Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 52 (Thursday, April 3, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 52 (Thursday, April 3, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2437-S2449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 2812. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve the provision of telehealth services under the Medicare
program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague, Senator
Stabenow, to introduce an important piece of legislation for Medicare
beneficiaries living in rural areas. The Medicare Telehealth
Improvement Act will ensure that rural beneficiaries have access to
health care services by connecting remote areas to the services often
only available in large urban centers.
Fifteen years ago, I cofounded the Congressional Steering Committee
on Telemedicine and Health Care Informatics to bring more attention to
this technology and its potential. I took an interest in this
technology because in large, rural, medically underserved States like
mine, telemedicine provides access to care that is simply unavailable
otherwise. In many areas of North Dakota, routine check-ups with a
specialist can require a 200 mile round trip journey. That's fine for a
young person on a nice spring day. But it doesn't work for seniors in
the middle of a North Dakota blizzard.
That's why in 1997, we fought to provide Medicare coverage of
telemedicine services. But access to this benefit was strictly limited.
For example, the telehealth service must be provided in a health
professional shortage area or county not classified as a metropolitan
statistical area. In addition, only consultations, office visits,
individual psychotherapy and pharmacologic management are covered
services. Moreover, reimbursement, which is the same as the current
physician fee schedule amount, is limited to physicians, nurse
practitioners, physician assistants, nurse midwives, clinical nurse
specialists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and
registered dieticians. Finally, only physician offices, hospitals,
rural health

[[Page S2438]]

clinics, and Federally-qualified health centers are eligible to be
originating sites and receive the ``facility fee.''
While this benefit has been helpful to seniors in rural areas, the
adoption of telemedicine in the Medicare program has been slow. That is
because we had to place too many restrictions on the benefit to control
the estimated costs o covering these services. However, experience has
shown that the use of telemedicine does not dramatically increase
spending. In fact, it can actually save money.
That is why Senator Stabenow and I are introducing the Medicare
Telehealth Improvement Act today. More seniors need to have access to
this technology in all areas of health care, and our bill makes
important changes in Medicare coverage.
First, the Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act would increase the
number of originating sites eligible to receive the facility fee to
include nursing homes, dialysis facilities and community mental health
centers. Moreover, it would allow any other site that has
telecommunications systems to be an originating site, but these sites
would not be eligible for the facility fee.
Second, the bill allows more providers to participate. For a number
of years, we have advocated to include physical therapists,
occupational therapists, audiologists, and speech-language
pathologists. This bill would make that change.
Finally, we would improve the Medicare process for updating the list
of eligible services. Despite widespread support for the inclusion of
new codes, CMS has not sufficiently updated the list of covered
services in recent years. In response, our bill creates an advisory
panel that would give recommendations on the addition or deletion of
services.
Senator Stabenow and I have worked to garner support from a variety
of stakeholders. In fact, the bill we are introducing today has the
support of the American Telemedicine Association, the National Council
on Community Behavioral Healthcare, the American Health Care
Association, the American Health Information Management Association,
the Center for Aging Services Technologies, the National Association
for the Support of Long Term Care, and the National Center for Assisted
Living.
This bill is a meaningful step to further adoption of telehealth in
the Medicare program. It will allow seniors to seek care in the comfort
of their communities, instead of having to drive hundreds of miles. I
urge my colleagues to support this initiative to ensure that every
senior has access to the care they need.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in
the Record, as follows:

American Telemedicine Association,

Washington, DC, March 12, 2008.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sen. Conrad: I am pleased to express the strong
support of the American Telemedicine Association for your
proposed legislation, the Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act
of 2008.
This legislation would improve the current Medicare
telehealth program in three significant ways. First, it would
increase the number of eligible sites by adding skilled
nursing facilities, dialysis centers and community mental
health centers to the list of approved originating sites.
These are areas where telemedicine is proven to improve
quality and reduce costs.
Second, this bill would expand the list of eligible
providers under the Medicare telehealth program. This is not
only appropriate but necessary as more and more health
professions develop their telemedicine capabilities.
Finally, your legislation would improve the process used
for updating covered Medicare telehealth services by creating
an advisory committee of telemedicine practitioners to advise
CMS on the appropriate addition of deletion of telehealth
services. This committee, made up of physician and non-
physician providers, will improve the process by providing
the perspective of those directly involved in the provision
of telehealth services.
The ATA is the leading resource and advocate promoting
access to medical care for consumers and health professionals
via telecommunications technology. ATA seeks to bring
together groups from traditional medicine, academic medical
centers, technology and telecommunications companies, e-
health, medical societies, government and others to overcome
barriers to the advancement of telemedicine through the
professional, ethical and equitable improvement in health
care delivery.
ATA is happy to support your proposed bill, the Medicare
Telehealth Improvements Act of 2008.
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Linkous,
Executive Director.
____

March 18, 2008.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
Chairman, Senate Budget Committee, Hart Senate Office
Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Conrad: Our coalition of long term care and
health information technology organizations is pleased to
support your efforts to expand the use of telehealth to
skilled nursing facilities and other care settings serving
Medicare patients. Telehealth will enhance the quality of
care for those with chronic illnesses, permanent
disabilities, or terminal illnesses and will improve the
communication and information exchange between caregivers and
patients.
According to the June 2007 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services Statistics report, roughly 1.8 million persons
received Medicare-covered care in skilled nursing facilities
in 2005. Long term care is a critical stakeholder in the
adoption of health information technology and the use of
telehealth to ensure continuous quality of care to our
patients and residents.
Your recognition of the importance of telehealth in the
long term care setting will go a long way toward bringing the
benefits of this technology to millions of Medicare patients.
Your legislation will facilitate the adoption of technologies
that can save lives, reduce administrative costs, and provide
better medical care, and we support your efforts
wholeheartedly.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to secure
passage of legislation to accelerate the adoption of
telehealth to increase quality and safety for patients.
Sincerely,
American Health Care Association.
American Health Information Management Association.
Center for Aging Services Technologies.
National Center For Assisted Living.
National Association for the Support of Long Term Care.
____

National Council for

Community Behavioral Healthcare,

Rockville, MD, March 31, 2008.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad and Senator Stabenow: On behalf of the
National Council on Community Behavioral Healthcare--
representing 1,400 Community Mental Health Centers and other
community mental health and substance abuse agencies serving
over 6 million low-income Americans with mental illnesses and
addiction disorders--I am writing to express our strong
support for the Conrad/Stabenow Medicare Telehealth
Improvement Act.
The National Council is particularly pleased that you
included provisions designating CMHCs as originating sites,
thereby authorizing to seek reimbursement directly from
Medicare for tele-mental health services in rural areas.
Such proposals have long enjoyed strong bipartisan support.
As an illustration, President George W. Bush's New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health stated: ``Telehealth--using
electronic information and telecommunications technologies to
provide long-distance clinical care and consultation, patient
and professional health-related education, public health and
health administration--is a greatly underused resource for
mental health services.'' The Commission went on to note that
tele-mental health can increase access to care for patients
in remote geographic areas, and is especially important for
individuals with multiple chronic conditions, people with
severe mental illnesses, underserved populations, children
and the frail elderly [Achieving the Promise: Transforming
Mental Health Care in America, pg. 80, July 2003].
Like other safety net providers in rural America, CMHCs
struggle to recruit skilled medical staff in health
professional shortage areas. The only practical means of
expanding access to mental health services in these regions
is through the application of new technologies--including
tele-mental health care.
The National Council is committed to working with both of
your offices to secure passage of the Medicare Telehealth
Improvement Act.
Sincerely,
Linda Rosenberg,
President & CEO.

Ms. STABENOW. I am pleased to join with my good friend, Senator Kent
Conrad, in introducing the Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act, which
improves access for many Medicare beneficiaries by expanding telehealth
services.

[[Page S2439]]

As Senator Conrad has noted, this legislation makes a number of
technical corrections to promote telehealth. First, this bill would
expand the number of sites that provide telehealth services under
Medicare to include nursing homes, dialysis facilities, and community
mental health centers. Also, it would expand the list of providers to
include physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language
pathologists, and other providers determined appropriate by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. Lastly, this bill would require
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to update the list of
covered telehealth services, along with the creation of a permanent
advisory committee made up of physicians and non-physicians to provide
recommendations to the Secretary and continue expansions of telehealth
services forward.
Michigan providers have been very innovative in using telehealth,
often out of necessity because of geographic isolation. Telehealth
allows providers to collaborate across great distances and share,
rather than duplicate, services. This helps save money and improve
patient access. One innovation is the use of tele-mental health
services. Many Michigan community mental health centers have made
tremendous strides in their ability to monitor patients and provide
clinical consultations long distance.
I am very pleased that both the Michigan Association of Community
Mental Health Boards and the National Council on Community Behavioral
Healthcare support this legislation.
I believe that the Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act will build
upon already successful initiatives happening in my home State of
Michigan and across the country. I urge my colleagues to join with me
and Senator Conrad in expanding upon this promising technology.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in
the Record, as follows:

