[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1076-S1078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 539. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
repeal the Medicare outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Medicare Access
to Rehabilitation Services Act, which I am introducing today with my
colleague Senator Collins. This important bill repeals the monetary
caps that limit Medicare beneficiaries' access to medically necessary
outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language
pathology services.
Limits on outpatient rehabilitation therapy services under Medicare
were first imposed in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. The
decision to impose limits on these services was not based on data,
quality-of-care concerns, or clinical judgment--its sole purpose was to
limit spending in order to balance the federal budget. Since 1997,
Congress has acted over 12 times to prevent the implementation of the
therapy caps through moratoriums and an exceptions process. While these
short-term actions have provided necessary relief to our seniors, a
long-term solution is essential to bring permanent relief and much-
needed stability for both patients and providers.
We need a full repeal of the existing caps on physical therapy,
occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. These
annual financial caps limit services often needed after a stroke,
traumatic brain injury, or spinal cord injury, or to effectively manage
conditions such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and
arthritis. Arbitrary caps on these vital Medicare outpatient therapy
services are simply unacceptable. They also discriminate against the
oldest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries, who typically require the
most intensive therapy, and disadvantage Medicare beneficiaries who
live in regions with higher health care costs.
In a 2009 report issued by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee,
MEDPAC, it was estimated that the
[[Page S1077]]
therapy cap, if enforced without an exceptions process, could
negatively impact 931,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Arbitrarily capping
outpatient rehabilitation therapy services would likely cause some
beneficiaries to delay necessary care, force others to assume higher
out-of pocket costs, and disrupt the continuum of care for many seniors
and individuals with disabilities.
I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Collins in supporting the
Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act to ensure that our
seniors have access to the outpatient rehabilitation therapy services
that they need.
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. 539
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Access to
Rehabilitation Services Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. OUTPATIENT THERAPY CAP REPEAL.
Section 1833 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(l))
is amended by striking subsection (g).
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Heitkamp):
S. 540. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act to require the Secretary of Agriculture to make loan guarantees and
grants to finance certain improvements to school lunch facilities, to
train school food service personnel, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend and
colleague from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp, in introducing the
School Food Modernization Act to assist schools in providing healthier
meals to students throughout the country.
School meals play a vital role in the lives of our young people. More
than 30 million children participate in the National School Lunch
Program every school day. In Maine, 40 percent of children qualify for
free or reduced-price meals based on household income.
The food served at schools to these children affects their health and
well-being. Many children consume up to half their daily caloric intake
at school. In fact, children often get their most nutritious meal of
the day at school instead of at home. At the same time, too many of our
children are at risk of serious disease. One-third of the children in
this country are overweight or obese, which increases their risk for
heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 Diabetes and other chronic
diseases. These conditions may have a lifelong effect on their health
as they grow to adulthood.
In response to concerns about the health of our children, our schools
have stepped up to the plate. Nationwide, schools are working
diligently to meet the new U.S. Department of Agriculture standards and
serve healthier meals. For example, in the New Sweden Consolidated
School in Aroostook County, ME, food service manager Melanie Lagasse
prepares meals from scratch instead of opening cans or pushing a
defrost button. The school's 64 students, ranging from preschool to
eighth grade, have grown to relish the chicken stew, baked fish, and
meatloaf that she makes fresh.
Many schools, however, lack the right tools for preparing meals rich
in fresh ingredients and must rely on workarounds that are expensive,
inefficient, and unsustainable. Schools built decades ago lack the
tools and the infrastructure necessary beyond reheating and holding
food for meal service.
To serve healthier meals to their students, 99 percent of Maine
school districts need at least one piece of equipment and almost half,
48 percent, of districts need kitchen infrastructure upgrades. The
median equipment need per school is $45,000.
Even more costly would be making the required changes to
infrastructure. Forty-eight percent of Maine schools need some kind of
infrastructure change to serve healthy meals. For example, 41 percent
of schools need more physical space, 22 percent need more electrical
capacity, 21 percent need more plumbing capacity, and 19 percent need
more ventilation.
