[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18134-18142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
        Miller, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frist, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lott, Mr. L. 
        Chafee, Mr. Mack, Mr. Helms, Mr. Specter, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Hutchinson, 
        Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
        Shelby, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Harkin, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
        Bennett, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Grams):
  S. 3045. A bill to improve the quality, timeliness, and credibility 
of forensic science services for criminal justice purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


   paul coverdell national forensic sciences improvement act of 2000

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on June 9, 1999, the late Senator Paul 
Coverdell introduced legislation aimed at addressing one of the most 
pressing problems facing law enforcement today: the critical backlogs 
in our state crime labs. Senator Coverdell's National Forensic Sciences 
Improvement Act of 1999 (S. 1196) attracted broad bipartisan support in 
Congress, as well as the enforcement of national law enforcement 
groups. Unfortunately, before Senator Coverdell's bill could move 
through Congress, he passed away.
  As a fitting, substantive tribute to Senator Coverdell, I am today 
introducing the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement 
Act of 2000 to eliminate the crisis in forensics labs across the 
country. This was an issue he cared a great deal about, and I am 
honored to have the opportunity to carry on his efforts to address this 
problem.
  The crisis in our forensics labs is acute. According to a report 
issued in February by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of December 
1997, 69 percent of state crime labs reported DNA backlogs in 6,800 
cases and 287,000 convicted offender samples. The backlogs are having a 
crippling effect on the fair and speedy administration of justice.
  For example, the Seattle Times reported on April 23 of this year that 
police are being forced to pay private labs to do critical forensics 
work so that their active investigations do not have to wait for tests 
to be completed. ``As Spokane authorities closed in on a suspected 
serial killer, they were eager to nail enough evidence to make their 
case stick. So they skipped over the backlogged Washington State Patrol 
crime lab and shipped some evidence to a private laboratory, paying a 
premium for quicker results. [A] chronic backlog at the State Patrol's 
seven crime labs, which analyze criminal evidence from police 
throughout Washington state, has grown so acute that Spokane 
investigators feared their manhunt would be stalled.''
  As a former prosecutor, I know how dependent the criminal justice 
system is on fast, accurate, dependable forensics testing. With 
backlogs in the labs, district attorneys are forced to wait months and 
years to pursue cases. This is not simply a matter of expediting 
convictions of the guilty. Suspects are held in jail for months before 
trial, waiting for the forensic evidence to be completed. Thus, 
potentially innocent persons stay in jail, potentially guilty persons 
stay out of jail, and victims of crime do not receive closure.
  As an Alabama newspaper, the Decatur Daily, reported on November 28, 
1999, ``[The] backlog of cases is so bad that final autopsy results and 
other forensic testing sometimes take up to a year to complete. It's a 
frustrating wait for police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and 
even suspects. It means delayed justice for the families of crime 
victims.'' Justice delayed is justice denied for prosecutors, 
defendants, judges, police, and, most importantly, for victims. This is 
unacceptable.
  Given the tremendous amount of work to be done by crime labs, 
scientists and technicians must sacrifice accuracy, reliability, or 
time in order to complete their work. Sacrificing accuracy or 
reliability would destroy the justice system, so it is time that is 
sacrificed. But with the tremendous pressures to complete lab work, it 
is perhaps inevitable that there will be problems other than delays. 
Everyone from police to detectives to evidence technicians to lab 
technicians to forensic scientists to prosecutors must be well-trained 
in the preservation, collection, and preparation of forensic evidence.
  The JonBenet Ramsey case is perhaps the most well-known example of a 
case where forensics work is critical to convicting the perpetrator of 
a crime. As the Rocky Mountain News reported on February 2, 1997, ``To 
solve the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey, Boulder police must rely to a 
great extent on the results of forensic tests being conducted in crime 
laboratories. [T]he looming problem for police and prosecutors, 
according to forensics experts, is whether the evidence is in good 
condition. Or whether lax procedures . . . resulted in key evidence 
being hopelessly contaminated.''
  We need to help our labs train investigators and police. We need to 
help our labs reduce the backlog so that the innocent may be exonerated 
and the guilty convicted. We need to help our labs give closure to 
victims of crime.
  The bill I am introducing today is essentially a reintroduction of 
Senator Coverdell's National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 1999 
(S. 1196). The bill expands permitted uses of Byrne grants to include 
improving the quality, timeliness, and credibility of forensic science 
services, including DNA, blood and ballistics tests. It requires States 
to develop a plan outlining the manner in which the grants will be used 
to improve forensic science services and requires States to use these 
funds only to improve forensic sciences, and limits administrative 
expenditures to 10 percent of the grant amount.
  This new bill adds a reporting requirement so that the backlog 
reduction can be documented and tracked. Additionally, the funding is 
adjusted to begin authorizations in Fiscal Year 2001, rather than FY 
2000, as S. 1196 did. Otherwise, this is the exact same bill Senator 
Coverdell introduced and that I and many of my colleagues supported.
  This bill has the support of many of my colleagues from both sides of 
the aisle, including Senators Cleland and Miller from Georgia, Senators 
Lott, Nickles, Hatch, Stevens, Thurmond, Shelby, Cochran, Kyl, 
Wellstone, Dodd, Grams, Durbin, Frist, Helms, Specter, Santorum, 
Jeffords, Abraham, L. Chafee, Mack, Bunning, Ashcroft, Harkin, and 
others. I also appreciate the strong support of Representative Sanford 
Bishop of Georgia, the primary sponsor of Senator Coverdell's bill in 
the House.
  I spoke with Attorney General Reno last night, and she told me that 
she ``supports our efforts to improve forensic science capabilities.'' 
She also told me that this bill ``is consistent with the Department of 
Justice's approach to helping State and local law enforcement.''