Michigan Association of Community Mental Health Boards,
Lansing, Mi, March 28, 2008.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
U.S. Senator; SH-133 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Stabenow: On behalf of the Michigan
Association of Community Mental Health Boards (MACMHB)--
representing county administered community mental health and
substance abuse agencies serving low-income people with
mental illnesses and addiction disorders statewide--I am
writing to express our strong support for the Stabenow/Conrad
Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act.
MACMHB is particularly pleased that you included provisions
designating CMHCs as originating sites, thereby authorizing
these agencies to seek reimbursement directly from Medicare
for tele-mental health services.
As you well know, we have consistently struggled to expand
access to mental health care in the vast northern reaches of
Michigan for many years. In the best of times, MACMHB member
agencies have fought to retain skilled professional staff,
but the current economic challenges that our state confronts
make personnel recruitment and retention along with services
delivery in rural areas--even more difficult. By contrast,
tele-mental health care can partially compensate for these
staff shortages and, furthermore, we believe that these
services can be successfully implemented and expanded in
highly urbanized communities including metropolitan Detroit.
Passage of the Stabenow/Conrad telehealth improvement
legislation would be of greatest benefit to individuals
eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid--who compose roughly
one-third of the combined caseload of our member agencies.
This patient population is likely to have multiple chronic
conditions in addition to severe mental illnesses, and they
generally reside in underserved communities. The expansion of
tele-mental health services will substantially improve our
ability to provide long distance clinical consultation and
health status monitoring for these ``dually eligible''
persons.
Senator Stabenow, we deeply appreciate your support. You
can count on MACMHB and the National Council of Community
Behavioral Healthcare to fight for passage of the Medicare
Telehealth Improvement Act.
Sincerely,
DAVID A, KAKMIA, L.M.S.W.,
Executive Director.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 2814. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide
financial assistance to the Eastern New Mexico Rural Authority for the
planning, design, and construction of the Eastern New Mexico Rural
Water System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill, with
Senator Domenici's support, that would authorize the Bureau of
Reclamation to help communities in eastern New Mexico develop the
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System, ENMRWS. The water supply and
long-term security to be made available by this project is absolutely
critical to the region's future. I look forward to working with my
colleagues here in the Senate to help make this project a reality.
This is the third time this bill has been introduced. In June 2004,
it was the subject of a hearing before the Water & Power Subcommittee
of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee. At that hearing, the
Bureau of Reclamation raised a number of issues that needed to be
addressed by the Project sponsors prior to securing Reclamation's
support. Last August, the Energy & Natural Resources Committee
conducted a field hearing on the project in Clovis, New Mexico, and it
was clear that the sponsors have worked diligently to address the
issues raised by Reclamation. Given that progress and the broad support
that exists for the project, it is time to move forward with Federal
authorization under Reclamation's rural water program.
The source of water for the ENMRWS is Ute Reservoir, a facility
constructed by the State of New Mexico in the early 1960s. In 1966,
Congress authorized Reclamation to study the feasibility of a project
that would utilize Ute Reservoir to supply water to communities in
eastern New Mexico, P.L. 89-561. Numerous studies were completed, but
it was not until recently that several communities, concerned about
their reliance on declining and degraded groundwater supplies in the
area, began to plan seriously for the development of a regional water
system that would make use of the renewable supply available from Ute
Reservoir.
As part of that process, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority
was formed to carry out the development of the ENMRWS. The Authority
consists of six communities and two counties in eastern New Mexico, and
has been very effective in securing local funds and State funding to
support the studies and planning necessary to move the project forward.
To date, the State of New Mexico has provided approximately $7.5
million to develop the ENMRWS.
Mr. President, this is a very important bill to the citizens of New
Mexico. It has the broad support of the communities in the region as
well as financial support from the State of New Mexico. There is no
question that completion of the ENMRWS will provide communities in
Curry and Roosevelt counties with a long-term renewable source of water
that is needed to sustain current economic activity and support future
development in the region. I hope my colleagues will support this
legislation and help address one of the many pressing water needs in
the rural West.
Mr. President, 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. 2814

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 ``Eastern New Mexico Rural
Water System Authorization Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Authority.--The term ``Authority'' means the Eastern
New Mexico Rural Water Authority, an entity formed under
State law for the purposes of planning, financing,
developing, and operating the System.
(2) Engineering report.--The term ``engineering report''
means the report entitled ``Eastern New Mexico Rural Water
System Preliminary Engineering Report'' and dated October
2006.
(3) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the operation,
maintenance, and replacement plan required by section 4(b).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New
Mexico.
(6) System.--
(A) In general.--The term ``System'' means the Eastern New
Mexico Rural Water

[[Page S2440]]

System, a water delivery project designed to deliver
approximately 16,500 acre-feet of water per year from the Ute
Reservoir to the cities of Clovis, Elida, Grady, Melrose,
Portales, and Texico and other locations in Curry, Roosevelt,
and Quay Counties in the State.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``System'' includes the major
components and associated infrastructure identified as the
``Best Technical Alternative'' in the engineering report.
(7) Ute reservoir.--The term ``Ute Reservoir'' means the
impoundment of water created in 1962 by the construction of
the Ute Dam on the Canadian River, located approximately 32
miles upstream of the border between New Mexico and Texas.

SEC. 3. EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SYSTEM.

(a) Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide financial and
technical assistance to the Authority to assist in planning,
designing, conducting related preconstruction activities for,
and constructing the System.
(2) Use.--
(A) In general.--Any financial assistance provided under
paragraph (1) shall be obligated and expended only in
accordance with a cooperative agreement entered into under
section 5(a)(2).
(B) Limitations.--Financial assistance provided under
paragraph (1) shall not be used--
(i) for any activity that is inconsistent with constructing
the System; or
(ii) to plan or construct facilities used to supply
irrigation water for irrigated agricultural purposes.
(b) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The Federal share of the total cost of any
activity or construction carried out using amounts made
available under this Act shall be not more than 75 percent of
the total cost of the System.
(2) System development costs.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the total cost of the System shall include any costs
incurred by the Authority or the State on or after October 1,
2003, for the development of the System.
(c) Limitation.--No amounts made available under this Act
may be used for the construction of the System until--
(1) a plan is developed under section 4(b); and
(2) the Secretary and the Authority have complied with any
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) applicable to the System.
(d) Title to Project Works.--Title to the infrastructure of
the System shall be held by the Authority or as may otherwise
be specified under State law.

SEC. 4. OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT COSTS.

(a) In General.--The Authority shall be responsible for the
annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs
associated with the System.
(b) Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Plan.--The
Authority, in consultation with the Secretary, shall develop
an operation, maintenance, and replacement plan that
establishes the rates and fees for beneficiaries of the
System in the amount necessary to ensure that the System is
properly maintained and capable of delivering approximately
16,500 acre-feet of water per year.

SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

(a) Cooperative Agreements.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into any contract,
grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement that is
necessary to carry out this Act.
(2) Cooperative agreement for provision of financial
assistance.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the Authority to provide financial
assistance and any other assistance requested by the
Authority for planning, design, related preconstruction
activities, and construction of the System.
(B) Requirements.--The cooperative agreement entered into
under subparagraph (A) shall, at a minimum, specify the
responsibilities of the Secretary and the Authority with
respect to--
(i) ensuring that the cost-share requirements established
by section 3(b) are met;
(ii) completing the planning and final design of the
System;
(iii) any environmental and cultural resource compliance
activities required for the System; and
(iv) the construction of the System.
(b) Technical Assistance.--At the request of the Authority,
the Secretary may provide to the Authority any technical
assistance that is necessary to assist the Authority in
planning, designing, constructing, and operating the System.
(c) Biological Assessment.--The Secretary shall consult
with the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission and the
Authority in preparing any biological assessment under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) that
may be required for planning and constructing the System.
(d) Effect.--Nothing in this Act---
(1) affects or preempts--
(A) State water law; or
(B) an interstate compact relating to the allocation of
water; or
(2) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to
exercise any Federal rights to--
(A) the water of a stream; or
(B) any groundwater resource.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--In accordance with the adjustment carried
out under subsection (b), there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this Act an amount
not greater than $327,000,000.
(b) Adjustment.--The amount made available under subsection
(a) shall be adjusted to reflect changes in construction
costs occurring after January 1, 2007, as indicated by
engineering cost indices applicable to the types of
construction necessary to carry out this Act.
(c) Nonreimbursable Amounts.--Amounts made available to the
Authority in accordance with the cost-sharing requirement
under section 3(b) shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable
to the United States.
(d) Availability of Funds.--At the end of each fiscal year,
any unexpended funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall
be retained for use in future fiscal years consistent with
this Act.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd,
Mr. Reed, and Mr. Levin):
S. 2815. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 in order to
increase unsubsidized Stafford loan limits for undergraduate students,
provide for a secondary market for FFEL loans, allow for the in-school
deferment of PLUS loans, augment the maximum Federal Pell Grant for the
lowest income students, and expand the number of students eligible to
obtain loans under the lender-of-last-resort program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Americans are facing economic challenges
at every turn. They see jobs disappearing, homes being foreclosed,
debts soaring, and benefits worth less and less. Now families are
finding that the loans they rely on to afford the high cost of college
may also be at risk.
Some lenders have stopped making private student loans, and others
have even temporarily stopped making loans under the Federal program.
We can't allow problems in the credit market to prevent students from
going to college.
We have been working with the Secretary of Education to take steps to
see that all Federal backstops are in place and operational in order to
protect students from these problems.
Today, I am introducing legislation for additional steps to protect
students by reducing their reliance on loans, and by improving the
existing Federal student loan programs to give them better terms and
conditions.
The legislation does three things. It increases grant aid for the
neediest students. It expands options for students and parents under
the Federal loan programs so that fewer of them will have to turn to
higher cost private loans. It takes steps to shore up the reliability
of the current Federal loan programs so that families will have timely
and reliable access to Federal loans.
Over 6 million students relied on Federal loans last year. It is
essential to make sure this support is there for them when they need
it. In the past 20 years, the cost of college has tripled, and more and
more students are relying on student loans to afford a college
education. In 1993, less than half of all graduates took out loans, but
in 2004, nearly \2/3\ did so.
The average U.S. student now graduates with more than $19,000 of
student loan debt. As a result, they are under increasing pressure to
give up lower-paying jobs and careers they may prefer, due to the
burden of repaying their loan debts.
Legislation was enacted last year that increased grant aid and made
Federal loans cheaper for students by reducing interest rates. We also
provided that no graduates should have to pay more than 15 percent of
their income in monthly loan payments, and that those who enter public
service will have their loans completely forgiven. But these benefits
will be meaningless if students cannot obtain the loans needed to gain
a degree.
In recent weeks, the credit market crisis has made it more difficult
for lenders to obtain capital for student loans. As a result, some
lenders are leaving the student loan market and those operating outside
the Federal loan program are cutting back on loans to high risk
borrowers.
So far, because of the attractiveness of the Federal guarantee in the
Federal loan program, other lenders are stepping in to fill the gaps in
that program.

