[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17025-17029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
        Torricelli, and Mr. Gorton):
  S. 3002. A bill to authorize a coordinated research program to ensure 
the integrity, safety and reliability of natural gas and hazardous 
liquids pipelines, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


the pipeline integrity, safety and reliability research and development 
                              act of 2000

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious issue 
currently pending in the Senate--pipeline safety. On August 19, there 
was a tragic pipeline accident in my state of New Mexico. A natural gas 
transmission line ruptured at 5:30 a.m. that Saturday morning in a 
rural area south of Carlsbad, NM. Unfortunately, the rupture occurred 
near a popular fishing spot along the Pecos river. Two families were 
camped below the bridge traversed by the pipeline. Eleven people, 
including five small children, died when their favorite camping spot 
was overcome by heat and flames. I have just learned that the one 
survivor, Amanda Smith, died earlier today. I would like to include a 
couple of articles about the victims to be printed in the Record after 
my statement. They should be remembered as individuals, not mere 
statistics.
  This was a human tragedy I can barely describe. I spoke briefly with 
Martha Chapman, mother of two of the victims, and grandmother of two of 
the children. She had just returned to Carlsbad for the funeral from 
Lubbock where she had been keeping vigil at the bedside of her 
daughter-in-law. She was devastated. She said her whole life was gone. 
She begged me to do what I could to make sure something like this would 
never happen to another family. I had no words that could ease her 
grief, but I promised to do what I could when I returned to Washington. 
That afternoon I went out to the site to see firsthand the damage and 
what was being done to determine the cause of the rupture.
  I spent several hours with Kelley Coyner, the chief pipeline safety 
official at the Department of Transportation, and some of her engineers 
and inspectors. What became abundantly clear to me is that the Office 
of Pipeline Safety does not have adequate resources to carry out its 
mandate. There are only 55 inspectors for the entire interstate 
pipeline system. Secondly, the agency needs the additional authority it 
has requested in the current reauthorization bill to address the 
different circumstances on individual pipelines.
  The first thing we need to do is to ensure the Office of Pipeline 
Safety has the necessary resources to protect the public safety and the 
environment. The budget of the Office of Pipeline Safety is fully 
reimbursed by user fees charged to the pipeline operators, yet for the 
last five years the Congress has under funded the agency's budget 
request. For FY 2001 the request was $47 million. The Senate has 
appropriated $43 million, the House only $40 million. I urge the 
conferees to increase the appropriation for FY 2001 to at least the 
requested level.
  Second, we need to pass the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization bill. The 
bill reported by the Commerce Committee requires each and every 
interstate natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline to develop and 
implement an integrity management plan. This approach will give the 
Office of Pipeline Safety the authority to impose more rigorous 
requirements, as necessary, to address areas with the greatest 
likelihood of failures and on aging pipelines and those in populated or 
environmentally sensitive areas. This bill is a major step toward 
ensuring the safety of our pipeline infrastructure. I am concerned, 
though, that the authorization levels included in the bill as filed may 
not be adequate for the task of a very individualized approach that 
will require a significant increase in staffing to address regional 
differences and community-specific needs.
  I would like to commend the efforts of Senator McCain, chairman of 
the Commerce Committee, and Senators Murray and Gorton and their staff, 
who have all worked hard to move the reauthorization forward. I also 
want to acknowledge Senators Breaux and Brownback for their efforts to 
include a workable set of requirements that can be fully implemented 
and enforced.
  Although the National Transportation Safety Board has not determined 
the cause of the accident in New Mexico, it appears that internal 
corrosion was a major factor. The transmission line in New Mexico 
ruptured at a point near a sharp bend in the pipe. An electronic 
internal inspection device, commonly called a smart pig, which is used 
for detecting corrosion in a pipeline, could not be run through that 
section of pipe because of the bend. Currently, about the only way to 
inspect sections of pipe such as this is to dig up the pipe and 
evaluate it directly. The company in New Mexico is

