[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 125 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10797-S10805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1805. A bill to repeal the increase in micropurchase authority for
property and services for support of Hurricane Katrina relief and
rescue operations; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Wyden and I are introducing
legislation today to change a provision in law that was attendant to
the emergency supplemental passed recently dealing with hurricane
Katrina. That provision in law increased the amount of money that would
be available to be spent on a Government credit card from $2,500 to
$250,000. That is right--$250,000 for purchases on a Government credit
card.
Here is what a Government credit card looks like. There are about
390,000--somewhere in that neighborhood--390,000 Government credit
cards in the country. I have three GAO reports that describe
substantial abuse and misuse of these Government credit cards.
The proposal that passed this Congress attendant to the hurricane
emergency relief says that on these credit cards, the limit will go
from $2,500 to $250,000. Let me describe for a moment what the GAO
found in various investigations.
What has been charged to a Government credit card? Hiring
prostitutes, gambling, breast-enlargement surgery--yes, it was for a
girlfriend of somebody who had a Government credit card--cigars,
mounting a deer head, jewelry, wine, and the list goes on.
Now the limit goes to $250,000. We aim to take it back to $2,500. It
will still have the emergency capabilities that existed since 9/11
which will allow a $15,000 limit under emergencies.
We had a hearing at which a professor from GW Law School who is an
expert in this area of Government procurement testified. Here is what
he said about the $250,000 credit card limit:
The potential for abuse is staggering.
Everybody knows that: ``The potential for abuse is staggering.'' If
you don't believe it, take a look at the GAO reports with respect to
the abuse when the limit was $2,500. Now it is $250,000 for a credit
card purchase? Who is going to stand up for the interest of the
taxpayers?
This fellow, Mr. Safavian, was the top contracting officer for
purchases of
[[Page S10798]]
the Federal Government. He just said several weeks ago about the
$250,000:
This guidance--
That he and OMB would provide--
This guidance helps make sure that adequate management
controls are in place to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are
spent efficiently and responsibly in support of disaster
victims.
Meaning the new $250,000 on credit cards will be spent efficiently
and responsibly. That is from David Safavian, Director of the Office of
Procurement and Policy. The problem is, Mr. Safavian was arrested by
the FBI on September 19 and charged with lying to an ethics officer and
so on. He is the guy who gave us the assurance that taking the credit
card from $2,500 to $250,000 will be just fine because there are all
these limits in place and it will be spent wisely and efficiently. Yes,
and the Moon is made of green cheese.
Who is going to believe this, especially when we have the GAO reports
that show past abuses with even the $2,500 limit, which includes the
hiring of prostitutes on Government credit cards? It includes breast-
enlargement surgery on Government credit cards. When on Earth will
people wake up and start thinking?
So Senator Wyden and myself are today introducing legislation to say,
How about let's sober up and think through this the right way on behalf
of the American taxpayers.
We want to help hurricane victims, no question about that. But I do
not want people walking around with credit cards that have a $250,000
limit that say U.S. Government on them, in a way that the GAO says puts
us at risk and in a way that Government procurement experts tell us is
very dangerous for the American taxpayer.
I am pleased to do this with my colleague, Senator Wyden. For the
past several years, Senator Wyden and I have taken a look at a whole
range of wasteful issues. I might just say that Senator Wyden and I, a
while back, found deep in the bowels of the Pentagon there was a plan
to create what was called a futures market for terrorism. I think they
were preparing to spend another $8 million on it. And, yes, they were
going to actually have a futures market for terrorism so that people
could make wagers buying futures contracts on things such as how many
American soldiers will be killed in the next year, will the King of
Jordan be assassinated within the next year. One could actually wager
and make money by betting on those kinds of things.
Senator Wyden and I blew that wide open. The next day, both Secretary
Rumsfeld and the President said they did not know it was going on. They
shut it down and it is all over. In my judgment, that was unbelievably
stupid as a public policy, whoever allowed that to happen. It is now
shut down.
A lot of bad things happen in circumstances where no one is watching.
In this case, with credit cards that have a $250,000 limit, there is
something fundamentally wrong with that. I do not know who put that in
the emergency supplemental. It should not have been there. But it was
there. We aim to repeal it on behalf of the American taxpayer.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate my colleague yielding to me and particularly
highlighting the need for some real accountability and protection for
the taxpayers at this time. We are seeing expenses for the Government--
the war in Iraq, the various disasters that have hit--exploding to the
point where people are saying, well, let us hold off on giving senior
citizens some help with their prescription drugs.
I think what the Senator is saying is, before one takes those kinds
of steps, put the brakes on the opportunity for ripping off taxpayers.
I want to ask the Senator a question that really stunned me. There
are now about 392,000 Federal employees who have these credit cards
across the country. We have been trying to figure out how many folks
have them on the gulf coast and how many of the folks have this
$250,000 authority. The two of us feel very strongly that there are a
lot of dedicated people down there who are working very hard and nobody
is suggesting otherwise, but what possible argument would there be for
not having something along the lines of some guardrails to try to make
sure that people did not abuse these credit cards?
That strikes me as a pretty modest step, just have some guardrails
rather than saying, look, go out and take $250,000 worth of authority
and we will see what happens.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in answer to the Senator's request, he is
asking that of perhaps 390,000 credit cards that exist in the
possession of Federal workers, do we know how many have this $250,000
limit? We do not have the foggiest idea.
The Senator indicated we want to help people who are dealing with the
hurricane. Our interest is not in pulling the rug out from under people
who are working and trying to respond to the devastation of these
hurricanes, but I am not interested in paving the way for additional
waste, fraud, and abuse with the misuse of Federal credit cards.
Yes, there are thousands of dedicated public servants who will use
these responsibly, but increasing the limit from $2,500 to $250,000, in
my judgment, is fundamentally irresponsible, and we aim to take it back
with this amendment and aim to offer this amendment to the next
supplemental that deals with this hurricane.
I will yield the floor so my colleague from Oregon can have the
floor, and I would like to propound a question at some point later when
he finishes his statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it seems to me that the bottom line is we
want Federal workers in the hurricane zone to have all the tools they
need to get the job done. But a month after the hurricane hit, we do
not need $250,000 worth of authority on a credit card. One needs
permission to spend that kind of money. The fact is, under the current
rules one can have it when they need it, just not on a credit card
where they do not even have to ask. This is a commonsense step.