[[Page S2441]]

Since the interest rates in that program are capped, students are
protected from inflated interest costs.
But students who need to go beyond the Federal loan program will have
a more difficult time finding lenders, and their rates will go up.
Also, parents who traditionally had various options for borrowing to
finance college for their children are seeing those options disappear.
Some no longer have access to low-cost home equity lines of credit.
Others are being turned down for additional loans as they struggle to
pay their own mortgages.
As I mentioned, we are already taking action to ensure that programs
already in place to protect students and families from credit market
disruptions are fully operational.
I have urged Secretary Spellings to make it as easy as possible for
colleges and families to participate in the existing loan program that
allows students and parents to borrow directly from the Federal
Government, without going through a bank. This Direct Loan program uses
Treasury funds. It does not rely on capital from the private financial
markets, so it's insulated from the market disruptions now taking
place.
I have also urged the Secretary to put in place a plan to activate
the ``Lender-of-Last-Resort'' program, which enables the Secretary to
advance capital to designated lenders and guaranty agencies, so they
can help students who are having trouble finding loans through other
banks.
These programs are now in the law, and nearly 2,000 colleges are
already signed up to use the Direct Loan Program.
We're also taking steps to help students and parents who must borrow
outside the Federal loan program, since they are the ones most likely
to be affected by the credit market decline.
Currently, however, many students and parents don't know about their
Federal options. According to Department of Education estimates,
between 40 and 60 percent of students who turn to high-cost private
loans are not actually taking full advantage of Federal grants and
loans first.
We're taking steps to correct that problem in the Higher Education
Reauthorization bill that's in conference now.
But there is much more we can do to reduce families' reliance on
high-cost private loans. The legislation I am offering today will
increase access for students and families to low-cost Federal loans. It
will also strengthen the backstops in the Federal program, to ensure
students and families will continue to have access to Federal loans.
The legislation cuts back in several ways on the number of private
loans that families have to take out:
It increases Pell Grant aid for the lowest income students.
It increases the amount that students can borrow under the Federal
loan program.
It makes Federal loans for parents more attractive by enabling
parents to defer payments on the loans while students are in college
just as students can defer payments on their own loans.
It also takes steps to shore up the Federal loan program to ensure
there are no disruptions in access for students.
It makes it easier for schools to use the ``Lender-of-Last-Resort''
program when students or schools have problems finding lenders.
It provides an additional backstop to give lenders access to the
capital they need for new loans, if the situation worsens.
I will take a moment to describe each of these provisions.
The best way to help students and families afford college is to
increase grant aid. More aid up front means fewer loans and less debt
on graduation day. That is why the Democratic Congress delivered on our
promise last year to raise the Pell Grant. The maximum grant will
increase to $5,400 by 2012--an increase of $1,350 over the level at
which it had stagnated under the current administration.
This increase in up-front aid means that students eligible for the
maximum Pell grant will have to borrow $6,000 less in loans over the
course of their college career.
The legislation I am introducing builds on that progress, and focuses
on students who need it most. Currently, over 2.6 million students--
half of all Pell Grant recipients--come from families whose income,
under the Federal formula, makes them eligible for the maximum amount
of Federal assistance because they are determined to be unable to
contribute to their children's college bills. Still, after all grant
aid, these families face an average unmet need of $5,600, which they
are forced to borrow in order to pay for college. This bill brings
additional assistance to these students, by increasing the maximum Pell
Grant for these students by up to $750.
Because Federal grant aid has not kept pace with the rising cost of
college in recent decades, many students have been forced to turn to
loans. The bill helps students who still need to borrow for college by
guaranteeing their access to additional low-cost federal loans, rather
than forcing them to turn to the more expensive private loan market.
Currently, undergraduate students who are dependents of their parents
can take out loans of between $3,500 and $5,500 annually, depending
what year of college they're in. The total amount they can borrow is
$23,000. Independent students can borrow about double that amount.
Consider what this means for a middle-class family in Massachusetts
struggling to send a child to college.
Here is a family that makes $68,700--the median income in our State.
On average, these families will spend $17,424 a year for college. Based
on the federal formula, the parents are expected to contribute between
$8,000 and $10,000 a year from their earnings with the rest to be
obtained through grants and loans. After accounting for all federal,
state, and institutional aid, this family still faces over $2,600 in
unmet costs each year--on top of their expected family contribution.
The estimate is conservative, because many parents don't have the
$8,000-10,000 they're expected to contribute.
To make up the difference, many families can take out federal parent
``PLUS'' loans at a 7.9 percent interest rate. If they don't qualify
for such loans because of poor credit, their children may have to turn
to higher cost private loans.
The bill increases eligibility for Federal student loans in order to
give students a better, lower-cost option than relying on private
lenders.
It allows undergraduates dependent on their parents to borrow up to
$1,000 more a year. It tracks current law by allowing independent
students to borrow twice that amount. It also allows students whose
parents are not able to borrow under the Federal parent loan program
because of poor credit to borrow an additional $2,000 per year.
In addition, the bill increases the total amount that students can
borrow over the course of their college career. Dependent students will
be able to borrow up to $29,500. Independent students, and students
whose parents don't have access to PLUS parent loans, can borrow up to
$57,500.
Further, the legislation makes federal parent loans more attractive.
Currently, most parents have the option of borrowing low-cost federal
loans--up to the cost of attendance--for their children. In the 2006-
2007 school year, 600,000 parents borrowed approximately $8 billion in
PLUS loans, and the average loan was $13,600.
Many parents in recent years have not taken advantage of PLUS loans,
because they had other options, such as home equity lines of credit, or
private loans with good terms and conditions. This year, for the first
time in a decade, the number of PLUS loan borrowers declined--by about
160,000. At the same time, student and parent dependence on private
loans has increased. In the 2006-2007 school year, over $17 billion in
private student loans were used to finance higher education.
With the credit crunch making it harder and more expensive for
parents to borrow from private sources, this legislation will make it
easier for parents to obtain Federal loans. Specifically, it allows
parents to defer payment on those loans until their children graduate
from school--just as students are able to do under their own Federal
loans.
This provision protects parents from having to make any payments over
the next few years, and allows them to use that time to meet other
financial obligations, such as getting their mortgages back on track.

[[Page S2442]]

In addition to these provisions that significantly reduce families'
need to turn to the private loan market, the legislation also takes two
important steps to strengthen the backstops in the Federal loan
program, to ensure that students and parents can continue to have
timely, uninterrupted access to Federal loans.
First, it makes it easier for students and schools to participate in
the ``Lender-of-Last-Resort'' program. Current law requires designated
lenders to make loans to students who are having trouble finding a
Federal student loan elsewhere. But the program requires individual
students to demonstrate that they can't find a loan before they can
turn to a ``lender of last resort.''
If the current market worsens, more lenders may stop making Federal
student loans, and this ``lender-of-last-resort'' process will become
untenable. Nationally, 18 million students are enrolled in colleges and
universities. We can't require each of them to demonstrate they can't
find another lender before using this safety net.
The legislation instead allows financial aid officers and colleges to
make this determination on behalf of all their students, so that
students can easily obtain a loan through a ``lender of last resort.''
Consider the difference this would make at state universities, some of
which enroll more than 50,000 college and graduate students and
generally rely on one or two primary lenders.
The Clinton Administration enacted such a policy in 1998--the last
time lenders threatened to leave the program. The legislation requires
the Secretary to make clear that colleges have this option should they
need it.
Finally, many lenders who have announced they will not be able to
make loans for this college year have had to make that decision because
they cannot obtain capital for those loans through their traditional
sources in the private financial markets.
Many of these lenders sell the loans they originate in order to
replenish their capital and make new loans. But these so-called
``secondary markets'' have begun to close because of the credit crunch.
Some lenders can't find a buyer for their loans. They are stuck with
the loans now on their books, and have no capital for new loans in the
fall. Over the past month, this has caused some lenders to announce
that they will stop making new Federal loans.
This legislation provides a back-up plan for lenders who need it, in
case the private credit markets are unavailable to lenders. It allows
the Secretary of Education to act as a ``secondary market of last
resort,'' by buying the loans that lenders are currently holding on
their books and cannot sell.
This will not cause students any greater complexity--under the
program established by this legislation, student loans will continue to
be serviced under the same terms and conditions that the borrower
signed up for. The Department can contract with the same loan servicers
that private banks use, and the transition will be seamless for
borrowers.
We hope that these additional protections for students and families
will not be needed. But given the uncertainties in the overall economy
and the credit markets, Congress has an obligation to shore up programs
on which millions of students heavily depend. Few things are more
important than ensuring that families can afford a college degree for
their children, and the goal of this legislation is to make that
possible. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, 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. 2815

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 ``Strengthening Student Aid
for All Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASING UNSUBSIDIZED STAFFORD LOAN LIMITS FOR
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS.