Add the equipment costs together with the infrastructure costs and it
is estimated that overall, $58.8 million would be needed just in Maine
to serve healthy meals to all of our students. That far exceeds the
$111,000 in grants that the USDA awarded Maine during the last two
fiscal years for new equipment.
Our bill authorizes loan guarantee assistance and grants for school
equipment and infrastructure improvements, thereby helping food service
personnel meet nutrition standards. First, it would establish a loan
guarantee assistance program within USDA to help schools acquire new
equipment to prepare and serve healthier, more nutritious meals to
students. School administrators and other eligible borrowers could
obtain Federal guarantees for 80 percent of the loan value needed to
construct, remodel, or expand their kitchens, dining, or food storage
infrastructure.
Second, the bill would provide targeted grant assistance to give
school administrators and food service directors the seed funding
needed to upgrade kitchen infrastructure or to purchase high-quality,
durable kitchen equipment such as commercial ovens, steamers, and
stoves.
Finally, to aid school food service personnel in meeting the
nutrition guidelines, the legislation would strengthen training and
provide technical assistance by authorizing USDA to provide support on
a competitive basis to highly qualified third-party trainers to develop
and administer training and technical assistance, including online
programs.
We need to start our school children off on the right food every day.
If they are going to be able to learn and compete, they need to be
healthy and their minds and bodies fully nourished. This bill will help
us achieve that goal.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Menendez,
Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Markey):
S. 551. A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms
and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address what I believe
is a national security and public safety weakness.
The United States currently has a system in place to keep known or
suspected terrorists off of airplanes. But even though they can't fly,
these very same terrorists can walk into any gun store anywhere in the
country and purchase a firearm.
If a terrorist is too dangerous to board an airplane, that same
individual is too dangerous to possess a gun.
That's why we are introducing the Denying Firearms and Explosives to
Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill to fix this glaring loophole in our
background check system.
This is not a hypothetical issue.
Individuals with links to terrorism regularly purchase guns in the
United States.
According to data just received from the Government Accountability
Office, between February 2004 and December 2014, there were at least
2,233 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist--individuals who at
the time were on federal terrorist watch lists--tried to buy a firearm
or obtain a firearm or explosives license or permit.
In 91 percent of these cases, a total of 2,043 separate occasions,
those known or suspected terrorists successfully passed a background
check.
The Kouachi brothers, the terrorists who killed 12 people at Charlie
Hebdo in Paris, are reportedly on the U.S. no fly list.
However, if they had made it to the United States, the fact that they
were on terrorist watch lists would have done nothing to prevent them
from legally buying firearms or explosives.
One of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was
reportedly placed on two terrorist watch lists in 2011.
He later killed three and injured 170 with homemade explosives and
killed a police officer with a handgun.
[[Page S1078]]
In 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire at a military
recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. He killed one and
critically injured another.
According to press reports, Muhammad had been under investigation by
the FBI for suspected links to terrorism after traveling to Yemen,
where he was arrested for using a Somali passport. Those actions
certainly would have placed him on terrorist watch lists, but would not
have kept him from buying firearms.
The bill that we are introducing today is very simple.
It would close this dangerous loophole by giving the Attorney General
discretion to prevent someone from buying explosives or a gun if that
individual is a known or suspected terrorist and may use the firearm in
connection with terrorism.
It would also give the Attorney General discretion to prevent someone
from obtaining a license to sell guns or explosives if that individual
is a known or suspected terrorist and may use the firearm in connection
with terrorism.
The Attorney General could use a range of tools to make this
decision, most notable terrorist watch lists and the no fly list.
In addition to making the decision at the discretion of the Attorney
General, the bill includes other safeguards to make sure innocent
individuals are not denied the ability to buy firearms or explosives.
The first safeguard is that very high standards already exist for an
individual to be designated as a known or suspected terrorist.
The FBI or the National Counterterrorism Center must nominate the
individual to be included in the Terrorist Screening Database.
There must be sufficient identifying data about the person to ensure
they can be accurately matched with the terrorist on the watch list.
The circumstances must meet the ``reasonable suspicion'' standard.