[[Page 18135]]

  Moreover, numerous law enforcement organizations, including the 
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, American Academy of 
Forensic Sciences, Southern Association of Forensic Sciences, the 
National Association of Medical Examiners, the International 
Association of Police Chiefs, the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, Georgia 
Bureau of Investigation, the National Association of Attorneys General, 
and the National Association of Counties.
  These Members of Congress and these organizations understand, as I 
do, that crime is not political. Our labs need help, and after 15 years 
as a prosecutor, I am convinced that there is nothing that the Congress 
can do to help the criminal justice system more than to pass this bill 
and fund our crime labs. To properly complete tests for DNA, blood, and 
ballistic samples, our crime labs need better equipment, training, 
staffing, and accreditation. This bill will help clear the crippling 
backlogs in the forensics labs. This, in turn, will help exonerate the 
innocent, convict the guilty, and restore confidence in our criminal 
justice system. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing the Paul 
Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000 in the 
short time we have remaining in this Session.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Paul 
Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000. I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor of this important and necessary 
legislation and commend my friends, Senator Sessions and the late 
Senator Coverdell, for all of their hard work and leadership they have 
shown in this matter.
  To justify the need for this legislation, I point to the situation 
that the Arkansas State Crime Lab is experiencing as a direct result of 
the exponential increase in the production, use, and distribution of 
methamphetamine. Simply put, with 16,000 test requests this year--
resulting in a backlog of over 6,000 cases--the Arkansas State Crime 
Lab is at the breaking point. Accordingly, it now takes five to six 
months from the receipt of a sample to complete the analysis necessary 
for prosecution. I commend and thank Senator Gregg for his assistance 
in the procurement of funding to hire three additional chemists. 
However, I recognize that Arkansas is not alone in its great need and 
that Congress must authorize more federal funding to fight the ever-
increasing proliferation in the production, use, and distribution of 
illicit substances in our nation.
  The Act would provide an additional $768 million over the next six 
years in the form of block grants by the Attorney General to states to 
improve the quality, timeliness, and credibility of forensic science 
services to the law enforcement community. It would do this by allowing 
states the flexibility to use these monies for facilities, personnel, 
computerization, equipment, supplies, accreditation and certification, 
education, and training. The Act's merit is further made manifest by 
the fact that it is supported by such groups as the American Academy of 
Forensic Sciences, the National Association of Medical Examiners, the 
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, the Southern 
Association of Forensic Sciences, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Counties, and the 
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Thus, I ask 
my colleagues to join me in helping Senator Sessions in his efforts to 
enact that this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 3047. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the lifetime Learning credit and provide an optional deduction for 
qualified tuition and related expenses; to the Committee on Finance.