(a) Amendments.--Section 428H(d) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-8(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and
(3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2) through (5)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Annual and aggregate limits for undergraduate
dependent students.--
``(A) Annual limits.--The maximum annual amount of loans
under this section an undergraduate dependent student (except
an undergraduate dependent student whose parents are unable
to borrow under section 428B or the Federal Direct PLUS Loan
Program) may borrow in any academic year (as defined in
section 481(a)(2)) or its equivalent shall be the sum of the
amount determined under paragraph (1), plus $1,000.
``(B) Aggregate limits.--The maximum aggregate amount of
loans under this section a student described in subparagraph
(A) may borrow shall be $29,500. Interest capitalized shall
not be deemed to exceed such maximum aggregate amount.
``(5) Annual and aggregate limits for undergraduate
independent students.--
``(A) Annual limits.--The maximum annual amount of loans
under this section an undergraduate independent student, or
an undergraduate dependent student whose parents are unable
to borrow under section 428B or the Federal Direct PLUS Loan
Program, may borrow in any academic year (as defined in
section 481(a)(2)) or its equivalent shall be the sum of the
amount determined under paragraph (1), plus--
``(i) in the case of such a student attending an eligible
institution who has not completed such student's first 2
years of undergraduate study--

``(I) $6,000, if such student is enrolled in a program
whose length is at least one academic year in length; or
``(II) if such student is enrolled in a program of
undergraduate education which is less than one academic year,
the maximum annual loan amount that such student may receive
may not exceed the amount that bears the same ratio to the
amount specified in clause (i) as the length of such program
measured in semester, trimester, quarter, or clock hours
bears to one academic year;

``(ii) in the case of such a student at an eligible
institution who has successfully completed such first and
second years but has not successfully completed the remainder
of a program of undergraduate education--

``(I) $7,000; or
``(II) if such student is enrolled in a program of
undergraduate education, the remainder of which is less than
one academic year, the maximum annual loan amount that such
student may receive may not exceed the amount that bears the
same ratio to the amount specified in subclause (I) as such
remainder measured in semester, trimester, quarter, or clock
hours bears to one academic year; and

``(iii) in the case of such a student enrolled in
coursework specified in sections 484(b)(3)(B) and
484(b)(4)(B), $6,000 for coursework necessary for enrollment
in an undergraduate degree or certificate program.
``(B) Aggregate limits.--The maximum aggregate amount of
loans under this section a student described in subparagraph
(A) may borrow shall be $57,500. Interest capitalized shall
not be deemed to exceed such maximum aggregate amount.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 428H(d) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (as amended by subsection (a)) (20
U.S.C. 1078-8(d)) is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``independent,
graduate,'' and inserting ``graduate'';
(B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``an independent student'' and all that follows through
``Program)'' and inserting ``a student who is a graduate or
professional student'';
(C) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B);
(D) in subparagraph (D)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting
``graduate'' before ``student'';
(ii) in clause (i), by striking ``$4,000'' and all that
follows through ``degree,''; and
(iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``in the case'' and all
that follows through ``degree,''; and
(E) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) (as amended
by subparagraph (D)) as subparagraphs (A) and (B),
respectively; and
(2) in the paragraph heading of paragraph (3), by striking
``independent, graduate,'' and inserting ``graduate''.

SEC. 3. IN-SCHOOL DEFERMENT OF PLUS LOANS.

Section 428B(d)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1078-2(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``deferral during'' and inserting
``deferral--
``(B) during''; and
(2) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as added by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(A) in the case of the parents of a dependent student,
until the student ceases to be enrolled in an undergraduate
program of study at an institution of higher education on at
least a half-time basis; or''.

SEC. 4. SECONDARY MARKET OF LAST RESORT.

(a) In General.--Part B of title IV of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``SEC. 440B. SECONDARY MARKET OF LAST RESORT.

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act and subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), the
Secretary--
``(1) shall serve as the secondary market of last resort
for loans under section 428, 428B, 428C, or 428H;
``(2) shall buy any such loan that an eligible lender
wishes to sell to the Secretary, at a price equal to the sum
of--

[[Page S2443]]

``(A) the total of the outstanding principal of such loan
and any accrued, unpaid interest due on such loan; and
``(B) a premium in the amount equal to the cost of
originating a similar loan under part D;
``(3) shall hold and service such loan under section 428,
428B, 428C or 428H in the same manner as the Secretary holds
and services similar loans under part D; and
``(4) may not alter the terms and conditions of a
promissory note of such loan under section 428, 428B, 428C,
or 428H except as necessary to comply with paragraphs (1)
through (3), and shall not require the execution of a new
promissory note.
``(b) Representative Subset of Loans.--An eligible lender
that wishes to sell to the Secretary loans under section 428,
428B, 428C, or 428H, that do not represent 100 percent of all
loans under such sections that are held by the lender, shall
offer for sale to the Secretary a subset of the loans under
such sections held by the lender that is representative
(including representative with respect to risk of default) of
the lender's total portfolio of loans under such sections.
``(c) Sunset Provision.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
authority provided to the Secretary under subsection (a)
shall expire on July 1, 2009.
``(2) Extension.--If the Secretary determines that economic
circumstances necessitate extending the authority provided
under subsection (a) in order to continue to ensure timely,
uninterrupted access to student loans, the Secretary may
extend the sunset provision under paragraph (1). The
Secretary may make multiple extensions under this paragraph,
except that each such extension may not be for a period of
more than 12 months.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. NEGATIVE EXPECTED FAMILY CONTRIBUTION.

(a) Dependent Students.--Section 475 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087oo) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(3)--
(A) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by striking ``dividing the assessment resulting under
paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``if the amount of the
assessment resulting under paragraph (2) is a positive
number, dividing such assessment''; and
(ii) by striking the semicolon and inserting a period; and
(B) by striking the matter following subparagraph (C); and
(2) in subsection (g)(6), by inserting ``and the absolute
value of the amount of the lowest assessment of adjusted
available income in the table described in section 475(e) (or
a successor table prescribed by the Secretary under section
478),'' after ``subsection (c)(1)''.
(b) Independent Students Without Dependents Other Than a
Spouse.--Section 476 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1087pp) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``dividing the sum
resulting under paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``if the sum
resulting under paragraph (1) is a positive number, dividing
such sum''; and
(B) in the matter following paragraph (3)(B), by striking
``less than zero'' and inserting ``less than the amount of
the lowest assessment of adjusted available income in the
table described in section 477(d) (or a successor table
prescribed by the Secretary under section 478)''; and
(2) in paragraph (b)(5), by inserting before the period at
the end ``, except that in no case shall the assessed amount
be less than the amount of the lowest assessment of adjusted
available income in the table described in section 477(d) (or
a successor table prescribed by the Secretary under section
478).''.
(c) Independent Students With Dependents Other Than a
Spouse.--Section 477(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1087qq(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``dividing the assessment
resulting under paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``if the amount
of the assessment resulting under paragraph (2) is a positive
number, dividing such assessment'';
(2) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking the semicolon and
inserting a period; and
(3) by striking the matter following paragraph (4)(B).
(d) Assessment Schedules and Rates.--Section 478(e)(1) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087rr(e)(1)) is
amended by striking ``increasing'' and inserting
``adjusting''.
(e) Simplified Needs Tests.---
(1) Simplified needs tests.--Section 479(c) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ss) is further amended--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Expected'';
and
(B) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``equal to zero'' and inserting ``equal to the amount of the
lowest assessment of adjusted available income in the table
described in section 477(d) (or a successor table prescribed
by the Secretary under section 478)''.
(2) Conforming amendments to the college cost reduction and
access act.--
(A) Amendment.--Section 602(a)(3) of the College Cost
Reduction and Access Act (Public Law 110-84) is amended in
the quoted material inserted by subparagraph (C), by striking
``zero expected family contribution'' and inserting
``expected family contribution under this subsection.''.
(B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A)
shall take effect on July 1, 2009, as if enacted on the date
of enactment of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act
(Public Law 110-84).
(f) Federal Pell Grants.--Section 401(b) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)) is amended by
inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) Increased Amount for Students With Negative Expected
Family Contribution.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(A) and any
other provision of law and subject to subparagraph (B) and
(C), in the case of a student whose expected family
contribution is a negative number, such student shall be
eligible for a Federal Pell Grant under this section in the
amount equal to the sum of--
``(i) the maximum Federal Pell Grant for which a student
shall be eligible during an award year, as specified in the
last enacted appropriation Act applicable to that award year;
``(ii) the Federal Pell Grant increase described in
paragraph (9) applicable to that award year; and
``(iii) an additional amount equal to the absolute value of
the student's expected family contribution.
``(B) Cost of attendance limit.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(3), in the case of a student whose expected family
contribution is a negative number, the student's Federal Pell
Grant under this subpart, as calculated under subparagraph
(A), shall not exceed the student's cost of attendance at
such institution, and if the amount of the student's Federal
Pell Grant exceeds such cost of attendance for that year,
such amount shall be reduced accordingly.
``(C) Formula otherwise unaffected.--Except as provided in
subparagraphs (A) and (B), nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed to alter the requirements of this section, or
authorize the imposition of additional requirements, for the
determination and allocation of Federal Pell Grants under
this section.''.

SEC. 6. LENDER-OF-LAST-RESORT.

(a) In General.--Section 428(j) of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078(j)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking
``part.'' and inserting ``part or who attend an institution
of higher education in the State that is designated under
paragraph (4).'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``, in the case of
students applying for loans under this subsection because of
an inability to otherwise obtain loans under this part,''
after ``lender, nor'';
(3) in paragraph (3)(C)--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``or designates an
institution of higher education for participation in the
program under this subsection under paragraph (4),'' after
``under this part''; and
(B) in the third sentence, by inserting ``or to eligible
borrowers who attend an institution in the State that is
designated under paragraph (4)'' after ``problems''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Institution-wide student qualification.--Upon the
request of an institution of higher education, the Secretary
shall designate such institution for participation in the
lender-of-last-resort program under this paragraph in the
State where the institution is located. If the Secretary
designates an institution under this paragraph, the guaranty
agency shall make loans, in the same manner as such loans are
made under paragraph (1), to students of the designated
institution who are eligible to receive interest benefits
paid on the students' behalf under subsection (a) of this
section, regardless of whether the students are otherwise
unable to obtain loans under this part.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 7. MANDATORY ADVANCES.