[[Page 17026]]

doing just that along nearly 400 miles of pipeline to ensure there are 
not any other vulnerable spots along the pipe. But, with nearly 500,000 
miles, and growing, of transmission lines across the country, this is 
not an optimal solution from the standpoint of time or cost.
  This country has the technological capability to collect data from 
the outer reaches of the solar system; we should be able to develop 
technologies to measure pipeline integrity under six feet of soil 
without digging up thousands of miles of pipe.
  I asked one of the scientists from Sandia National Laboratories, one 
of the Department of Energy's multipurpose labs, to come to Carlsbad 
with me to visit the site of the accident and to talk to the pipeline 
safety experts about the gaps in our technical capabilities. The 
national labs have capabilities for remote sensing, satellite 
monitoring and materials development that could surely be adapted for 
better testing and inspection of the pipeline infrastructure. I am also 
wondering whether MEMS, the efforts at miniaturizing electronic 
equipment, could be applied to develop a smart pig, or device with the 
same purpose, to negotiate older pipelines. Sandia has been working on 
a project to upgrade the Russian pipeline system, the scientists have 
the knowledge and expertise on pipeline operations to benefit our own 
system.
  Since returning from Carlsbad, I have been working to develop a 
framework for a collaborative R&D effort directed by the Department of 
Transportation with the assistance of the Department of Energy and the 
National Academy of Sciences. The Departments of Transportation and 
Energy, as well as a number of industry research groups, including the 
Pipeline Research Council International and the Gas Technology 
Institute, currently conduct research on pipeline integrity, but there 
is no coordinated, prioritized plan to ensure the most critical issues 
are being addressed in the most effective manner. I am introducing a 
bill today, the Pipeline Integrity, Safety and Reliability Research and 
Development Act of 2000, that will set up such a structure led by the 
Department of Transportation. I want to thank Senators McCain, 
Hollings, Murray, Gorton, Robb, Brownback, Breaux, Domenici, Landrieu, 
Kerry and Torricelli for cosponsoring this bill.
  The bill directs DOT and DOE to work with an Advisory Committee set 
up by the National Academy of Sciences to develop a five-year 
accelerated plan of action to address the most critical R&D needs to 
ensure pipeline integrity, safety and reliability. The Advisory 
Committee would include representatives of the natural gas, oil and 
petroleum product pipelines, the national labs, universities, the 
industry research groups, state pipeline safety officials, 
environmental organizations, pipeline safety advocates and any other 
technical experts the Academy includes.
  According to a recent GAO report, ``From 1989 through 1998, pipeline 
accidents resulted in an average of about 22 fatalities per year. 
Fatalities from pipeline accidents are relatively low when compared 
with those from accidents involving other forms of freight 
transportation: On average about 66 people die each year from barge 
accidents, about 590 from railroad accidents, and about 5100 from truck 
accidents.'' Recent accidents, including the tragedy in my state, have 
undermined public confidence in the safety of pipelines. As 
policymakers we must take responsibility for restoring that confidence.
  Natural gas and liquid pipelines are a critical element of our 
nation's energy infrastructure. They provide a cost-effective and 
relatively safe means of delivering energy. As the economy has grown, 
and become increasingly urbanized, siting new pipelines has become more 
and more challenging. At the same time, the importance of these 
pipelines has increased dramatically. Incidents on two gasoline 
pipelines, relatively unnoticed since no one was injured, reduced their 
operations at a critical time this summer contributing to a gasoline 
price spike of $2.50 a gallon in the northern Midwest. The rupture of 
this major natural gas transmission line in New Mexico reduced supplies 
into California at a critical time of peak electricity demand. I hope 
we don't experience a major failure of a product line into the 
northeast this fall or winter which could send the price heating oil 
off the charts.
  I plan to offer my bill as an amendment to the pipeline safety 
reauthorization when it comes before the Senate. As the ranking member 
on the Energy Committee and representative of a state crisscrossed with 
thousands of miles of pipelines, I urge my colleagues to support 
passage of the pipeline safety reauthorization bill with my amendment. 
I further urge you to support full funding for the Office of Pipeline 
Safety and the R&D program.
  Let me indicate the cosponsors of this legislation: Senators McCain, 
Hollings, Murray, Brownback, Domenici, Breaux, Robb, Torricelli, 
Gorton, Kerry, and Landrieu. I ask unanimous consent to have the bill 
and two articles printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3002

