[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 19 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S629-S634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Ms. Collins):
S. 300. A bill to prevent abuse of Government charge cards; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we often use the metaphor of credit
cards to talk about uncontrolled government spending, but in some
cases, wasteful government spending is quite literally enabled by the
use of charge cards in the hands of government bureaucrats. That is why
I am reintroducing the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act.
This legislation will ensure that Federal departments and agencies have
in place, and keep in place, the kinds of safeguards necessary to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse with government issued charge
[[Page S630]]
cards. We have made a lot of progress since I first started shining the
spotlight on this issue with the help of the Government Accountability
Office, GAO. This legislation will secure the gains we have made to
prevent any backsliding while adding in extra mechanisms to prevent and
detect misuse of government charge cards.
In 1998, the General Service Administration, GSA, entered into a
contract with a set of commercial banks to utilize charge cards, not
unlike those used by businesses large and small and millions of
consumers worldwide. This is called the SmartPay program. These
government charge cards include government purchase cards, which are
used for acquisition of commercial goods and services by agencies and
paid directly by the agency, and government travel cards, which are
used to pay for individual government travel expenses and issued in the
name of individual government employees.
Government charge cards were intended as a low cost method to
streamline government acquisition and travel processes. The whole idea
was to adopt the best practices of the commercial sector. In the
business sector, charge cards have been a success. They save time and
money. The main reason they work so well is because the control
environment in the private sector is rock solid and accountability is a
fact of life. When a business is spending its own money, it is going to
be sure that it accounts for every penny or it won't stay in business.
As a result, corporate America, if an employee is caught abusing a
card, they'll lose it or get fired.
It is certainly a good idea for government to learn lessons from the
business sector. However, there are certain fundamental differences
between the private sector and the governmental sector that call for
extra vigilance, mainly the fact that government spends other people's
money. Human nature being what it is, most people are not nearly as
careful spending other people's money as they would be spending their
own.
Sure enough, when the SmartPay program was first implemented,
Federal departments and agencies did not take near the care that a
private business would when handing out company charge cards. When I
started looking into this with the GAO, we uncovered blatant examples
of wasteful spending. Government employees were using their government-
issued charge cards to bypass any authorization and approval procedures
and purchase items that had nothing to with their official duties. We
are talking about LA-Z-Boy reclining chairs, kitchen appliances, and
even a sapphire ring being paid for with government purchase cards, and
with the American taxpayer paying the bill no questions asked.
Government travel cards have been used for gambling, sporting events,
concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels.
While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like
purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in
the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government.
Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt,
they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else.
A series of GAO reports over the last decade have identified an
inadequate and inconsistent control environment across numerous Federal
agencies with respect to both government purchase cards and government
travel cards. This has led to millions of dollars in taxpayers' money
wasted. In some cases purchases were outright fraudulent, and others
were of questionable need or were unnecessarily expensive. In each
report it has issued, the GAO has made recommendations about what kind
of controls need to be implemented to prevent such abuses from
occurring in the future. In many cases, the same controls were often
missing or inadequate, and therefore the same recommendations are
repeated in report after report. One agency would promise to clean up
its act, but then we would find the exact same problems with another.
That is why I worked to develop legislation that would incorporate
GAO's recommendations regarding some of the most basic controls needed
in every agency to prevent abuse of government charge cards.
As a result of the pressure applied by the relentless oversight of
Congress, the GAO, and agency Inspectors General, we have seen some
progress toward establishing a better control environment. In fact, the
Office of Management and Budget has issued to Federal agencies a
circular that seeks to bring about many of the controls we identified.
However, this progress would not have been possible without the
continual spotlight being shone on the problem and the threat of
congressional action.
In addition to requiring the most important internal controls across
the government, the bill requires all Federal agencies to establish
penalties for violations, including dismissal when circumstances
warrant. This is necessary not only so that taxpayers know that those
who would squander their money are held accountable, but also to send a
message to other government employees that such behavior will not be
tolerated. The bill also increases oversight by providing that each
agency Inspector General periodically conduct risk assessments and
audits to identify fraud and improper use of government charge cards.
We have had great success working with Inspectors General using
techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of
government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis
will help maintain and strengthen a rigorous system of internal
controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with
government charge cards.