                     college tuition tax deductions

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it has become increasingly apparent in 
today's society that a college education is no longer a luxury. In 
order for one to succeed in an ever-changing, high-tech world, a 
college education has become a near necessity.
  However, just as a college degree becomes increasingly vital in 
today's global economy, the costs associated with obtaining this degree 
continue to soar out of control. At the same time, the annual income of 
the average American family is not keeping pace with these soaring 
costs. Since 1980, college costs have been rising at an average of 2 to 
3 times the Consumer Price Index. Now, in the most prosperous time in 
our history, it is simply unacceptable that the key to our children's 
future success has become a crippling burden for middle-class families.
  According to the United States Department of Education, National 
Center for Education Statistics, the average annual costs associated 
with attending a public 4-year college during the 1998-1999 school 
year, including tuition, fees, room, and board, were $8,018. For a 
private 4-year school these costs rose to an astonishing $19,970. and 
these are only the average costs, Mr. President. The price tag for just 
one year at some of the nations most prestigious universities is fast 
approaching the $35,000 range.
  In 1996, and again in 1997, I introduced the ``GET AHEAD'' Act 
(Growing the Economy for Tomorrow: Assuring Higher Education is 
Affordable and Dependable). My main goal in introducing this 
legislation was to help the average American family afford to send 
their children to college. Although this legislation never came before 
the full Senate for a vote, I was extremely pleased that a number of 
the provisions of the GET AHEAD Act--including the student loan 
interest deduction and the establishment of education savings 
accounts--were included as part of the 1997 tax bill. Additionally, two 
other provisions of that bill--the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime 
Learning Credit--were based upon the core proposal of my GET AHEAD 
ACT--a $10,000 tuition deduction.
  The $10,000 tuition deduction is a proposal I have been advocating 
since I first announced my candidacy for the Senate 28 years ago. 
Today, I am building upon a proposal the President made in his State of 
the Union address earlier this year and am introducing legislation 
which would finally fully enact this proposal.
  The legislation I am introducing today will provide America's middle 
class families with up to $2,800 in annual tax relief for the costs 
associated with a higher education. This plan will give families the 
option of taking either an expanded Lifetime Learning Credit or a tax 
education of up to $10,000.
  Thanks to the 1997 tax bill, current law allows many American 
families to claim the Lifetime Learning Credit, currently a tax credit 
of up to 20 percent on the first $5,000 of higher education expenses--
meaning a tax credit of up to $1,000 per family per year. For 2003 and 
after, this will increase to a credit of up to 20 percent of the first 
$10,000 of higher education expenses--meaning a credit of up to $2,000 
per family per year.
  The bill I am introducing today will expand this important tax credit 
to 28 percent on the first $5,000 of higher education expenses through 
2002--amounting to a credit of up to $1,400. For the year 2003 and 
after, this will increase to a credit of up to 28 percent on the first 
$10,000 of higher education expenses--amounting to a credit of up to 
$2,000 per family per year. To give families the flexibility to choose 
the best approach for their own circumstances, my plan will give 
families the option of deducting these higher education expenses 
instead of taking the tax credit.
  My legislation will continue to ensure that these important 
educational tax breaks help support middle class families while 
increasing the income thresholds to $60,000 per year for individuals 
and $120,000 for couples.
  Mr. President, the dream of every American is to provide for their 
child a better life than they themselves had. A key component in 
attaining that dream is ensuring that their children have the education 
necessary to successfully complete in the expanding global economy. It 
is my hope that this legislation will help many American families move 
a step closer in achieving this dream and being able to better afford 
to send their children to college.

[[Page 18136]]


                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 3048. A bill to institute a moratorium on the imposition of the 
death penalty at the Federal level until a Commission on the Federal 
Death Penalty studies its use and policies ensuring justice, fairness, 
and due process are implemented; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              federal death penalty moratorium act of 2000

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in recent days, Congress has held 
hearings and considered legislation on the terrible tragedy involving 
potentially defective tires manufactured by Bridgestone/Firestone and 
placed on certain vehicles sold by the Ford Motor Company. It has 
captured the nation's and the media's attention. And rightly so. I hope 
we are able to get to the bottom of who knew what, when, why and how.
  But while Congress demands accountability from these companies, as 
well as the Transportation Department, Congress should also demand 
accountability from the Justice Department. As the Senate Commerce 
Committee held hearings on the Firestone tire problem the other day, a 
few blocks down the road the Justice Department released a report that 
seriously calls into question the fairness of the federal death penalty 
system. The report documents apparent racial and geographic disparities 
in the administration of the federal death penalty. In other words, who 
lives and who dies, and who is charged, tried, convicted and sentenced 
to death in the federal system appears to relate arbitrarily to the 
color of one's skin or where one lives. The report can be read as a 
chilling indictment of our federal criminal justice system.
  I introduced legislation earlier this year calling for a national 
moratorium on executions and the creation of a commission to review the 
fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the state and 
federal levels. It is much-needed legislation that will begin to 
address the growing concerns of the American people with the fairness 
and accuracy of our nation's death penalty system. I am pleased that 
that bill, the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, has the support 
of some of my colleagues, including Senators Levin, Wellstone, Durbin, 
and Boxer.
  But now, with the first federal execution in almost 40 years 
scheduled to take place in December, I urge my colleagues to take 
action in the remaining weeks of this session to restore justice and 
fairness to our federal criminal justice system. I rise today to 
introduce the Federal Death Penalty Moratorium Act. Like my earlier 
bill, this bill would suspend executions of federal death row inmates 
while an independent, blue ribbon commission thoroughly reviews the 
flaws in the federal death penalty system. The first federal execution 
in almost 40 years is scheduled to take place after this Congress has 
adjourned. But before we adjourn, we have an obligation--indeed, a 
solemn responsibility--to the American people to ensure that the 
federal criminal justice system is a fair one, particularly when it 
involves the ultimate punishment, death.
  Mr. President, some have argued that the flaws in the administration 
of the death penalty at the state level do not exist at the federal 
level. But now, with the release of the Justice Department report 
earlier this week, our suspicions have been heightened. We now know 
that the federal death penalty system has attributes of inequity and 
unfairness.
  The Justice Department report makes a number of troubling findings:

