[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.
____________________