       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 ``Pipeline Integrity, Safety 
     and Reliability Research and Development Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines are a 
     critical element of our nation's energy infrastructure;
       (2) pipeline transportation of natural gas and liquid fuels 
     is a cost-effective means of delivering energy;
       (3) the nation's reliance on pipelines is increasing, 
     especially for delivery of fuel to densely populated areas;
       (4) a number of the nation's pipelines have been in service 
     for more than 50 years;
       (5) ensuring pipelines are constructed and maintained to 
     minimize the risks to safety and the environment is a 
     national priority;
       (6) early detection of serious defects in a pipeline 
     reduces the risk of accidents;
       (7) pipeline operators and federal and state inspectors 
     need advanced technologies to locate and monitor pipelines 
     before failures occur;
       (8) the many benefits of pipeline transportation are in the 
     national interest and it is appropriate for the Federal 
     Government to provide investment in fundamental and research-
     driven innovation in the areas of pipeline materials, 
     operations and inspections techniques; and
       (9) federal contributions to promoting pipeline safety 
     should be part of a coordinated research and development 
     program under the Department of Transportation and in 
     coordination with the Department of Energy, the national 
     laboratories, universities, the private sector and other 
     research institutes.

     SEC. 3. COOPERATION AND COORDINATION PROGRAM FOR PIPELINE 
                   INTEGRITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Energy, shall develop and 
     implement an accelerated cooperative program of research and 
     development to ensure the integrity of natural gas and 
     hazardous liquid pipelines. This research and development 
     program shall include materials inspection techniques, risk 
     assessment methodology, and information systems surety.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the cooperative research 
     program shall be to promote research and development to--
       (1) ensure long-term safety, reliability and service life 
     for existing pipelines;
       (2) expand capabilities of internal inspection devices to 
     identify and accurately measure defects and anomalies;
       (3) develop inspection techniques for pipelines that cannot 
     accommodate the internal inspection devices available on the 
     date of enactment;
       (4) develop innovative techniques to measure the structural 
     integrity of pipelines to prevent pipeline failures;
       (5) develop improved materials and coatings for use in 
     pipelines;
       (6) improve the capability, reliability, and practicality 
     of external lead detection devices;
       (7) identify underground environments that might lead to 
     shortened service life;
       (8) enhance safety in pipeline siting and land use;
       (9) minimize the environmental impact of pipelines;
       (10) demonstrate technologies that improve pipeline safety, 
     reliability and integrity;
       (11) provide risk assessment tools for optimizing risk 
     mitigation strategies; and
       (12) provide highly secure information systems for 
     controlling the operation of pipelines.

[[Page 17027]]

