[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2080-S2084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Burr,
and Ms. Collins):
S. 402. A bill to improve the lives of our Nation's veterans and
their families and provide them with the opportunity to achieve the
American dream; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Baucus, Senator
Lincoln, Senator Burr, and Senator Collins to introduce the Keeping Our
Promise to America's Military Veterans Act. Quite simply, my colleagues
and I strongly believe that Congress must remain focused on fully
supporting our veterans and their families in the 111th Congress. As we
begin this new Congress, our legislative priorities should reflect the
unending gratitude of the American people for the sacrifices of our
veterans and their families in defending the Nation and our way of
life.
To date, the war on terrorism has already generated nearly 1 million
discharged veterans and their ranks will grow with nearly 300,000 new
veterans per year. The Congress must not waver in our commitment of
support for their service, as well as the service and sacrifices of
each of our citizens who have taken that extra step and donned the
uniform of this great Nation. The bill that we are introducing would
express the sense of Congress that legislation should be enacted in the
111th Congress to improve the lives of our Nation's veterans and their
families and provide them with the opportunity to achieve the American
dream, including legislation to assure funding for medical care and for
timely and accurate adjudication of all benefit claims, to assure
accesses to high quality treatment for PTSD and TBI conditions, and to
assure a seamless transition for veterans and their families from
military to civilian life.
As we consider legislation for this Congress, I point out, for
example, the problem of providing the VA health care system with
funding in a timely and predictable manner. With the exception of last
year, VA appropriations have historically not met this simple standard.
To correct this problem, I have supported, and will continue to support
measures to make VA appropriations mandatory, or to provide advance
appropriations to the VA. Neither are new budget concepts, but rather a
means of achieving timely, predictable, and sufficient funding of VA
health care via the current annual appropriations process. I joined
with a number of senators in the last Congress, including then-Senator
Barack Obama, on legislation to provide advance appropriations to the
VA, and will continue to work to this end in the 111th.
Of the many challenges on which this Congress must act in the weeks
and months ahead, we believe that it is imperative that we not waver in
our support for our Nation's veterans and their families. I sincerely
hope that my colleagues will join Senator Baucus, Senator Lincoln,
Senator Burr, Senator Collins, and me and offer their support for this
important legislation.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Burris):
S. 404. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand
veteran eligibility for reimbursement by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs for emergency treatment furnished in a non-Department facility,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to correct a
deficiency in the law governing health care for veterans. Under current
law, originally enacted on November 30, 1999, a veteran who is enrolled
in VA's health care system can be reimbursed for emergency treatment
received at a non-VA hospital. However, the statute only permits such
VA reimbursement if the veteran has no other outside health insurance,
no matter how limited that other coverage might be.
This sole payor provision means that a veteran who has any insurance
is not entitled to reimbursement from VA for emergency medical
treatment received at a non-VA facility. This is true even if the
veteran's insurance policy does not cover the full amount owed.
The bill I am introducing would amend current law so that a veteran
who has outside insurance would be eligible for reimbursement in the
event that any outside insurance does not cover the full amount of the
emergency care. VA would be authorized to cover the difference between
the amount the veteran's insurance will pay and the total cost of care.
In essence, VA would become the payor of last resort in such cases.
This would keep the veteran from being burdened by exorbitant medical
fees with no insurance with which to pay them.
In addition to amending current law in a prospective manner, this
legislation would also allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
retroactively apply this law to emergency treatment received between
the effective date of the current law and the date of enactment of the
legislation I am introducing today.
One example of the sort of case to which this discretionary authority
might apply is one that came to the Committee's attention involving a
disabled Vietnam veteran who was in a serious motorcycle accident which
led to a medical bill for emergency room care of over $100,000. This
veteran, who lived in Illinois, had state mandated auto insurance which
included a medical benefit of $10,000. Since he had this other
insurance, VA was precluded from paying for his care and the veteran
was personally responsible for the difference between the amount
covered by his state-required policy and the total charge for his care.
Had this veteran
[[Page S2081]]
had no insurance at all, VA would have paid the entire amount.
I urge our colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and to work with
me and the other members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to address
this gap in VA benefits.
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. 404
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 ``Veterans' Emergency Care
Fairness Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF VETERAN ELIGIBILITY FOR REIMBURSEMENT BY
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR EMERGENCY
TREATMENT FURNISHED IN A NON-DEPARTMENT
FACILITY.