Senator Dorgan indicated if somebody needs to spend more than $15,000
a shot, there are already streamlined, simplified acquisition
procedures in place to let them do that. Those procedures at least have
some oversight. The two of us supported the Katrina bills that came
through the Congress. We support the rule that was already in place
that increases the spending power of these cards by a reasonable amount
in an emergency from $2,500 to $15,000. What the two of us feel
strongly about and what we do not support is how can one support
excessive spending without any safeguards at all?
We heard from a Dr. Yukins at George Washington that there is
extraordinary potential for abuse here. Dr. Yukins said it was
staggering.
In looking at Government waste at a variety of agencies, Senator
Dorgan and I have come to the conclusion that when one is talking about
the Department of Homeland Security, when one is talking about the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, and when one is talking about the
Department of Defense, what one needs is more accountability and more
oversight rather than less.
In Homeland Security, we have seen massive outlays for ineffective
programs to hire the TSA screeners. At FEMA, it is hard to know where
to start there, but folks may have heard on public radio yesterday that
a Government Accountability Office audit more than a year ago said that
only one in several dozen FEMA employees could prove that they had done
the proper paperwork for procurement authority.
When it comes to Iraq, all one needs to do there is talk about Iraqi
contracts. Senator Dorgan and I have tried to put in place some
oversight and some accountability there, and we will continue on that
as well. So this is not the only avenue for abuse of taxpayer dollars.
If one wants to come to the floor and talk about no-bid contracts and
the like, there is plenty to dig into in terms of more oversight and
more accountability for our taxpayers. This is a commonsense step that
the Senate can take.
I have listened to Senator Collins on this issue, as well as Senator
Grassley. A number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have
expressed concern about this in effect blank check to use credit cards,
and use them on some pretty high ticket items.
[[Page S10799]]
I am going to yield the floor back to Senator Dorgan, but given the
fact that there is a catalog of abuses--this happened outside the
hurricane zone before anybody knew about Katrina--let us now deal with
an emergency, let us recognize that there are different spending needs
given that emergency, but let us also make sure that there are some
safeguards in place to make sure the taxpayers' interests at a critical
time when costs in Government are exploding, let us make sure there are
some safeguards in place to protect the public.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I conclude by pointing out that, yes,
others have described their concern about the $250,000, and some have
talked about a $50,000 limit and other approaches. Senator Wyden and I
say that we ought to go back to the old limit, $2,500 per credit card
per transaction. That is why we introduced this legislation and hope
that our colleagues will agree.
Again, this is what the credit card looks like. There are nearly
400,000 that are possessed by Federal workers. We do not allege that
these are not dedicated public servants. We do allege that at least in
some instances, according to three GAO reports, there have been massive
abuses. These are just a few.
I put up another chart about them: Liquor, gambling, mounting a deer
head, cigars, ski clothes and diamond rings, not to mention hiring
prostitutes and breast enlargements--all put on Government credit
cards.
Does that make a person look and pay attention? Of course. Should
that be happening? Of course not.
The $250,000 limit on the credit card, this is what Professor Yukins
said, who is an expert in these areas:
[T]he Administration has announced various protective
measures. . . . It appears, however, that those additional
protections will not address the core problem with the new
procurement exceptions: Under the new law, agencies will be
able to spend billions of relief dollars without any of the
competition, transparency or other legal rules that normally
protect our procurement system.
I ask my colleagues how this got into the supplemental bill, taking
it from a $2,500 to a $250,000 limit on a Federal Government credit
card. How did that happen? When one looks at that they say: Wait a
second, we are going to increase the limit on a credit card from $2,500
to $250,000? What on Earth are you thinking about?
Well, it came from the White House. The White House made the specific
request, believing in the wake of Hurricane Katrina people were going
to need emergency capabilities to do these kinds of purchases. So the
White House said they wanted an increase to $250,000. The person they
sent down to brief staff in the Senate of how this would work and why
it is necessary was Mr. David Safavian. He was the head of all
procurement policy at the Office of Management and Budget in the White
House.
What did he tell us publicly and what did he tell the American
people? ``This guidance''--guidance about procurement with the $250,000
limit on a credit card:
This guidance helps make sure that adequate management
controls are in place to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are
spent efficiently and responsibly in support of disaster
victims.
That was said 2 weeks before Mr. Safavian's arrest by the FBI for
lying. This is the person who came to brief the Senate staff about why
the $250,000 limit on credit cards was necessary.
It not only is not necessary, it is terribly unwise. In my judgment,
unless changed, from this we will see a dramatic amount of waste,
fraud, and abuse. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. I
guarantee this proposal to increase credit card limits for Federal
employees to $250,000 is the wrong way.
Senator Wyden and I are going to do everything we can to see if we
cannot in more sober moments persuade everyone here that we ought to go
back to the previous limits and that we ought to enforce them the right
way. The GAO's reports say that even with the $2,500 limits, there are
serious problems with the use of these Federal credit cards.
That is our proposal. I want to thank my colleague from Oregon with
whom I have worked on a number of occasions on many areas of Federal
waste. Yes, this is a big old government, a big bureaucracy. There are
wonderful people who work in it, and it does wonderful things. There
are also areas of waste that make me furious. Senator Wyden and I have
worked on that in a number of areas, in a number of ways, and I hope we
can continue to do that. This is a preventive way to try to restore
that $2,500 as a limit on Federal credit cards.
I yield the floor.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Vitter, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Talent, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Bayh):
S. 1807. A bill to provide assistance for small businesses damaged by
Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of
the Senate a bill, the Small Business Hurricane Relief and
Reconstruction Act of 2005, which provides a comprehensive package for
immediate emergency resources to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina
rebuild their lives and their businesses.
As we are well aware, the entire gulf coast of the United States has
been ravaged by the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. No natural disaster
in this country in recent memory has carried with it the devastation
and horror we have witnessed in the recent weeks. Many lives have been
lost and damages are projected in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
The President and Congress have already provided over $61 billion in
emergency funds.
While we work to reestablish communities and provide some stability
to the affected areas, we must consider the enormous economic impact
this catastrophe has had on the region and on our entire Nation. This
impact is particularly pronounced for the vital small business sector.
With over 800,000 firms damaged in the hurricane-affected region,
employment in the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama area may be
reduced by over a million jobs! Moreover, our economy which has
recently recovered from recession, thanks largely to our small
businesses which have created three-quarters of all new jobs, could be
dampened by as much as a full percentage point.
As chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I
am committed to do everything in my power to provide immediate and
necessary support to rebuild this region and to help sustain our
economy. I want to ensure that every American affected by this
hurricane has the resources to begin rebuilding their lives, their
businesses, and their dreams.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Kerry, Senator Vitter,
Senator Landrieu, Senator Talent, Senator Kennedy, Senator Cornyn, and
Senator Bayh, for cosponsoring this bill. This bill includes all of the
provisions that were in prior hurricane relief legislation that I
introduced with Senator Vitter and Senator Talent but also includes
several additional provisions and improvements to preexisting
provisions.
The provisions of this bill were contained in an amendment that I
proposed, amendment No. 1717, to the Commerce, Justice, and Science
Appropriations Act of 2005, H.R. 2862. I would like to thank my
colleagues, Senator Kerry, Senator Vitter, Senator Landrieu, and
Senator Talent, for cosponsoring that amendment. The amendment was
approved in the Senate by a rollcall vote of 96 to 0 on September 15,
2006, and subsequently passed the Senate in the Commerce, Justice, and
Science Appropriations Act on that same day.
Senator Vitter, Senator Talent, and I also introduced the provisions
of S.A. 1717 as a stand-alone bill, S. 1724, on September 19, 2005. We
took this step in order to begin the process of enacting these
provisions into law more quickly than might occur through the Commerce,
Justice, and Science Appropriations Act, which must still complete its
Senate-House conference.
Today we are introducing an expanded package of provisions
to increase the assistance provided to victims of the hurricane, who
require immediate assistance. Because the Federal Disaster Loan program
administered by the Small Business Administration issues disaster loans
to businesses, homeowners, and renters, this
[[Page S10800]]
legislation would have a significant impact on many facets of the
efforts to rebuild the areas damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
Because of the importance of this rebuilding challenge, I chaired a
hearing in the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship on
September 22, 2005 to address the impact that Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita have had on small businesses. At that hearing, the
Committee heard testimony from the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration, Hector Barreto, who explained the unprecedented scope
of the SBA's response to these disasters. In addition, the director of
the SBA's Disaster Assistance Program, Herb Mitchell, testified about
the SBA's actions thus far, and its plans for the continuing recovery.
The committee also heard testimony from seven representatives of
small businesses, and of small business development centers, in the
gulf coast region. These witnesses, who traveled from Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama for the hearing, described to the committee
the devastation that has occurred to their businesses and communities
and various steps they believe would assist in the rebuilding process.
Many of their recommendations were contained in the legislation I had
introduced last week, S. 1724, and the legislation I am introducing
today includes other provisions stemming from the committee's hearing
and their testimony.
The Small Business Administration is and must be at the forefront of
this massive relief effort, playing a significant role in assisting
impacted communities. This bill will strengthen the SBA's resources and
will enable them to pave the pathway to recovery. I have faith that
American small businesses will persevere through these difficult times
and help lead the region's recovery. It is essential that we work
together here in Congress, and put forth the best possible proposal to
stimulate our economy and foster job growth.
I have spoken with SBA's Administrator Barreto concerning the various
ways to respond to this disaster and assist with the recovery. He
informed me that FEMA has referred over 500,000 cases for loan
assistance to the SBA, and that the SBA is receiving up to 20,000 calls
per day. This is a tremendous volume and a vital challenge that the SBA
must satisfy. To date, the SBA has sent out almost 500,000 applications
for loans to individuals and businesses, and has received 810 loan
applications as of Monday morning, which demonstrates that much
assistance is yet to be provided by the SBA. Therefore, it is critical
that we act now.
I have included many provisions in my bill that would assist
hurricane victims applying for SBA disaster loans. My legislation
increases the maximum size of an SBA disaster loan from $1.5 million
per loan to $10 million per loan and makes it possible for non-profit
institutions damaged by Hurricane Katrina to be eligible for disaster
loans.
I firmly believe this legislation is the best possible package to aid
families, businesses, and communities through these challenging times.
Small businesses must have a fighting chance to survive the economic
disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina.
For instance, the bill increases the share of small businesses in
Federal prime contracts and subcontracts for rebuilding the damaged
areas through meaningful goals, set-asides, subcontracting plans,
outreach programs, and HUBZone preferences.
The legislation also allows recipients of disaster loans to increase
the size of their loan if the additional amounts would be spent on
mitigation efforts, such as sea walls, storm shutters, or better
drainage system to prepare for future disasters. This provision was
suggested by the administration in its proposal to rebuild the gulf
coast region.
The bill also allows the Small Business Administration to offer
economic injury disaster loans to small businesses throughout the
country if the businesses suffered direct adverse economic impacts from
the two hurricanes. The SBA offered these loans nationwide after the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
In addition, the bill protects future borrowers in the SBA's business
loan programs from having to pay higher fees to compensate the Federal
Government for any defaults that may occur because the businesses of
some current borrower who had loans before the hurricane were destroyed
in the hurricanes. SBA business loan programs utilize fees to pay for
all or part of the programs' costs, and those businesses that default
because of the hurricanes would not be included in the calculation of
future program costs in the SBA's business loan programs.
The bill addresses concerns about fraud and lack of competition by
abolishing the excessive increase in the ``micro-purchase'' threshold
to $250,000. This increase, slipped into the second hurricane
Supplemental Appropriations Act in September 2005, allowed Federal
officials to ignore small businesses in awarding contracts up to
$250,000. Micro-purchases are generally strictly limited to $2,500 and
to $15,000 in case of nuclear attack or military contingency. These
purchases allow for convenient credit card transactions by the Federal
Government, but are vulnerable to fraud and favoritism.
I have also provided the SBA with the authority to grant victims of
Hurricane Katrina up to 12 months to begin repaying their SBA disaster
loans which would assist both small and large businesses, homeowners,
and renters. This l2-month period could be extended to 24 months at the
discretion of the SBA Administrator if he determines that Katrina
victims would need additional time to begin repaying their loans. This
would allow also homeowners and businesses additional time to get their
lives and businesses restored before being required to begin repaying
loans.
This legislation also proposes lowering fees for the 7(a) program to
make borrowing more affordable for small businesses both within and
outside the disaster areas, many of which have been impacted by the
disaster and are struggling to cover higher costs in health care and
energy and rising interest rates.
