[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 106 (Thursday, July 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9593-S9598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1422. A bill to provide assistance to train teachers of children
with autism spectrum disorders, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce along with Senator
Lautenberg the Teacher Education for Autistic Children, TEACH, Act of
2003, legislation that will highlight the needs of autistic children by
bringing more qualified teachers into the classroom, helping families
receive the support and services they need for their children, and
helping ensure vocational programs to assist people with autism
transition from school to work are functioning as intended.
Autism is a developmental disability characterized by atypical, often
repetitive behaviors and deficits in social and communication skills.
Though it is difficult to determine an exact number, some researchers
believe that an astounding 1 out of 250 of our Nation's children are in
some way affected by this disorder.
Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that the number of children
diagnosed with some form of autism has increased significantly
throughout the country over the past decade. Take my State for
example--according to the New Jersey Department of Education in 1991,
there were 241 children in our schools who had been diagnosed with
autism. By 2001, that figure had risen to 3,984, a staggering increase
of 1,548 percent.
While the cause of autism and its cure are unknown, we are aware that
the best treatment for these children is early intervention from
qualified teachers. The TEACH Act of 2003 would go a long way in
improving services for these children by providing teachers with the
necessary training and helping school districts in hiring qualified
autism teachers.
Specifically, the TEACH Act authorizes $15 million a year for five
years to provide education or professional development training for
current teachers or students who want to be special education teachers,
teachers' aides, or other professionals who work with autistic
children.
The TEACH Act also establishes a loan forgiveness program for
qualified teachers of autistic children to help them pay off college
loans or loans associated with taking continuing education courses
related to autism. This incentive of up to $20,000 to help pay off
college loans will go a long way in attracting more qualified
individuals into special education.
The bill also includes provisions that establish State Autism
Ombudsman Offices that would act as clearinghouses for families who are
seeking information on services, education, and other resources to help
their children achieve the full and happy lives they deserve. It also
creates a national Task Force to evaluate and make recommendations
regarding best practices for the education of autistic children.
Finally, this legislation requires a joint Department of Labor/
Department of Education study to evaluate existing vocational programs
available for people with autism in order to ensure that such
individuals have access to quality jobs and their own independence.
The TEACH Act will go a long way to help autistic families by giving
their children the opportunity to achieve the highest quality of life.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, which has
the power to improve thousands of lives.
[[Page S9594]]
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1422
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 ``Teacher Education for
Autistic Children Act of 2003'' or the ``TEACH Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. TRAINING OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS WITH EXPERTISE
IN AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to such
sums as are otherwise authorized to be appropriated for
``Special Education-Personnel Preparation to Improve Services
and Results for Children with Disabilities'', there are
authorized to be appropriated for ``Special Education-
Personnel Preparation to Improve Services and Results for
Children with Disabilities'', for each of the fiscal year
2004 through 2008, $15,000,000--
(1) to provide technical assistance grants to develop
standards for training teachers with respect to the provision
of education for children with autism spectrum disorders
(ASD) and to integrate such standards into the existing
training infrastructure;
(2) to train special education teachers with an expertise
in autism spectrum disorders; and
(3) to provide preservice or professional development
training of personnel to be special education teachers, aides
of such teachers or other paraprofessionals providing
teaching assistance, special education administrators, or
staff specialists (such as speech-language pathologists and
school psychologists) with an expertise in autism spectrum
disorders.
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) are
authorized to remain available until expended.
SEC. 3. IMPROVING RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM
DISORDERS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to such
sums as are otherwise authorized to be appropriated to carry
out subpart 1 of part D of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, there are authorized to be appropriated for
each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 $5,000,000 for
competitive grants under subpart 1 of part D of such Act to
assist State educational agencies, in cooperation with other
appropriate entities, to improve results for children with
autism spectrum disorders (ASD).
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) are
authorized to remain available until expended.
SEC. 4. EXPANDED LOAN FORGIVENESS PROGRAM FOR TEACHERS OF
AUTISTIC CHILDREN.