(a) Expansion of Eligibility.--Subsection (b)(3)(C) of
section 1725 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``, in whole or in part,''.
(b) Limitations on Reimbursement.--Such section 1725 is
further amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4)(A) If the veteran has contractual or legal recourse
against a third party that would, in part, extinguish the
veteran's liability to the provider of the emergency
treatment and payment for the treatment may be made both
under subsection (a) and by the third party, the amount
payable for such treatment under such subsection shall be the
amount by which the costs for the emergency treatment exceed
the amount payable or paid by the third party, except that
the amount payable may not exceed the maximum amount payable
established under paragraph (1)(A).
``(B) In any case in which a third party is financially
responsible for part of the veteran's emergency treatment
expenses, the Secretary shall be the secondary payer.
``(C) A payment in the amount payable under subparagraph
(A) shall be considered payment in full and shall extinguish
the veteran's liability to the provider.
``(D) The Secretary may not reimburse a veteran under this
section for any copayment or similar payment that the veteran
owes the third party or for which the veteran is responsible
under a health-plan contract.''; and
(2) in subsection (f)(3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, including the Secretary of Health
and Human Services with respect to the Medicare program under
title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq.) and the Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, including a State Medicaid agency
with respect to payments made under a State plan for medical
assistance approved under title XIX of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396 et seq.)''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and
(b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act, and shall apply with respect to emergency treatment
furnished on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Reimbursement for treatment before effective date.--The
Secretary may provide reimbursement under section 1725 of
title 38, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a)
and (b) for emergency treatment furnished before the date of
the enactment of this Act if the Secretary determines that,
under the circumstances applicable with respect to the
veteran, it is appropriate to do so.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Brown, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 405. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
that a deduction equal to fair market value shall be allowed for
charitable contributions of literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly
compositions created by the donor; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we reintroduce the Artist-Museum
Partnership Act, and once again, I am pleased to be joined in this
effort by my good friend Senator Bennett from Utah.
This bipartisan legislation would enable our country to keep
cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our
public institutions. At the same time, this legislation will erase an
inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for
artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. We have
introduced this same bill in each of the past five Congresses, and I am
hopeful that this will be our year. In the past, our bill has been
included in the Senate-passed version of the 2001 tax reconciliation
bill, the Senate-passed version of the 2003 Charity Aid, Recovery, and
Empowerment Act, and the Senate-passed version of the 2005 tax
reconciliation bill. I would like to thank Senators Bayh, Boxer, Brown,
Cochran, Dodd, Durbin, Johnson, Kennedy, Sanders, Schumer, and
Whitehouse for cosponsoring this non-partisan bill.
Our bill is sensible and straightforward. It would allow artists,
writers, and composers to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market
value of the works they donate to museums and libraries. This is
something that collectors who make similar donations are already able
to do. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are
only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper and
ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair
to artists, and it hurts museums and libraries large and small that are
dedicated to preserving works for posterity. If we as a nation want to
ensure that works of art created by living artists are available to the
public in the future for study and for pleasure this is something that
artists should be allowed to do.
In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works
produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in
the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and
libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters, and
strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty, and its
cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum
or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a
greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result,
knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of
them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country.
Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a
deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress
changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969.
Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums
and cultural institutions. For example, prior to the enactment of the
1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music
Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his
papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can
no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. Losses to
the public like this are an unintended consequence of the 1969 tax bill
that should be corrected.
Congress changed the law for artists more than 30 years ago in
response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of
the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that
time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse
of fair market value determinations.
Under our legislation, artists who donate their own paintings,
manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions would be subject
to the same new rules that all taxpayer/collectors who donate such
works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as
to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers,
and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue
Service's Art Advisory Panel.
In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries,
which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to
display. The institution must certify that it intends to put the work
to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For
example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be
used by that organization for educational purposes and could not be
sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be
donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not
intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting
the recipient's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally,
the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the
portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar
works or related activities.
[[Page S2082]]
This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment
of self-created works--how the same work is treated before and after an
artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs
of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible
from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition,
when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed
on the fair market value.