Recognizing the increased demand this disaster will place on all
small business lending programs, the amendment proposes increasing the
7(a) lending program from a program level of $17 billion to $27
billion, and the 504 lending program from a program level of $7.5
billion to $12.5 billion. Both the 504 and 7(a) lending programs are
funded entirely through fees, so the increases require no
appropriation.
Moreover, this bill increases the program level for SBA disaster
loans--physical and economic injury--by approximately $800 million,
requiring an appropriation of approximately $86 million. The committee
is concerned there will not be enough funding for disaster loans
available to meet the scope of this disaster, given that the economic
injury disaster loans alone for the September 11 attacks amounted to
about $1 billion, and the physical damage for Katrina is considered
much more extensive.
The bill also includes a provision requiring the SBA to treat these
special provisions as separate from the regular programs, to avoid
increasing future subsidy rates, and therefore, the costs for borrowers
who rely on those programs. This same protection was provided for
emergency 7(a) loans after the September 11 attacks, and for the
special disaster loans made after those attacks.
Additionally, many small businesses in the disaster areas will
require relief from making payments and interest on 504 loans they had
before Katrina hit. Therefore, this amendment includes a provision that
authorizes the SBA to cover the payments and interest on existing loans
until the small business can resume payments.
Similar to the Supplementary Terrorist Activity Relief, STAR, loans
enacted by Congress after September 11, this bill allows the SBA to
provide similar loans with lower fees for small businesses located
outside the disaster zones but are nonetheless indirectly impacted by
Hurricane Katrina. The lowers fees also provides the lenders with an
incentive to lend to these businesses.
Importantly, the bill includes protections to mitigate recent reports
of past misdirection of loans to nondisaster victims. The protections
include requiring lenders to inform borrowers that they are receiving
Katrina relief loans, requiring lenders to document to
[[Page S10801]]
the SBA how the borrower was adversely affected by Hurricane Katrina,
and for the SBA's inspector general to collect the explanations and
report to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
and House Committee on Small Business every 6 months, verifying loans
are being used for the intended purposes. Finally, the bill would
require the Government Accountability Office to review the
implementation of the program, after its completion, and report its
findings to Congress. These added protections will ensure that only
applicants who really need these loans to recover from the horrific
effects of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita will receive the loans.
Furthermore, the legislation authorizes $450 million to the affected
State governments of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and
Florida to provide emergency bridge loans or grants to small businesses
in the disaster areas that have been adversely impacted by Hurricane
Katrina and require immediate access to capital until they can secure
other loans or financial assistance. The goal is to disburse the funds
quickly, and this measure is based on a successful program that helped
victims of the hurricanes in Florida in past years.
With the cost of Katrina relief and rebuilding estimated at over $100
billion, small businesses, particularly those located in the disaster
area and that employ individuals in the affected areas, should receive
their fair share of Federal contracting and subcontracting dollars. My
bill also attempts to provide critical assistance to small businesses
that have been operating in the areas devastated by the Hurricane
Katrina by expanding access to Federal contract and subcontracts.
Government projects provide solid business opportunities and prompt,
steady pay for small businessmen and businesswomen. In addition,
Government procurement would open doors for many local small
businesses to participate in the long-term reconstruction work in the
gulf coast areas. Prior to the disaster, small construction companies
in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana brought home nearly $500 million
in Federal contracts a year. Total small business contracts in the gulf
coast region exceeded $3 billion a year. While many small businesses
would benefit from other forms of disaster assistance, many of them are
ready to get back to work and into business as soon as possible.
To that end, my bill designates the Hurricane Katrina disaster area
as a HUBZone. A HUBZone designation would enable small businesses
locating in the disaster area and employing people in that area to
receive contracting preferences and price evaluation preferences to
offset greater costs of doing business. The HUBZone program was created
to direct federal contracting dollars to economically distressed areas.
Extending the HUBZone designation to the gulf coast would bring needed
businesses development tools to affected areas.
In addition Mr. President, my bill would increase the maximum size of
SBA surety bonds for small businesses from $2 million to $5 million,
and authorizes the SBA to increase the size of these bonds further to
$10 million. Small contractors vying for work need an increase in bonds
to handle greater projects for Hurricane Katrina relief. Local small
businesses in the gulf coast can use higher bonds to compensate for the
damage to their assets from the hurricane.
My bill would also direct the SBA, its resources partners, and the
Federal offices of small and disadvantaged business utilization to
create a contracting outreach program for small businesses located or
willing to locate in the Katrina disaster area. Finally, my bill would
establish small business contracting and subcontracting goals for all
Katrina-related contracts and subcontracts to promote greater jobs
creation and development, while providing reasonable flexibility to
Federal agencies in meeting that goal in light of difficult
circumstances on the ground.
Finally I would also like to comment on the funding levels provided
for the SBA in this bill. I have authorized the appropriation of $24.25
million for grants to increase business counseling in the damaged areas
for several SBA entrepreneurial development programs including: Small
Business Development Center, SBDCs; SCORE; Womens Business Centers,
WBCs; Veteran's Business Centers, and Microloan Technical Assistance.
Our Nation's 25 million small businesses prove time and again to
breathe new life into our economy, by growing at twice the rate of all
firms. And when a disaster strikes, the spirit, determination and will
of America's small businesses help to create the firm economic
foundation, propelling our Nation's economic growth. Therefore, we in
turn must create an atmosphere favorable for small businesses and
provide this emergency package to the SBA. We must allow our Nation's
small businesses to do what they do best--create jobs.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Too much is
at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a whole, to allow
this critical legislation to languish. Congress must find essential
agreement and fulfill its obligation to America's small businesses.
Clearly, if we strive for anything less, we fail to support the
backbone of our economy, our hope for new innovation, and the
entrepreneurs reach for the American dream.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Snowe, the chair
of our committee, and our colleagues, Senators Landrieu and Vitter, to
introduce a bill to help small businesses that have been damaged,
physically and economically, by one or both of the hurricanes that have
destroyed the gulf region over the past four or five weeks.
Our colleagues should feel very comfortable voting for this bill. The
need is undeniable, based not only on what we see on television every
day and read in the papers but also based on the testimony of small
businesses and governors at hearings held in the Senate, in our
committee last week, and this week before the Finance Committee.
Further, 96 Senators voted for very similar legislation 2 weeks ago.