This legislation has been revised a number of times with considerable
input from the GAO as well as the Inspector General community and other
stakeholders. In crafting the very carefully thought out bill before us
today, I have appreciated the help and support provided by Chairman
Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, who have again joined me as
original cosponsors of this bill. The version I have introduced today
is the same bill that passed the Senate in the last Congress and I look
forward to seeing it pass both houses of Congress and enacted into law
in the very near future. That day, the American taxpayers will be able
to rest just a little easier knowing that at least one avenue to
potentially waste their hard earned money has been blocked.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 302. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue
right-of-way permits for a natural gas transmission pipeline in
nonwilderness areas within the boundary of Denali National Park, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation
that I first offered in 2009 to authorize a right-of-way for
construction of an Alaska in-state natural gas pipeline. The bill is
being co-sponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Sen. Mark Begich. The
pipeline would run along the State's main highway from Fairbanks to
Anchorage, including 7 miles of highway through Denali National Park
and Preserve.
While many in this body are familiar with plans for a large-volume
natural gas pipeline to run from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the
Lower 48 States, there is concern that the large-diameter pipeline will
not be finished in time to provide needed gas to Southcentral Alaska--
gas that is vital for electric generation in Anchorage, the Mat-Su
Borough, and Kenai Peninsula.
Currently, electricity in Alaska's southern Railbelt, as it is
called, is largely generated by burning natural gas produced from the
gas fields in Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. Cook Inlet production has
been falling for years and businesses have been forced to close as a
result.
Serious concerns exist regarding the region's ability to produce
sufficient gas for electric generation and home heating for Alaska's
most populated area as early as the winter of 2014-15.
Given the pace of planning for construction of the main line, it is
unlikely that a larger Alaska natural gas pipeline will be able to
deliver gas until 2020 or later--6 or more years too late to aid
Southcentral Alaska's growing need for natural gas. Thus, to provide a
reliable natural gas supply, Alaska is considering investing in a
smaller pipeline to meet medium term demand.
[[Page S631]]
There are two proposals for small-diameter, 24-inch, in-state
pipelines. One would run along the Richardson and Glenn Highways to the
east, tying into existing transmission systems near Palmer, Alaska.
The other ``bullet'' line, is the pipeline of concern in this
legislation. It would run from Alaska's North Slope region, past
Fairbanks, along the Parks Highway to the Mat-Su Valley near Anchorage,
bringing about 500 million cubic feet of gas a day to Southcentral
Alaska. This project would be completed well in advance of when a
larger-diameter pipeline might be in service to deliver 4 to 4.5
billion cubic feet a day to Lower 48 markets.
The shortest and most logical route for a pipeline through or around
the roughly 10-mile bottleneck of the Nenana River Canyon and Denali
National Park and Preserve follows the existing highway, 7 miles of
which pass through the Park. This route causes the least environmental
and visual impact due to its location in an existing corridor, and
provides a route that is easily accessible for routine pipeline
maintenance.
This route would be the least expensive to construct and operate.
Moreover, it would offer several environmental advantages. Building the
pipeline along the existing, previously disturbed Parks Highway right-
of-way, would allow for electricity generation from natural gas in the
park facilities at Denali. For the first time, reasonably priced
compressed natural gas, CNG, would be available to power park vehicles.
Currently, National Park Service permitted diesel tour buses travel 1
million road miles annually. Converting the buses to CNG would
significantly reduce air emissions in the park.
Another benefit is that in order for the pipe to cross the Nenana
River, a new bridge will need to be built. The bridge would provide a
pedestrian access/bicycle path for visitors who otherwise must walk
along the heavily traveled highway.
For these reasons, 8 environmental groups have expressed support for
pipeline construction along the existing highway right-of-way through
Denali Park. These groups are the National Parks and Conservation
Association, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the Denali Citizens
Council, The Wilderness Society, Cook Inlet Keeper, the Alaska Center
for the Environment, the Wrangell Mountain Center, and the Alaska
Wildlife Alliance.
Last year, the State of Alaska finished a preliminary study of the
project. It continues to consider whether to permit and facilitate a
``bullet'' line project, compared to other options, in order to meet
future Southcentral power needs. Alaska state regulators and financial
markets will ultimately decide which pipeline projects will go forward.
It is my desire, however, to introduce legislation that would clear
legal impediments to planning for the Parks Highway route.