(a) Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Education (in this
section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall carry out a
program of assuming the obligation to repay, pursuant to
subsection (c), a loan made, insured, or guaranteed under
part B of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 or
part D of such title (excluding loans made under sections
428B and 428C of such Act or comparable loans made under part
D of such title) for any borrower who--
(A) is employed, for 3 consecutive complete school years,
as a full-time special education teacher of autistic
children;
(C) satisfies the requirements of subsection (d); and
(D) is not in default on a loan for which the borrower
seeks forgiveness.
(2) Award basis; priority.--
(A) Award basis.--Subject to subparagraph (B), loan
repayment under this section shall be on a first-come, first-
serve basis and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
(B) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in
providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year
to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this
section for the preceding fiscal year.
(3) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to prescribe
such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this section.
(b) Loan Repayment.--
(1) Eligible amount.--The amount the Secretary may repay on
behalf of any individual under this section shall not
exceed--
(A) the sum of the principal amounts outstanding (not to
exceed $5,000) of the individual's qualifying loans at the
end of 3 consecutive complete school years of service
described in subsection (a)(1)(B);
(B) an additional portion of such sum (not to exceed
$5,000) at the end of each of the next 2 consecutive complete
school years of such service; and
(C) a total of not more than $20,000.
(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a
loan made under part B or D of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965.
(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the
Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate
amount of interest on such loan which accrues for such year
shall be repaid by the Secretary.
(c) Repayment to Eligible Lenders.--The Secretary shall pay
to each eligible lender or holder for each fiscal year an
amount equal to the aggregate amount of loans which are
subject to repayment pursuant to this section for such year.
(d) Application for Repayment.--
(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan
repayment under this section shall submit a complete and
accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
(2) Years of service.--An eligible individual may apply for
loan repayment under this section after completing the
required number of years of qualifying employment.
(3) Fully qualified teachers in public elementary or
secondary schools.--An application for loan repayment under
this section shall include such information as is necessary
to demonstrate that the applicant--
(A) if teaching in a public pre-kindergarten, kindergarten,
elementary, middle, or secondary school (other than as a
teacher in a public charter school), has obtained State
certification as a teacher (including certification obtained
through alternative routes to certification) or passed the
State teacher licensing exam and holds a license to teach in
such State; and
(B) if teaching in--
(i) a public pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, or elementary
school, holds a bachelor's degree and demonstrates knowledge
and skills for teaching children with autism spectrum
disorders; or
(ii) a public middle or secondary school, holds a
bachelor's degree and demonstrates a high level of competency
for teaching children with autism spectrum disorders,
through--
(I) a high level of performance on a rigorous State or
local academic subject areas test; or
(II) completion of an academic major specializing in autism
or severe disabilities with a concentration in autism
spectrum disorders.
(4) Teachers in nonprofit private elementary or secondary
schools or charter schools.--In the case of an applicant who
is teaching in a nonprofit private pre-kindergarten,
kindergarten, elementary, or secondary school, or in a public
charter school, an application for loan repayment under this
section shall include such information as is necessary to
demonstrate that the applicant has knowledge and skills for
teaching children with autism spectrum disorders, as
certified by the chief administrative officer of the school.
(e) Treatment of Consolidation Loans.--A loan amount for a
consolidation loan made under section 428C of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, or a Federal Direct Consolidation Loan
made under part D of title IV of such Act, may be a qualified
loan amount for the purpose of this section only to the
extent that such loan amount was used by a borrower who
otherwise meets the requirements of this section to repay--
(1) a loan made under section 428 or 428H of such Act; or
(2) a Federal Direct Stafford Loan, or a Federal Direct
Unsubsidized Stafford Loan, made under part D of title IV of
such Act.
(f) Additional Provisions.--
(1) Prevention of double benefits.--No borrower may, for
the same service, receive a benefit under both this section
and subtitle D of title I of the National and Community
Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.).
(2) Definition of teacher of autistic children.--The term
``teacher of autistic children'' means an individual who
provides instruction to children who have been diagnosed by a
physician or a psychologist as having an autism spectrum
disorder.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
SEC. 5. REPORT ON AUTISM EARLY INTERVENTION ACTIVITIES.