       Roughly 80 percent of defendants who were charged with 
     death-eligible offenses under Federal law and whose cases 
     were submitted by U.S. Attorneys under the Department's death 
     penalty decision-making procedures were African American, 
     Hispanic American or members of other minority groups;
       United States attorneys in 5 of the 94 federal districts--1 
     each in Virginia, Maryland, Puerto Rico and 2 in New York--
     submit 40 percent of all cases in which the death penalty is 
     considered;
       United States attorneys who have frequently recommended 
     seeking the death penalty are often from states with a high 
     number of executions, including Texas, Virginia and Missouri; 
     and
       White defendants are more likely than black defendants to 
     negotiate plea bargains, saving them from the death penalty 
     in federal cases.

  What do these findings tell us? I think we can all agree that the 
report is deeply disturbing. There is a glaring lack of uniformity in 
the application of the federal death penalty. Whether you live or die 
appears to relate arbitrarily to the color of your skin or where you 
live. Why do these disparities exist? How can they be addressed? The 
Justice Department report doesn't have answers to these and other 
questions. I am pleased that the Attorney General has requested 
additional internal reviews. But with all respect to the Attorney 
General, that's simply not enough. The American people deserve more. 
Indeed, American ideals of justice demand much more.
  With the first federal execution since the Kennedy Administration 
only three months away, Congress should call for an independent review. 
Mr. President, if the Attorney General and the President won't act, 
then it is our solemn responsibility, as members of Congress, to 
protect the American people and ensure fairness and justice for all 
Americans. Congress should demand an answer to the troubling questions 
raised by the Justice Department report. And I believe we have a duty 
do so. After all, it was Congress that, beginning in 1988, enacted the 
laws providing for the death penalty for certain federal crimes.
  And I might add, the Justice Department has had more than enough time 
to right the wrong. As some of my colleagues may recall, concerns about 
racial disparities in the administration of the federal death penalty 
were hotly debated in 1994 during debate on the Racial Justice Act as 
the Congress decided whether to expand the federal death penalty. At 
that time, a House Judiciary Subcommittee report found that 89 percent 
of defendants against whom the federal government sought the death 
penalty under the 1988 Drug Kingpin Statute were African American or 
Hispanic Americans. In response to these concerns, the Attorney General 
centralized the process for U.S. attorneys requesting the Attorney 
General's authorization to seek the death penalty.
  The Attorney General's centralized review process has now been in 
operation for nearly 6 years. But we have not seen anything approaching 
rough consistency, let alone uniformity in the federal death penalty 
system. We are continuing to see egregious disparities. One of the 
greatest needs for additional data and analysis involves the question 
of how line prosecutors and U.S. attorneys are making decisions to take 
cases at the federal level and charge defendants with death-eligible 
offenses. But Congress and the American people should not wait for 
another report that fails to ask and answer this and other tough 
questions. Indeed, an agency that tries to review itself can't always 
be expected to be fully forthcoming or fully equipped to identify its 
own failings. That's why an independent, blue ribbon commission is the 
only appropriate response to the Justice Department report.
  And time is of the essence. It's not too late for Congress to act. We 
should demand full accountability. In fact, the American people are 
demanding accountability and fairness. In a poll released today by The 
Justice Project, 64 percent of registered voters support a suspension 
of executions while fairness questions are addressed, based on 
information that in several instances, criminals sentenced to be 
executed have been released based on new evidence or DNA testing. And 
this is not just a partisan issue, or shouldn't be. The poll, conducted 
by Democratic and Republican polling firms, found that 73 percent of 
Independents and 50 percent of Republicans, including 65 percent of 
non-conservative Republicans, support a suspension of executions. The 
American people get it. Something is terribly amiss in our 
administration of the ultimate punishment, death. And this is just as 
true at the federal level.
  So, as we approach the close of this 106th Congress, I urge my 
colleagues to support a moratorium on federal executions while we study 
the glaring flaws in the federal death penalty system through an 
independent, blue ribbon

