[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 114 (Thursday, September 14, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9631-S9639]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 3892. A bill to reduce the number of deaths along the border
between the United States and Mexico by improving the placement of
rescue beacons, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, one cold May morning earlier this year, a
Border Patrol agent found the body of a 3-year-old boy in a blue
windbreaker, his arms crossed. He had died trying to cross our southern
border, the youngest victim our borders have claimed this year.
The boy's mother's name is Edith Rodriguez. She is 25 years old. She
attempted to cross the border illegally, in hopes that she might escape
the desperate poverty of her home state of Veracruz, Mexico. Edith
hired a human smuggler--a coyote.
The coyote gave his charges an illegal drug, ephedrine, to help them
keep awake and moving. But Edith and her son still could not keep up
with the group. So the coyote, in a cruel and heartless act, abandoned
them in the desert. Alone. With no food and little water, with a
dangerous drug coursing through his system, exposed to the elements--
Edith Rodriguez's little boy died.
Edith Rodriguez violated the laws of the United States when she
crossed the border illegally. She was wrong to violate our border. But
all should agree that her son did not deserve to die.
Here are the facts: Every 18\1/2\ hours, someone dies trying to cross
the border between the United States and Mexico. About a year ago, I
asked the Government Accountability Office to study the deaths that
take place along America's borders.
Today, my office released that study. The results are sobering,
shocking, and, I strongly believe, a cause for action. Since 1995,
deaths along our borders have doubled. Despite the heroic rescue
efforts of the men and women of Customs and Border Protection, things
have gotten worse. In 1995, 266 people
[[Page S9632]]
died trying to cross our borders. Last year, 427 perished.
The increases, it appears, stem largely from an increase in deaths
from exposure to the elements in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona. Illegal
entries, however, have not increased. Quite frankly, it is getting more
dangerous to cross our border.
Until recently, CBP did not even keep a systematic count of those who
died crossing our borders. We still do not have a unified national
strategy for reducing the deaths. We still do not know how well our
safety efforts work--if they are saving lives or not. We need to do
more.
The founding document of our Nation, the Declaration of Independence,
lists ``life'' first on the list of Government's responsibilities. The
overwhelming majority of the people who cross our border do so in
search of a better life. They take enormous risks and make enormous
investments in hopes of helping their families.
Illegal immigration needs to stop. We must defend our borders. We
must construct physical barriers, add detention beds, hire personnel,
and equip them with better technology. But we have a higher moral
obligation to protect the life of every person--every man, woman, and
child--who sets foot on American soil. We must do everything in our
power to preserve life.
That is why I propose the Border Death Reduction Act. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
The law will implement the GAO's recommendations. It will require CBP
to create a strategy for reducing border deaths. It will mandate a full
count of deaths along the border. It will impose tough, new penalties
on coyotes who abandon their charges, and it will expand the network of
rescue beacons that people in trouble can use to call for help.
These beacons, I believe, are an absolutely vital link in our border
security system. Let me explain. Rescue beacons are devices at
prominent locations that individuals can activate when they need help.
They are tall polls with lights at the top and radio transmitters
inside. People in trouble can activate a beacon to let CBP know that
they need help. We know that beacons work: CBP has already saved dozens
of people based entirely on beacon alerts.
But individuals who activate beacons do not get a free pass. They
will, of course, receive necessary medical treatment. But rescued
individuals will still be detained and deported like anyone else who
violates our borders.
Deploying more beacons in the desert will save lives in the desert
and simultaneously improve the security of our frontiers.
We cannot delay. We should not rest. We must protect the lives of all
those who set foot upon our soil. I urge my colleagues to support the
Border Death Reduction Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3892
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 ``Border Death Reduction Act
of 2006''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF A RESCUE BEACON.
In this Act, the term ``rescue beacon'' means a clearly
visible device with an internal power source that is placed
in an area likely to experience extreme weather, that
contains instructions for its use, and by means of lights,
radio signals, and other means, allows individuals to alert
the United States Customs and Border Protection of their
presence.
SEC. 3. COLLECTION OF STATISTICS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Customs shall
begin collecting data relevant to deaths occurring at the
border between the United States and Mexico, divided by
sector, and including--
(1) the causes of the deaths;
(2) the total number of deaths;
(3) the location of deaths; and
(4) demographic characteristics, including the sex and
approximate age of those deceased.
(b) Development of Protocols.--The Commissioner of Customs
shall develop consistent, formal, written protocols for the
collection of data described in subsection (a).
SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORT ON BORDER DEATHS.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commissioner of
Customs shall submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security a
report that contains--
(1) an analysis of trends with respect to the statistics
collected under section (3)(a)(1) during the preceding year;
(2) an evaluation, using multivariate statistical
approaches, of the Border Safety Initiative, including any
rescue beacons deployed, and any successor program designed
to reduce deaths along the border described in section 3(a);
and
(3) recommendations of particular actions to reduce the
deaths described in section 3(a).
SEC. 5. REPORT ON BEACON PLACEMENT.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of
Customs shall submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security a
report on enhancing the deployment of rescue beacons.
(b) Focus of Report.--Such report shall contain particular
emphasis on enhancing the deployment of rescue beacons in the
Tucson Sector.
(c) Contents of Report.--The report required by subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) an assessment of the efficacy of the deployment of
rescue beacons in light of the statistics gathered under
section 3, including analysis of the locations of deaths
recorded and areas frequented by illegal migrants; and
(2) recommendations on where additional rescue beacons
should be placed to reduce the number of deaths in the area
described by section 3 and section 5(b).
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $500,000 to carry out the provisions of
this section.
SEC. 6. DEPLOYMENT OF ENHANCED BEACON NETWORK.
(a) Deployment of Rescue Beacons.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner
of Customs shall deploy additional rescue beacons in all
areas recommended in the report required by section 5.
(b) Guidelines for Placement of Rescue Beacons.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Commissioner of Customs shall issue to all sector chiefs
formal, written guidelines for the ongoing placement and
removal of rescue beacons and the appropriate response to the
activation of such beacons.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $1,500,000 to carry out the provisions of
this section.
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON ABANDONMENT OF ALIENS IN A BORDER
ZONE.