       (c) Areas.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, 
     shall consider research and development on natural gas, crude 
     oil and petroleum product pipelines for--
       (1) early crack, defect, and damage detection, including 
     real-time damage monitoring;
       (2) automated internal pipeline inspection sensor systems;
       (3) land use guidance and set back management along 
     pipeline rights-of-way for communities;
       (4) internal corrosion control;
       (5) corrosion-resistant coatings;
       (6) improved cathodic protection;
       (7) inspection techniques where internal inspection is not 
     feasible, including measurement of structural integrity;
       (8) external lead detection, including portable real-time 
     video imaging technology, and the advancement of computerized 
     control center leak detection systems utilizing real-time 
     remote field data input;
       (9) longer life, high strength, non-corrosive pipeline 
     materials;
       (10) assessing the remaining strength of existing pipes;
       (11) risk and reliability analysis models, to be used to 
     identify safety improvements that could be realized in the 
     near term resulting from analysis of data obtained from a 
     pipeline performance tracking initiative.
       (12) identification, monitoring, and prevention of outside 
     force damage, including satellite surveillance; and
       (13) any other areas necessary to ensuring the public 
     safety and protecting the environment.
       (d) Points of contact.--
       (1) In general.--To coordinate and implement the research 
     and development programs and activities authorized under this 
     Act--
       (A) the Secretary of Transportation shall designate, as the 
     point of contact for the Department of Transportation, an 
     officer of the Department of Transportation who has been 
     appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; and
       (B) the Secretary of Energy shall designate, as the point 
     of contact for the Department of Energy, an officer of the 
     Department of Energy who has been appointed by the President 
     and confirmed by the Senate.
       (2) Duties.--
       (A) The point of contact for the Department of 
     Transportation shall have the primary responsibility for 
     coordinating and overseeing the implementation of the 
     research, development and demonstration program plan, as 
     defined in subsections (e) and (f).
       (B) The points of contact shall jointly assist in arranging 
     cooperative agreements for research, development and 
     demonstration involving their respective Departments, 
     national laboratories, universities and industry research 
     organizations.
       (e) Research and development program plan.--Within 240 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy 
     and the Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory Committee, 
     shall prepare and submit to the Congress a 5-year program 
     plan to guide activities under this Act. In preparing the 
     program plan, the Secretary shall consult with appropriate 
     representatives of the natural gas, crude oil and petroleum 
     product pipeline industries to select and prioritize 
     appropriate project proposals. The Secretary may also seek 
     the advice of utilities, manufacturers, institutions of 
     higher learning, federal agencies, the pipeline research 
     institutions, national laboratories, state pipeline safety 
     officials, environmental organizations, pipeline safety 
     advocates, and professional and technical societies.
       (f) Implementation.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     have primary responsibility for ensuring the five-year plan 
     provided for in subsection (e) is implemented as intended by 
     this Act. In carrying out the research, development, and 
     demonstration activities under this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Secretary of Energy may use, to the 
     extent authorized under applicable provisions of law, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, cooperative research and 
     development agreements under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), grants, 
     joint ventures, other transactions, and any other form of 
     agreement available to the Secretary consistent with the 
     recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
       (g) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall report to the Congress annually as to the status and 
     results to date of the implementation of the research and 
     development program plan. The report shall include the 
     activities of the Departments of Transportation and Energy, 
     the national laboratories, universities, and any other 
     research organizations, including industry research 
     organizations.

     SEC. 4. PIPELINE INTEGRITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy 
     of Sciences to establish and manage the Pipeline Integrity 
     Technical Advisory Committee for the purpose of advising the 
     Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Energy on 
     the development and implementation of the five year research, 
     development and demonstration program plan as defined in Sec. 
     3(e). The Advisory Committee shall have an ongoing role in 
     evaluating the progress and results of the research, 
     development and demonstration carried out under this Act.
       (b) Membership.--The National Academy of Sciences shall 
     appoint the members of the Pipeline Integrity Technical 
     Advisory Committee after consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Secretary of Energy. Members appointed 
     to the Advisory Committee should have the necessary 
     qualifications to provide technical contributions to the 
     purposes of the Advisory Committee.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

       (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Transportation for carrying out this Act 
     $3,000,000 which is to be derived from user fees (49 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 60125), for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       (b) Of the amounts available in the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund (26 U.S.C. Sec. 9509), $3,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Secretary of Transportation to carry out 
     programs for detection, prevention and mitigation of oil 
     spills authorized in this Act for each of the fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005.
       (c) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Energy for carrying out this Act such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005.
                                  ____