(a) Report.--Section 613 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1413) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(k) Report on Autism Early Intervention Activities.--
``(1) In general.--A local educational agency that receives
assistance under this part for a fiscal year shall prepare
and submit to the Secretary a report that contains a
description of the activities referred to in paragraph (2)
carried out in the preceding fiscal year.
``(2) Information.--The activities referred to in this
paragraph are the following:
``(A) Activities carried out by the agency to ensure that
students who exhibit symptoms of autism spectrum disorders
(ASD) are referred to appropriate experts for diagnosis.
``(B) Appropriate training provided by the agency, or on
behalf of the agency, of personnel of the agency and schools
of the agency to carry out the activities described in
subparagraph (A).
``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `autism
spectrum disorders' has the meaning given the term in section
9 of the Teacher Education for Autistic Children Act of
2003.''.
(b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary of Education shall
provide technical assistance to local educational agencies
that receive assistance under part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act to assist such agencies comply
with the reporting requirement under section 613(k) of such
Act (as added by subsection (a)).
[[Page S9595]]
SEC. 6. TASK FORCE ON AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Education, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, shall establish and provide
administrative support for a Task Force on Autism Spectrum
Disorders (ASD) (in this section referred to as the ``Task
Force'').
(b) Duties.--The Task Force shall--
(1) conduct a review of minimum standards relating to the
provision of special education for children with autism
spectrum disorders and provide recommendations to improve or
otherwise strengthen such standards;
(2) conduct a review of the effectiveness of existing
educational models used with respect to the provision of
special education for children with autism spectrum
disorders; and
(3) conduct an evaluation of programs carried out by State
and local educational agencies to train teachers with respect
to the provision of special education for children with
autism spectrum disorders and provide recommendations to
improve and expand such programs.
(c) Composition.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Education, acting through
the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services and in consultation with the Director
of the National Research Council (or the Director's
designee), shall appoint members of the Task Force as
follows:
(A) Not less than two members shall be representatives from
national autism organizations.
(B) Not less than one member shall be an individual with an
autism spectrum disorder or a parent (or legal guardian) of
such an individual.
(C) Not less than two members shall be teachers with
experience in working with children with autism.
(D) Not less than two members shall be appropriate officers
or employees of the Department of Education.
(E) Not less than two members shall be appropriate officers
or employees of the Department of Health and Human Services
(to be appointed in consultation with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services).
(2) Compensation.--
(A) Rates of pay.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
members of the Task Force shall be paid at the maximum rate
of basic pay for GS-14 of the General Schedule for each day
during which they are engaged in the actual performance of
duties of the Task Force.
(B) Prohibition of compensation of federal employees.--
Members of the Task Force who are full-time officers or
employees of the United States may not receive additional
pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on
the Task Force.
(C) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Task Force shall
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions under
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for each of
the subsequent four calendar years, the Task Force shall
prepare and submit to the Secretary of Education a report
that contains the results of the reviews and evaluations
conducted pursuant to subsection (b) and a description of the
recommendations proposed pursuant to such subsection.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $500,000 for fiscal years 2004 through
2008.
(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are
authorized to remain available until expended.
SEC. 7. STUDY AND REPORT ON FEDERAL VOCATIONAL TRAINING
PROGRAMS.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Education, in conjunction with
the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter in this section referred
to as the ``Secretaries''), shall conduct a study on the
effectiveness of Federal vocational training programs in
providing appropriate assistance to individuals with autism
spectrum disorders (ASD)
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall submit to
Congress a report that contains the following:
(1) The results of the study conducted under subsection
(a).
(2) Administrative and legislative recommendations to
improve the effectiveness of Federal vocational training
programs in providing appropriate assistance to individuals
with autism spectrum disorders.
(3) Recommendations on appropriate data that should be
collected, maintained, and disseminated in order to better
monitor the effectiveness of each vocational training program
that serves individuals with autism spectrum disorders.