This bill is very similar to the amendment (S.A. 1695) that Senator
Landrieu and I offered to the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and Science, and that passed the
Senate by a vote of 96 to 0 on September 15 as part of the compromise
amendment (S.A. 1717) that I put forth with Senators Snowe, Landrieu,
and Vitter. We offered those amendments to the appropriations bill
because relief for small businesses had not been provided for in the
two emergency supplementals. Two bills, worth some $63 billion, and
nothing designated for small businesses.
It is through the Small Business Administration that disaster loan
assistance is available, not just for businesses but for homeowners and
renters, and it is through the Small Business Administration that the
Federal Government provides the full complement of assistance to the
small businesses in our Nation. The SBA is indispensable to the
recovery of the gulf region after Hurricane Katrina. If the
administration is not going to provide small business relief in the
emergency spending bills it sends to Congress, this is absolutely
appropriate.
We have got to get into law, and to fund, relief for small businesses
before Senators go home for a week break in October. These folks have
waited too long. We have got to get people back to work.
Since Hurricane Katrina hit, the gulf has had the extreme misfortune
of being hit by Hurricane Rita. And this bill reflects the damage
caused by going a bit further to take care of those small businesses,
too. It also incorporates provisions requested by the administration.
For example, at the request of the administration, the bill authorizes
the Small Business Administration to make economic injury disaster
loans nationwide to any small business directly and adversely impacted
by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. The bill limits eligibility of
economic injury disaster loans to those small businesses suffering
economic losses because of the spikes in gasoline and natural gas and
heating oil related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That is consistent
with all other provisions in this bill. We also increased the amount of
funding for grants to the States from $400 million to $450 million, to
reflect the increased damage and delays in recovery caused by Hurricane
Rita. We also repeal some contracting provisions enacted as part of
[[Page S10802]]
the second supplemental that were anti-small business and would have
resulted in millions of contracting dollars lost for small businesses
that should be getting Federal contracts to rebuild the area. The small
businesses don't just need loans; they need work to get revenue flowing
again and to hire again, creating local jobs.
Mr. President, I extend great thanks to my colleagues, Senators
Snowe, Landrieu, and Vitter for their work on this bill. I think we
have demonstrated to a weary public that we can work together, and I
hope that our colleagues in the Senate and in the House and the
President will join us and vote to make this law and to fund it.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1808. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
improve the qualified medicare beneficiary (QMB) and specified low-
income medicare beneficiary (SLMB) programs within the medicaid
program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Medicare
Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act.'' This legislation would
improve what are referred to as the Medicare Savings Programs, which
includes the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary, QMB, and Specified Low-
income Medicare Beneficiary, SLMB, and Qualifying Individual-1 (QI-1)
programs that provide cost-sharing assistance for low-income Medicare
beneficiaries through the Medicaid program. It would also make
permanent the QI-1 program, which expires today due to inaction by the
House of Representatives to extend the program.
The QI-1 program was established as part of the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 and was authorized for 5 years. In 2002 and 2003, extensions of
the program were included in various continuing resolutions. The
program was further extended through passage of Public Law 108-448 in
2004, through today's expiration date.
There is no reason that the Congress must participate in this annual
last minute scramble to try and extend the program for a few months or
a year. It is a disservice to the States, who must watch the Congress
closely to constantly prepare to send out disenrollment notices and
layoff staff, even though they are relatively certain the program will
be extended. But, more importantly, it is a disservice to those that
need this important assistance, as many of those enrolled worry this
benefit will be taken away and many of those never enrolled never are
told of the benefit since States and advocates are spending their time
trying to get the program extended rather than conducting outreach.
While I remain very hopeful that the Congress will pass an extension
of the QI-1 program for an additional period in the coming week, I am
introducing the ``Medicare Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act''
today in the hope that Congress will end this process of temporary
extensions and permanently authorize the program, as provided for in
this legislation.
To reiterate, low-income senior citizens and disabled Americans
nationwide should not be subjected to the constant risk of losing
crucial health care benefits. Furthermore, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, CMS, the Social Security Administration, SSA, and
the States should be spared the administrative burdens and cost
associated with reauthorizing the program each year--sometimes more
than once in a year.
Furthermore, the bill proposes several improvements to the Medicare
Savings Programs and application processes that will make these low-
income benefits both more efficient to administer and more accessible
to the individuals who need them. It would also seek to simplify the
process and make the Medicare Savings Programs more understandable to
low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities, as well as
State and Federal Government officials.
In New Mexico, over 1,500 low-income Medicare beneficiaries receive
the QI-1 benefit, which saves them almost $1,000 in Medicare Part B
premium out-of-pocket costs annually. Unfortunately, according to
estimates made by the Medicare Rights Center using Census Bureau data,
over 11,000 are likely to be eligible. Many are completely unaware of
the assistance this program offers.
The same is true among those of us that created the three different
Medicare Savings Programs. In fact, I am almost absolutely certain that
few of my Senate colleagues could accurately explain how any of these
programs work and that is precisely the problem with them. They are
intended serve our Nation's most vulnerable, low-income citizens with
their Medicare cost-sharing burdens, but do so in a very complicated
manner that few can understand. It is no wonder that many of our
Nation's elderly and people with disabilities that qualify for this
assistance do not participate.
For example, the QI-1 program is Federal grant payment to States for
the purpose of paying the Medicare Part B premium, which is $78.20 per
month in 2005 and will increase to $88.50 per month or over $1000 per
year in 2006, for individuals with income between 120 and 135 percent
of the Federal Poverty Level. Through this Federal grant, States must
pay the full amount of the Medicare Part B premium for qualifying
individuals but may cap or otherwise limit enrollment if the State
projects that further enrollment will result in exhaustion of their
State allotment.
Six States had enrollment this year that would exceed their allotment
so were forced to cap funding. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, CMS, responded to this problem with a rule on August 26,
2005, that reallocated unspent funding from some States to those that
had exhausted their funds in order to eliminate the enrollment caps in
the States of Oregon, Arizona, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and
Connecticut.
Three days later Hurricane Katrina hit three of the six States and
now their entire health care systems are in chaos, and Congress has
failed to act to address their need. While that has gained a great deal
of much needed attention and deserves even greater attention from the
media and public, the House of Representatives yesterday failed to
extend the QI-1 program and went out of session for the week even
though it expires today. Senators Grassley and Baucus were working with
the House of Representatives on a last minute extension through the
introduction of S. 1718, but it failed to move in the waning hours of
the fiscal year and the House of Representatives took no action
whatsoever.