(a) In General.--Any person who commits an act described in
section 274(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)) and abandons an alien with respect
to that act in a place not within sight of a paved road or
rescue beacon, shall be considered to have placed in jeopardy
the life of a person as described in section
274(a)(1)(B)(iii) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(B)(iii)).
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit any person from being held in violation
of section 274(a)(1)(B)(iii) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1324
(B)(iii)).
______
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Levin):
S. 3896. A bill to provide for the return of the Fresnel Lens to the
lantern room atop Presque Isle Light Station Lighthouse, Michigan, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Lester Nichols
Presque Isle Light Station Act with my colleague, Senator Levin.
Congressman Stupak is introducing the companion legislation in the
House of Representatives today. Our bill will restore the historic
Fresnel lens to the Presque Isle lighthouse in Presque Isle Township,
MI.
Michigan has the most lighthouses of any State in the Nation with a
total of over 120. At one time we had over 100 manned lighthouses, more
than any other State. This is not surprising considering that Michigan
has 3,288 miles of shoreline along the Great Lakes. We are proud of our
lighthouses and we are proud of the history and the maritime heritage
that they represent. Our lighthouses are part of our identity as a
State. In addition to performing as navigation aids, they remain a
symbol of the importance that the Great Lakes played and continue to
play in Michigan's history.
Most importantly, they are an important part of the economies of our
coastal towns. Our lakeshore towns host visitors from across the
country who travel to view the magnificence of our coastal areas and
the lighthouses that illuminate them. These small communities are more
dependent than ever on tourism dollars, and we must help them by
coordinating our efforts to protect Michigan's lighthouses and promote
Great Lakes' maritime culture.
In 2002 the U.S. Coast Guard, the Michigan State Historic
Preservation
[[Page S9633]]
Officer, and the township signed a memorandum of agreement stating that
upon removal from the tower, the Fresnel lens would be restored by the
township in a museum type setting with assistance from the Coast Guard.
In 2005, the township completed their restoration work on the lens.
Unfortunately, we soon learned that the Coast Guard has another policy
that prevents a Fresnel lens from being replaced once it is removed
from the tower.
The result is that this lighthouse has been historically compromised.
Replacing the lens in its original home for the enjoyment of all who
visit our historic lighthouse will not only ensure the integrity of the
lighthouse, but it will enhance the function the lighthouse provides as
an active navigational aid.
Very simply, our bill requires the Coast Guard to replace the
restored Fresnel lens in the Presque Isle Lighthouse.
Our bill is named after Les Nichols, who through years of hard work
and perseverance has led the successful effort in the restoration of
the historic 3rd Order Fresnel Lens. The Fresnel lens is an integral
part of the historic value of the New Presque Isle Lighthouse and will
continue to attract tourists to this region of the State. Under
Lester's leadership, this historic artifact will now be able to be
viewed by future generations. I also want to acknowledge the work of
Peter Pettalia, the Presque Isle Township Supervisor.
I hope that all of my colleagues will support this legislation and
that we can move it quickly in the remaining time we have in the
Senate.
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. 3896
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 ``Lester Nichols Presque Isle
Light Station Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. RETURN OF FRESNEL LENS TO PRESQUE ISLE LIGHT STATION
LIGHTHOUSE, MICHIGAN.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Commandant
of the Coast Guard shall modify the 2004 Agreement for
Outgoing Loans (AOL) with Presque Isle Township, Michigan, in
order to provide for the return of the Historic Fresnel Lens
to the lantern room atop the Presque Isle Light Station
Lighthouse, Michigan.
(b) Conditions.--
(1) Compliance with applicable law.--Any modification under
subsection (a) of the Agreement for Outgoing Loans described
in that subsection shall comply with applicable provisions of
section 5506 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act,
1997 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-518), relating to
the conveyance of the Presque Isle Light Station.
(2) Retention of ownership of lens.--Notwithstanding the
return of the Historic Fresnel Lens pursuant to subsection
(a), the United States shall retain ownership of the lens.
(3) Continuing operation of aid to navigation.--
Notwithstanding the return of the Historic Fresnel Lens
pursuant to subsection (a), the active aid to navigation,
together with associated electronic and lighthouse equipment,
at Presque Isle Light Station Lighthouse shall continue to be
operated and maintained by the United States within the
Historic Third Order Fresnel Lens at the Presque Isle Light
Station Lighthouse.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
S. 3897. A bill to amend titles XI and XVIII of the Social Security
Act to provide for the sharing of certain data collected by the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services with certain agencies, research
centers and organizations, and congressional support agencies; from the
Committee on Finance; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Medicare Data Access and
Research Act. Senator Baucus and I have long enjoyed a good working
relationship in our roles as chairman and ranking member of the Finance
Committee. Our work on this bill once again demonstrates our commitment
to working in a bipartisan manner.
The Medicare Data Access and Research Act establishes a process
through which Federal agencies and other researchers can access
Medicare data for the purpose of health services research. This might
seem like a pretty mundane issue to some people, but I can assure you
that it is far from it. Medicare processes 500 million claims for
benefits each year; millions of prescriptions have been filled under
the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Linking data on hospital and physician services provided to Medicare
beneficiaries to prescription drug data will offer a tremendous
resource for researchers in our Federal agencies, as well as those
based at universities and other research centers. What of research can
these data support? They can support studies and analyses related to
postmarketing surveillance of prescription drugs and research on drug
safety. More concretely, analyzing the Medicare claims data can help
agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration FDA, identify
situations like the one involving Vioxx more quickly, and provide a new
valuable tool to enable the FDA to take swifter action to protect the
public's health and well-being.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Institutes of Health
all have missions that require the conduct of meticulous health
services research. The Medicare database and access to it established
under the bill we are introducing today will help these agencies
fulfill their missions to study immunization rates; to develop and
monitor the use of preventive screenings; conduct research on the
clinical comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs; and to help
prevent, diagnose, and treat disease.
To ensure access to the data, the bill requires the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to enter data release agreements on an annual
basis with these agencies. In entering the data release agreements, the
Secretary must take appropriate steps to protect the confidentiality of
the information, while maintaining the ability of researchers at
Federal agencies to conduct meaningful analyses.
