereof, you are consolidating them and would need to take the 
necessary steps to ensure it is justified economically before 
proceeding.
  Our legislation also alters the current Small Business Act 
requirements regarding procurement strategies when a contract is 
consolidated to include a threshold level for triggering the economic 
research requirements.
  Previously, any consolidated contract would trigger the economic 
research requirements, something considered onerous by many Federal 
agencies and often cited as the reason for circumventing the law. The 
new procurement strategies section of the Small Business Act would 
require a statement of benefits and a justification for any 
consolidated contract over $2 million and a more extensive analysis, 
corresponding to current requirements for any consolidated contract, 
for consolidations over $5 million.
  In order to move forward with a consolidated contract over $2 
million, the agency must put forth the benefits expected from the 
contract, identify alternatives that would involve a lesser degree of 
consolidation and include a specific determination that the 
consolidation is necessary and justified. The determination that a 
consolidation is necessary and justified may be determined simply 
through administrative and personnel savings, but there must be actual 
savings.
  In order to move forward with a consolidated contract over $5 
million, an agency must, in addition to the above: conduct current 
market research to demonstrate that the consolidation will result in 
costs savings, quality improvements, reduction in acquisition times, or 
better terms and conditions; include an assessment as to the specific 
impediments to small business participation resulting from the 
consolidation; and specify actions designed to maximize small business 
participation as subcontractors and suppliers for the consolidated 
contract. The determination that a consolidation is necessary and 
justified may not be determined through administrative and personnel 
savings alone unless those savings will be substantial for these larger 
contracts.
  By establishing this dual-threshold system, we have placed the 
emphasis for the economic research on contracts more likely to preclude 
small business participation, while not ceding smaller contracts to the 
whims of a Federal agency. This change, coupled with a clear definition 
of a consolidated contract, should be enough to garner compliance. 
However, if Federal agencies continue to consolidate contracts when 
there is no justification, fail to conduct the required economic 
research, or fail to provide procurement opportunities to small 
businesses, the Committee would have little choice but to consider 
legislative changes requiring punitive measures for these Federal 
agencies. This is a step I have been reluctant to take in the past. 
However, I am optimistic that such a step will not be necessary and 
that the fair and reasonable system established under this legislation 
will be effective.
  I would once again like to thank my fellow sponsors, Senators 
Landrieu, Stabenow, Cantwell, and Pryor for their continued support on 
this issue. I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this 
bill. I ask that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 633

       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 ``Small Business Federal 
     Contractor Safeguard Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONTRACT CONSOLIDATION.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 3(o) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 632(o)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(o) Definitions.--In this Act the following definitions 
     shall apply:
       ``(1) Consolidated contract; consolidation.--The term 
     `consolidated contract' or `consolidation' means a multiple 
     award contract or a contract for goods or services with a 
     Federal agency that--
       ``(A) combines discrete procurement requirements from not 
     less than 2 existing contracts;
       ``(B) adds new, discrete procurement requirements to an 
     existing contract; or
       ``(C) includes 2 or more discrete procurement requirements.
       ``(2) Multiple award contract.--The term `multiple award 
     contract' means--
       ``(A) a contract that is entered into by the Administrator 
     of General Services under the multiple award schedule program 
     referred to in section 2302(2)(C) of title 10, United States 
     Code;
       ``(B) a multiple award task order contract or delivery 
     order contract that is entered into under the authority of 
     sections 2304a through 2304d of title 10, United States Code, 
     or sections 303H through 303K of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253h through 
     253k); and
       ``(C) any other indefinite delivery or indefinite quantity 
     contract that is entered into by the head of a Federal agency 
     with 2 or more sources pursuant to the same solicitation.''.
       (b) Procurement Strategies.--Section 15(e) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(e)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Procurement Strategies; Contract Consolidation.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the maximum extent practicable, 
     procurement strategies used by the various agencies having 
     contracting authority shall facilitate the maximum 
     participation of small business concerns as--
       ``(A) prime contractors;
       ``(B) subcontractors; and
       ``(C) suppliers.
       ``(2) Procurement strategy requirements when the value of a 
     consolidated contract is greater than $2,000,000.--
       ``(A) In general.--An agency official may not execute a 
     procurement strategy that includes a consolidated contract 
     valued at more than $2,000,000 unless the proposed 
     procurement strategy--
       ``(i) specifically identifies the benefits anticipated from 
     consolidation;
       ``(ii) identifies any alternative contracting approaches 
     that would involve a lesser degree of contract consolidation; 
     and
       ``(iii) includes a specific determination that the proposed 
     consolidation is necessary and the anticipated benefits of 
     such consolidation justify its use.
       ``(B) Necessary and justified.--The head of an agency may 
     determine that a procurement strategy under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) is necessary and justified if the monetary benefits 
     of the procurement strategy, including administrative and 
     personnel costs, substantially exceed the monetary benefits 
     of each of the possible alternative contracting approaches 
     identified under subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(C) Additional requirements when the value of a 
     consolidated contract is greater than $5,000,000.--In 
     addition to meeting the requirements under paragraph (A), a