I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan
legislation. The time has come for us to correct an unintended
consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the
donations of art works by their creators. This bill will make a crucial
difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather
than sell it to a private party where it may become lost to the public
forever.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous cnsent 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. 405
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 ``Artist-Museum Partnership
Act''.
SEC. 2. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CERTAIN ITEMS CREATED BY
THE TAXPAYER.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 170 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain
contributions of ordinary income and capital gain property)
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Special rule for certain contributions of literary,
musical, or artistic compositions.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a qualified artistic
charitable contribution--
``(i) the amount of such contribution shall be the fair
market value of the property contributed (determined at the
time of such contribution), and
``(ii) no reduction in the amount of such contribution
shall be made under paragraph (1).
``(B) Qualified artistic charitable contribution.--For
purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified artistic
charitable contribution' means a charitable contribution of
any literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly composition, or
similar property, or the copyright thereon (or both), but
only if--
``(i) such property was created by the personal efforts of
the taxpayer making such contribution no less than 18 months
prior to such contribution,
``(ii) the taxpayer--
``(I) has received a qualified appraisal of the fair market
value of such property in accordance with the regulations
under this section, and
``(II) attaches to the taxpayer's income tax return for the
taxable year in which such contribution was made a copy of
such appraisal,
``(iii) the donee is an organization described in
subsection (b)(1)(A),
``(iv) the use of such property by the donee is related to
the purpose or function constituting the basis for the
donee's exemption under section 501 (or, in the case of a
governmental unit, to any purpose or function described under
subsection (c)),
``(v) the taxpayer receives from the donee a written
statement representing that the donee's use of the property
will be in accordance with the provisions of clause (iv), and
``(vi) the written appraisal referred to in clause (ii)
includes evidence of the extent (if any) to which property
created by the personal efforts of the taxpayer and of the
same type as the donated property is or has been--
``(I) owned, maintained, and displayed by organizations
described in subsection (b)(1)(A), and
``(II) sold to or exchanged by persons other than the
taxpayer, donee, or any related person (as defined in section
465(b)(3)(C)).
``(C) Maximum dollar limitation; no carryover of increased
deduction.--The increase in the deduction under this section
by reason of this paragraph for any taxable year--
``(i) shall not exceed the artistic adjusted gross income
of the taxpayer for such taxable year, and
``(ii) shall not be taken into account in determining the
amount which may be carried from such taxable year under
subsection (d).
``(D) Artistic adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `artistic adjusted gross income' means
that portion of the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for
the taxable year attributable to--
``(i) income from the sale or use of property created by
the personal efforts of the taxpayer which is of the same
type as the donated property, and
``(ii) income from teaching, lecturing, performing, or
similar activity with respect to property described in clause
(i).
``(E) Paragraph not to apply to certain contributions.--
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any charitable
contribution of any letter, memorandum, or similar property
which was written, prepared, or produced by or for an
individual while the individual is an officer or employee of
any person (including any government agency or
instrumentality) unless such letter, memorandum, or similar
property is entirely personal.
``(F) Copyright treated as separate property for partial
interest rule.--In the case of a qualified artistic
charitable contribution, the tangible literary, musical,
artistic, or scholarly composition, or similar property and
the copyright on such work shall be treated as separate
properties for purposes of this paragraph and subsection
(f)(3).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after the date of the
enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such
date.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Senator from
Vermont today to introduce the Artist-Museum Partnership Act. He and I
have introduced this legislation in the past, and we hope that our
colleagues will see this bill for what it is: a reasonable solution to
an unintentional inequity in our Tax Code.
This legislation would allow living artists to deduct the fair-market
value of their art work when they contribute their work to museums or
other public institutions. As the Tax Code is currently written, art
collectors are able to deduct the fair market value of any piece of art
they donate to a museum, but the artist who created the work is only
able to deduct the material cost, which may be nothing more than a
canvas, a tube of paint, and a wooden frame, if he or she donated their
art to a museum. Thus, there exists a disincentive for artists to
donate their work to museums. The solution is simple: treat collectors
and artists the same way. This bill would do just that.
Certainly, this bill would benefit artists, but more importantly, the
beneficiaries would be the museums that would receive the artwork and
the general public who would be able to view it in a timely manner.
This change in the Tax Code would increase the number of original
pieces donated to public institutions, giving scholars greater access
to an artist's work during the lifetime of that artist, as well as
provide for an increase in the public display of such work.