SEC. 8. STATE AUTISM OMBUDSMAN OFFICES.
(a) Grants to States.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant
to the authorization of appropriations under subsection (d)
for a fiscal year, the Secretary of Education shall provide
grants to each State that meets the requirements of
subsection (b) for the purpose of carrying out this section.
(b) State Requirements.--A State meets the requirements of
this subsection if it establishes and operates (including
through the use of funds provided under a grant under
subsection (a)) at least one State autism ombudsman office in
accordance with this section. The office shall be headed by
an individual who shall be selected from among individuals
who are members of, or approved by, national, non-profit
organizations, including their State and local affiliate
organizations, dedicated to addressing, by whatever means,
the needs of individuals with autism spectrum disorders or
their families or legal guardians.
(c) Duties of Office.--
(1) In general.--A State autism ombudsman office
established in accordance with subsection (b) shall serve
individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their families
or guardians as a resource to assist with legal, educational,
and family support systems issues, including by advising
families or guardians on the process of the individualized
education program, interpreting school communications
regarding a child who exhibits autistic behavior, proposing
alternatives to those proposed by the IEP team, and otherwise
mediating between families or guardians of a child with an
autism spectrum disorder and officials of local or State
public school systems, agencies, or boards.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term
``individualized education program'' or ``IEP'' means a
written statement for a child with a disability that is
developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with section
614(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
(d) Requirements.--A State autism ombudsman office
established in accordance with subsection (b) shall--
(1) coordinate with the State developmental disabilities
council, university-affiliated programs, regional resource
centers, and other appropriate State entities; and
(2) operate independently of the State educational agency
and local educational agencies within the State.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $8,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
SEC. 9. DEFINITION.
In this Act, the term ``autism spectrum disorder'' has the
meaning given the term by the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV).
______
By Mr. McCONNELL:
S. 1428. A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being
brought or continued against food manufacturers, marketers,
distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade associations for damages
or injunctive relief for claims of injury resulting from a person's
weight gain, obesity, or any health condition related to weight gain or
obesity; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about abusive
litigation in America. Unfortunately, a personal injury lawyer's desire
for a big payday by any theory imaginable is never satisfied, and so I
come yet again to speak about tort reform--an issue I have worked on
nearly every year that I have been in the Senate.
America is blessed with an abundant food supply and an overwhelming
number of food choices. With so many choices, some of us overdo it.
That over indulgence, combined with an under indulgence of exercise can
sometimes have negative health consequences. But most of us take
responsibility for the amount--and the type--of food we put in our
mouth, and we accept the consequences of those decisions.
Personal injury lawyers, however, are now trying to convince
Americans with expanding waistlines that someone else is to blame for
their weight problem. And so the latest targets of predatory lawyers
are the people producing and selling food. That is right. This money-
hungry gang is going after ``Big Food.'' If it were not so frightening,
it would be funny.
This is a disturbing turn of events and a further indication of the
erosion of personal responsibility in America. People claiming their
weight gain is the fault of the food manufacturers or seller have
already begun filing lawsuits. Think of the absurdity of that logic.
How long will it be until those who get speeding tickets begin to sue
car manufacturers for building a car that people may decide to drive
too fast?
Many Americans need to take greater care in what--and how much--they
eat. But it is also time to curb the voracious appetite of the personal
injury lawyers and put an end to this ridiculous and costly litigation
before it gets out of hand
That is why today I am introducing the Commonsense Consumption Act.
My bill would prohibit suits against food manufacturers and sellers
for claims of injury resulting from a person's weight gain, obesity or
health condition related to weight gain or obesity.
Any such suit pending on the date of enactment of this bill would be
dismissed.
[[Page S9596]]
Let me be clear. This bill does not provide widespread legal immunity
for the food industry. It only provides protection from abusive suits
by people seeking to blame someone else for their poor eating habits.
This bill would not affect lawsuits against food manufacturers or
sellers that knowingly and willfully violate a Federal or State statute
applicable to the manufacture and sale of food.