                [From Current-argus.com, Aug. 23, 2000]

                   Family Reflects On Lost Loved Ones

                            (By Pam Easton)

       Lubbock.--She's had four days to try and understand why she 
     lost 11 family members to a pipeline explosion in 
     southeastern New Mexico. Martha Chapman has come up with only 
     one explanation so far--love.
       ``This family has lived together, loved together, camped 
     together, fought together, but never once been without 
     love,'' she said Tuesday from University Medical Center in 
     Lubbock.
       A fireball erupting from the explosion swept through the 
     family's campsite along the Pecos River early Saturday 
     morning, turning sand into glass and parts of a nearby bridge 
     into powder.
       Chapman and other relatives have kept a vigil for the sole 
     survivor, Amanda Smith.
       She remains in critical condition in the hospital's burn 
     unit, suffering from burns over more than 20 percent of her 
     body and smoke inhalation that has caused heart and kidney 
     problems.
       Amanda Smith's brother, Jerry Rackley, said those who died 
     are together again after doing what they loved best: camping, 
     fishing and being with family.
       Killed were Amanda Smith's parents, Don and Glenda Sumler; 
     her father-in-law, Bobby Smith; her husband, Terry Smith; her 
     son, Dustin; her daughter, Kirsten; her brother- and sister-
     in-law, Roy and Amy Heady; and their three children.
       The losses have been staggering for everyone involved, but 
     they will most likely be the hardest for Amanda Smith, 
     Rackley said.
       ``We need her,'' Chapman said, weeping. ``She is my son's 
     wife. She is my daughter.''
       A similar vigil was kept for Bobby Smith, Amanda's father-
     in-law, who died Monday.
       Chapman said the family has managed to face each day by 
     sharing prayers and memories, knowing that those who died are 
     now together with God. ``That is why so many of us have left 
     this earth together,'' Chapman said. ``When we were placed on 
     this earth, we were already genetically linked. Our lives 
     were already intwined by God.''
       El Paso Natural Gas, which owned the pipeline, has put the 
     family up in hotels, fed them, clothed them and made sure 
     they go without any wants or needs.
       Rackley said extended family members who have traveled to 
     the hospital have eased everyone's pain.
       ``There are faces here that I've never seen before,'' he 
     said. ``But they are family. They have a place in my heart 
     and they always will.''
                                  ____


     [From A service of the Albuquerque Journal, September 5, 2000]

                       Last Pipeline Victim Dies

       CARLSBAD, N.M.--Amanda Smith, the only survivor of a 
     pipeline explosion that killed 11 members of her extended 
     family Aug. 19, died Tuesday in a Lubbock hospital.
       Smith, 25, lost her husband and two children in the fiery 
     blast that engulfed the family's campsite near Carlsbad.
       Her brother and Smith family members were with her when she 
     died at 12:35 p.m. CDT, said Gwen Stafford, vice president of 
     University Medical Center in Lubbock.
       Stafford said Smith never regained consciousness at the 
     Texas hospital.
       The pipeline owned by El Paso Energy Company blew up along 
     the Pecos River 25 miles south of Carlsbad, sending a 350-
     foot-fireball into the sky and billows of flame into the 
     nearby campsite.
       Amanda Smith and her father-in-law, Bobby Smith, 43, were 
     sent to the Lubbock hospital, where Bobby Smith died August 
     21.
       Also killed were Amanda Smith's husband, Terry, 23; his 3-
     year-old son, Dustin; her daughter, Kirsten Sumler, 5; her 
     parents,

[[Page 17028]]