Approval of the right-of-way would remove a key unknown and provide
greater certainty in the cost estimates and the timing for a project.
Eliminating the uncertainty of permitting and regulatory delays will
enable the Parks Highway route to compete on a level playing field with
other pipeline projects.
In 2009, this bill was modified to meet concerns voiced by the
environmental community, congressional staff, and the National Park
Service. The version reintroduced today was approved unanimously by the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and added to the American
Clean Energy Leadership Act that passed from the Committee on June 17,
2009. The provision, according to the Congressional Budget Office, had
nominal fiscal impacts when scored as part of the larger bill--S. 1462.
With the pressing need of Southcentral Alaskans in mind for natural
gas, I implore this body to quickly approve this legislation in the
112th Session.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 303. A bill to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
to require the Bureau of Land Management to provide a claimant of a
small miner waiver from claim maintenance fees with a period of 60 days
after written receipt of 1 or more defects is provided to the claimant
by registered mail to cure the 1 or more defects or pay the claim
maintenance fee, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce
legislation, being cosponsored by my colleague Senator Mark Begich from
Alaska, to clarify Federal mining law and remedy a problem that has
arisen from the extension process for ``small'' miner land claims.
Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f),
holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee
originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of
September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $125 per
claim. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver
for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do
not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their
claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the
claim, Dec. 31st each year, certifying that they had performed more
than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C.
28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner
waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the
claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written
notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management
to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee
due for such a period.''
Since the last revision to the law last decade, there have been a
series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their
applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due
to clerical error by BLM staff, mailing delays or for unexplained
reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been
received in a timely fashion--and that BLM has then moved to terminate
the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have
argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has
argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been
received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy
for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues
resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications.
There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to
override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because
of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely
manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska
case, and claims in another incident were reinstated following a U.S.
District Court case in the 10th Circuit in 2009 in the case of Miller
v. United States. Legislation similar to this provision actually
cleared the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.
This bill is intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas
for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that
miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of
being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving
them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of
annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by
BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the
obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims
still are subject to voidance.
The transition rule included in this measure will solve two pending
cases in Alaska, one where a holder of nine claims on the Kenai
Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, has lost title to claims that he had held
from 1982 to 2004. In this case, John Trautner had a consistent record
of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22
years and the local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that
the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks
before the deadline, but just not a record that the affidavit of annual
labor had arrived. In the second case Don and Judy Mullikin of Homer,
Alaska, lost title to nine claims on the Seward Peninsula outside of
Nome in Alaska because the Anchorage BLM office has no record of them
receiving the paperwork, even though the owners have computer time
stamps of them having completed the paperwork 5 months before the
deadline, but no other evidence
[[Page S632]]
of filing to meet BLM regulations. They lost their appeal in late 2009.
These are claims that have been worked in Alaska yearly since 1937 and
are the main livelihood for the Mullikins.
This legislation, supported by the Alaska Miners Association--S. 3175
in the 111th Congress--clearly is intended to remedy a simple drafting
error in congressional crafting of the small miner claim defect
process. While only a few cases of potential clerical errors have
occurred over the past decade, it still makes sense for Congress to
clarify that claim holders have a right to know that their applications
have not been processed, in time for them to cure application-claim
defects prior to being informed of the loss of the claim rights
forever. Simple equity and due process requires no less.
Given the minute cost of this administrative change to the Department
of the Interior, but its big impact on affected small mineral claim
holders, I hope this bill can be considered and approved promptly this
year.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 304. A bill to amend the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act to
improve the Alaska pipeline construction training program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that would make a minor technical change to a provision that this
Congress approved in 2004 to further construction of an Alaska natural
gas pipeline system to move Alaska's conventional gas to market.
In 2004 Congress approved two pieces of legislation to help
facilitate construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline. In Public
Law 108-324 Congress approved a Federal loan guarantee program,
streamlined regulatory processes and approved a worker training program
to guarantee a domestic labor supply for construction of the largest
private-sector capital infrastructure project in the world's history.
In a separate bill, Public Law 108-357, Congress also approved tax
changes to provide accelerated depreciation for the pipe and a related
gas conditioning plant needed for the project. A pipeline to move
Alaska's 35 trillion cubic feet of known gas reserves, and its likely
315 trillion cubic feet of additional Arctic gas reserves from lands
and Arctic waters would have a host of benefits to the Nation.