[[Page S3808]]

     procurement strategy that includes a consolidated contract 
     valued at more than $5,000,000--
       ``(i) shall be supported by current market research that 
     demonstrates that the consolidated contract will result in--

       ``(I) cost savings;
       ``(II) quality improvements;
       ``(III) reduction in acquisition cycle times; or
       ``(IV) better terms and conditions;

       ``(ii) shall include an assessment of the specific 
     impediments to participation by small business concerns as 
     prime contractors that result from contract consolidation;
       ``(iii) shall specify actions designed to maximize small 
     business participation as subcontractors, including 
     suppliers, at various tiers under the consolidated contract; 
     and
       ``(iv) shall not be justified under paragraph (A)(iii) by 
     savings in administrative or personnel costs, unless the 
     total amount of the cost savings is expected to be 
     substantial in relation to the total cost of the procurement.
       ``(3) Contract teaming.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the head of an agency solicits offers 
     for a consolidated contract, a small business concern may 
     submit an offer that provides for the use of a particular 
     team of subcontractors for the performance of the contract 
     (referred to in this paragraph as `teaming').
       ``(B) Evaluation of offer.--The head of the agency shall 
     evaluate an offer submitted by a small business concern under 
     subparagraph (A) in the same manner as other offers, with due 
     consideration to the capabilities of all of the proposed 
     subcontractors.
       ``(C) No effect on status as a small business concern.--If 
     a small business concern engages in teaming under 
     subparagraph (A), its status as a small business concern 
     shall not be affected for any other purpose.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--The Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 2(j)--
       (A) by striking the subsection heading and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(j) Contract Consolidation.--''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``bundling of contract 
     requirements'' and inserting ``contract consolidation'';
       (2) in section 8(d)(4)(G), by striking ``a bundled 
     contract'' and inserting ``a consolidated contract'';
       (3) in section 15(a)--
       (A) by striking ``bundling of contract requirements'' and 
     inserting ``contract consolidation''; and
       (B) by striking ``the bundled contract'' and inserting 
     ``the consolidated contract''; and
       (4) in section 15(k)(5)--
       (A) by striking ``significant bundling of contract 
     requirements'' and inserting ``consolidated contracts valued 
     at more than $2,000,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``bundled contract'' and inserting 
     ``consolidated contract''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Domenci, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 634. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 
Secretary of the Interior to carry out a study on the feasibility of 
designating the Trail of the Ancients as a national historic trail; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help 
highlight and protect sites in one of our Nation's most 
archaeologically rich regions, the Four Corners. The Trail of the 
Ancients National Historic Trail Act of 2003 would amend the National 
Trails System Act to direct a study of the suitability of designating 
the Trail of the Ancients as a national historic trail.
  The Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail would become a 
multistate, auto route featuring world-renowned examples of Ancestral 
Puebloan cultures in the Four Corners area. The Ancestral Puebloans, 
also known as Anasazi, preceded today's Navajo and Ute tribes. The 
Trail of the Ancients connects many of the most significant Ancestral 
Puebloan sites in the Four Corners area of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and 
New Mexico.
  The Four Corners region in the Southwestern United States is one of 
the areas of greatest archaeological interest in the Nation. The Trail 
of the Ancients National Historic Trail would provide improved access 
to and understanding of this region's numerous examples of the 
Ancestral Puebloan culture. The history of the Four Corners region is 
not only unique and important to the Nation, it is unparalleled in how 
well it is preserved in the remaining archaeological sites. The semi-
arid climate of the Four Corners area has helped preserve some the 
archaeological sites beyond what is typically seen in most other areas 
of the United States. International recognition of a number of the 
sites in the area has contributed to the wealth of information about 
the peoples who lived in them.
  The Trail would highlight areas and sites where our Nation's earliest 
inhabitants, the Paleo Americans, traveled and lived as early as 10,000 
B.C. Within the same region lived the Ancestral Puebloan Indians from 
about A.D. 1 to 1300. The Trail would also feature sites that chronicle 
the existence of today's Ute Indian culture from the early 13th 
century, as well as today's Navajo people.
  I point out that the Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail 
would include only existing routes and roads, and would not require the 
acquisition of additional property. Currently, much of the existing 
route is officially designated a Scenic Byway in Utah, Colorado, and 
Arizona. The trail also intersects and shares stops with other 
national- and State-designated byways and highways including the San 
Juan Skyway in Colorado and the Utah Bicentennial Highway.
  Most of the existing cultural and historical interpretation of the 
numerous sites along the trail was developed independently. Designation 
of the Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail would link many of 
the cultural and recreation areas for the benefit of the traveling 
public and involved communities. Just as importantly, designation as a 
national historic trail would provide a unified framework for 
protecting and interpreting for the public the trail's most important 
sites.
  That is why I am introducing this legislation today. This bill would 
authorize the study of the Trail of the Ancients for possible inclusion 
in the National Trails System and allow for its precious and 
irreplaceable sites to be best protected, as well as enjoyed by the 
public.
  I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Bond):
  S. 636. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for a permanent increase in medicare payments for home health 
services that are furnished in rural areas; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Home 
Health Payment Fairness Act, which would extend the 10 percent add-on 
payment under Medicare for home health care services in rural areas 
that is currently scheduled to sunset on April 1. This legislation 
would help to ensure seniors and disabled citizens living in rural 
America continue to receive the home health care benefits and services 
they depend on and deserve.
  Health care in this country has gone full circle. Patients are 
spending less time in the hospital. More and more procedures are being 
done on an outpatient basis and recovery and care for patients with 
chronic diseases and conditions have increasingly been taking place in 
the home. As a consequence, home health care has become an increasingly 
important part of our health care. The kinds of highly skilled and 
often technically complex services our Nation's home health nurses 
provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable senior 
citizens to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay where they want 
to be, in the security, privacy, and comfort of their very own homes.
  I have visited home health patients throughout my State in northern, 
central, and southern Maine. Regardless of where they live, the impact 
of home health care on their lives has been the same. It has made the 
difference between couples staying together in their own home for their 
golden years, despite the ill health of one of the spouses, or being 
forced prematurely into a nursing home or into repeated 
hospitalizations.
  One elderly gentleman told me all he wanted was to live out the 
remaining days of his life with his wife, whom he had been married to 
for decades, and that home health care allowed them to be together in 
the home where they had always lived, as he completes his final years.
  Home health care is also a bargain. It makes a great deal of sense to 
care for people in their own homes and avoid the extra costs of nursing 
homes and hospitalization. Our home health care system is fragile. 
Extension of the 10 percent add-on payment for rural home