Even though CMS has apparently notified the Congress that it can
continue to run the program for a few days, the failure of the Congress
to take action in a timely manner to ensure that disenrollment notices
are not sent out by the States to an estimated 185,000 low-income
Medicare beneficiaries nationwide is absolutely unacceptable and also
is deserving of attention and media scrutiny.
Furthermore, while the QI-1 program has always played an important
role in helping low-income Medicare afford health care coverage, the
QI-1 program would, in the future, play an important role in helping
low-income Medicare beneficiaries access prescription drug coverage
through Medicare's new drug benefit. Enrollment in the QI-1 program is
supposed to automatically qualify a person for the Medicare Part D drug
benefit's low-income subsidy beginning on January 1,2006.
To briefly describe the most critical aspects of the legislation,
Section 2 of the bill simply provides for one unified name for the
Federal programs that offer cost sharing and benefit assistance for
low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Rather than separately referring to
the QMB, SLMB, and QI-1 programs, the bill provides one common name for
all of these programs, the ``Medicare Savings Programs.''
Low enrollment in these assistance programs is in large part due to
the lack of knowledge and understanding of the programs or benefits
offered. This simple change has been pilot tested with Medicare
beneficiary groups and found to elicit a positive response and interest
from Medicare beneficiaries.
Section 3 of the legislation would make permanent the QI-1 category
by incorporating these individuals into the SLMB category at the State
Children's Health Insurance Program enhanced matching rate. In addition
to simplifying and making permanent the program, States would see a
financial benefit from this change.
[[Page S10803]]
Section 4 eliminates some of the critical barriers to enrollment. As
I noted earlier, just 1,500 of the estimated 11,000 low-income Medicare
beneficiaries in New Mexico eligible for the QI-1 benefit are enrolled.
This section provides for several important enrollment simplification
procedures, such as allowing self-certification of income and
continuous eligibility, and expanded outreach efforts.
Section 5 eliminates the limit on assets, which is set at $4,000 for
an individual and $6,000 for a couple and disqualifies millions of
Medicare beneficiaries with very low incomes from qualifying for
assistance. Some States have waived or disallowed the counting of some
assets for the purposes of eligibility determination and have seen much
higher enrollment rates.
I urge the Congress to pass a temporary extension of the QI-1 program
early next week, but then to immediately begin work to permanently
authorize the QI-1 program and to simplify and streamline all the
Medicare Savings Programs. Our Nation's low-income Medicare
beneficiaries and the States deserve nothing less.
I ask unanimous consent to print a summary and text of this
legislation in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Fact Sheet
``Medicare Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act''
Sponsor: Senator Bingaman
Purpose: To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
improve the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) and
Specified Low-income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB) programs
within the Medicaid program, and in doing so to make
permanent the Qualifying Individual-1 (QI-1) program.
Background: The QI-1 program is a federal grant payment to
states for the purposes of paying the Medicare Part B
premium, which is $78.20 per month in 2005 and will increase
to $88.50 per month (over $1000 per year) in 2006, for
individuals with income between 120 and 135 percent of the
Federal Poverty Level. Federal assistance for QI-1s was
created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for a five-year
period and has been extended on a year-to-year basis since
December 2002. The program is currently slated to expire on
September 30, 2005.
Now is a critical time to make QI-1 a permanent program.
Approximately 185,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries
nationwide currently rely on the QI-1 program for payment of
their Part B premium and will be hard pressed to afford
Medicare coverage without this assistance. The QI-1 program
also plays an important role in helping low-income Medicare
beneficiaries access prescription drug assistance through
Medicare's new drug benefit. Enrollment in the QI-1 program
automatically qualifies a person for the Part D drug
benefit's low-income subsidy beginning on January 1, 2006.
The legislation would ensure that low-income older and
disabled Americans nationwide are no longer at risk of losing
crucial health care benefits. Furthermore, states, the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Social
Security Administration (SSA) would be spared the
administrative burden and cost associated with reauthorizing
the program each year--sometimes more than once in a year.
Furthermore, the bill proposes several improvements to the
QMB and SLMB programs and application processes that will
make these low-income benefits both more efficient to
administer and more accessible to the individuals who need
them.
Summary
Section 1. Short Title.
This section gives the bill's title: the ``Medicare
Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act.''
Section 2. Renaming the Program to Eliminate Confusion.
This section provides for one unified name for the federal
programs that offer cost sharing and benefit assistance for
low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Currently,
beneficiaries may be in ``dual eligible'' programs,
``Qualified Medicare Beneficiary'' programs (QMB),
``Specified Low-income Medicare Beneficiary'' programs
(SLMB), or Qualifying Individual-1 (QI-1) programs. This
bill provides one common name for all of these programs,
the ``Medicare Savings Programs.''
One of the problems contributing to low enrollment in the
assistance programs is lack of understanding of the programs
or benefits offered, in part due to confusing nomenclature.
The new name has been pilot tested with Medicare
beneficiaries groups and found to elicit a positive response
and interest from Medicare beneficiaries.
Section 3. Expanding Protections by Increasing SLMB
Eligibility Income Level to 135 Percent of Poverty.
This section would make permanent the QI-1 category, which
provides assistance with the cost of the Medicare Part B
premium for beneficiaries with incomes between 120 percent
and 135 percent of poverty, by incorporating these
individuals into the SLMB category. In addition, the
legislation provides enhanced matching payments (at the
state's CHIP rate) for the SLMB population (100-135% FPL).
Section 4. Eliminating Barriers to Enrollment.
In the states that use 209(b) or SSI criteria for
eligibility for the QMB program, Medicare beneficiaries are
not automatically made eligible for assistance, even though
they qualify. In other states that do not use these criteria,
Medicare beneficiaries are automatically eligible if they
meet the income thresholds to qualify for SSI payments.
Subsection (a) requires that states that use these
alternative definitions for eligibility make Medicare
beneficiaries automatically eligible for assistance as well.
Subsection (b) allows individuals to certify their income
without having to provide additional documentation. Many
eligible Medicare beneficiaries decline to participate in
assistance programs because they have difficulty producing
the necessary documents and generally are reluctant to
provide such information.