I would like to thank Senator Leahy for his work on this bill. I urge
my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. The benefit of
the Artist-Museum Partnership Act to our Nation's cultural and artistic
heritage cannot be overstated. This minor correction to the Tax Code is
long overdue, and the Senate should act on this legislation to remedy
the problem.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Casey):
S. 406. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide Medicaid coverage of drugs prescribed for certain research
study child participants; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce Nino's Act, to provide for the continuance of successful
treatment for children who are required to leave National Institutes of
Health, NIH, research studies. The NIH provides the greatest medical
research in the world on innumerable diseases, including cancer,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. The NIH also conducts excellent research on
diseases that affect children. To conduct that research many brave
children must partake in research studies including observational, or
natural history, studies and clinical trials to test experimental
therapies. This participation is critical to understanding diseases and
ultimately finding cures at the NIH.
To participate in the trials and studies, children and their families
often make considerable sacrifices. Families will travel great
distances to receive treatment that may provide relief from the child's
illness. In many cases, parents and doctors will have tried many
treatments for the child's disease about which little may be known or
understood. The NIH studies represent an opportunity for both the
medical community to learn more about the disease and the child to be
studied and potentially treated by the best researchers in the world.
When the experimental treatments are successful, it is cause for
great celebration for the child. The joy, however, can end quickly as
the studies come to end but the children who have been part of them
continue to be stricken by these terrible illnesses.
[[Page S2083]]
Nino's Act seeks to transition children out of the NIH studies as
they end so they don't experience a gap in their important treatment.
This legislation continues the successful treatment initiated in NIH
studies by providing access to the same prescription drugs for children
who are required to leave NIH clinical studies due to the studies
ending, researcher leaving, or other reason. Often drugs that are used
successfully in these studies have not yet been approved by the Food
and Drug Administration or have not been approved for treatment of the
child's specific disease. As such, it is nearly impossible for children
to get access or insurance coverage for these drugs. This bill makes
that access possible by requiring Medicaid to cover the cost of
treatment in the event that the children's health insurance does not.
On occasion, insurers will cover the cost of the treatment for these
children if they have adequate insurance and the FDA has approved the
drug for off-label uses. More often than not, however, children do not
have health insurance, or have insufficient insurance to obtain these
drugs. As a result, children suffer their diseases without relief from
the treatment as established in the clinical NIH studies. To ensure
that these children have access to successful care post-study, Nino's
Act requires Medicaid to cover the cost of treatment for these
children. While Medicaid access is traditionally based on income, due
to the importance of these drugs to the child's well-being the income
component will be waived. To ensure Medicaid is not unnecessarily
covering medication, Nino's Act requires the physicians participating
in the research to certify the treatment as successful and essential.
This important issue was introduced to me by Lori Todaro of Newville,
PA. Lori's son Nino suffers from Undifferentiated Auto-Inflammatory
Periodic Fever Syndrome. This disease takes a devastating toll on those
who suffer from it. The auto-inflammatory disease can cause joint
inflammation arthritis, Crohns, colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, and
cyclical high fevers. Treatment for Periodic Fever Syndrome is
experimental at best; Lori and Nino have visited a number of doctors
and tried many medications in an effort to control the disease.
In 2003, Nino was fortunate to be selected to take part in an
observational study at NIH in Bethesda, Maryland for Undifferentiated
Auto-Inflammatory Periodic Fever Syndrome. During the course of the
study, Nino was given a new medication and his condition greatly
improved. Before he participated in the study he was being fitted for
wheelchairs and was home schooled because his symptoms were so
disruptive and unpredictable. The NIH treatment allowed him to resume a
normal life and enabled him to attend school and play soccer. While
Nino's treatment was successful he could not remain part of the study
indefinitely and was encouraged to seek coverage for his treatments
through his private insurer. Initially, the Todaro's insurer would not
agree to cover the cost of the experimental drug and only after an
intense lobbying effort by Lori, did the insurer agree to cover Nino's
prescriptions.