This bill would not apply to lawsuits for breach of contract or
express warranty. And this bill would not apply to claims related to
``adulterated'' food.
I should mention that Representative Ric Keller has introduced
similar legislation in the House. His bill, entitled the Personal
Responsibility in Food Consumption Act has received a hearing and has
attracted a significant number of cosponsors. My bill is worded a bit
differently than Representative Keller's but I believe it is safe to
say that both bills aim for the same result: an end to these absurd
lawsuits.
Just a few years ago, the whole idea of blaming, and suing, someone
else for your own eating habits was comical.
In fact, in August of 2000 the satirical publication ``The Onion''
carried a spoof news story entitled ``Hershey's Ordered To Pay Obese
Americans $135 Billion.''
The story began: In one of the largest product-liability rulings in
U.S. history, the Hershey Foods Corp. was ordered by a Pennsylvania
jury to pay $135 billion in restitution to 900,000 obese Americans who
for years consumed the company's fattening snack foods.
The article continued by saying: [The five-state class-action suit
accused Hershey's of ``knowingly and willfully marketing rich, fatty
candy bars containing chocolate and other ingredients of negligible
nutritional value.'' The company was also charged with . . .
artificially ``spiking'' Their products with such substances as
peanuts, crisped rice, and caramel to increase consumer appeal.
That story was humorous in August of 2000. It is not funny any
longer. Personal injury lawyers are now attempting to turn that
satirical story into reality.
We have seen press reports that just a few weeks ago a group of more
than a hundred money-hungry lawyers and activists met in Boston to plan
strategy for suing food manufacturers and sellers.
As I mentioned, some of these personal injury lawyers have already
started suing. We have seen suits against restaurants, suits against
cookie makers, and there are more to come.
One lawyer has reportedly sent letters to restaurants telling them to
meet his demands or he will sue. This same trial lawyer ring-leader has
also threatened to sue local school districts and even individual
members of the school board. Have these lawyers no shame?
But perhaps these lawyers have finally bitten off more than they can
chew. When they sue come big corporation, most people probably do not
pay much attention. But when you start dragging the local school board
members into court and forcing them to spend thousands and thousand of
tax dollars defending against frivolous claims, well as we say in
Kentucky that is a horse of a different color.
When Americans hear what these lawyers are up to I do not think they
are going to like it. I know the voters in Kentucky are not interested
in seeing more abusive lawsuits about obesity, and they certainly are
not interested in paying more at the cash register in order to finance
some personal injury lawyers' extravagant lifestyle.
These lawsuits are expensive to defend and the lawyers know that. The
lawyers are not really interested in consumers, they are looking for a
settlement, a big settlement, that will make them rich and enable them
to clog the courts with more frivolous cases.
Make no mistake about it. These lawsuits seek only to fatten personal
injury lawyers' wallets. And that will result in higher food prices for
consumers.
It is time to stop this abuse now and it is time to remind people
that personal responsibility is the issue here. People must take
responsibility for their actions.
As one weight loss guru said on CNN earlier this year when he was
asked about obesity suits against restaurants:
There is always going to be greasy, fried, salty, sugary food. It is
up to the individual to walk in and say, I don't want those fries
today. I have 40 pounds to lose. It is not the fault of the fast food
people, and anyone who's trying to sue the fast food places needs a
therapist, not an attorney. You have to make your own decisions. That's
what the freedom in America is all about.
Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would be quoting Richard
Simmons on the Senate floor, but he has perfectly summed it up pretty
well, as I just described.
Making your own decisions is what freedom is all about. And with
freedom comes responsibility. We have the freest society on the planet,
but folks need to start exercising some responsibility with their
freedom. Do not blame others for your bad habits. You are responsible
for what you put in your mouth, and parents are responsible for what
their children put in their mouth. It is that simple. The plaintiff's
bar may not like that fact, but it is truly that simple.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 1429. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide States with options for providing family planning services and
supplies to individuals eligible for medical assistance under the
medicaid program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator
Feinstein in introducing the Family Planning State Empowerment Act of
2003. This legislation would provide States with a mechanism to improve
the health of low-income women and families by allowing States to
expand family planning services to additional women under the Medicaid
program.