(a) In General.--Section 421(b) of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``programs, and'' and
inserting ``programs,'';
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``agencies.'' and
inserting ``agencies, and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) there is authorized to be appropriated, and there are
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the purpose
of carrying out section 427(c)(7).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by this
Act shall take effect on July 1, 2008.
______

BY Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 2816. A bill to provide for the appointment of the Chief Human
Capital Officer of the Department of Homeland Security by the Secretary
of Homeland Security; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to

[[Page S2444]]

correct what I perceive to be an anomaly in the law. I am grateful to
be joined in my efforts by my good friend and partner in human capital
reform, Senator Akaka.
The enabling statute of the Department of Homeland Security requires
the Chief Human Capital Officer, or CHCO, to be appointed by the
President. This differs from all other departments and agencies where
the head of the agency designates the CHCO. Using that authority,
agency heads have varied in appointing Chief Human Capital Officers who
are political appointees as well as career employees.
This bill would strike the provision of statute that requires the
Chief Human Capital Officer to be appointed by the President.
Therefore, the Department would be covered by section 1401 of title 5,
which directs the head of each agency to appoint the CHCO. Of the 23
agencies that make up the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, 11 are
career employees.
As the Department prepares for its first transition between
administrations, it is imperative that there are able and capable
individuals in place to continue its important mission and all related
functions. Key to a successful Department of Homeland Security is a
well trained workforce. I believe central to this smooth transition
would be a career Chief Human Capital Officer. While I have no
intention of mandating that position be a career position, I believe
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should have the
flexibility and authority to hire a career employee to that position,
just as all other agency heads do, and I urge my colleagues to support
this bill.
______

By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Coleman, and Mr. Tester):
S. 2817. A bill to establish the National Park Centennial Fund, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the
National Park Centennial Fund Act, a bill that will help restore the
grandeur of our national parks in preparation for the 100th birthday of
the National Park System in 2016. I am pleased to introduce this bill
with Senator Collins, Senator Baucus, Senator Coleman, and Senator
Tester. I want to thank them for their work and for their support of
this bill, which I hope we can pass this year.
Nearly a century ago, following the extraordinary vision of leaders
whose dreams were ahead of their time, we as Americans pledged to
protect our Nation's most special lands and treasures. At places like
Yellowstone, Yosemite, Mesa Verde, and Gettysburg we have set aside for
permanent protection those landscapes that conjure the sublime, those
historic treasures that tell the American story, and those cultural
sites that help define us as a people.
In 2016, we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the National Park
System. The centennial celebration will be an opportunity to resurrect
the spirit that drove people like Enos Mills, one of the founders of
Rocky Mountain National Park, to work tirelessly to protect our
Nation's crown jewels for future generations. ``In years to come when I
am asleep beneath the pines,'' Mills proclaimed in 1909, ``thousands of
families will find rest and hope in this park.'' He was right. Thanks
to the excellent work of the Park Service and its employees over the
past 90 years, the 3.2 million visitors that come to Rocky Mountain
National Park each year experience the same wild lands and spectacular
vistas that our ancestors enjoyed.
The coming of the 2016 centennial of the National Park System is an
opportunity to restore the luster of our national parks and inspire
future generations to protect these national treasures.
Secretary Kempthorne took an important step in this direction when,
in August 2006, he announced that the National Park Service will
undertake the Centennial Initiative to prepare for the 100th
anniversary of the Park System in 2016. As part of the Centennial
Initiative, Secretary Kempthorne proposed the creation of a partnership
between: the federal government; the private, philanthropic sector; and
other non-federal sources. The goal of this partnership would be to
increase philanthropic contributions to the parks by providing Federal
matching funds for donations made by Americans for projects that
improve the parks and visitor experiences. This program is called the
Centennial Challenge.

When Secretary Kempthorne presented this proposal to the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year, I offered my strong
support for the concept. However, the legislation offered by the
Administration to put the Centennial Challenge into action suffered
from a number of deficiencies--namely, a lack of a spending offset and
an unclear delineation of the public's and Congress' role in the
program. There were also concerns about the bill's effect on other Park
Service accounts, friends groups, and existing philanthropic
initiatives.
The National Park Centennial Fund Act that we are introducing today
answers many of these questions and, I believe, is a legislative
package that is worthy of bipartisan support and passage.
This bill takes Secretary Kempthorne's Centennial Challenge proposal
from vision to reality by establishing the Centennial Challenge Fund, a
matching donation fund in the federal treasury that will provide up to
$100 million a year to the national parks in support of signature
``Centennial projects and programs.'' This would allow supporters of
the parks to match their contributions with federal dollars to carry
out a program or a project at a national park unit, provided that the
project or program is approved by the Park Service and Congress.
This bill provides $100 million in mandatory spending for each of the
fiscal years from 2008 to 2017 to carry out special, select Centennial
projects throughout the National Park System. Non-federal philanthropic
participation is encouraged, but not required, for a project to be
executed with Federal money from the Centennial Fund.
To ensure that Congress has the opportunity to review and approve the
proposed project list, the bill requires the Secretary oflnterior to
submit to Congress, as part of the President's annual budget
submission, a list of proposed Centennial projects. The yearly project
lists are to be developed by the Secretary with input from the public
and National Park Service employees.

Projects must meet specific criteria set forth in the bill. All
projects must be consistent with Park Service policies and adopted park
planning documents and be representative of the breadth of the national
park system. The bill also requires that project proposals fall into
one of seven categories or ``initiatives'' defined in the bill:
Education, Diversity, Supporting Park Professionals, Environmental
Leadership, Natural Resource Protection, Cultural Resource Protection,
and Visitor Enjoyment and Health, and Construction. No more than 30
percent of the amounts available in the fund in any fiscal year may be
spent on construction activities.
The National Park Centennial Fund Act also specifies that the Federal
dollars made available from the Centennial Fund shall supplement and
not replace annual Park Service expenditures, and that adequate
permanent staffing levels must be maintained. The Secretary is required
to submit a report to Congress each year detailing Centennial Fund
accounting, results, and Park Service staffing levels.
The National Park Centennial Fund Act bill proposes to pay for the
Centennial Fund by establishing a new conservation royalty from
unanticipated off-shore oil and gas revenues in the Gulf of Mexico that
the Federal Government is now collecting. In 2008, off-shore oil and
gas lease sales have already generated more than $4 billion in revenue
above Department of Interior projections. Rather than returning all
these revenues--which were generated from the depletion of a natural
resource--to the Federal treasury, the National Park Centennial Fund
Act reinvests up to $1 billion in the Centennial Fund and the permanent
protection of our national treasures.
Moreover, the bill supplements the funding from this conservation
royalty with revenues that would be generated through the sale of a new
postage stamp celebrating the 100th anniversary of the National Park
System.
I want to again thank my colleagues, Senator Collins, Senator Baucus,
Senator Coleman, and Senator Tester, for their support and for their
work on this

[[Page S2445]]