Nino's story is a successful one, but also serves to highlight the
issue that children and their families are facing as they transition
out of NIH studies. For many, NIH trials are a source of hope for
relief from the worst diseases known to man. The excellent doctors and
research teams at NIH make invaluable contributions to our
understanding of complex and debilitating diseases. This legislation
seeks to amplify the NIH's contributions by allowing America's sickest
children to continue their successful treatment under Medicaid
coverage. I encourage my colleagues to work with Senator Casey and me
to move this legislation forward promptly.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Webb, Mr. Tester, Mr.
Begich, Mr. Burris, Mr. Specter, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Johanns, and Mr. Graham):
S. 407. A bill to increase, effective as of December 1, 2009, the
rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities
and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the
survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-
Living Adjustment Act of 2009. This measure would direct the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 2009, the rates
of veterans' compensation to keep pace with the rising cost-of-living
in this country. The rate adjustment is equal to that provided on an
annual basis to Social Security recipients and is based on the Consumer
Price Index.
All of my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including
Senators Burr, Rockefeller, Murray, Sanders, Brown, Webb, Tester,
Begich, Burris, Specter, Isakson, Wicker, Johanns, and Graham join me
in introducing this important legislation. I appreciate their continued
support of our nation's veterans.
Congress regularly enacts an annual cost-of-living adjustment for
veterans' compensation in order to ensure that inflation does not erode
the purchasing power of the veterans and their families who depend upon
this income to meet their daily needs. This past year Congress passed,
and the President signed into law, Public Law 110-324, which resulted
in a COLA increase of 5.8 percent for 2009. The 2010 COLA has not yet
been determined.
The COLA affects, among other benefits, veterans' disability
compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving
spouses and children. Many of the more than 3 million recipients of
those benefits depend upon these tax-free payments not only to provide
for their own basic needs, but those of their spouses and children as
well. Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans and their
families would see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly
diminish, and we, as a Congress, would be neglecting our duty to ensure
that those who sacrificed so much for this country receive the benefits
and services to which they are entitled.
It is important that we view veterans' compensation, including the
annual COLA, and indeed all benefits earned by veterans, as a
continuing cost of war. It is clear that the ongoing conflicts in Iraq
and Afghanistan will continue to result in injuries and disabilities
that will yield an increase in claims for compensation. Currently,
there are nearly 3 million veterans in receipt of VA disability
compensation.
Disbursement of disability compensation to our nation's veterans
constitutes one of the central missions of the Department of Veterans
Affairs. It is a necessary measure of appreciation afforded to those
veterans whose lives were forever altered by their service to this
country.
I urge our colleagues to support passage of this COLA increase. I
also ask our colleagues for their continued support for our nation's
veterans.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Veterans'
Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2009. As the Ranking
Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to
join the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Akaka, and all of the
Committee's members in introducing this important bill.
As part of its mission to ``care for him who shall have borne the
battle, and for his widow, and his orphan,'' the Department of Veterans
Affairs, VA, provides a range of benefits to veterans and their
families. These benefits include disability compensation for veterans
who suffer from disabilities incurred in or aggravated by their
military service and dependency and indemnity compensation for the
spouses or children of disabled or deceased veterans. Although we can
never fully repay them for their service or sacrifices, these payments
may help ease their financial burdens and improve the quality of their
lives.
The bill we are introducing today will ensure that more than 3
million veterans and their family members--including more than 130,000
in my home state of North Carolina--will receive a cost-of-living
increase in their VA benefits this year. These annual increases help
ensure that the value of the benefits provided by a grateful nation
will not decline over time as a result of inflation.
[[Page S2084]]
Last year, I was proud to support the enactment of the Veterans'
Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008, which resulted in a
5.8 percent increase in VA benefits. Under this bill, the amount of the
increase for 2009 would be the same as that provided to Social Security
recipients, which will be announced later this year.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Conrad,
Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 408. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide a
means for continued improvement in emergency medical services for
children; to the committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. Today, along with my colleagues, Senators
Hatch, Kennedy, Conrad, Dorgan, and Akaka, I introduce The Wakefield
Act, also known as the Emergency Medical Services for Children Act of
2009. Since Senator Hatch and I worked toward authorization of EMSC in
1984, this program has become the impetus for improving children's
emergency services nationwide. From specialized training for emergency
care providers to ensuring ambulances and emergency departments have
state-of-the-art pediatric sized equipment, EMSC has served as the
vehicle for improving survival of our smallest and most vulnerable
citizens when accidents or medical emergencies threatened their lives.