[[Page 18137]]

commission. It is disturbing enough that the ultimate punishment may be 
meted out unfairly at the state level. But it should be even more 
troubling for my colleagues when the federal government, which should 
be leading the states on matters of equality, justice and fairness, has 
a system that is unjust. We are at a defining moment in the history of 
our nation's administration of the death penalty. The time to do 
something is now.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. 
        Durbin):
  S. 3049. A bill to increase the maximum amount of marketing loan 
gains and loan deficiency payments that an agricultural producer may 
receive during the 2000 crop year; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


   increasing the authorized amount of marketing loan gains and loan 
                          deficiency payments

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to double the limit on loan deficiency payments (LDP) and marketing 
loan gains.
  The hard work and ingenuity of America's farmers have made U.S. 
agriculture the pride of the nation. But farmers today face serious 
challenges. Record low commodity prices continue to besiege family 
throughout our great nation. For the past 3 years, American farmers 
have faced the lowest prices in recent memory. Prices have plummeted 
for almost every agricultural commodity--corn, soybeans, wheat and the 
list goes on. The bottom line is that many farmers throughout this 
Nation are having trouble making ends meet.
  Appropriately, Congress has responded with economic assistance to 
offset these hard times. However, while last year's assistance package 
included a much needed provision to expand limits on marketing loan 
gains and loan deficiency payments, this year's assistance package did 
not include such a provision.
  As we move into harvest time, prices have trended downward, and many 
now realize that loan deficiency payments per bushel may be quite large 
for many agricultural commodities. With the combination of high yields 
and high per bushel marketing gains, many farmers now realize that they 
could easily bump up against these payment limitations. Recognizing 
this impending problem, farm groups, including the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, have asked that these payment limitations be eased, but not 
removed.
  According to industry experts, a 700-acre corn farmer will exceed the 
$75,000 cap. For farmers who exceed this cap, their only recourse is to 
forego the much-needed income or use the bureaucracy-ridden commodity 
certificates program. Estimates project that the additional drying, 
shrinkage and storage costs that a accompany the commodity certificate 
program will cost farmers an additional $33.46 per acre of grain. 
Farmers can ill-afford this lost income during these hard economic 
times.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to solve this dilemma. The bill 
simply doubles the LDP limit from $75,000 to $150,000 for this crop 
year. This legislation is consistent with a provision that was included 
in last year's farm economic assistance package.
  Surprisingly, this provision may actually provide cost-savings to the 
federal government through staff time reduction. Anecdotally, Illinois 
Farm Service Agency employees report that it takes about two hours of 
staff time to complete a loan forfeiture using the commodity 
certificate process, while the loan deficiency payment process requires 
only 15 minutes.
  When the 1996 farm bill was written, no one could have foreseen our 
current situation of extremely low prices, and the $75,000 limit seemed 
appropriate. However, with the Asian market crash, unusually good 
weather, and exceptional crop yields, commodity prices have been driven 
to unforeseen lows, making a re-evaluation of the LDP cap appropriate 
and timely. This bill is good public policy and enjoys bipartisan 
support. I appreciate my colleagues--Senators Edwards, Ashcroft, and 
Durbin--who join me as sponsors of this legislation, and I encourage 
other Senators to co-sponsor this sorely-needed change in farm policy.
  Agriculture is critical to the economy of America, and is the 
Nation's largest employer. For farmers to prosper, our Nation must have 
economic policies that promote investment and growth in agricultural 
communities and agricultural States like my home State of Illinois. A 
healthy agricultural economy has ripple effects through many industries 
and is critical for the economic prosperity of both Illinois and 
America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 3050. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
make improvements to the prospective payment system for skilled nursing 
facility services; to the Committee on Finance.