This means the facts of the case must be strong enough to reasonably
determine the person is known or suspected to be engaged in terrorism.
The second safeguard is that every provision in current law allowing
individuals to appeal the denial of a firearm or explosive purchase
will also apply to this bill.
The office within the FBI that handles the background check system,
known as the NICS Section, or the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System Section, must provide the reason for denial upon request.
Individuals then have the right to correct any inaccurate records in
the background check system. If a purchase is still denied, individuals
can take the Justice Department to court to overturn the decision.
Gun safety safety bills are often labeled as Democratic bills. That
is not the case here.
This bill was first proposed by the Justice Department under
President George W. Bush, who recognized that keeping guns away from
terrorists is good policy.
Attorney General Holder has also testified that the Justice
Department under President Obama continues to support this proposal.
The bill has also been endorsed by Everytown for Gun Safety. This
group represents more than 1,000 current and former mayors, both
Republican and Democrat.
The legislation has also been endorsed by the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, Americans for
Responsible Solutions, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
I would also like to thank the bill's cosponsors: Senators
Whitehouse, Schumer, Durbin, Blumenthal, Boxer, Reed, Menendez,
Gillibrand, Murphy, Warren, and Markey. All of you are champions for
stronger gun safety laws.
The terrorist attack in Paris should be a wake-up call for everyone.
This sort of terrorist attack is very possible here in the United
States, and the ability for known and suspected terrorists to buy guns
and explosives makes it even more likely.
Congress should close this loophole in our background check system
and ensure that known and suspected terrorists can't easily gain access
to these weapons.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
______
By Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Ayotte, and Mrs.
Shaheen):
S. 552. A bill to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to
provide for increased limitations on leverage for multiple licenses
under common control; to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am pleased join my colleague, Senator
Risch, in introducing the Small Business Investment Company Capital,
SBIC, Act of 2015. And I am pleased that Congressman Chabot, Chairman
of the House Small Business Committee, is introducing the same bill on
the House side today.
This bipartisan legislation makes a common-sense change to the Small
Business Investment Company, SBIC, program run by the Small Business
Administration, SBA. This change will provide increased support to some
of the program's most successful participants, SBICs that run multiple
funds at a time. At no additional cost to the taxpayer, the SBIC Act
will raise the limit that a ``family of funds'' can borrow with an SBA
guarantee from $225 million to $350 million
The SBIC program guarantees loans to qualified investment funds, or
SBICs. In turn, these SBICs invest in promising small businesses by
combining the SBA loan with privately raised capital, often at a 2:1
ratio. It is important to note that while these SBICs are licensed and
regulated by the SBA, they are privately owned and operated.
Since its inception, the SBIC Debenture program has been incredibly
successful. SBICs have invested more than $70 billion in nearly 170,000
small businesses. Recently, the program has experienced rapid growth.
In 2013, SBA guaranteed loans to SBICs equaling $3.5 billion, a 70
percent increase in financing dollars from three years ago and the
highest amount of financings in the past decade.
This success is largely attributed to Congressional action that
raised the ceiling for maximum investments for the SBIC program each
year from $3 billion to $4 billion. Senator Landrieu, Senator Risch,
and I worked with a bipartisan coalition to increase this ceiling and
ensure SBIC funds have access to sufficient capital to invest in
promising small businesses.
Nowhere is the success of this increase seen more than in Maryland.
Since the start of fiscal year 2015, SBICs have already invested nearly
$65 million in Maryland small businesses. Yet, this success could be
enhanced even more if Congress increased the amount SBICs with a family
of funds can borrow from the SBA.
SBICs that run multiple funds at a time are known as ``families of
funds.'' While many of our Nation's most successful and reliable SBICs
have a family of funds, their success is being restricted by the
current lending limit. Simply raising the limit from $225 million to
$350 million would provide these proven fund managers the additional
capital needed to invest in small businesses and stimulate local
economies.
Put simply, by increasing the ``family of funds'' lending limit to
$350 million, proven investors can invest in more promising small
businesses. The SBIC Act enhances the SBA's ability to support these
successful investors as they finance small businesses that will
continue to create jobs in this country.
____________________