bill. This is an effort that is worthy of broad, bipartisan support,
and it is a bill which I hope we will pass this year.
Finally, I would like to note that I see another bill that I have
introduced, S. 2194, as complementary to this effort. The National Park
Ranger School Partnership Act, which I introduced with Senator Conrad,
would provide greater opportunities for our kids to experience and
learn from the tremendous resources in our national parks by
establishing partnerships between NPS and local schools under the No
Child Left Behind Act. The bill would also create a pilot grant program
aimed at getting more school children into the national parks.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass both of these
bills.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Salazar in
introducing the National Park Centennial Fund Act. This bill celebrates
the 100th anniversary of the National Park System by infusing our parks
with $1 billion over 10 years, which will be matched by an additional
$1 billion in private donations. This challenge fund adds to efforts to
increase the operations budget of the National Park Service by $1
billion over the next decade.
We Americans love our National Parks. In fact, in a December 2007
Harris Interactive Poll, the National Park Service ranked as the most
popular Federal Government service.
In 1872, Congress designated Yellowstone as the world's first
national park, and in 1916 the National Park Service formally was
created to manage what had become a 6 million acre system of national
protected areas.
Today the National Park System protects more than 84 million acres.
National Parks conserve our culture and our places of natural beauty
and value. They also provide recreation opportunities for more than 270
million visitors each year.
My State of Maine is home to the first National Park east of the
Mississippi River, Acadia National Park, a true gem on Maine's rocky
coast. Visitors enjoy granite mountain tops, sparkling lakes, forested
valleys, meadows, marshes, and a spectacular coastline. They can hike
up Cadillac Mountain, the tallest mountain on the east coast, which
offers amazing views of Porcupine Islands and Frenchman Bay.
The National Park Centennial Fund Act will maintain and improve all
of our parks for the next century of enjoyment. The bill establishes a
mandatory annual fund of $100 million, which will be matched by private
donations for projects in parks around the country.
Eligible projects will be prioritized through input from both the
public and a broad cross-section of National Park Service employees.
Centennial challenge projects may fall into one of these categories:
education, diversity, supporting park professionals, environmental
leadership, natural resource protection, cultural resources protection
or visitor enjoyment and health.
For example, at Acadia National Park, officials are undertaking an
environmental leadership project to make Acadia virtually car-free by
providing a variety of public transportation options within the park.
This partnership with the local community will include providing a
central parking and bus boarding area for park visitors to use the
Island Explore bus system. Since 1999, these low-emissions propane
vehicles have carried more than 1.5 million riders. In doing so, they
removed 424,000 vehicles from the park and reduced pollution by 24
tons.
We propose two offsets in the National Park Centennial Fund Act. The
first is a postal stamp for National Parks, estimated to raise about
$10 million annually.
The second offset is from unanticipated revenues from offshore oil
and gas leases. Thus far for fiscal year 2008, bids and royalties from
offshore oil and gas leases are $4.2 billion higher than CBO
anticipated. The National Park Centennial Fund Act bill would take
these revenues that were not anticipated each year and dedicate them
into the centennial fund until the total in the fund reaches $1
billion. If we are depleting one natural resource, I believe we should
return part of the revenues to the protection of other natural
resources like our National Parks.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Salazar for his leadership on this
bill and Senators Baucus, Coleman and Tester for their support. I urge
all my colleagues to consider joining us on this important legislation.
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2819. A bill to preserve access to Medicaid and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program during an economic downturn, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my esteemed
colleagues--Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and Senator Edward Kennedy
of Massachusetts--to introduce a timely and vital piece of legislation,
the Economic Recovery in Health Care Act of 2008. This bill will
preserve access to health care for our most vulnerable citizens during
this time of economic uncertainty.
Earlier this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke confirmed
what we have all long-suspected--that the U.S. economy could be headed
for a protracted recession. The tell-tale warning signs of recession
have been visible in the states for at least a full quarter now.
According to the National Governors Association, the recent economic
downturn has left 18 States with budget shortfalls totaling $14 million
in 2008, and 21 States project shortfalls totaling more than $32
million in 2009. If the current downturn follows the path of most
recessions, between 35 and 40 States will face severe budget shortfalls
in 2009.
As a former Governor, who survived the tough times of the 1980s, I
can attest to the enormous budget pressures States face when the
economy slows. State revenues often evaporate rapidly during an
economic downturn. Unlike the Federal Government, States cannot borrow
infinite amounts of debt from China and other countries. By law, 49
States--including West Virginia--are required to balance their budgets
and, in times of economic downturn, this task becomes significantly
more difficult.
Some of my colleagues may be wondering why health care is such a big
deal when we have all these other problems to worry about--the mortgage
crisis, the credit crunch, and a weak dollar. Well, I would say to my
colleagues that we don't have to look very far for an answer to this
very question. As we saw during the economic downturn of 2001-2003,
decreased access to health care coverage was a huge crisis for working
families.
There was a huge loss in private health care coverage. Data from the
Center for Studying Health System Change indicates that the proportion
of the under-65 population with employer-sponsored coverage fell from
67 percent in 2001 to 63.4 percent in 2003. After adjusting for
population growth, this means that nearly 9 million fewer people were
covered by employer-sponsored health insurance during the recession
than would have been the case if coverage rates remained unchanged.
Medicaid also didn't fare very well during the last recession. It is
consistently the first program slated for cuts during a state budget
squeeze. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the
Uninsured, between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, the loss of revenue led
all 50 States to reduce Medicaid provider payment rates and implement
prescription drug cost controls, 38 States to reduce Medicaid
eligibility and 34 States to reduce benefits.
These cuts placed a huge burden on Medicaid providers and the working
families who depend on Medicaid to meet their health care needs. While
Congress did ultimately respond to the last economic downturn by
providing $20 billion in State fiscal relief in 2003, and this relief
went a long way to preserve health care coverage for millions of
working families, we cannot discount the fact that one million low-
income people had already lost Medicaid coverage because we waited two
years into the recession to act.
In response to this current downturn, state legislatures are already
beginning to limit access to Medicaid and CHIP in preparation for the
harsh economic times ahead. According to the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, at least 10 states have implemented or are
considering budget cuts that will reduce access to Medicaid or CHIP for
working families. For example, Nevada has capped the State's CHIP
program

[[Page S2446]]

at its approximate current number of enrollees. As a result, hundreds
of children will be denied coverage. California has proposed increasing
co-payments and premiums for children enrolled in CHIP and reducing
CHIP dental services. I want to remind my colleagues that it was only 1
year ago that millions across the country mourned the death of 12-year-
old Deamonte Driver, whose lack of dental care led to fatal brain
infection.
At least four States are cutting or proposing to cut Medicaid
services for the elderly or disabled, or significantly increasing the
cost of these services. For example, Maine has proposed cuts that will
remove 7,000 mentally ill and poor adults from Medicaid; and Rhode
Island is requiring low-income elderly people to pay more for adult
daycare.
Several States have proposed reductions in or delayed payments to
providers. For example, New Jersey has proposed a reduction in funding
for hospital charity of 15 percent, which will impact hospitals'
ability to care for some of the State's most vulnerable residents.
There is no question that our States are in economic peril. However,
children don't stop getting sick just because the economy slows.
Seniors don't suddenly stop needing long-term care services simply
because the economy slows. Instead, the need for access to Medicaid and
CHIP grows during times of economic uncertainty, and we must act to
ensure that Medicaid and CHIP coverage is available when families need
it the most.
The Economic Recovery in Health Care Act provides the timely,
targeted, and temporary Federal response necessary to avoid a health
care crisis during this current economic slowdown. Our legislation
accomplishes this objective in two ways.
First, our bill responds to the Medicaid administrative regulations
recently proposed by the administration, which, if allowed to go into
effect, would further aggravate the impact of the economic downturn on
States and working families. The Congressional Budget Office estimates
that these regulations would reduce Federal Medicaid matching payments
by approximately $18 billion over 5 years and $42 billion over 10
years. However, State reports to the House Oversight Committee indicate
that the cost shift to States could be far greater.
Now is a time when States need greater financial support from the
Federal Government, not less financial support and more restrictions
that make providing quality care to those most in need nearly
impossible.
Our bill will preserve access to Medicaid for seniors, pregnant
women, individuals with disabilities, and children during the economic
downturn by temporarily extending--through April 1, 2009--the Medicaid
moratoria on payments to public providers, graduate medical education,
school-based services, and rehabilitative services that Congress has
already enacted. The Economic Recovery in Health Care Act would also
preserve access to Medicaid by delaying--through April 1, 2009--
implementation of the following additional Medicaid regulations, which
are already in effect or scheduled to go into effect in the near
future: targeted case management, allowable provider taxes, outpatient
clinic and hospital services, and the Departmental Appeals Board rule.
Our bill would also preserve access to CHIP for low-income children by
implementing a 1-year moratorium on the August 17 CHIP guidance.
The second major component of our legislation is targeted State
fiscal relief. Leading economists have found that targeted State aid
would generate increased economic activity of $1.36 for each dollar of
cost. Our legislation provides approximately $12 billion in targeted
State fiscal relief, equally divided between an increase in Federal
Medicaid matching payments and targeted grants to States.
Unlike the State fiscal relief provided in 2003 and previous fiscal
relief proposals offered this year, each State must meet certain
criteria in order to qualify for an increase in federal matching
payments and the targeted grants. The criteria would be based on the
average of State ranks in unemployment, food stamp participation, and
foreclosures. These three economic indicators closely align with State
budget deficits and would allow us to more appropriately target State
fiscal relief to the States with the most need.
I urge my colleagues to strongly support this important legislation.
Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership, and the Federal Government
bears the primary responsibility for ensuring that the Federal
guarantee of health benefits is not denied to eligible working
families, particularly during an economic downturn. With all the
worries that working American families are currently facing, they
should not have to add health care to their growing list of concerns.
Mr. President, 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. 2819

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 ``Economic Recovery in Health
Care Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) State and local governments are an integral part of our
national economic engine. They provide health care and a
wealth of social services to millions of Americans,
particularly when the economy is weak.
(2) During the last economic downturn, the number of
uninsured Americans would have been millions more if Medicaid
and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) had
not responded to the twin challenges of an economic downturn
and a sharp drop-off in private health insurance coverage.
(3) In the last year, our unemployment rate has increased
to 5.0 percent with nearly 900,000 more Americans without
jobs. Because the majority of Americans get their health
insurance through their jobs, the loss of a job often results
in a simultaneous loss of health insurance coverage.
(4) Medicaid fills the gap for working families when they
lose access to private coverage. For every 1 percent increase
in the unemployment rate, Medicaid enrollment increases by
2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people.
(5) States experience enormous budget pressures when the
economy slows. By law, 49 States are required to balance
their budgets and, in times of economic downturn, this task
becomes significantly more difficult.
(6) According to the National Governors Association, 18
States already face budget shortfalls totaling
$14,000,000,000 in 2008, and 21 States project shortfalls
totaling more than $32,000,000,000 in 2009. If the current
downturn follows the path of most recessions, between 35 and
40 States will face severe budget shortfalls in 2009.
(7) A critical factor in helping States sustain Medicaid
enrollment during the last economic downturn was the
$20,000,000,000 in State fiscal relief that Congress enacted
in 2003.
(8) Not only should Congress enact a similar State fiscal
relief provision in 2008, but Congress should also delay the
implementation of administrative regulations that would
reduce Federal Medicaid matching payments at a time when
States need greater Federal resources.
(9) There is no question that health care is economic
stimulus.
(10) Keeping Medicaid and CHIP whole shores up the safety
net for vulnerable working families. People who are able to
get the health services they need are more likely to be able
to continue working and contribute to the economy as it
recovers.
(11) Leading economists have found that targeted State aid
would generate increased economic activity of $1.36 for each
dollar of cost. The increase in Federal dollars to States
generates business activity, jobs, and wages that States
would not otherwise see.

SEC. 3. PRESERVING ACCESS TO MEDICAID AND CHIP DURING AN
ECONOMIC DOWNTURN.