             THE SKILLED NURSING FACILITY CARE ACT OF 2000

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator 
Domenici, in introducing today legislation to increase Medicare 
reimbursements for skilled nursing facilities, SNFs, which care for 
Medicare beneficiaries.
  As my colleagues recall, last year the Congress passed a measure to 
restore nearly $2.7 billion for the care of nursing home patients. This 
action provided much needed relief to an industry that was facing 
extraordinary financial difficulties as a result of the spending 
reductions provided under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) as well 
as its implementation by the Health Care Financing Administration 
(HCFA).
  Unfortunately, the problem is not fixed, and more needs to be done. 
That is why Senator Domenici and I are introducing the ``Skilled 
Nursing Facility Care Act of 2000'' to ensure that patient care will 
not be compromised and so that seniors can rest assured that they will 
have access to this important Medicare benefit.
  As I have talked to my constituents in Utah about nursing home care, 
it is clear to me as I am sure it is to everyone that no one ever 
expects--or certainly wants--to be in a nursing home. Yet, it is an 
important Medicare benefit for many seniors who have been hospitalized 
and are, in fact, the sickest residents in a nursing home.
  In Utah, there are currently 93 nursing homes serving nearly 5,800 
residents. I understand that seven of these 93 facilities, which are 
operated by Vencor, have filed for Chapter 11 protection. These seven 
facilities care for approximately 800 residents. Clearly, we need to be 
concerned about the prospect of these nursing homes going out of 
business, and the consequences that such action would have on all 
residents--no matter who pays the bill.
  The ``Skilled Nursing Facility Care Act of 2000'' has been developed 
to address this problem. Medicare beneficiaries who need care in 
nursing homes are those who have been hospitalized and then need 
comparable medical attention in the nursing home setting. In other 
words, they have had a stroke, cancer, complex surgery, serious 
infection or other serious health problem. These seniors are often the 
sickest and most frail.
  Medicare's skilled nursing benefit provides life enhancing care 
following a hospitalization to nearly two million of these seniors 
annually. Unless Congress and the Health Care Financing Administration 
take the necessary steps to ensure proper payments, elderly patients 
will be at risk, especially in rural, underserved and economically 
disadvantaged areas.
  Moreover, in an economy of near full employment, nursing homes face 
the added difficulty of recruiting and retaining high quality nursing 
staff. The ability to retain high quality skilled nursing staff ensures 
access to lifesaving medical services for our nation's most vulnerable 
seniors.
  Flaws in the new Medicare payment system have clearly underestimated 
the actual cost of caring for medically complex patients. Subsequent 
adjustments have led to critical under- funding. Patient care is being 
adversely affected. Unfortunately, HCFA maintains that it needs 
statutory authority to fix

[[Page 18138]]

the problem. The provisions in the Hatch/Domenici bill are designed to 
address this issue.
  Our legislation provides that authority. In addition, the bill 
requires HCFA to examine actual data and actual Medicare skilled 
nursing facility cost increases. Studies have indicated that the 
initial HCFA adjustment has been understated by approximately 13.5 
percent. Pursuant to the Hatch/Domenici bill, HCFA would be required to 
make the necessary adjustments in the SNF market basket index to better 
account for annual cost increases in providing skilled nursing care to 
medically complex patients.
  Since HCFA's review and adjustments as provided under our bill will 
not be immediate, our legislation would also increase the inflation 
adjustment by four percent for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002, 
respectively. This immediate funding increase is necessary to ensure 
continuity of quality patient care in the interim. It will provide some 
assurance that quality skilled nursing facility services for our 
nation's seniors will continue, while HCFA examines actual cost data 
and develops a more accurate market basket index.
  Skilled nursing facilities are being underpaid and most of the 
payment is for nurses' aides and therapists. According to a study 
conducted by Buck Consultants that surveyed managerial, supervisory, 
and staff positions in nursing homes, actual wages for these valued 
employees increased, on average, 21.9 percent between 1995 and 1998.
  Buck Consultants examined data gathered from a voluntary nursing home 
survey by looking at salary increases for 37 types of clinical, 
administrative, and support positions. The difference between HCFA's 
8.2 percent inflation adjustment and these salary increases over the 
same period of time equal 13.7 percent. Again, it is clear that skilled 
nursing facilities are not receiving adequate payment from the Medicare 
program. With such funding shortfalls, skilled employees cannot be 
hired and patient care will be impacted.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that the ``Skilled Nursing Facility Care 
Act of 2000'' will provide immediate relief to skilled nursing 
facilities and the seniors they serve, while attempting to address a 
fundamental payment shortcoming for the long-term. We cannot forget our 
commitment to our nation's elderly.
  Senator Domenici and I are working with the Chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Roth, who is also concerned about the impact that 
the BBA Medicare reimbursement levels are having on skilled nursing 
facilities and who is currently developing a package of Medicare 
restorations for health care providers. Over the next several weeks, we 
will work with him and with members of the Finance Committee in an 
effort to restore funding for SNFs and for other health care providers 
who are facing similar reimbursement reductions.
  Once again, I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici, and his staff for working with me in 
developing this important bill and preserving Medicare's commitment to 
our nation's elderly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hatch in 
introducing the ``Skilled Nursing Facility Care Act of 2000.''
  We can all take a certain amount of pride in the bipartisan Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997. However, it should come as no surprise that 
legislation as complex as the Balanced Budget Act (BBA), as well as its 
implementation by the Health Care Financing Administration, has 
produced some unintended consequences that must be corrected.
  Heeding this advice, Congress made a down payment last year on the 
continued health of the skilled nursing facility benefit by passing the 
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999. While I believe this was a very 
good first step, I am convinced the bill we are introducing today is 
urgently needed to assure our senior citizens continue to have access 
to quality nursing home care through the Medicare program.
  The transition to the Prospective Payment System (PPS) for Skilled 
Nursing Facilities (SNFs) contained in the BBA is seriously threatening 
access to needed care for seniors all across the country. For instance, 
almost 11 percent of nursing facilities in the United States are in 
bankruptcy. In my home State of New Mexico the number is nothing short 
of alarming, nearly 50 percent of the nursing facilities are in 
bankruptcy.
  I simply do not know how we can stand by in the face of this crisis 
and watch our seniors continue to lose access to nursing home care. My 
belief is only buttressed in light of the fact that as the baby boomers 
grow older we will be needing more nursing homes, not less.
  We must have a strong system of nursing home care not only now but, 
in the future. With time having already run out on many nursing home 
operators and quickly running out on others, I believe Congress must 
act immediately.
  In New Mexico, there are currently 81 nursing homes serving almost 
7,000 patients, and as the bankruptcies have proven, the current 
Medicare payment system, as implemented by HCFA, simply does not 
provide enough funds to cover the costs being incurred by these 
facilities to care for our senior citizens.
  For rural States like New Mexico, corrective action is critically 
important. Many communities in my State are served by a single facility 
that is the only provider for many miles. If such a facility were to 
close, patients in that home would be forced to move to facilities much 
farther away from their families. Moreover, nursing homes in smaller, 
rural communities often operate on a razor thin bottom line and for 
them, the reductions in Medicare reimbursements have been especially 
devastating.
  The legislation we are introducing today would go a long way to build 
upon the steps we took last year with the Balanced Budget Refinement 
Act in restoring stability in the nursing home industry. The Hatch-
Domenici Care Act of 2000 would increase reimbursement rates through 
two provisions.
  First, for a 2-year period, the bill eliminates the one percentage 
point reduction in the annual inflation update for all skilled nursing 
facility reimbursement rates and raises that same update by four 
percent. I believe this provision is a matter of simple fairness 
because we are merely attempting to accurately keep reimbursements in 
line with the actual cost of providing care.
  Second, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to reexamine the annual inflation update, the so-called market basket 
index, using actual data to determine the necessary level of update. As 
a result of the reexamination, the Secretary may adjust the inflation 
update accordingly.
  I look forward to again working with Senator Hatch to pass this 
critical legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 3051. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


            greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3051

       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 ``Greater Access to Affordable 
     Pharmaceuticals Act'' or the ``GAAP Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. NEW DRUG APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Limitations on the Use of Patents to Prevent Approval 
     of Abbreviated New Drug Applications.--Section 505(b)(2) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     355(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``the 
     drug for which such investigations were conducted or which 
     claims a use

[[Page 18139]]

     for such drug for which the applicant is seeking approval 
     under this subsection'' and inserting ``an active ingredient 
     of the drug for which such investigations were conducted, 
     alone or in combination with another active ingredient or 
     which claims the first approved use for such drug for which 
     the applicant is seeking approval under this subsection''; 
     and
       (B) in clause (iv), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     period;
       (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``shall also include--'' and all that follows through ``a 
     certification'' and inserting ``shall also include a 
     certification'';
       (3) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (4) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iv) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively, and aligning the 
     margins of the subparagraphs with the margins of subparagraph 
     (A) of section 505(c)(1) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 355(c)(1)).
       (b) Abbreviated New Drug Applications.--Section 
     505(j)(2)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (vi), by striking the semicolon and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (2) in clause (vii)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking 
     ``the listed drug referred to in clause (i) or which claims a 
     use for such listed drug for which the applicant is seeking 
     approval under this subsection'' and inserting ``an active 
     ingredient of the listed drug referred to in clause (i), 
     alone or in combination with another active ingredient or 
     which claims the first approved use for such drug for which 
     the applicant is seeking approval under this subsection'';
       (B) in subclause (IV), by striking ``; and'' and inserting 
     a period; and
       (C) by striking clause (viii).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall only be effective with respect to a listed drug for 
     which no certification pursuant to section 
     505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of the Federal Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act 
     was made prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. CITIZEN PETITION REVIEW.

       Section 505(j)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     submission of a citizen's petition filed pursuant to section 
     10.30 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, with respect 
     to an application submitted under paragraph (2)(A), shall not 
     cause the Secretary to delay review and approval of such 
     application, unless such petition demonstrates through 
     substantial scientific proof that approval of such 
     application would pose a threat to public health and 
     safety.''.