Being able to market only the known gas reserves at the Prudhoe Bay
field will involve construction of a pipeline system estimated to cost
between $26 and $40 billion. It is expected to produce 38,000 direct
job-years of labor in Alaska and up to 31,000 direct jobs at the peak
of construction. According to the National Defense Foundation it will
produce direct employment of 172,369 jobs nationwide when related
steel, pipe, valve and equipment jobs are included, not counting many
more indirect jobs. At current prices it will generate about $100
billion in Federal tax revenues, not counting $40 billion in Alaska
State revenues and $30 billion in Canadian tax revenues over its first
20 years of operation. Recent estimates, however, indicate that
development of gas from the offshore Arctic that a gas line will permit
to occur, would add an average of an additional 54,700 new jobs in the
U.S.--91,500 at peak employment. That would provide $145 billion in
total payroll--$82 billion to workers in the Lower 48--and provide $167
billion in tax and royalty revenues to the Federal Government, $15
billion to the State of Alaska and total revenues of $193 billion at
forecast gas prices.
In the intervening 7 years since the gas line loan-permitting package
became law, it has become clear that changes are needed. While those
changes include revisions in the loan guarantee program, they also
involve changes in the construction worker training provisions.
In the 2004 act, Sect. 113, the bill authorized $20 million for
worker training programs, with at least 15 percent of those funds going
to pay for ``design and construction of a training facility to be
located in Fairbanks, Alaska.'' But language in the bill has prevented
that training center from moving forward. This proposed bill would
authorize Federal funding to be released immediately upon the request
of the Governor of Alaska, to fund construction of the training center,
and to broaden the center to permit it also to train oil, besides gas
field workers, and environmental response employees.
According to the Alaska Department of Labor, the demand for skilled
workers for gas and oil line projects on Alaska's North Slope grew by
50 percent from 2005 to 2009 to nearly 12,000 workers. At the same
time, the average age of Alaska's skilled workforce is now 53, meaning
that Alaska needs to train 1,000 new construction and pipeline workers
annually simply to maintain the State's existing skilled workforce.
Since it takes roughly 5 years to train a skilled construction/
pipefitter, it is imperative that such training begin far in advance of
estimated pipeline construction. According to State data, there are
only about 2,130 plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters working in
Alaska and another 1,004 welders, solderers, brazers, and machine
setters. Past estimates by one of the two consortia proposing to build
an Alaska gas pipeline are that the gas line alone will require 1,650
welders/helpers, 2,000 equipment operators, 418 inspectors and 90 UT
technicians, just to build the Alaska sections of the pipeline. That
means there is an urgent need for the pipeline training center now.
The Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center's core mission is to provide a
highly trained workforce that will meet the needs of the entire oil/
gas/pipeline/refining industry; which is a significant component of
Alaska's economy, providing 80 percent of the State's industrial tax
base, 74 percent of all resources produced in the State, and 85 percent
of State revenues) and a crucial component of the Nation's domestic
energy supply, currently 13 percent of all domestically produced oil,
while the proposed overland gas line will produce 7 percent of the
Nation's total estimated gas demand in 2020. The necessity for this
workforce is further emphasized because it is clear that an aging
infrastructure will require an accelerated repair, replacement, and
maintenance regime if production requirements and safety standard are
to be met.
The training center is an innovative statewide collaboration between
labor, industry, and local, State, and Federal Governments.
Additionally, it is understood that as alternative fuel technologies
emerge and are commercialize, a highly skilled, highly trained, highly
motivated workforce will be required. Again, through collaboration with
others: the University of Alaska, the Cold Climate Housing Research
Center, United Technologies Corporation, General Electric, and Alaskan
commercial interests, requisite evolving workforce needs are understood
and can be met.
The facility needs to be located in Interior Alaska, because the
climate will permit workers to be fully trained in the real-world
conditions they will face on the job. In order to complete the training
center and thereby meet anticipated labor demand in a timely manner,
funds must be secured in the upcoming budget cycle. Federal funding
needed includes: $5.5 million for Central Facility classrooms and
shops, $1.5 million for a Construction Camp Facility, $1.0 million for
a Pipeline Coating Training Facility and for corrosion control
training, $0.5 million for civil work improvements to the Field
Training Site, and $1.5 million for pipeline and transportation/
logistical equipment.