[[Page S3809]]

health care agencies will help to ensure that patients living in rural 
communities continue to have access to vital home health services. 
Surveys have shown the delivery of home health services in rural areas 
can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the extra 
travel time required to cover long distances between patients, higher 
transportation expenses, and other cost factors.
  Rural agencies also experience higher costs relative to productivity. 
Because of the longer travel distances, rural caregivers are unable to 
perform as many visits in a single day as their urban counterparts. 
Saundra Scott-Adams, the Executive Director of Visiting Nurses of 
Aroostook in northern Maine, tells me her agency covers 6,600 square 
miles to serve a population of only 73,000. Her costs are 
understandably much higher and her hard-working nurses are not able to 
see as many patients in a day as their urban counterparts. The long 
distances they must drive mean they are able to see fewer patients each 
day.
  Moreover, agencies in rural areas are frequently smaller than their 
big city counterparts, which means their relative costs are higher due 
to smaller scale operations and an ability to take advantage of 
economies of scale. Smaller agencies with fewer patients and fewer 
visits mean that fixed costs, particularly those associated with 
meeting regulatory requirements, are spread over a smaller number of 
patients and visits, increasing overall per-patient and per-visit 
costs. If the rural add-on payment is eliminated on April 1, it will 
only put more pressure on our rural home health agencies that are 
already operating on a very narrow margin, and it could, in fact, force 
some of these agencies to close.
  Some agencies operating in rural areas are the only home health 
providers for a vast geographic area. If any of these agencies are 
forced to close, the Medicare patients in that region will completely 
lose their access to home health care.
  Earlier this year, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission voted 
unanimously to extend the rural add-on payment for home health services 
for one year. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring 
this important legislation to ensure that all of our seniors, no matter 
where they live, whether they live in big cities, in suburbs, or the 
smallest communities, continue to have access to quality home health 
services.

                          ____________________