The Federal Government currently reimburses States for 90 percent of
their expenditures for family planning services under Medicaid, due to
the importance of these for low-income women. This reimbursement rate
is higher than for most other health care services.
Generally, women may qualify for Medicaid services, including family
planning, in one of two ways: they have children and an income level
below a threshold set by the State, ranging from 15 to 86 percent of
the Federal poverty level; or they are pregnant and have incomes up to
133 percent of the poverty level, federal law allows states to raise
this income eligibility level to 185 percent, if they desire. If a
woman qualifies because of pregnancy, she is automatically eligible for
family planning services for sixty days following delivery. After those
sixty days, the woman's Medicaid eligibility expires.
If States want to provide Medicaid family planning services to
additional populations of low-income women, they must apply to the
Federal Government for a so-called ``1115'' waiver. These waivers allow
States to establish demonstration projects in order to test new
approaches to health care delivery in a manner that is budget-neutral
to the Federal Government.
To date, these waivers have enabled eighteen States to expand access
to family planning services. Most of these waivers allow states to
extend family planning to women beyond the sixty-day post-partum
period. This allows many women to increase the length of time between
births, which has significant health benefits for women and their
children. For this reason, an Institute of Medicine report recommended
that Medicaid should cover family planning services for two years
following a delivery.
Some of the waivers allow States to provide family planning to women
based solely on income, regardless of whether they qualify for Medicaid
due to pregnancy or children. In general, States have used the same
income eligibility levels that apply to pregnant women, 133 percent or
185 percent of the poverty level, creating continuity for both family
planning and prenatal care services. These expanded services also help
states reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion.
My State of Rhode Island was one of the first States to obtain one of
these waivers, and has had great success with it in terms of preventing
unintended
[[Page S9597]]
pregnancies and improving public health in general. Rhode Island's
waiver has averted 1,443 pregnancies from August 1994 through 1997,
resulting in a savings to the state of $14.3 million. In addition,
Rhode Island's waiver has assisted low-income women with spacing-out
their births. The number of low-income women in Rhode Island with short
inter-birth intervals, becoming pregnant within 18 months of having
given birth, dropped from 41 percent in 1993 to 29 percent in 1999. The
gap between Medicaid recipients and privately insured women was 11
percent in 1993, compared with only 1 percent--almost negligible--in
1999. As these statistics show, these waivers are extremely valuable
and serve as a huge asset to the women's health, not only to my
constituents but to constituents in the thirteen other states who
currently benefit from these waivers.
Unfortunately, the waiver process is extremely cumbersome and time
consuming, taking up to three years for States to receive approval from
the federal government. This may discourage States from applying for
family planning waivers, or at the very least, delay them from
providing important services to women.
Our bill would rectify this problem by allowing States to extend
family planning services through Medicaid without going through the
waiver process. Eliminating the waiver requirement will facilitate
State innovation and provide assistance to more low-income women.
This bill will allow States to provide family planning services to
women with incomes up to 185 percent of the Federal poverty level. For
low-income, post-partum women, States will no longer be limited to
providing them with only sixty days of family planning assistance.
States may also provide family planning for up to one year to women who
lose Medicaid-eligibility because of income.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1429
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 ``Family Planning State
Empowerment Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. STATE OPTION TO PROVIDE FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND
SUPPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH INCOMES THAT DO
NOT EXCEED A STATE'S INCOME ELIGIBILITY LEVEL
FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 1935 as section 1936; and
(2) by inserting after section 1934 the following:
``state option to provide family planning services and supplies
``Sec. 1935. (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b)
and (c), a State may elect (through a State plan amendment)
to make medical assistance described in section 1905(a)(4)(C)
available to any individual whose family income does not
exceed the greater of--
``(1) 185 percent of the income official poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act) applicable to a family of the size
involved; or
``(2) the eligibility income level (expressed as a percent
of such poverty line) that has been specified under a waiver
authorized by the Secretary or under section 1902(r)(2)), as
of October 1, 2003, for an individual to be eligible for
medical assistance under the State plan.