The bill also permits the Secretary to enter into data use agreements
to permit researchers at universities and other organizations to have
access to the data. As will be the case for the Federal agencies, these
researchers may only use the data for purposes of advancing the
public's health. They can conduct studies on the safety, effectiveness,
and quality of health services.
Some people might be concerned that these data will be given to just
anyone. That is not the case. In applying for data access, researchers
at universities and other organizations will have to meet strict
criteria. They must have well-documented experience in analyzing the
type and volume of data to be provided under the agreement. They must
agree to publish and publicly disseminate their research methodology
and results. They must obtain approval for their study from a review
board. They must comply with all safeguards established by the
Secretary to ensure the confidentiality of information. These
safeguards cannot permit the disclosure of information to an extent
greater than permitted by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974.
The final section of the bill ensures that congressional support
agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional
Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also have access to data they
need to carry out their functions and responsibilities. This body
depends on the research and analyses conducted by those agencies to
inform our deliberations and decisions on the Medicare Program.
Last year, Senator Baucus and I introduced the Medicare Value-Based
Purchasing Act to establish a pay for performance system under
Medicare. That bill was aimed at promoting quality and ensuring value
under the Medicare Program. The bill that we are introducing today
complements that objective. How can we promote quality and ensure value
in Medicare? By having a better understanding of what services are
effective, by knowing how we can help beneficiaries avoid illness and
disease, by having insight about potential over-use and under-use of
health care services, and by identifying troubling trends and patterns.
How can we learn about those topics? By supporting rigorous health
services research.
[[Page S9634]]
Mr. President, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act creates a
sound framework for accomplishing that objective.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3897
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Data Access and
Research Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The new Medicare drug benefit under part D of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act is delivered through private
prescription drug plans. Private plans submit administrative
and beneficiary level data to the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services as a condition of participation and payment
in the new Medicare drug program.
(2) Data from the new Medicare drug benefit can be linked
with hospital, ambulatory care, and other data to create a
new comprehensive resource for the study of drug safety and
effectiveness of medical care in older adults and low-income,
disabled, and vulnerable populations. With appropriate
protections for privacy, this data should be available to the
Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, and the National Institutes of Health, and
university-based research centers and other research
organizations interested in furthering the public health
through research on the safety, effectiveness, and quality of
health care services provided under the Medicare program
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
(3) Timely and ready access to certain data from the new
Medicare drug benefit will allow congressional support
agencies to inform and advise Congress on the cost, scope,
and impact of the new benefit and assess its quality.
SEC. 3. DRUG AND HEALTH CARE DATA RELEASE.
(a) In General.--Title XI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
1121 the following new sections:
``DRUG AND HEALTH CARE CLAIMS DATA RELEASE
``Sec. 1121A. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any
provision under part D of title XVIII that limits the use of
prescription drug data collected under such part, for the
purpose of improving the public's health, the Secretary,
acting through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
shall--
``(1) enter into data release agreements on an annual basis
with the agencies described in subsection (b) to provide
access to relevant data submitted by prescription drug plans
and MA-PD plans under part D of title XVIII, excluding
negotiated price concessions under such part (such as
discounts, direct or indirect subsidies, rebates, and direct
or indirect remunerations), and linked to hospital,
physician, and other relevant medical claims, utilization,
and diagnostic data collected under titles XVIII and XIX,
including data from the uniform reporting systems established
under section 1121(a); and
``(2) permit agencies described in such subsection to link
data provided under this section with other relevant health
data, including survey data, vital statistics, and disease
registries, as needed by the agency in order to accomplish
its research objectives.
``(b) Agencies Described.--The agencies described in this
subsection are as follows:
``(1) The Food and Drug Administration.
``(2) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
``(3) The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
``(4) The National Institutes of Health.
``(c) Use of the Data Provided.--Data provided under a data
release agreement under subsection (a)(1) shall only be used
for the following purposes:
``(1) FDA.--In the case of the Food and Drug
Administration, to enhance post marketing surveillance by--
``(A) studying patterns of drug and vaccine utilization
over time after a drug has been placed on the market;
``(B) studying health risks associated with such
utilization, particularly with respect to improving the speed
of risk identification in order to mitigate or resolve such
risks;
``(C) studying drug utilization in order to promote
consumer education that would allow consumers and health care
providers to make informed product choices and informed drug
compliance choices; and
``(D) performing such other functions, consistent with the
purposes of this section and the Agency's mission, as are
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
``(2) CDC.--In the case of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, to--
``(A) improve surveillance of clinical outbreaks and
emerging threats;
``(B) study immunization rates;
``(C) study outcomes of specific diseases;
``(D) develop and monitor the use of preventive screening
protocols using claims data;
``(E) study drug and medical utilization in order to
promote consumer education and treatment for specific public
health risks; and
``(F) perform such other functions, consistent with the
purposes of this section and the Agency's mission, as are
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
``(3) AHRQ.--In the case of the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, to--
``(A) carry out the Agency's research obligations under
section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,
and Modernization Act of 2003;
``(B) conduct research consistent with the Agency's mission
to improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness
of health care; and
``(C) perform such other functions, consistent with the
purposes of this section and such mission, as are determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
``(4) NIH.--In the case of the National Institutes of
Health, to--
``(A) help prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and
disabilities; and
``(B) perform such other functions, consistent with the
purposes of this section and the Agency's mission, as are
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
``(d) Timeframe for Data Release.--A data release agreement
entered into under this section shall provide for the release
of information as needed by the Agency for the uses described
in subsection (c).
``(e) Data Release Procedures.--
``(1) Determining appropriate level and elements of data
for release.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a process
to determine the appropriate level and elements of data to be
released to an Agency under this section in order to ensure
that the Agency, and researchers within the Agency, are able
to conduct meaningful analyses while maintaining the
confidentiality of the data provided under the data release
agreement.
``(B) Relationship to procedures for release to private
researchers.--The process established under subparagraph (A)
may be analogous to the process used by the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services for the release of data to
private researchers.
``(2) Agency feedback on analyses conducted.--The Secretary
shall establish a process for Agencies that are provided data
under a data release agreement under this section to provide
the results of the analyses conducted using such data to the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for use in the
administration and assessment of programs administered by the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including the
program under part D of title XVIII.
``(3) Review of data procedures.--The Secretary shall
establish a process to review and update the following:
``(A) The processes established under paragraphs (1)(A) and
(2).