     Don Sumler and Glenda Sumler, 47, of Loving; and Roy Lee 
     Heady, 20; his wife Amy, 18, of Artesia, and their three 
     daughters, 22-month-old Kelsey and 6-month-old twins Timber 
     and Tamber.
       National Transportation Safety Board investigators have not 
     determined what caused the explosion and said it could take 
     up to a year to prepare a report. However, they said 
     investigators, at the scene found that corrosion inside the 
     damaged pipeline had eaten away half of the pipe's wall in 
     places.
       Bobby Smith's wife, Jennifer, filed a federal lawsuit Aug. 
     30 in Albuquerque, alleging El Paso Natural Gas ``failed to 
     properly comply with state and federal rules, regulations, 
     opinions and orders while operating an interstate gas 
     transmission line'' near the intersection of the Delaware and 
     Pecos rivers in Eddy County.
       The gas company also failed to ``properly inspect, 
     maintain, and operate their interstate gas transmission 
     line,'' which led to the explosion and fire, the lawsuit 
     said.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Abraham):
  S. 3003. A bill to preserve access to outpatient cancer therapy 
services under the medicare program by requiring the Health Care 
Financing Administration to follow appropriate procedures and utilize a 
formal nationwide analysis by the Comptroller General of the United 
States in making any changes to the rates of reimbursement for such 
services; to the Committee on Finance.


                      cancer care preservation act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in recent years, our nation has achieved 
tremendous advances in its War on Cancer--including developing 
breakthrough therapies and expanding the cancer care delivery system of 
convenient and low-cost community settings. This progress has enabled 
us to achieve an unprecedented reduction in American cancer deaths, 
which began in 1998.
  Today, 90% of all chemotherapy treatments are delivered in community 
settings like doctors' offices and outpatient hospital settings. Two 
important components of Medicare reimbursement for outpatient cancer 
treatments support these community care sites: payment for drugs 
themselves; and payment for the services of the physicians, nurses, and 
other caregivers who treat patients with cancer.
  Unfortunately, the Health Care Financing Administration has targeted 
outpatient cancer therapy services for deep budget cuts. HCFA has 
proposed to reduce drastically Medicare reimbursement rates for cancer 
drugs by unilaterally changing the definition of ``average wholesale 
price,'' which is at the heart of the current reimbursement formula. 
While there are indications that drug reimbursements have often 
exceeded doctors' and hospitals' costs, these margins have been used to 
help cover costs for professional services, which are inadequately 
reimbursed according to the cancer community, the General Accounting 
Office, and HCFA itself. Yet HCFA has not made any adjustments in these 
professional services payments.
  The planned cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates threaten to force 
doctors to send seniors with cancer out of the community settings where 
they now receive care and into more expensive in-patient settings. As a 
result, seniors may lose the option of receiving cancer treatments from 
the caregivers of their choice in settings that are close to the 
support structure of family, friends, and community. In addition, since 
the cost of cancer treatments are generally higher in hospital in-
patient settings than they are in outpatient settings, this ill-
conceived proposal to force seniors into hospitals will actually cause 
Medicare spending to rise.
  Mr. President, I have heard from many Missourians--doctors, patients, 
and hospital officials--about how the Administration's planned cuts in 
Medicare outpatient cancer care reimbursement rates will negatively 
impact patient care. I would like to share with my colleagues what some 
of them have told me.
  Dr. Burton Needles of St. Louis wrote to me to say that his patients 
prefer receiving chemotherapy in his office rather than in the 
hospital, but that the planned cuts would make it impossible for him to 
continue treating Medicare cancer patients in his office. On the other 
side of the state in Kansas City, Dr. Christopher Sirridge said that 
the result would be less accessible care for seniors with cancer, and 
even higher costs for the Medicare program.
  In Columbia, officials at the Ellis Fischel Cancer Center have told 
me that HCFA's change in reimbursement rates would make it extremely 
difficult for them to continue to be a source of chemotherapy and 
supportive care for cancer patients.
  And, finally, Mr. President, let me share the words of a cancer 
patient, Darlene Bahr, from St. Louis. Ms. Bahr wrote to me: ``I have 
been fighting cancer for 18 years. This is the fourth time I have 
cancer. I have been on a total of four years of chemo, which had been 
successful. I am now on chemo and hope it will be successful again.'' 
Ms. Bahr continues: ``If the physician's office and the hospital cannot 
afford to give me these drugs, where will I get them? Does Medicare 
want to eliminate cancer care?''
  Mr. President, Medicare beneficiaries like Ms. Bahr--who are facing 
battles against cancer--must not be saddled with the added burden of 
worrying about whether they will receive the care they need, in the 
setting they choose. Many doctors have communicated to HCFA and 
Congress that the Administration's plan to cut payments for cancer-
fighting drug treatments will likely prevent doctors from delivering 
outpatient cancer care--leaving thousands of seniors without this 
preferred, and lower cost, option.
  Congress must act to ensure that our progress in cancer treatment is 
not undermined by bureaucratic, inappropriate changes to Medicare 
reimbursement rates for cancer care.
  Therefore, Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Cancer Care 
Preservation Act, which will guarantee that HCFA cannot implement any 
reductions to Medicare reimbursement for outpatient cancer treatment 
unless those changes: are developed in concert with the General 
Accounting Office, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and 
representatives of the cancer care community, including patients, 
survivors, nurses, physicians, and researchers; provide for appropriate 
payment rates for outpatient cancer therapy services, based upon the 
determinations made by the General Accounting Office; and are 
authorized by an act of Congress.
  My legislation also will require GAO to complete a formal nationwide 
analysis to determine the physician and non-physician clinical 
resources necessary to provide safe outpatient cancer therapy services. 
In addition, GAO must determine the appropriate payment rates for such 
services under the Medicare program.
  Medicare beneficiaries with cancer must be confident that they will 
continue to receive the care they need, in the setting they choose, 
without risk of arbitrary and unexpected reductions in reimbursement 
that may force their doctors to cease offering treatment or refer them 
to a different facility for treatment.
  So today, I urge my colleagues to join with me in ensuring that our 
seniors receive full access to the life-saving therapies they need in 
the settings they choose, by cosponsoring the Cancer Care Preservation 
Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cancer Care 
Preservation Act be printed in the Record immediately following my 
remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3003