The bill's changes will permit the creation of a domestic energy
workforce that is stable, productive, and encourages safe working
practices that will help to protect Alaska's environment and wildlife,
while producing the energy that America needs. The proposal does not
expand the size of the funding authorization approved in 2004. It
simply makes it more likely that American workers will benefit from a
gas line project when it proceeds--an important fact when the national
unemployment rate remains at 9.4 percent. I hope that this Congress
will consider this bill for quick consideration and passage.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 307. A bill to designate the Federal building and United States
courthouse located at 217 West King Street, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
as the ``W.
[[Page S633]]
Craig Broadwater Federal Building and United States Courthouse'', to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I come to
the floor today to discuss legislation that I am introducing to name
the Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Martinsburg, WV,
in honor of a dear friend, W. Craig Broadwater.
Judge Broadwater served at this courthouse during his tenure on the
Federal bench, until his untimely death in 2006 after a battle with
cancer. This legislation is a small, yet fitting tribute to his
remarkable service to West Virginia and America.
It is difficult to put into words how tremendous of a loss his death
was to his family, friends, community, State, and Nation. But I think
it becomes much clearer when one looks at his life--his contributions
to Justice and the Defense of our Nation, his love for his family, and
the difference he made in the lives of those who were fortunate enough
to know him.
Craig earned his undergraduate degree from West Virginia University
in 1972 and his law degree from the West Virginia University College of
Law in 1977. He spent the next several years in private practice in
Wheeling, West Virginia, and also served as a hearing examiner for the
West Virginia Worker's Compensation Fund and a special prosecuting
attorney for Ohio County.
His career on the bench dates back to when I was Governor of West
Virginia and had the honor of appointing him in 1983 to be a Circuit
Judge for Ohio, Brooke, and Hancock Counties. There, he worked to
protect our State's most vulnerable children as Chair of the Committee
to Develop Child Abuse and Neglect Rules. The ``Broadwater Committee'',
as it became known, reformed our courts' response to the needs of
children in our judicial system.
Craig served as a state court judge until he was nominated by
President Clinton to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District
of West Virginia. He was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 1996, and
commissioned to serve on July 26, 1996.
During his ten years on the Federal bench, Craig exhibited all of the
characteristics that we hope for in a judge. He was intelligent,
thoughtful, principled, and fair. Anyone who appeared before him knew
that the case would be decided on the merits, without bias towards any
of the claimants.
But beyond his service on the bench, Craig was also a hero and a
patriot who answered the call of duty time and again. He began his
military career in 1972 with a tour in Korea as an Army Military
Intelligence Officer. He continued his service as a member of the West
Virginia National Guard, where he rose to the rank of Brigadier
General. Even while serving on the Federal bench, Craig fought to
protect our country. His service included a 2003 deployment as Deputy
Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa at Camp
Lemonier, Djibouti, and a 2005 deployment to Iraq as Commanding General
of the Joint Interagency Task Force-High Value Individuals at Camp
Victory, Iraq. His awards are too numerous to count, but among them are
the Defense Superior Service Medal and the Bronze Star.
But despite all of his awards and accomplishments, the thing that
made Craig the most proud was his family. I am privileged to know his
wife Chong, and his children Chandra, Taeja, and Shane--and to have
their blessing in introducing this legislation.
As I reflect on Craig's life and career, I still remember the day he
was confirmed by the Senate for a seat on the Federal bench. It was a
great day for me and for all West Virginians. At the time, I came to
the floor and said that Senator Byrd and I had recommended him for this
position because he ``represents the very best of our State''--and how
true that is even today.
Those of us who were fortunate enough to know him personally describe
him as courageous, kind, compassionate, and loving. And although his
life was cut short, he had already achieved more than most of us could
ever hope to accomplish in several lifetimes.
I am very appreciative that Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito has
agreed to join me in introducing companion legislation in the House of
Representatives, and is going to work with me to get this bill signed
into law. The bipartisan nature of our effort is truly a testament to
the impact that Craig had on all of us, regardless of political
affiliation.
In closing, the naming of a Federal courthouse in his honor is such a
small gesture, especially compared to what Craig did for our country.
But it is my hope that whenever the citizens of West Virginia visit
or pass by the W. Craig Broadwater Federal Building and United States
Courthouse in Martinsburg, West Virginia, they will remember his life
and be inspired, as I have been inspired, to give back to our country
in such a meaningful way.