``(b) Comparability.--Medical assistance described in
section 1905(a)(4)(C) that is made available under a State
plan amendment under subsection (a) shall--
``(1) not be less in amount, duration, or scope than the
medical assistance described in that section that is made
available to any other individual under the State plan; and
``(2) be provided in accordance with the restrictions on
deductions, cost sharing, or similar charges imposed under
section 1916(a)(2)(D).
``(c) Option To Extend Coverage During a Post-Eligibility
Period.--
``(1) Initial period.--A State plan amendment made under
subsection (a) may provide that any individual who was
receiving medical assistance described in section
1905(a)(4)(C) as a result of such amendment, and who becomes
ineligible for such assistance because of hours of, or income
from, employment, may remain eligible for such medical
assistance through the end of the 6-month period that begins
on the first day the individual becomes so ineligible.
``(2) Additional extension.--A State plan amendment made
under subsection (a) may provide that any individual who has
received medical assistance described in section
1905(a)(4)(C) during the entire 6-month period described in
paragraph (1) may be extended coverage for such assistance
for a succeeding 6-month period.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply to medical assistance provided on and after October 1,
2003.
SEC. 3. STATE OPTION TO EXTEND THE POSTPARTUM PERIOD FOR
PROVISION OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND
SUPPLIES.
(a) In General.--Section 1902(e)(5) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``eligible under the plan, as though'' and
inserting ``eligible under the plan--
``(A) as though'';
(2) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) for medical assistance described in section
1905(a)(4)(C) for so long as the family income of such woman
does not exceed the maximum income level established by the
State for the woman to be eligible for medical assistance
under the State plan (as a result of pregnancy or
otherwise).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply to medical assistance provided on and after October 1,
2003.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Chafee to
introduce a bill to give States the flexibility to provide family
planning services to low-income women who do not qualify for Medicaid.
Under current law, in order to qualify for family planning services
provided by the Medicaid program, a women would either have to have
children and an income level below a threshold set by the State,
ranging from 15-86 percent of the Federal poverty level, or be pregnant
and have an income up to 133 percent of the poverty level; Federal law
allows States to raise this income eligibility level to 185 percent, if
they desire.
If a woman qualifies because of pregnancy, she is automatically
eligible for family planning services for 60 days following delivery.
After those 60 days, the woman's Medicaid eligibility expires.
If a State wants to provide Medicaid family planning services to
additional populations of low-income women, they must apply to the
Federal Government for a waiver. Currently, 18 States have waivers
approved by the Federal Government. The waiver process is extremely
cumbersome and time consuming, often taking up to three years to
receive approval from the Federal Government.
This bill would once and for all allow States to provide crucial
family planning to low-income women under the Medicaid program. It
would eliminate the waiver process for these services and would give
authority back to the States to determine what populations of low
income women they want to provide family planning services to.
California currently receives $100 million annually, until 2004, as
part of its five-year waiver to provide family planning services to low
income women. with these funds, California provides services to more
than 900,000 women each year.
The State estimates that because of these services, at least 50,000
unintended pregnancies are prevented each year.
In addition to contraceptives, the family planning funds are used for
sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment, HIV screening and
counseling, basic infertility services and pregnancy testing and
counseling.
Officials involved in the program estimate that for every $1 invested
in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and health-care related
costs.
In California, it is estimated that providing low-income women with
access to family planning will save the State more then $900 million
over the course of the five-year waiver.
I believe this legislation is more important now than ever.
Each year, approximately 3 million pregnacies, or about half of all
pregnancies, are unintended. Increasing access to family planning
services could help avert these 3 million unintended pregnancies and
all the decisions and costs associated with either continuing or
terminating a pregnancy.
Family planning services give women the necessary tools to space the
births
[[Page S9598]]
of their children, which improves women's health and reduces rates of
infant mortality.