       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 ``Cancer Care Preservation Act 
     of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       Congress finds that in light of the tremendous advances 
     achieved by this Nation in its war on cancer, including the 
     development of breakthrough therapies, the expansion of the 
     cancer care delivery system to convenient and low-cost 
     community settings, and the unprecedented annual reduction in 
     American cancer deaths beginning in 1998, legislation is 
     needed to ensure that these advances are not undermined by 
     inappropriate changes to rates of reimbursement for 
     outpatient cancer

[[Page 17029]]

     therapy services under the medicare program under title XVIII 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. PRESERVATION OF REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR OUTPATIENT 
                   CANCER THERAPY SERVICES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration may 
     not implement any reduction to the rates of reimbursement for 
     outpatient cancer therapy services under the medicare program 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.), unless such reductions--
       (1) are developed in consultation with the Comptroller 
     General of the United States, the Medicare Payment Advisory 
     Commission established under section 1805 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395b-6) (in this Act referred to as ``MedPAC''), and 
     representatives of the cancer care community, including 
     patients, survivors, nurses, physicians, and researchers;
       (2) provide for appropriate payment rates for outpatient 
     cancer therapy services, based upon the determinations made 
     by the Comptroller General of the United States in the 
     nationwide analysis required under section 4 of this Act; and
       (3) are authorized by an Act of Congress.

     SEC. 4. FORMAL NATIONWIDE ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL RESOURCES 
                   NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SAFE OUTPATIENT CANCER 
                   THERAPY SERVICES.