______
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Hagan, and
Mr. Cardin):
S. 309. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of
Moldova; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to
authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment, normal trade
relations treatment, to the products of Moldova. This legislation would
repeal the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Moldovan
products. Moldova has been in compliance with Jackson-Vanik-related
concerns for some time now, and repeal of this legislation will provide
an important impetus for improving trade relations between the United
States and Moldova, advancing Moldova's Western ambitions, and laying
the foundation for closer U.S.-Moldovan political engagement.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Casey):
S. 311. A bill to provide for the coverage of medically necessary
food under Federal health programs and private health insurance, to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, each year an estimated 2,550 children in
the United States are diagnosed with metabolism disorders. For the rest
of their lives they will need modified foods that do not have the
nutrients their body is incapable of processing. They may also require
supplementation with pharmacological doses of vitamins and amino acids.
The good news is that with treatment they can lead normal, productive
lives. But without these foods and supplements, patients can become
severely brain-damaged and hospitalized.
Through bipartisan efforts, we have made great strides in improving
how quickly babies with these disorders are diagnosed. Newborn
screening has made a tremendous difference in the early diagnosis of
metabolic disorders. However, affordable and accessible treatment
options remain out of reach for too many Americans. Medical foods and
supplements which are necessary for treatment may not be covered by
insurance policies and can be prohibitively expensive for too many
families. For those with a metabolic disorder, medical foods are
critical in treatment, just as other conditions are treated with pills
or injections. The sporadic insurance coverage of treatment is a
problem. In response, over 35 States have enacted laws to enforce
coverage of medical foods. However, too many loopholes remain and
federal legislation is necessary to ensure that these individuals
receive what they need to stay well. It is time that we get treatment
for those patients lost in insurance loopholes.
The Medical Foods Equity Act follows the April 2009 recommendations
of the U.S. Health and Human Services, Secretary's Advisory Committee
on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. It will ensure
coverage of medical foods and necessary supplements for individuals
with disorders as recommended by the Advisory Committee and, most
importantly, peace of mind for those families affected by inborn errors
of metabolism.
The lack of medical food coverage available to families has a
significant impact on their lives. With the current situation of
varying regulations between States and insurance providers, even
families with coverage find themselves living in fear that a change in
insurance provider will lead to reduced or nonexistent coverage. Too
many Americans across the country are struggling to access the
treatment they need for this type of disorder.
[[Page S634]]
Take the story of Donna McGrath from Wilmington, Massachusetts. Donna
has two daughters with phenylketonuria, PKU, and she speaks eloquently
about the frustration she experienced after her employer switched
insurance plans. Because medical foods are not listed along with other
necessary medicines, Donna was forced to navigate a long list mostly
made up of durable medical equipment providers unequipped to help her.
Even when she finally found a pharmacy that could order the formula,
she was told that they required an upfront payment because they were
wary of not being reimbursed by insurance companies. In Donna's own
words, she was dismayed at ``having that feeling like you're being held
hostage every time a change may occur in your insurance or carrier.''
Medical treatment for inborn error of metabolism disorders is just as
necessary as treatment for other conditions--like insulin for a
diabetic or chemotherapy for a cancer patient.
As newborn screening and medical advances continue to improve the
ability of those born with an inborn error of metabolism to lead full,
healthy lives, we must make sure that the necessary treatments are
available. That is why Senator Casey and I are introducing the Medical
Foods Equity Act. Our legislation would require medically necessary
foods and supplements to be included in the definition of essential
health benefits for qualified health plans, covered by federal health
programs, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, TRICARE, and by the private health
insurance market, fully insured group health plans, self-insured group
health plans, and non-group health plans. The legislation requires the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to make a determination of
minimum coverage levels for medically necessary foods and supplements
for certain rare metabolic conditions.
I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been
integral to the development of the Medical Foods Equity Act and who
have endorsed it today, including the National PKU Alliance, the Save
Babies Through Screening Foundation, the National Organization for Rare
Disorders, NORD, Genetic Alliance, and the American Dietetic
Association.
The Medical Foods Equity Act will close existing loopholes in
coverage and provide the parity in coverage these families deserve. It
is my hope that we can move forward with this bill in a bipartisan
manner. I ask all of my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
____________________