[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.

                          ____________________