``(B) Procedures for transmission and retention of data
released under this section.
``(f) Notification of Inaccuracies Discovered in Data
Provided.--The Secretary shall establish procedures to ensure
that an Agency that is provided data under this section
notifies the Secretary of any inaccuracies discovered in the
data by the Agency within a reasonable time of such
discovery.
``(g) Report.--The Secretary shall include (beginning with
2007), as part of the annual report submitted to Congress
under section 1875(b), an evaluation of the data release
agreements entered into under subsection (a)(1), including a
description of the reports and analyses conducted by agencies
using data provided under such an agreement.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out the purposes of this section.
``RESEARCH CENTER AND ORGANIZATION DRUG AND HEALTH CARE DATA USE
``Sec. 1121B. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any
provision under part D of title XVIII that limits the use of
prescription drug data collected under such part, for the
purpose of improving the public's health, the Secretary
shall--
``(1) enter into data use agreements with the research
centers and organizations described in subsection (b) to
provide access to relevant data submitted by prescription
drug plans and MA-PD plans under part D of title XVIII,
excluding negotiated price concessions under such part (such
as discounts, direct or indirect subsidies, rebates, and
direct or indirect remunerations), and linked to hospital,
physician, and other relevant medical claims, utilization,
and diagnostic data collected under titles XVIII and XIX,
including data from the uniform reporting systems established
under section 1121(a);
``(2) permit research centers and organizations described
in such subsection to link data provided under this section
with other relevant health data, including survey data, vital
statistics, and disease registries, as needed by the research
center or organization in order to accomplish its research
objectives; and
``(3) prepare the linked sets of data described in
paragraph (1) for release not later than July 1, 2007.
``(b) Research Centers and Organizations Described.--The
research centers and organizations described in this
subsection are as follows:
``(1) A University-based research center.
``(2) Any other research center or organization--
``(A) whose primary mission is to conduct public health
research; and
``(B) which the Secretary determines can appropriately
conduct analyses consistent with the purposes of this
section.
[[Page S9635]]
``(c) Use of Data and Penalties.--
``(1) Use of data.--
``(A) In general.--Data provided to a research center or
organization under a data use agreement under this section
shall be used solely for purposes of research on the safety,
effectiveness, and quality of, disparities in, and related
aspects of health care use by individuals entitled to, or
enrolled for, benefits under part A of title XVIII, or
enrolled for benefits under part B of such title, conducted
for the purpose of developing and providing generalizable
knowledge to inform the public health through scientific
publication and other forms of public dissemination.
``(B) Approval by review board for the protection of human
subjects.--Such use shall be approved by a review board for
the protection of human subjects.
``(C) Review process.--The Secretary shall establish a
review process to ensure that--
``(i) data use agreements under this section include a
detailed description of how the data is to be used under the
agreement; and
``(ii) such use is consistent with the purposes described
in subparagraph (A).
``(2) Penalties.--
``(A) In general.--A research center or organization who
knowingly or intentionally uses data provided under a data
use agreement under this section for any purpose other than
the purposes described in paragraph (1)(A) shall be subject,
in addition to any other penalties that may be prescribed by
law, to--
``(i) a civil money penalty of not less than $25,000 for
each infraction; and
``(ii) disqualification from receipt of any data under this
section for not less than 2 years.
``(B) Procedure.--The provisions of section 1128A (other
than subsections (a) and (b) and the second sentence of
subsection (f)) shall apply to a civil money penalty under
this paragraph in the same manner as such provisions apply to
a penalty or proceeding under section 1128A(a).
``(d) Release of Data.--
``(1) In general.--A data use agreement entered into under
subsection (a)(1) shall provide for the release of
information according to a schedule approved by the Secretary
under the criteria developed in accordance with paragraph
(2).
``(2) Criteria for approving research applications.--
``(A) Development.--The Secretary, in consultation with
health services researchers and academicians, shall develop
criteria for the approval of a data use agreement under this
section.
``(B) Criteria.--The criteria developed under subparagraph
(A) shall include the following requirements:
``(i) The research center or organization has well-
documented scientific expertise, a record of scholarship on
the topic of the proposed study, and a likelihood of
successful publication, as demonstrated by a prior record of
relevant publication by key staff and other evidence of
appropriate scientific qualifications of the proposed
research team.
``(ii) The research center or organization demonstrates a
credible capability to conduct and complete the proposed
study, including experience with scientific investigations
using similar types of data.
``(iii) The research center or organization demonstrates
the public health importance of the proposed study, and the
potential of such study to provide public knowledge needed to
improve the safety, use, and outcomes of treatments, the
administration of the program under title XVIII, and the care
provided to individuals entitled to, or enrolled for,
benefits under part A of title XVIII, or enrolled for
benefits under part B of such title.
``(iv) The research center or organization develops a data
management plan that describes in detail the measures that
will be implemented to safeguard the data and protect the
privacy of individuals entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits
under part A of title XVIII, or enrolled for benefits under
part B of such title, including any proposed data linkages.
``(v) The research center or organization enters into an
agreement under which the research center or organization
agrees to--
``(I) place detailed results of the proposed study in the
public domain through publication in a reasonable timeframe,
not to exceed 1 year after completion of such study,
including a thorough description of the methodology used to
conduct the study;
``(II) make available to the public, without charge, any
product or tool developed using the data provided under this
section; and
``(III) not sell such data to other entities or create
commercial data products (such as data extracts or analytical
files) using such data.
``(vi) The research center or organization and the proposed
research team provide assurances that such team is
independent from the sources of funding or any other party
and has the right to independently and freely publish the
scientific findings of the study.
``(vii) Such other requirements, consistent with the
purposes of this section, as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(3) Timely review and action on requests.--The Secretary
shall provide for timely review of, and action on, requests
for a data use agreement under this section, taking into
consideration the reasonable needs of the research center or
organization.
``(4) Public disclosure.--The Secretary shall make
available to the public the criteria used to grant or deny
data use agreements under the criteria developed under
paragraph (2)(A).
``(e) Feedback by Research Center or Organization.--
``(1) Notification of inaccuracies discovered in data
provided.--The Secretary shall establish procedures to ensure
that a research center or organization that is provided data
under this section notifies the Secretary of any inaccuracies
discovered in the data by the center or organization within a
reasonable time of such discovery.