(a) Prohibition.--Effective on the date of enactment of
this Act, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not finalize,
implement, enforce, or otherwise take any action to give
effect to the following administrative actions (or to any
administrative actions relating to the same subject matters
that are similar to the following administrative actions or
that reflect the same or similar policies set forth in the
following administrative actions) prior to April 1, 2009:
(1) The proposed and final rule entitled ``Medicaid
Program; Health-Care Related Taxes'', published,
respectively, on March 23, 2007, on pages 13726 through 13734
of volume 72, Federal Register, and on February 22, 2008, on
pages 9685 through 9699 of volume 73, Federal Register, with
the exception of the proposed amendments to sections
433.56(a)(8) and 433.68(f)(3)(i) of title 42, Code of Federal
Relations.
(2) The proposed rule entitled ``Medicaid Program; Graduate
Medical Education'', published on May 23, 2007, on pages
28930 through 28936 of volume 72, Federal Register.
(3) The State Health Official Letter 07-001, dated August
17, 2007, issued by the Director of the Center for Medicaid
and State Operations in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services regarding certain requirements under the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) relating to the
prevention of the substitution of health benefits

[[Page S2447]]

coverage for children (commonly referred to as ``crowd-out'')
and the enforcement of medical support orders. Any change
made on or after August 17, 2007, to a Medicaid or CHIP State
plan or waiver to implement, conform to, or otherwise adhere
to the requirements or policies in such letter shall not
apply prior to April 1, 2009.
(4) The proposed rule entitled ``Medicaid Program;
Clarification of Outpatient Clinic and Hospital Facility
Services definition and Upper Payment Limit'', published on
September 28, 2007, on pages 55158 through 55166 of volume
72, Federal Register.
(5) The interim final rule entitled ``Medicaid Program;
Optional State Plan Case Management Services'', published on
December 4, 2007, on pages 68077 through 68093 of volume 72,
Federal Register.
(6) The proposed rule entitled ``Revisions to Procedures
for the Departmental Appeals Board and Other Departmental
Hearings'', published on December 28, 2007, on pages 73708
through 73720 of volume 72, Federal Register.
(b) Extension of Prior Moratoria.--
(1) Moratorium relating to the cost limit for providers
operated by units of government and provisions to ensure the
integrity of federal-state financial partnership.--Section
7002(a)(1) of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act
of 2007 (Public Law 110-28) is amended by striking ``the date
that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act'' and
inserting ``April 1, 2009''.
(2) Moratoria relating to rehabilitation services, school-
based administration and school-based transportation.--
Section 206 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension
Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-173) is amended by striking
``June 30, 2008'' and inserting ``April 1, 2009''.

SEC. 4. TEMPORARY, TARGETED STATE FISCAL RELIEF.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Round one qualifying state.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
``Round One Qualifying State'' means with respect to a State
that is 1 of the 50 States or the District of Columbia, a
State that has 1 of 28 highest averages of the State rankings
for each of the following 3 qualifying criteria, based on the
most recent data available as of April 1, 2008:
(i) Reduction in employment.--The year-to-year reduction in
total employment, based on the average total employment for
the State or District in the 3 most recent months compared to
the average total employment for the State or District in the
same months a year earlier, as determined based on the most
recent monthly publications of the Current Employer
Statistics Survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(ii) Increase in food stamps participation.--The year-to-
year increase in food stamps participation, based on average
monthly participation for the State or District in the 3 most
recent months compared to the average monthly participation
for the State or District in the same months a year earlier,
as determined based on the most recent monthly publications
of Food and Nutrition Service Data of the Department of
Agriculture.
(iii) Increase in the foreclosure rate.--The year-to-year
increase in the foreclosure rate for the State or District,
based on the foreclosure rate for the State or District for
the most recent quarter compared to the same quarter a year
earlier, as determined by the Mortgage Bankers Association's
National Delinquency Survey, as published in most recent
report entitled, ``Recent Foreclosure Trends Report for all
States''.
(B) Commonwealths and territories included.--Such term
includes a commonwealth or territory specified in paragraph
(4).
(2) Round two qualifying state.--The term ``Round Two
Qualifying State'' means a State that is 1 of the 50 States
or the District of Columbia and that--
(A) has 1 of 38 highest averages of the State rankings for
the 3 qualifying criteria identified in clauses (i), (ii),
and (iii) of paragraph (1)(A), based on the most recent data
available as of October 1, 2008; and
(B) is not a Round One Qualifying State.
(3) FMAP.--The term ``FMAP'' means the Federal medical
assistance percentage, as defined in section 1905(b) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)).
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
(b) Assistance for Round One Qualifying States.--
(1) Temporary increase of medicaid fmap.--
(A) Permitting maintenance of fiscal year 2007 fmap for
last 2 calendar quarters of fiscal year 2008.--Subject to
subparagraphs (E), (F), (G), and (H), if the FMAP determined
without regard to this paragraph for a Round One Qualifying
State for fiscal year 2008 is less than the FMAP as so
determined for fiscal year 2007, the FMAP for the State for
fiscal year 2007 shall be substituted for the State's FMAP
for the third and fourth calendar quarters of fiscal year
2008, before the application of this paragraph.
(B) Permitting maintenance of fiscal year 2008 fmap for
first 3 quarters of fiscal year 2009.--Subject to
subparagraphs (E), (F), (G), and (H), if the FMAP determined
without regard to this paragraph for a Round One Qualifying
State for fiscal year 2009 is less than the FMAP as so
determined for fiscal year 2008, the FMAP for the State for
fiscal year 2008 shall be substituted for the State's FMAP
for the first, second, and third calendar quarters of fiscal
year 2009, before the application of this paragraph.
(C) General 1.667 percentage points increase for last 2
calendar quarters of fiscal year 2008 and first 3 calendar
quarters of fiscal year 2009.--Subject to subparagraphs (E),
(F), (G), and (H), for each Round One Qualifying State for
the third and fourth calendar quarters of fiscal year 2008
and for the first, second, and third calendar quarters of
fiscal year 2009, the FMAP (taking into account the
application of subparagraphs (A) and (B)) shall be increased
by 1.667 percentage points.
(D) Increase in cap on medicaid payments to territories.--
Subject to subparagraphs (E), (F), (G), and (H), with respect
to the third and fourth calendar quarters of fiscal year 2008
and the first, second, and third calendar quarters of fiscal
year 2009, the amounts otherwise determined for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and American Samoa under subsections (f) and (g) of
section 1108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1308)
shall each be increased by an amount equal to 3.334 percent
of such amounts.
(E) Scope of application.--The increases in the FMAP for a
Round One Qualifying State and the increases in the cap
amounts under subparagraph (D) under this paragraph shall
apply only for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security
Act and shall not apply with respect to--
(i) disproportionate share hospital payments described in
section 1923 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4);
(ii) payments under title IV or XXI of such Act (42 U.S.C.
601 et seq. and 1397aa et seq.); or
(iii) any payments under XIX of such Act that are based on
the enhanced FMAP described in section 2105(b) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397ee(b)).
(F) State eligibility.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), a Round One
Qualifying State is eligible for an increase in its FMAP
under subparagraph (C) or an increase in a cap amount under
subparagraph (D) only if the eligibility under its State plan
under title XIX of the Social Security Act (including any
waiver under such title or under section 1115 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1315)) is no more restrictive than the eligibility
under such plan (or waiver) as in effect on December 31,
2007.
(ii) State reinstatement of eligibility permitted.--A Round
One Qualifying State that has restricted eligibility under
its State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act
(including any waiver under such title or under section 1115
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) after December 31, 2007, is
eligible for an increase in its FMAP under subparagraph (C)
or an increase in a cap amount under subparagraph (D) in the
first calendar quarter (and subsequent calendar quarters) in
which the State has reinstated eligibility that is no more
restrictive than the eligibility under such plan (or waiver)
as in effect on December 31, 2007.
(iii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in clause (i) or (ii)
shall be construed as affecting a Round One Qualifying
State's flexibility with respect to benefits offered under
the State medicaid program under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) (including any waiver
under such title or under section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1315)).
(G) Requirement for certain states.--In the case of a Round
One Qualifying State that requires political subdivisions
within the State to contribute toward the non-Federal share
of expenditures under the State Medicaid plan required under
section 1902(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(2)), the Round One Qualifying State shall not
require that such political subdivisions pay a greater
percentage of the non-Federal share of such expenditures for
the third and fourth calendar quarters of fiscal year 2008
and the first, second, and third calendar quarters of fiscal
year 2009, than the percentage that would have been required
by the State under such plan on December 31, 2007.
(H) Requirements.--A Round One Qualifying State--
(i) may not use the additional Federal funds paid to the
State as a result of this paragraph for purposes of
increasing any reserve or rainy day fund maintained by the
State; and
(ii) shall expend the additional Federal funds paid to the
State as a result of this paragraph within 1 year of the date
on which the State receives such funds.
(2) Targeted grants to round one qualifying states.--
(A) Appropriation.--There is authorized to be appropriated
and is appropriated for making payments to Round One
Qualifying States under this paragraph--
(i) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(ii) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(B) Payments.--
(i) Fiscal year 2008.--From the amount appropriated under
subparagraph (A)(i) for fiscal year 2008, the Secretary of
the Treasury shall, not later than the later of the date that
is 45 days after the date of enactment of

[[Page S2448]]

this Act or the date that a Round One Qualifying State
provides the certification required by subparagraph (E) for
fiscal year 2008, pay each such State the amount determined
for the State for fiscal year 2008 under subparagraph (C).
(ii) Fiscal year 2009.--From the amount appropriated under
subparagraph (A)(ii) for fiscal year 2009, the Secretary of
the Treasury shall, not later than the later of October 1,
2008, or the date that a Round One Qualifying State provides
the certification required by subparagraph (E) for fiscal
year 2009, pay each such State the amount determined for the
State for fiscal year 2009 under subparagraph (C).
(C) Payments based on population.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the amount
appropriated under subparagraph (A) for each of fiscal years
2008 and 2009 shall be used to pay each Round One Qualifying
State an amount equal to the relative population proportion
amount described in clause (iii) for such fiscal year.
(ii) Minimum payment.--

(I) In general.--No Round One Qualifying State shall
receive a payment under this paragraph for a fiscal year that
is less than--

(aa) in the case of a Round One Qualifying State that is 1
of the 50 States or the District of Columbia, \1/2\ of 1
percent of the amount appropriated for such fiscal year under
subsection (a); and
(bb) in the case of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa, \1/10\ of 1
percent of the amount appropriated for such fiscal year under
subsection (a).

