[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 18 (Thursday, February 12, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S1292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 2076. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to 
provide direct congressional access to the office of the Chief Actuary 
in the Centers for Medicare & Medicated Services; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Congressional 
Access to the CMS Chief Actuary Act of 2004.
  This legislation provides Congress with greater access to cost 
estimates and other data produced and collected by the Center for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary. The Office 
of the Actuary is a group of about 50 actuaries, economists, and other 
health professionals who provide non-partisan analyses of Medicare and 
other federally financed health care programs.
  Recently we learned that the administration's cost estimate of the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 
is $534 billion over 10 years, nearly $140 billion higher than the 
estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Contrary 
to statements by some members of the administration, Congress did not 
have this estimate when it voted on this bill.
  It would be disingenuous of me to state that the higher cost estimate 
is my biggest concern. I have voted in the past for prescription drug 
bills estimated to cost more than $534 billion. And in the conference 
negotiations on this bill, I urged my colleagues to make changes until 
the final hours of the negotiations that would have added additional 
costs to the legislation.
  My greatest concern with the higher estimate is one of transparency. 
More specifically, I am concerned about the degree to which access to 
the CMS career actuaries has been restricted by this administration. 
Had Congress been able to freely communicate with the career actuaries 
during last year's Medicare negotiations, it would not have been 
surprised by the higher estimates. Moreover, I believe that input from 
the CMS actuaries could have informed the conferees and perhaps 
improved certain aspects of the bill in a positive way. And why 
shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on 
legislation under consideration?
  The restrictions placed on congressional access to the CMS actuary is 
in clear violation of the report language that was included in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 97). The 1997 BBA established the 
Office of the Actuary within CMS, which was then called the Health Care 
Financing Administration. Report language accompanying the legislation 
stated, ``The independence of the Office of the Actuary with respect to 
providing assistance to the Congress is vital. The process of 
monitoring, updating, and reforming the Medicare and Medicaid programs 
is greatly enhanced by the free flow of actuarial information from the 
Office of the Actuary to the committees of jurisdiction in the 
Congress.''
  While Congress intended that the Office of the Actuary would provide 
it with cost and other data as requested, a free flow of information 
has not occurred--particularly over the past year. I requested, as well 
as several of my colleagues, information from the Office of Actuary 
throughout last year's Medicare deliberations; however, our requests 
were unfulfilled. I do not fault the professionals in the Office of the 
Actuary. Rather, I believe the lack of response was the result of 
inappropriate restrictions placed on the office by administration 
political officials.
  In order for Congress to craft good legislation, we need access to 
the most up-to-date actuarial and cost information. CBO will always 
remain Congress's official score-keeper. But a second independent 
assessment is critical, particularly if the two estimates differ, as 
was the case of the recent Medicare legislation. Congress needs to 
understand the reasons for the differences, and only then can it make 
fully-informed decisions. And again, I ask, why shouldn't Congress have 
access to all available information on legislation under consideration?
  The legislation that I introduce today is very simple. It codifies 
the 1997 BBA report language to require that Congress have direct and 
open access to information and estimates produced by the independent 
CMS career actuaries. The bill's purpose is to improve Congress's 
ability to write good legislation and to make well-informed decisions.
  I want to be clear. The administration's higher cost-estimate does 
not change my support of this Medicare legislation. I continue to be a 
proud supporter of the bill.
  But I have also pledged to work to improve its flaws and to address 
its shortcomings. Any efforts to improve this bill will require 
vigilant oversight of its implementation and will require having access 
to the latest information about the program's participation, payment, 
and costs. The CMS career actuaries will play a fundamental role in the 
data collection. The administration's past practices of restricting and 
censoring this information cannot continue.
  This bill is about improving transparency in government and decision 
making. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
  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. 2076

       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 ``Congressional Access to the 
     CMS Chief Actuary Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. DIRECT CONGRESSIONAL ACCESS TO THE OFFICE OF THE 
                   CHIEF ACTUARY IN THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & 
                   MEDICAID SERVICES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) In creating the Office of the Actuary in the Health 
     Care Financing Administration (now known as the Centers for 
     Medicare & Medicaid Services) with the enactment of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress intended that the 
     Office would provide independent advice and analysis to 
     assist in the development of health care legislation.
       (2) While the Congressional Budget Office would continue to 
     serve as the official source for cost estimates for Congress, 
     Congress created the Office of the Actuary in order to have--
       (A) an additional, independent source for estimates in the 
     development of health care legislation; and
       (B) access to more detailed actuarial data and assumptions 
     related to program participation, payments, and costs.
       (3) While the joint explanatory statement of the committee 
     of conference contained in the conference report for the 
     Balance Budget Act of 1997 provided a clear statement of the 
     Congressional intent described in paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     Congressional access to the Office of the Actuary has been 
     inappropriately restricted over the past year.
       (b) Access.--Section 1117(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1317(b)), as amended by section 900(c) of the Medicare 
     Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 
     (Public Law 108-173), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) In exercising the duties of the office of the 
     Chief Actuary, the Chief Actuary shall provide the committees 
     of jurisdiction of Congress with independent counsel and 
     technical assistance with respect to the programs under 
     titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI.
       ``(B) The Chief Actuary may directly provide Congress with 
     reports, comments on, and estimates of, the financial effects 
     of potential legislation, and other actuarial information 
     related to the programs described in subparagraph (A). No 
     officer or agency of the United States may require the Chief 
     Actuary to submit to any officer or agency of the United 
     States for approval, comments, or review, prior to the 
     provision to Congress of such reports, comments, estimates, 
     or other information.''.
                                 ______