``(2) Feedback on data collection.--The Secretary shall
permit researchers to provide feedback on the collection of
data with respect to the programs administered by the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services and make recommendations
with respect to the collection of additional data elements
with respect to such programs.
``(f) Confidentiality.--
``(1) Determining appropriate level of data to be
provided.--The Secretary shall establish a process to
determine the appropriate level of data to be provided to a
research center or organization under this section in order
to ensure that the center or organization, and researchers
within the center or organization, are able to conduct
meaningful analyses while maintaining the confidentiality of
the data provided under the data use agreement.
``(2) Safeguards to protect confidentiality of data
provided.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish safeguards
to protect the confidentiality of data after it is provided
to a research center or organization under this section. Such
safeguards shall not provide for greater disclosure by the
research center or organization than is permitted under any
of the following:
``(i) The Federal regulations (concerning the privacy of
individually identifiable health information) promulgated
under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.
``(ii) Sections 552 or 552a of title 5, United States Code,
with regard to the privacy of individually identifiable
beneficiary health information.
``(B) Confidentiality of physicians and medical
practices.--The safeguards established under subparagraph (A)
shall ensure that the data provided to a research center or
organization under this section that identifies individual
physicians or medical practices is not released by the
research center or organization, or otherwise made public.
``(g) Report.--The Secretary shall include (beginning with
2007), as part of the annual report submitted to Congress
under section 1875(b), an evaluation of the agreements
entered into under subsection (a).
``(h) Reasonable Fee.--The Secretary may charge a research
center or organization a reasonable fee based on the cost of
preparing and providing data to such center or organization
under this section.''.
(b) Criteria Development and Publication.--The Secretary
shall develop and publish the criteria required under section
1121B(d)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act, as added by
subsection (a), not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. ACCESS TO DATA ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLANS AND
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS.
(a) In General.--Section 1875 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395ll) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by inserting ``to congress; providing
information to congressional support agencies'' after ``and
recommendations''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Providing Information to Congressional Support
Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision under part
D that limits the use of prescription drug data collected
under such part, upon the request of a congressional support
agency, the Secretary shall provide such agency with
information submitted to, or compiled by, the Secretary under
part D (subject to the restriction on disclosure under
paragraph (2)), including--
``(A) only with respect to congressional support agencies
that make official baseline spending projections, conduct
oversight studies mandated by Congress, or make official
recommendations on the program under this title to Congress--
``(i) aggregate negotiated prices for drugs covered under
prescription drug plans and MA-PD plans; and
``(ii) bid information (described in section 1860D-
11(b)(2)(C)) submitted by such plans; and
``(B) access to drug event data submitted by such plans
under section 1860D-15(d)(2)(A), except, with respect to data
that reveals prices negotiated with drug manufacturers, such
data shall only be available to congressional support
agencies that make official baseline spending projections,
conduct oversight studies mandated by Congress, or make
official recommendations on the program under this title to
Congress.
``(2) Restriction on data disclosure.--
``(A) In general.--Data provided to a congressional support
agency under this subsection shall not be disclosed,
reported, or released in identifiable form.
``(B) Identifiable form.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
the term `identifiable form' means any representation of
information that permits identification of a specific
prescription drug plan, MA-PD plan, pharmacy benefit manager,
drug manufacturer, drug wholesaler, or individual enrolled in
a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD plan under part D.
[[Page S9636]]
``(3) Timing.--The Secretary shall release data under this
subsection in a timeframe that enables congressional support
agencies to complete congressional requests.
``(4) Use of the data provided.--Data provided to a
congressional support agency under this subsection shall only
be used by such agency for carrying out the functions and
activities of the agency mandated by Congress.
``(5) Confidentiality.--The Secretary shall establish
safeguards to protect the confidentiality of data released
under this subsection. Such safeguards shall not provide for
greater disclosure than is permitted under any of the
following:
``(A) The Federal regulations (concerning the privacy of
individually identifiable health information) promulgated
under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.
``(B) Sections 552 or 552a of title 5, United States Code,
with regard to the privacy of individually identifiable
beneficiary health information.
``(6) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Congressional support agency.--The term
`Congressional support agency' means--
``(i) the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission;
``(ii) the Congressional Research Service;
``(iii) the Congressional Budget Office; and
``(iv) the Government Accountability Office.
``(B) MA-pd plan.--The term `MA-PD plan' has the meaning
given such term in section 1860D-1(a)(3)(C).
``(C) Prescription drug plan.--The term `prescription drug
plan' has the meaning given such term in section 1860D-
41(a)(14).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1805(b)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-6(b)(2)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Part d.--Specifically, the Commission shall review
payment policies with respect to the Voluntary Prescription
Drug Benefit Program under part D, including--
``(i) the factors affecting expenditures;
``(ii) payment methodologies; and
``(iii) their relationship to access and quality of care
for Medicare beneficiaries.''.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Chairman
Grassley in introducing the Medicare Data Access and Research Act. This
bill will take an important step to advance the safety, efficacy, and
quality of health care services delivered to people under the Medicare
Program and it will help improve the care delivered to all Americans.
This bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS,
to make Medicare data accessible to Federal health agencies and the
health services research community for the purpose of conducting
studies that will serve the public health. As the largest single payer
of health care services in the United States--covering over 40 million
lives, 70 million hospital days, and processing nearly a billion
physician claims per year--Medicare collects and maintains a wealth of
information on the health services delivered to a significant portion
of the population. This information has been a national resource for
research and analysis of health care. And with the addition of the
Medicare prescription drug benefit, it will be the most comprehensive
resource our Nation has to study the effects of diseases and the
treatments we have for them.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service, CMS, currently
releases certain Medicare data to the public and more comprehensive
data to the research community. This bill would build on current
activities by requiring CMS to link hospital claims, physician claims,
and other relevant information to data collected under the new Medicare
drug benefit.
In addition, the Secretary will provide yearly access to the linked
Medicare dataset to all Federal health agencies within the department,
such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease
Control, the National Institutes of Health, and the Agency for
Healthcare Quality and Research. These agencies will enter into data
use agreements with CMS to ensure that the type and level of Medicare
data shared is appropriate, that the agencies conduct research in
accordance with their missions and the purpose of furthering the public
health, and that the privacy of the data is protected. The goal is to
give Federal health agencies another tool to evaluate the safety,
efficacy, and quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries--a
large segment of the health system.