Subsection (c) provides for continuous eligibility in the
assistance programs. Just as Medicare beneficiaries apply
once for Medicare, they can apply once for assistance
programs as well, without the need for yearly
recertification.
Subsection (d) requires states to allow applications for
assistance programs on a simplified application form by
telephone or mail without the need for a face-to-face
interview. Many eligible individuals choose not to apply for
government programs because of the stigma associated with a
Social Services office. Research shows that individuals are
more likely to apply for a benefit when they are not required
to have an in-person interview at one of these offices.
Subsection (e) expands the role of Social Security in the
Medicare Savings Program application process by requiring
local Social Security offices to provide oral and written
information about Medicare Savings Program benefits and offer
Medicare beneficiaries the ability to apply for assistance at
these offices, as is the application protocol for the drug
benefit's low-income subsidy program.
Subsection (f) allows states to outstation eligibility
workers at local Social Security field offices.
Section 5. Elimination of Asset Test.
This section eliminates the strict limit on assets that
disqualifies millions of Medicare Beneficiaries with very low
incomes from qualifying for assistance. States with high or
no asset tests have maximized their QI-1 funding allotments,
while states with standard assets tests have seen extremely
low QI-1 enrollment.
Section 6. Improving Assistance With Out-of-Pocket Costs.
Subsection (a) prohibits estate recovery against QMBs for
the cost-sharing or benefits provided through this program.
Many individuals do not apply for assistance because they
fear a surviving spouse will lose what little income they
have by having to repay the state for benefits received upon
death.
Subsection (b) gives QMBs three months of retroactive
eligibility, allowing the state to pay for Medicare cost-
sharing and premiums for the previous three months. Other
categories of individuals who receive assistance through
Medicaid (SLMBs, QI-1s, and dual eligibles) are eligible for
assistance beginning three months prior to the date which
they are enrolled. Because of the low incomes of these
beneficiaries, coupled with the fact that lower-income
individuals have higher health care costs, such retroactive
assistance is particularly important.
Section 7. Improving Program Information and Coordination
With State, Local, and Other Partners.
This section authorizes a data match demonstration project
between Health and Human Services, the Internal Revenue
Service, and SSA to match information to identify individuals
who are potentially eligible for assistance programs but not
enrolled. This section also authorizes $100 million in grants
to states to use the information identified through the
demonstration project to improve enrollment in the Medicare
Savings Programs and the low-income subsidy, as well as
grants to other entities like the Indian Health Service and
Veterans' Affairs to do coordinated outreach with these
programs.
Section 8. Notices to Certain New Medicare Beneficiaries.
This section requires SSA, upon sending out initial
notification of Medicare eligibility, to include information
and an application for the Medicare Savings Programs to
individuals the Commissioner identifies as likely to be
eligible for benefits under those programs. The section also
requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
include in the annual Medicare & You handbook information on
the availability of the Medicare Savings Programs and a toll
free number for beneficiaries to call to obtain additional
information.
____
S. 1808
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare
Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act''.
[[Page S10804]]
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Renaming program to eliminate confusion.
Sec. 3. Expanding protections by increasing SLMB eligibility income
level to 135 percent of poverty.
Sec. 4. Eliminating barriers to enrollment.
Sec. 5. Elimination of asset test.
Sec. 6. Improving assistance with out-of-pocket costs.
Sec. 7. Improving program information and coordination with State,
local, and other partners.
Sec. 8. Notices to certain new medicare beneficiaries.
SEC. 2. RENAMING PROGRAM TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION.
The programs of benefits for lower income medicare
beneficiaries provided under section 1902(a)(10)(E) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)) shall be
known as the ``Medicare Savings Programs''.
SEC. 3. EXPANDING PROTECTIONS BY INCREASING SLMB ELIGIBILITY
INCOME LEVEL TO 135 PERCENT OF POVERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)(iii)) is amended by
striking ``120 percent in 1995 and years thereafter'' and
inserting ``120 percent in 1995 through 2005 and 135 percent
in 2006 and years thereafter''.
(b) Conforming Removal of QI-1 Provisions.--
(1) Section 1902(a)(10)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)(E)) is further amended--
(A) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii); and
(C) by striking clause (iv).
(2) Section 1933 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-3) is
repealed.
(3) The amendments made by this subsection shall take
effect as of January 1, 2006.
(c) Application of CHIP Enhanced Matching Rate for SLMB
Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Section 1905(b)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396d(b)(4)) is amended by inserting ``or section
1902(a)(10)(E)(iii)'' after ``section
1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVIII)''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to medical assistance for medicare cost-sharing
for months beginning with January 2006.
SEC. 4. ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO ENROLLMENT.
(a) Automatic Eligibility for SSI Recipients in 209(B)
States and SSI Criteria States.--Section 1905(p) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (11); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``( 6) In the case of a State which has elected treatment
under section 1902(f) for aged, blind, and disabled
individuals, individuals with respect to whom supplemental
security income payments are being paid under title XVI are
deemed for purposes of this title to be qualified medicare
beneficiaries.''.
(b) Self-Certification of Income.--Section 1905(p) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended by
subsection (a), is amended by inserting after paragraph (6)
the following new paragraph:
``(7) In determining whether an individual is a qualified
medicare beneficiary or is eligible for benefits under
section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii), the State shall permit
individuals to qualify on the basis of self-certifications of
income without the need to provide additional
documentation.''.
(c) Automatic Reenrollment Without Need to Reapply.--
(1) In general.--Section 1905(p) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended by subsections (a) and (b),
is amended by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new
paragraph:
``( 8) In the case of an individual who has been determined
to be a qualified medicare beneficiary or eligible for
benefits under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii), the individual
shall be deemed to continue to be so qualified or eligible
without the need for any annual or periodic application
unless and until the individual notifies the State that the
individual's eligibility conditions have changed so that the
individual is no longer so qualified or eligible.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1902(e)(8) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(8)) is amended by striking
the second sentence.
(d) Use of Simplified Application Process.--Section 1905(p)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended
by subsections (a), (b), and (c), is amended by inserting
after paragraph (8) the following new paragraph:
``(9) A State shall permit individuals to apply to qualify
as a qualified medicare beneficiary or for eligibility for
benefits under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii) through the use of
the simplified application form developed under section
1905(p)(5)(A) and shall permit such an application to be made
over the telephone or by mail, without the need for an
interview in person by the applicant or a representative of
the applicant.''.