(II) Pro rata adjustments.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall adjust on a pro rata basis the amount of the payments
to Round One Qualifying States determined under this
paragraph without regard to this subclause to the extent
necessary to comply with the requirements of subclause (I).

(iii) Relative population proportion amount.--The relative
population proportion amount described in this clause is the
product of--

(I) the amount described in subparagraph (A) for a fiscal
year; and
(II) the relative State population proportion (as defined
in clause (iv)).

(iv) Relative state population proportion defined.--For
purposes of clause (iii)(II), the term ``relative State
population proportion'' means, with respect to a Round One
Qualifying State, the amount equal to the quotient of--

(I) the population of the State (as reported in the most
recent decennial census); and
(II) the total population of all such States (as reported
in the most recent decennial census).

(D) Use of payment.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), a Round One
Qualifying State shall use the funds provided under a payment
made under this paragraph for a fiscal year to--

(I) provide essential government services;
(II) cover the costs to the State of complying with any
Federal intergovernmental mandate (as defined in section
421(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) to the extent
that the mandate applies to the State, and the Federal
Government has not provided funds to cover the costs; or
(III) compensate for a decline in Federal funding to the
State.

(ii) Requirements.--A Round One Qualifying State--

(I) may only use funds provided under a payment made under
this paragraph for types of expenditures permitted under the
most recently approved budget for the State;
(II) may not use the additional Federal funds paid to the
State as a result of this paragraph for purposes of
increasing any reserve or rainy day fund maintained by the
State; and
(III) shall expend the additional Federal funds paid to the
State as a result of this paragraph within 1 year of the date
on which the State receives such funds.

(E) Certification.--In order to receive a payment under
this section for a fiscal year, a Round One Qualifying State
shall provide the Secretary of the Treasury with a
certification that the State's proposed uses of the funds are
consistent with subparagraph (D).
(c) Assistance for Round Two Qualifying States.--
(1) Temporary increase of medicaid fmap.--
(A) Permitting maintenance of fiscal year 2008 fmap for
first 3 quarters of fiscal year 2009.--Subject to
subparagraph (C), if the FMAP determined without regard to
this paragraph for a Round Two Qualifying State for fiscal
year 2009 is less than the FMAP as so determined for fiscal
year 2008, the FMAP for the State for fiscal year 2008 shall
be substituted for the State's FMAP for the first, second,
and third calendar quarters of fiscal year 2009, before the
application of this paragraph.
(B) General 1.667 percentage points increase for first 3
calendar quarters of fiscal year 2009.--Subject to
subparagraph (C), for each Round Two Qualifying State for the
first, second, and third calendar quarters of fiscal year
2009, the FMAP (taking into account the application of
subparagraph (A)) shall be increased by 1.667 percentage
points.
(C) Application of requirements for round one qualifying
states.--Subparagraphs (E), (F), (G), and (H) of subsection
(b)(1) apply to a Round Two Qualifying State receiving an
increase in its FMAP under subparagraph (B) in the same
manner as such subparagraphs apply to a Round One Qualifying
State under such subsection.
(2) Targeted grants to round two qualifying states.--
(A) Appropriation.--There is authorized to be appropriated
and is appropriated for making payments to Round Two
Qualifying States under this paragraph, $1,000,000,000 for
fiscal year 2009.
(B) Payments.--From the amount appropriated under
subparagraph (A) for fiscal year 2009, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall, not later than the later of October 1, 2008,
or the date that a Round Two Qualifying State provides the
certification required by subparagraph (E) of subsection
(b)(2) for fiscal year 2009, pay each such State the amount
determined for the State for fiscal year 2009 under
subparagraph (C).
(C) Payments based on population.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the amount
appropriated under subparagraph (A) for fiscal year 2009
shall be used to pay each Round Two Qualifying State an
amount equal to the relative population proportion amount
described in clause (iii) for such fiscal year.
(ii) Minimum payment.--

(I) In general.--No Round Two Qualifying State shall
receive a payment under this paragraph for fiscal year 2009
that is less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount
appropriated for such fiscal year under subsection (a).
(II) Pro rata adjustments.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall adjust on a pro rata basis the amount of the payments
to Round Two Qualifying States determined under this
paragraph without regard to this subclause to the extent
necessary to comply with the requirements of subclause (I).

(iii) Relative population proportion amount.--The relative
population proportion amount described in this clause is the
product of--

(I) the amount described in subparagraph (A) for a fiscal
year; and
(II) the relative State population proportion (as defined
in clause (iv)).

(iv) Relative state population proportion defined.--For
purposes of clause (iii)(II), the term ``relative State
population proportion'' means, with respect to a Round Two
Qualifying State, the amount equal to the quotient of--

(I) the population of the State (as reported in the most
recent decennial census); and
(II) the total population of all such States (as reported
in the most recent decennial census).

(D) Application of requirements for round one qualifying
states.--Subparagraphs (D) and (E) of subsection (b)(2) apply
to a Round Two Qualifying State receiving a payment under
subparagraph (B) in the same manner as such subparagraphs
apply to a Round One Qualifying State under such subsection.
(d) Repeal.--Effective as of October 1, 2009, this section
is repealed.
______

BY Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Graham):
S. 2820. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act to extend and expand the number of States qualifying for
supplemental grants under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
bipartisan reauthorization and expansion for the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families, TANF, Supplemental Grants with my colleague,
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
The TANF Supplemental Grants will expire this year without action.
Currently 17 States depend on these grants, but our legislation would
expand and improve on the grants. Welfare reform was passed in 1996,
and since then neither the basic TANF Block Grant nor the TANF
Supplemental Grant has been increased. This means that the value of the
TANF funding in constant dollars has declined by almost 20 percent.
In 2010, Congress will need to review the entire TANF program, but
between now and then our legislation seeks to provide modest help for
States that are struggling to serve vulnerable children in needy
families. Our legislation would provide a modest increase for any State
which spends less than the national average per underprivileged child
on TANF activities of Federal and State resources. This would help
States that cannot meet the average ``catch up,'' and provide more
services to underprivileged children. To be reasonable, the increase is
capped at $10 million or 10 percent of their existing TANF grant for
States that have never received a TANF Supplemental Grant. For States
that are receiving a TANF Supplemental Grant, they could qualify for up
to $2.5 million in additional funding or 2.5 percent of their existing
TANF grant.
This is a modest but important effort to help every state provide for
vulnerable children who are receiving less

[[Page S2449]]

than that national average for an underprivileged child. This proposal
should help the most vulnerable at a time when the economic slowdown is
creating more obstacles for families to make a successful transition
from welfare to work.
In West Virginia, our neediest children are not even receiving the
average amount spent on America's underprivileged children, and that is
true in too many States. Our children and families are struggling to
meet the bold goals of welfare reform with fewer resources and tougher
standards. This reauthorization is a chance to help those States that
are struggling to achieve the national average for funding. It would be
base funding for underprivileged children rather than population
growth. It will target resources to vulnerable children.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the reauthorization
of the TANF Supplemental Grant program. Today Senator Rockefeller and I
introduced legislation that would reauthorize these grants and more
accurately ensure that the dollars spent on this program are directed
to poor children in the States that need it most.
I am committed to ensuring that Federal dollars spent on welfare
services and benefits are spent efficiently and provided to our
citizens in a way that encourages self-sufficiency. In South Carolina,
I am pleased that our Department of Social Services continues to work
toward that end. Currently, less than half of States' TANF block grants
are spent on welfare checks, and the majority of funding is spent on
moving welfare recipients into the workforce. More and more States are
using TANF dollars to help beneficiaries purchase services such as
childcare, transportation and job training.
However, the neediest States continue to struggle to provide welfare-
to-work services to poor families with children. South Carolina can
only afford to spend 29 percent of the national average per poor child
on TANF services compared to some States that spend well over the
national average. It is important that this discrepancy be addressed.
The TANF Supplemental Grant program was created in 1996 to provide
additional assistance to States that spend less money per poor person
on TANF services. However, many States, like South Carolina, spend well
below the national average and do not qualify for this assistance. To
date, South Carolina has the lowest spending per poor person of any
State in the country that does not receive a supplemental grant. Many
States that do receive supplemental grants spend more than twice the
TANF funds per poor person than South Carolina.
The Supplemental Grant program will expire on September 30, 2008.
Reauthorizing this program is an opportunity to provide assistance,
based on updated statistics, to States, like South Carolina, that
cannot afford to spend the national average per poor child on TANF
services. Especially during economically challenging times, providing
this assistance to States can help our neediest families with children
to get back on their feet and back to work.
In working to pass this legislation, I look forward to collaborating
with the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Rockefeller on
identifying an appropriate mechanism to offset the costs of this
proposal. I am hopeful that the Senate will consider this legislation
in a timely manner.

____________________