This bill also provides public health researchers access to the
linked Medicare dataset. Expanding access to Medicare data will open up
a new era in our health system. It will enable scientists to more
quickly identify both short- and long-term safety concerns with drug
regimens and health treatments. It will enable more treatments to be
compared. And it will promote more development of guidelines, so
providers and patients know more about what works best.
Some may argue that access to linked Medicare data should not be
limited to researchers and should be available for commercial purposes.
But the full Medicare database should be used exclusively for the
public good and not for private or commercial gain. This is the crux of
this bill. Hence, the bill limits the use of data to the purpose of
providing ``generalizable knowledge to inform the public health through
scientific publication and other forms of public dissemination.''
Strict penalties will be imposed on any unauthorized use of the data
including civil money penalties and disqualification from receiving
Medicare data for at least 2 years.
CMS will publish criteria used to approve research applications to
ensure that those selected are qualified and experienced to conduct
analyses and maintain the confidentiality of Medicare information.
Researchers will also make public their detailed results and methods
within 1 year from completing their studies. They will make available
to the public at no charge any tool developed through this program.
They must agree not to sell data or create commercial data products
using such data and abide by safeguards protecting the confidentiality
of the data established by the Secretary.
The final section of the bill ensures that congressional support
agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional
Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also have access to the full
range of data they need to carry out their functions and
responsibilities. Congress depends on the research and analyses
conducted by these agencies to inform our deliberations and decisions
on the Medicare Program.
Last year, I worked with Senator Grassley to introduce the Medicare
Value-Based Purchasing Act, which establishes a pay for performance
system under Medicare. An important element of that system is the
collection and reporting of quality measures to CMS and to the public.
The bill we are introducing today complements those activities. We can
improve health care by allowing Medicare to become a value-based
purchaser of services and by reporting quality measures through the
Medicare Program. And we can improve health care for all by allowing
rigorous health services research to be conducted using the resource of
Medicare data.
Mr. President, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act will allow
us to expand our knowledge of health care and improve the quality of
care for all Americans.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cornyn, and
Mr. Bennett):
S. 3900. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve the quality and efficiency of health care, to provide the
public with information on provider and supplier performance, and to
enhance the education and awareness of consumers for evaluating health
care services through the development and release of reports based on
Medicare enrollment, claims, survey, and assessment data; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare
Quality Enhancement Act of 2006 to improve quality and reduce the cost
of health care.
The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act addresses three important
problems in our Nation's health care delivery system: rising costs,
broad variations in the quality of care, and a lack of information on
health care quality and cost.
Among the most pressing issues that need to be addressed in the area
of health care is the issue of rapidly rising health care costs. The
United States spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than
any other industrialized country. According to the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services (CMS), total health expenditures are estimated to
be $2.16 trillion
[[Page S9637]]
in 2006 and are projected to rise to over $4 trillion in 2015.
The pressures of rising health care costs are being felt by
consumers, providers, employers, State and local governments, and the
Federal budget alike--with no end in sight. Premiums for employer-based
health insurance rose by 9.2 percent in 2005--the fifth consecutive
year of increases over 9 percent. Health insurance expenses are the
fastest growing expense to employers, consuming more and more of each
company's bottom line.
From a Federal budget perspective, over the next 10 years, Medicare
will grow on average 8.5 percent to $885 billion and Medicaid will grow
similarly at 8 percent to $413 billion. These programs along with
Social Security will take up 56 percent of the total budget in 2016.
Such rate of growth is unsustainable.
Despite this enormous level of spending, there is wide variation in
the quality of the care Americans receive. In addition to the existing
crisis of ever increasing costs, we are now learning that there are
vast variations in the ratio of spending to outcomes, meaning that more
care is not necessarily better care. A recent report by the Dartmouth
Atlas Project demonstrated this point and showed no correlation between
high utilization of services and high quality of care. This information
provides an opportunity to improve care and reduce costs. We simply
cannot afford business as usual in health care, especially when we have
no way of determining the value of what we are purchasing.
The Agency on Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) also reports
wide variation in health care practice. AHRQ claims that millions of
Americans fail to receive necessary care resulting in complications and
increased costs. Others, they say, receive health care services that
are completely unnecessary, which also increases costs.
These problems are compounded by a third issue the lack of
information available to consumers and purchasers on quality and cost.
Currently, health care consumers do not have the tools necessary to
make sound quality and cost decisions about their care. The few tools
that are available to them are based on limited amounts of privately
held data and their analysis is often not broad enough to provide the
most accurate results.
The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act gives consumers, employers,
providers and others the tools they need to begin controlling
unnecessary spending; improves quality of care in our nation's health
care delivery system; and provides the public with reports to make
informed health care decisions.
The bill works by sharing taxpayer funded Medicare data with private
sector Medicare Quality Reporting Organizations (MQROs), allowing them
to develop reports to measure health care quality for the public.
Consumer groups, employers, insurance companies, labor unions and
others have repeatedly requested access to Medicare claims data to
improve the quality of the health care provided to their members,
employees, and beneficiaries and to help control the ever-rising costs
of health care. The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act ensures that the
data collected by Medicare and paid for by the taxpayer can be utilized
by qualified organizations to measure quality and control costs while
protecting beneficiary privacy.
The measure also empowers consumer groups, providers, employers,
insurance plans, labor unions and others by allowing them to request
health care quality and efficiency reports from the newly-formed
MQROs--information that will assist in better-informed purchasing
decisions. Further, the bill provides for the public release of all
reports, including detailed information on the methodology, standards
and measures of quality used in developing the reports ensuring the
information is available for the general public. In addition, MQROs
that contract with the Department of Health and Human Services will be
authorized to aggregate both private and public data, providing a
significantly more robust assessment of both quality and efficiency.
In the development of this bill, my first goal was to protect
beneficiary privacy. Specifically, the bill limits the number of MQRO
participants and explicitly holds them to the strict standards of both
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the
Privacy Act. It also requires MQROs to have operational standards and
procedures in place to provide for the security of the database.