(e) Role of Social Security Offices.--
(1) Enrollment and provision of information at social
security offices.--Section 1905(p) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended by subsections (a), (b),
(c), and (d) is amended by inserting after paragraph (9) the
following new paragraph:
``(10) The Commissioner of Social Security shall provide,
through local offices of the Social Security Administration--
``(A) for the enrollment under State plans under this title
for appropriate medicare cost-sharing benefits for an
individual who is a qualified medicare beneficiary or is
eligible for benefits under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii)
through utilization of the process established under section
1860D-14; and
``(B) for providing oral and written notice of the
availability of such benefits.''.
(2) Clarifying amendment.--Section 1902(a)(5) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(5)) is amended by inserting ``as provided
in section 1905(p)(10),'' after ``except''.
(f) Outstationing of State Eligibility Workers at SSA Field
Offices.--Section 1902(a)(55) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(55)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``subsection (a)(10)(A)(i)(IV), (a)(10)(A)(i)(VI),
(a)(10)(A)(i)(VII), or (a)(10)(A)(ii)(IX)'' and inserting
``paragraph (10)(A)(i)(IV), (10)(A)(i)(VI) (10)(A)(i)(VII),
(10)(A)(ii)(IX), or (10)(E)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1905(1)(2)(B)'' and
inserting ``1905(l)(2)(B), and in the case of applications of
individuals for medical assistance under paragraph (10)(E),
at locations that include field offices of the Social
Security Administration''.
SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF ASSET TEST.
(a) In General.--Section 1905(p)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)(1)) is amended--
(1) by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) by striking ``, and'' at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting a period; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (C).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to eligibility determinations for medicare cost-
sharing furnished for periods beginning on or after January
1, 2006.
SEC. 6. IMPROVING ASSISTANCE WITH OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS.
(a) Eliminating Application of Estate Recovery
Provisions.--Section 1917(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by inserting
``(but not including medical assistance for medicare cost-
sharing or for benefits described in section
1902(a)(10)(E))'' before the period at the end.
(b) Providing for 3-months Retroactive Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--Section 1905(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396d(a)) is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
by striking ``described in subsection (p)(1), if provided
after the month'' and inserting ``described in subsection
(p)(1), if provided in or after the third month before the
month''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--(A) The first sentence of
section 1902(e)(8) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(8)), as
amended by section 4(c)(2), is amended by striking ``(8)''
and the first sentence.
(B) Section 1848(g)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
4(g)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Treatment of retroactive eligibility.--In the case of
an individual who is determined to be eligible for medical
assistance described in subparagraph (A) retroactively, the
Secretary shall provide a process whereby claims submitted
for services furnished during the period of retroactive
eligibility which were not submitted in accordance with such
subparagraph are resubmitted and re-processed in accordance
with such subparagraph.''.
SEC. 7. IMPROVING PROGRAM INFORMATION AND COORDINATION WITH
STATE, LOCAL, AND OTHER PARTNERS.
(a) Data Match Demonstration Project.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(acting through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services), the Secretary of the Treasury, and the
Commissioner of Social Security shall enter into an
arrangement under which a demonstration is conducted,
consistent with this subsection, for the exchange between the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Internal
Revenue Service, and the Social Security Administration of
information in order to identitfy individuals who are
medicare beneficiaries and who, based on data from the
Internal Revenue Service (such as their not filing tax
returns or other appropriate filters) are likely to be--
(A) a qualified medicare beneficiary (as defined in
1905(p)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396d(p)(1)));
(B) otherwise eligible for medical assistance under section
1902(a)(10)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)(E)); or
(C) entitled to a premium or cost-sharing subsidy under
section 1860D-14 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114).
(2) Limitation on use of information.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, specific information on income or
related matters exchanged under paragraph (1) may be
disclosed only as required to carry out subsection (b) and
for related Federal and State outreach efforts.
(3) Period.--The project under this subsection shall be for
an initial period of 3 years and may be extended for
additional periods (not to exceed 3 years each) after such an
extension is recommended in a report under subsection (d).
(b) State Demonstration Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall enter into a demonstration project with States (as
defined for
[[Page S10805]]
purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396 et seq.) to provide funds to States to use information
identified under subsection (a), and other appropriate
information, in order to do ex parte determinations or
utilize other methods for identifying and enrolling
individuals who are potentially--
(A) a qualified medicare beneficiary (as defined in
1905(p)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396d(p)(1)));
(B) otherwise eligible for medical assistance described in
section 1902(a)(10)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)(E)); or
(C) entitled to a premium or cost-sharing subsidy under
section 1860D-14 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114).
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services for the purpose of
making grants under this subsection.
(c) Additional CMS Funding for Outreach and Enrollment
Projects.--There are hereby appropriated, out of any funds in
the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services through the Administrator of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, $100,000,000 which
shall be used only for the purpose of providing grants to
States to fund projects to improve outreach and increase
enrollment in Medicare Savings Programs and low-income
subsidy programs under section 1860D-14 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-114). Such projects may include cooperative
grants and contracts with community groups and other groups
(such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Indian
Health Service) to assist in the enrollment of eligible
individuals.
(d) Reports.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall submit to Congress periodic reports on the projects
conducted under this section. Such reports shall include such
recommendations for extension of such projects, and changes
in laws based on such projects, as the Secretary deems
appropriate.
SEC. 8. NOTICES TO CERTAIN NEW MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.
(a) SSA Notice.--
(1) In general.--At the time that the Commissioner of
Social Security sends a notice to individuals that they have
been determined to be eligible for benefits under part A or B
of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq., 1395j et seq.), the Commissioner shall send a notice
and application for benefits under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) to those individuals
the Commissioner identifies as being likely to be--
(A) a qualified medicare beneficiary (as defined in
1905(p)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396d(p)(1)));
(B) eligible for benefits under clause (i), (ii), or (iii)
of section 1902(a)(10)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)(E)); or
(C) entitled to a premium or cost-sharing subsidy under
section 1860D-14 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114).
(2) Additional information required.--Such notice and
application shall be accompanied by information on how to
submit such an application and where to obtain more
information (including answers to questions) on the
application process.
(b) Including Information in Medicare & You Handbook.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall include in the
annual handbook distributed under section 1804(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-2(a)) information on the
availability of Medicare Savings Programs and a toll-free
telephone number that medicare beneficiaries may use to
obtain additional information about the program.
____________________