       (a) Analysis.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a nationwide analysis to determine the 
     physician and non-physician clinical resources necessary to 
     provide safe outpatient cancer therapy services and the 
     appropriate payment rates for such services under the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
       (2) Issues analyzed.--In conducting the analysis under 
     paragraph (1), the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall determine--
       (A) the adequacy of practice expense relative value units 
     associated with the utilization of those clinical resources;
       (B) the adequacy of work units in the practice expense 
     formula; and
       (C) the necessity for an additional reimbursement 
     methodology for outpatient cancer therapy services that falls 
     outside the practice expense formula.
       (3) Consultation.--In conducting the analysis under 
     paragraph (1), the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall consult with Administrator of the Health Care Financing 
     Administration, MedPAC, and representatives of the cancer 
     care community, including patients, survivors, nurses, 
     physicians, and researchers.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report to Congress on the analysis 
     conducted under subsection (a) together with recommendations 
     for such legislative and administrative action as the 
     Comptroller General of the United States determines 
     appropriate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 3004. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax relief for the conversion of cooperative housing corporations into 
condominiums; to the Committee on Finance.


    to provide tax relief for the conversion of cooperative housing 
                     corporations into condominiums

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that 
would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Cooperative 
Housing Corporations (Co-ops) to convert to condominium forms of 
ownership without any immediate tax consequences.
  Under current law, a conversion from cooperative shareholding to 
condominium ownership is taxable at a corporate level as well as an 
individual level. The conversion is treated as a corporate liquidation, 
and therefore taxed accordingly. In addition, a capital gains tax is 
levied on any increase between the owner's basis in the co-op share 
pre-conversion and the market value of the condominium interest post-
conversion. This double taxation dissuades condominium conversion 
because the owner is being taxed on a transaction that is nothing more 
than a change in the form of ownership. While the Internal Revenue 
Service concedes that there are no discernible advantages to society 
from the cooperative form of ownership, it does not view Federal tax 
statutes as having the flexibility to allow co-ops to re-organize 
freely as condominiums.
  In cooperative housing, real property ownership is vested in a 
corporation, with shares of stock for each apartment unit, that are 
sold to buyers. The corporation then issues a proprietary lease 
entitling the owner of the stock to the use of the unit in perpetuity. 
Because the investment is in the form of a share of stock, investors 
sometimes lose their entire investment as a result of debt incurred by 
the corporation in construction and development. In addition, due to 
the structure of a cooperative housing corporation, a prospective 
purchaser of shares in the corporation from an existing tenant-
stockholder has difficulty obtaining mortgage financing for the 
purchase. Furthermore, tenant-stockholders of cooperative housing also 
encounter difficulties in securing bank loans for the full value of 
their investment.
  As a result, owners of cooperative housing are increasingly looking 
toward conversion to condominium ownership regimes. Condominium 
ownership permits each owner of a unit to directly own the unit itself, 
eliminating the cooperative housing dilemmas of corporate debt that 
supersedes the investment of cooperative housing share owners, and 
other financial concerns.
  The legislation I introduce today will remove the penalty of double 
taxation from the cooperative housing to condominium ownership, and 
will greatly benefit co-op owners across the Nation. I urge my 
colleagues' consideration and support for this measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

                                S. 3004

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. NONRECOGNITION OF GAIN OR LOSS ON DISTRIBUTIONS BY 
                   COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 216(e) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to distributions by cooperative 
     housing corporations) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Distributions by Cooperative Housing Corporations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in regulations--
       ``(A) no gain or loss shall be recognized to a cooperative 
     housing corporation on the distribution by such corporation 
     of a dwelling unit to a stockholder in such corporation if 
     such distribution is in exchange for the stockholder's stock 
     in such corporation, and
       ``(B) no gain or loss shall be recognized to a stockholder 
     of such corporation on the transfer of such stockholder's 
     stock in an exchange described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Basis.--The basis of a dwelling unit acquired in a 
     distribution to which paragraph (1) applies shall be the same 
     as the basis of the stock in the cooperative housing 
     corporation for which it is exchanged, decreased in the 
     amount of any money received by the taxpayer in such 
     exchange.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to distributions after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

                          ____________________