Lastly, the bill requires a privacy review by the Department of Health
and Human Services of each analytical report prior to release.
The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act promotes the development of
model quality standards through a newly established Quality Advisory
Board within the Department of Health and Human Services and encourages
the Administration to continue its extraordinary work with providers,
consumers, insurers and others in the health care community toward
sound quality measurement for all patients. Collaborative groups such
as the Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance (AQA) and the Hospital Quality
Alliance (HQA) are working hard to establish standards and the Medicare
Quality Enhancement Act encourages their work to continue.
Under the bill, researchers are granted additional access to Medicare
data and are allowed to report in a provider- and supplier-identifiable
format as long as they meet existing strict criteria for the use of
Medicare data within CMS. Some of our best information on quality and
efficiency has been borne of fine academic institutions and private
study and they, too, should have the opportunities to use this data to
improve our health care system.
In closing, the Medicare Quality Enhancement Act is needed in order
for America's health care system to improve. The public needs to
understand the quality of the care they are purchasing and the time has
come for the health care community to compete on quality, value, and
cost payment should not simply be for the volume of care provided, but
instead for the quality of the care provided.
The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act takes important steps to provide
health care consumers with the information they need to make educated
decisions about health care; information they already have to make
decisions on nearly every other product they purchase in the
marketplace. It requires that information paid for by the taxpayer and
held by Medicare is fully available to improve our health care system.
The public will then finally have the tools necessary to make informed
health care decisions for themselves and their families.
This bill has the support of groups that represent consumers,
providers, employers and insurers. I hope my colleagues will see the
merit of this legislation and that it will be considered before we
adjourn this year.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for decades, healthcare analysts and
industry experts have wondered whether healthcare should consume 16
percent of our Nation's economic output, as it currently does.
By virtually any measure, we spend more on healthcare than any other
country in the world.
Consider the facts. According to the World Health Organization; we
spend twice as much per person on healthcare as Britain and Japan; and
we spend nearly 30 percent more than second-ranking Monaco.
In the past 5 years alone, the cost of health insurance to companies
has nearly doubled--from $4,200 to $8,100 per family.
But experts also concur that rising healthcare costs does not mean
the quality of healthcare is improving. Just this summer, the Institute
of Medicine released the most extensive report ever on medication
errors.
The results? At least 1.5 million Americans are sickened, injured, or
killed each year by errors in prescribing, dispensing, and taking
medications.
Errors are widespread--on average, a hospital patient is subjected to
1 error each day he or she occupies a hospital bed--and they are
costly, at an estimated expense of $3.5 billion per year.
We have good reason to question the cost and quality of our
healthcare services. That is why, in August, President Bush issued an
executive order requiring all Federal agencies with a health insurance
program to increase price transparency and provide options promoting
quality and efficiency of care.
[[Page S9638]]
The Executive Order builds on the Federal Govermment's efforts to
release Medicare payment information for individual healthcare
providers.
While this is an important step toward transparency, more can be
done. We need a way to analyze that data and make the results of the
analysis consumer friendly, so that patients have real information they
can use to make better informed healthcare decisions.
The bill before us today--of which I am a proud cosponsor--picks up
where current Federal efforts leave off. The Medicare Quality
Enhancement Act establishes quality transparency in the Medicare
Program.
It doesn't require anything extra of providers. In fact, CMS is
already collecting the data we need--because any provider that accepts
Medicare patients must report quality data to CMS.
Instead, the bill requires CMS to establish public-private
partnerships with Medicare quality reporting organizations, or MQROs.
CMS will provide MQROs with data CMS already collects--Medicare
enrollment, claims, and survey and assessment data. The MQROs will then
perform the analysis.
Any entity or provider will be able to make report requests of MQROs,
the results of which will be made public. The methodology an MQRO uses
to analyze the data will also be made public. And providers can
additionally instruct MQROs to use a certain methodology when making a
report request.
I know many providers are concerned about CMS's capacity and
capability to analyze healthcare quality data.
In part, that is why this bill requires CMS to contract with MQROs.
The Secretary must determine that each MQRO has the research capability
to conduct and complete reports as a condition for entering into the
contract. MQROs must also demonstrate that they have the experience and
expertise to analyze quality data.
As an additional contract requirement, each MQRO must comply with
Federal privacy regulations to ensure beneficiary confidentiality.
Additionally, MQROs must disclose financial interests as a condition to
contract.
As a transplant surgeon, I understand the concerns and fears
providers have. Many providers are worried that we aren't far enough
along in terms of quality data collection to be able to analyze it.
But we must push the envelope in this area. It is my hope that
provider groups will take the lead and request reports using a
methodology and standards of quality that represent the best care in
each of their fields.
Quality transparency is absolutely essential to improving healthcare.
Without it, beneficiaries cannot make informed decisions about their
healthcare.
Consumers already enjoy transparency in other industries. When we buy
a new car, we can open an Internet browser and in a matter of moments
can make objective side-by-side comparisons of different models--and
then we can take them for a test drive.
When we need groceries, we pull out the Sunday supermarket ads to see
what is on sale and where.
And when we furnish our homes, we shop around--comparing style,
price, color, quality, warranty, and service.
But right now, we can't do that in healthcare. Whether it is a
routine checkup or a heart transplant, we have no way of assessing how
much bang we are getting for a buck.
Only when we institute quality transparency do we empower
beneficiaries to make informed decisions about their healthcare.
This bill is a great step toward the goal of complete quality
transparency. It is a formidable goal; that is why we are starting with
something we know--Medicare.
Senator Gregg has worked long hours to bring this bill to fruition,
and I thank him for his efforts. I hope our colleagues will join us in
supporting this important measure.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 3902. A bill to provide for education competitiveness; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in August of 1802, from his desk in
Monticello, President Thomas Jefferson glimpsed the future of the young
American economy. He was shaken by what he saw.
Jefferson had just finished reading a book published a year earlier
in London. The slim volume was the travel account of Alexander
MacKenzie, a young Scotsman working in Great Britain's Canadian
colonies.
In June of 1793, MacKenzie had crossed the Continental Divide at a
place where it was just 3,000 feet high and easily portaged. Two weeks
later, he reached the Pacific Ocean. Using a makeshift paint of
vermilion and grease, Mackenzie inscribed his name on a rock to
memorialize his discovery, and to claim it for Great Britain.