It remains no secret that children present unique anatomic,
physiologic, emotional and developmental challenges to our primarily
adult-oriented emergency medical system. As has been said many times
before, children are not little adults. Evaluation and treatment must
take into account their special needs, or we risk letting them fall
through the gap between adult and pediatric care. The EMSC has bridged
that gap while fostering collaborative relationships among emergency
medical technicians, paramedics, nurses, emergency physicians,
surgeons, and pediatricians.
The Institute of Medicine's recently released study on Emergency Care
for Children indicated that our Nation is not as well prepared as once
we thought. Only 6 percent of all emergency departments have the
essential pediatric supplies and equipment necessary to manage
pediatric emergencies. Many of the providers of emergency care have
received fragmented and limited training in the skills necessary to
resuscitate this specialized population. Even our disaster preparedness
plans have not fully addressed the unique needs posed by children
injured in such events.
EMSC remains the only federal program dedicated to examining the best
ways to deliver various forms of care to children in emergency
settings. Reauthorization of EMSC will ensure that children's needs
will be given the due attention they deserve and that coordination and
expansion of services for victims of life-threatening illnesses and
injuries will be available throughout the United States.
I look forward to reauthorization of this important legislation and
the continued advances in our emergency healthcare delivery system.
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
placed in the Record, as follows:
S. 408
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 ``Wakefield Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There are 31,000,000 child and adolescent visits to the
Nation's emergency departments every year.
(2) Over 90 percent of children requiring emergency care
are seen in general hospitals, not in free-standing
children's hospitals, with one-quarter to one-third of the
patients being children in the typical general hospital
emergency department.
(3) Severe asthma and respiratory distress are the most
common emergencies for pediatric patients, representing
nearly one-third of all hospitalizations among children under
the age of 15 years, while seizures, shock, and airway
obstruction are the other common pediatric emergencies,
followed by cardiac arrest and severe trauma.
(4) Up to 20 percent of children needing emergency care
have underlying medical conditions such as asthma, diabetes,
sickle-cell disease, low birth weight, and bronchopulmonary
dysplasia.
(5) Significant gaps remain in emergency medical care
delivered to children. Only about 6 percent of hospitals have
available all the pediatric supplies deemed essential by the
American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of
Emergency Physicians for managing pediatric emergencies,
while about half of hospitals have at least 85 percent of
those supplies.
(6) Providers must be educated and trained to manage
children's unique physical and psychological needs in
emergency situations, and emergency systems must be equipped
with the resources needed to care for this especially
vulnerable population.
(7) Systems of care must be continually maintained,
updated, and improved to ensure that research is translated
into practice, best practices are adopted, training is
current, and standards and protocols are appropriate.
(8) The Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC)
Program under section 1910 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 300w-9) is the only Federal program that focuses
specifically on improving the pediatric components of
emergency medical care.
(9) The EMSC Program promotes the nationwide exchange of
pediatric emergency medical care knowledge and collaboration
by those with an interest in such care and is depended upon
by Federal agencies and national organizations to ensure that
this exchange of knowledge and collaboration takes place.
(10) The EMSC Program also supports a multi-institutional
network for research in pediatric emergency medicine, thus
allowing providers to rely on evidence rather than anecdotal
experience when treating ill or injured children.
(11) The Institute of Medicine stated in its 2006 report,
``Emergency Care for Children: Growing Pains'', that the EMSC
Program ``boasts many accomplishments . . . and the work of
the program continues to be relevant and vital''.
(12) The EMSC Program is celebrating its 25th anniversary,
marking a quarter-century of driving key improvements in
emergency medical services to children, and should continue
its mission to reduce child and youth morbidity and mortality
by supporting improvements in the quality of all emergency
medical and emergency surgical care children receive.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to reduce child
and youth morbidity and mortality by supporting improvements
in the quality of all emergency medical care children
receive.
SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR
CHILDREN PROGRAM.
Section 1910 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300w-9) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``3-year period (with an
optional 4th year'' and inserting ``4-year period (with an
optional 5th year''; and
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``and such sums'' and inserting ``such
sums''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``,
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, $26,250,000 for fiscal year
2011, $27,562,500 for fiscal year 2012, $28,940,625 for
fiscal year 2013, and $30,387,656 for fiscal year 2014''.
____________________