Medicaid family planning is also cost effective. For every $1
invested in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and health care-
related costs.
Family planning and reproductive health services are much more than
just accessing contraceptives. Services provided include screening and
treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, basic inferility
services and pregnancy testing and counseling. Women can receive pap
smears and breast exams, which are crucial to detecting cervical and
breast cancer.
Low income women deserve access to family planning and reproductive
health services. And States should not have to ask the Federal
Government for permission to use Medicaid funds to provide these
essential services.
We can afford to shut the door on those who cannot otherwise afford
family planning and reproductive health services.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1430. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
study of the Baranov Museum in Kodiak, Alaska, for potential inclusion
in the National Park System; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Erskine House in Kodiak, AK, which
houses the Baranov Museum, is one of a very few Russian period
structures remaining in the Western Hemisphere. It is of great
historical significance not only for this reason, but also because it
is the only surviving structure known to have been associated with both
the Russian America Company and the Alaska Commercial Company, the
pillars of Russian and early American administration of Alaska.
The Erskine House/Baranov Museum is owned by the City of Kodiak and
operated by the Kodiak Historical Society. It is a popular visitor
attraction in Kodiak. Its collections include artifacts from the
Russian American Company and the Alaska Commercial Company and also
include Alaska Native, Russian and other cultural exhibits. I am told
that the structure, although it has had many owners, maintains much of
its original historic integrity.
The Erskine House was designated a National Historic Landmark on June
2, 1962. Shortly thereafter the National Park Service initiated
consideration of including this important property in the National Park
System. On February 11, 2000, the Department of the Interior formally
sought funds from Congress to study the possible inclusion of the
Erskine House in the system. The Congress responded by earmarking
$250,000 in fiscal year 2002 appropriations for he Erskine House, some
of which could be used to conduct the study and the remainder for
preservation and maintenance of the facility.
I am sad to report that the National Park Service has not initiated
this study. The National Park Service has indicated that it cannot
initiate the study without the express direction of Congress and that
congressional intent to do so cannot be inferred from the language of
the appropriation. However, the good news is that a sufficient portion
of the $250,000 appropriation remains unexpended and I understand that
it is available to be expended on the study. The expenditure of funds
on the study will not interfere with plans to spend other portions of
the $250,000 appropriation to rehabilitate the structure. The City of
Kodiak and the Kodiak Historical Society have expressed support for the
study. What we need is for Congress to authorize the study.
The legislation that I am introducing today would do just that. It
directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the Erskine
House/Baranov Museum for the purpose of determining the suitability and
feasibility of designating the museum as a unit of the National Park
Service. I would like to see this study proceed with all deliberate
speed. Accordingly, the legislation also requires that the Secretary
report to appropriate committees of the Congress on the findings of the
study and the Secretary's conclusions and recommendations within one
year of the date upon which this legislation is enacted.
I want to commend the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Historical
Society for their loving care of this important structure. Perhaps this
excerpt, from a July 7, 2003 letter that I received from Stacey
Becklund, Director of the Kodiak Historical Society states it best, and
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the excerpt from the letter was ordered to
be printed in the Record, as follows:
The [Erskine House and the Baranov Museum] are some of
Kodiak's most cherished treasures. both assets have matured
through labors and love of staff, volunteers and members of
the community. We, at all levels of government and community,
will benefit from a thorough and accurate study to assess the
future ownership of this structure.
I am privileged to lend my voice to the voices of the people of
Kodiak, many of whom believe that this very important historic site is
a national treasure, as well as a local one. I hope that this
legislation will receive expeditious consideration.
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. 1430
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 ``Baranov Museum Study Act''.
SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in
this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct a study of the
Baranov Museum in Kodiak, Alaska, to determine the
suitability and feasibility of designating the museum as a
unit of the National Park System.
(b) Criteria.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall use the criteria for the study of
areas for potential inclusion in the National Park System
under section 8 of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report that describes--
(1) the findings of the study; and
(2) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this Act.
____________________