The economic implications of MacKenzie's discovery were enormous. In
his book, MacKenzie urged the British to build on his discovery and
develop a passage to the Pacific. Such a passage would give Great
Britain control over much of North America's lucrative fur trade and
access to the world's markets. Worse, MacKenzie's discovery threatened
to stunt America's economic growth in its infancy.
MacKenzie's book lit a fire under Jefferson. That summer, he talked
of little else. He enlisted the most qualified man he knew. And with
him, Jefferson devised a plan for action. It was a plan to counter the
economic threat from the north. It was a plan to safeguard America's
economic future.
That December, President Jefferson presented his plan to Congress. It
was America's first economic competitiveness plan. It called for one
officer, a dozen soldiers, and $2,500.
Thomas Jefferson's economic competitiveness plan of 1802 has become
better known as the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Today, we see that
expedition as one of our Nation's great displays of ambition and
courage. And today, we see that it laid the foundation of the United
States as we know it.
Today, America faces a new competitive challenge. Our challenge is
not over control of the fur trade. It comes not from an imperial power
or its colony. It is not a race for territory in unexplored lands. Our
challenge is far more complex. And the need to act is even more urgent.
America today faces a world more integrated, more interdependent, and
more intensely competitive than ever in our history. In this world, it
is our challenge to succeed. It is our challenge to leave our children
and grandchildren an economy that is better than the one that we
inherited.
We seek an economy that is not laden with debt, but bursting with
opportunity. We seek an economy that plants the seeds of innovation and
education today, knowing that generations far in the future will
harvest their bounty. We seek an economy whose workers are increasingly
productive, and whose skills are continuously sharpened.
Our challenge is to create an economy in which investment in our
workers is our greatest asset, not our heaviest burden. Our challenge
is to create an economy known for what it will be, rather than for what
it was.
To realize this competitive economy, we must--like Jefferson--rise to
the challenge. We must--like Jefferson--look to unknown horizons and
march out to meet them. We must call upon our greatest minds and set
them to creating a plan. And we must dedicate the resources necessary
to implement that plan.
I have spent much of the past year planning a comprehensive
competitiveness agenda. In February, I introduced the Trade
Competitiveness Act, a bill to open markets and keep a level playing
field for America's ranchers, farmers, and businesses.
In March, I introduced the Energy Competitiveness Act, to fund
cutting edge research in energy while making alternative energies more
affordable.
In April, I introduced the Savings Competitiveness Act, to create
savings today, so that we may invest and innovate tomorrow.
In May, I introduced the Research Competitiveness Act, to give start-
ups and universities better access to capital for research and
development, and to improve and make permanent the R&D tax credit.
Today, I am introducing the fifth in this series of bills: the
Education Competitiveness Act of 2006. Just as education is the
foundation of a competitive economy, this legislation is the foundation
of my competitiveness agenda.
[[Page S9639]]
Thomas Jefferson knew that it was not enough to send Lewis and Clark
to the Pacific Ocean without the means to return. Lewis and Clark knew
that the discoveries and contacts that they made had to be lasting to
make a difference for our economy.
The Education Competitiveness Act is also designed to have a lasting
effect. This legislation embraces education in its earliest stages,
following through to continuing education and worker training. Each
provision is designed with maximum flexibility to meet our States'
unique needs. It is a bill that recognizes excellence, welcomes
innovation, and rewards ambition.
The Education Competitiveness Act has seven important components.
First, it recognizes that our Nation needs to continue to bring
quality teachers into the classroom. The bill funds 100,000
scholarships for future teachers of languages, early education, and
science. It creates incentives for teachers to serve in rural and
underserved areas. And it rapidly expands funding to advanced placement
and international baccalaureate programs.
Second, the bill recognizes that early education is widely considered
to be one of the best education investments that money can buy. The
bill creates a flexible program of matching grants to build a national
system of universal, voluntary prekindergarten. The bill sets out
benchmarks for quality and provides help for States to make sure that
their teachers are the best that they can be.
Third, the bill helps students to go the extra mile in their studies,
by offering States the means to expand afterschool programs in
everything from college test preparation to drug prevention. Summer
programs get students out of the classroom for hands-on experience in
science, technology, mathematics, and engineering.
Fourth, the bill looks to the needs of tomorrow's workforce. That
workforce will increasingly demand technical skills based in math,
science, and engineering. The bill provides a free college education to
any student wishing to study science, technology, math, or engineering.
In return, the student must work 4 years in that field of study. The
bill offers States matching grants to establish and expand specialty
math, science, and technology schools. And the bill makes young
promising scientists eligible for cash grants to continue their
research.
Fifth, the bill addresses the chronic neglect of our Nation's Indian
education. The bill fully funds Indian colleges and makes a real
commitment to the Johnson O'Malley program. The bill also increases the
Pell grant to $6,000. Eighty percent of Montana's students rely on
financial aid, including Pell grants.
Sixth, the Education Competitiveness Act allows American workers to
continue learning. The bill funds programs to link businesses and
schools, to give workers the skills that they need. Where universities
and community colleges are too far away, distance learning grants will
help bridge that gap.
Finally, the bill's tax provisions grant greater access to education.
The bill starts by simplifying confusing tax credits and combining them
into a single refundable higher education credit of up to $2,000 per
student. The bill eases the burden of loan repayment by permitting
graduates to deduct more of the interest paid on their student loans.
And the bill increases the deductions for charitable contributions to
schools as well as teachers' expenses in classrooms.
Taken together, these seven components form a bill that is both
comprehensive and responsible. It is a bill that would help to secure a
more competitive American economy.
I look forward to returning to the floor to describe each title in
greater detail. I also look forward to discussing these proposals with
my colleagues.
The Education Competitiveness Act sets out a bold agenda, to be sure.
Some of its rewards may only be reaped decades from now. Some of its
benefits may only be realized by our grandchildren. But I firmly
believe that this is an agenda that we must begin to implement today.
Like the journey of Lewis and Clark 200 years ago, this is an agenda
that portends discovery and rewards for America. It is an agenda that
promises a passage to a new nation. I urge my colleagues to join me as
we advance to this future, and join me in sponsoring the Education
Competitiveness Act.
____________________