     SEC. 4. BIOEQUIVALENCE TESTING METHODS.

       Section 505(j)(8)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) the effects of the drug and the listed drug do not 
     show a significant difference based on tests (other than 
     tests that assess rate and extent of absorption), including 
     comparative pharmacodynamic studies, limited confirmation 
     studies, or in vitro methods, that demonstrate that no 
     significant differences in therapeutic effects of active or 
     inactive ingredients are expected.''.

     SEC. 5. ACCELERATED GENERIC DRUG COMPETITION.

       (a) In General.--Section 505(j)(5) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking subclause (II) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(II) the date of a final decision of a court in an action 
     described in clause (ii) from which no appeal can or has been 
     taken, or the date of a settlement order or consent decree 
     signed by a Federal judge, that enters a final judgement, and 
     includes a finding that the relevant patents that are the 
     subject of the certification involved are invalid or not 
     infringed, whichever is earlier,'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the following:
       ``(C) The one-hundred and eighty day period described in 
     subparagraph (B)(iv) shall become available to the next 
     applicant submitting an application containing a 
     certification described in paragraph (2)(A)(vii)(IV) if the 
     previous applicant fails to commence commercial marketing of 
     its drug product once its application is made effective, 
     withdraws its application, or amends the certification from a 
     certification under subclause (IV) to a certification under 
     subclause (III) of such paragraph, either voluntarily or as a 
     result of a settlement or defeat in patent litigation.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall only be effective with respect to an application filed 
     under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act 
     for a listed drug for which no certification pursuant to 
     505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of such Act was made prior to the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that measures should be taken 
     to effectuate the purpose of the Drug Price Competition and 
     Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Hatch-Waxman Act'') to make generic drugs 
     more available and accessible, and thereby reduce health care 
     costs, including measures that require manufacturers of a 
     drug for which an application is approved under section 
     505(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     255(c)) desiring to extend a patent of such drug to utilize 
     the patent extension procedure provided under the Hatch-
     Waxman Act.

     SEC. 7. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Applications.--Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(3), in subparagraphs (A) and (C), by 
     striking ``paragraph (2)(A)(iv)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (2)'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``clause (i) or (ii) 
     of subsection (b)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A) or 
     (B) of subsection (b)(2)'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``clause (iii) of 
     subsection (b)(2)(A)'' and all that follows through the 
     period and inserting ``subparagraph (C) of subsection (b)(2), 
     the approval may be made effective on the date certified 
     under subparagraph (C).'';
       (C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``clause (iv) of 
     subsection (b)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (D) of 
     subsection (b)(2)''; and
       (D) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking ``clause (iv) of 
     subsection (b)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (D) of 
     subsection (b)(2)''; and
       (3) in subsection (j), in paragraph (2)(A), in the matter 
     following clause (vii)(IV), by striking ``clauses (i) through 
     (viii)'' and inserting ``clauses (i) through (vii)''.
       (b) Pediatric Studies of Drugs.--Section 505A of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``(b)(2)(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)'';
       (B) in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``(b)(2)(A)(iii)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)(iv)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(2)''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2)--
       (A) in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``(b)(2)(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)'';
       (B) in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``(b)(2)(A)(iii)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)(iv)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(2)''.
       (c) Definition.--Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(kk) For purposes of the references to court decisions in 
     clauses (i) and (iii) of section 505(c)(3)(C) and clauses 
     (iii)(I), (iii)(III) of section 505(j)(5)(B), the term `the 
     court' means the court that enters final judgment from which 
     no appeal (not including a writ of certiorari) can or has 
     been taken.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 3052. A bill to designate wilderness areas and a cooperative 
management and protection area in the vicinity of Steens Mountain in 
Harney County, Oregon, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                 steens mountain wilderness act of 2000

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I join my friend from Oregon, Senator 
Smith, in the introduction of the Steens Mountain Wilderness Act of 
2000. Located in southeastern Oregon, Steens Mountain is, in the words 
of Oregon environmentalist, Andy Kerr, ``an ecological island in the 
sky.'' Rising a mile above the desert floor, Steens Mountain actually 
creates its own weather patterns. Though we from Oregon are blessed to 
have it located within our state boundary, it is truly a National 
natural treasure.
  Some have wondered why any legislative action at all is needed to 
protect the Steens. They say the Steens has been there a long time and 
is doing just fine. Why not just leave it alone?
  There are three reasons why inaction at this time is an unacceptable 
choice.
  First, there are many landowners today in the Steens with a 
commitment to protect this ecological treasure. There is no assurance 
that this will always be the case.
  Second, our federal land agencies are now committed to protecting the 
natural ecology of the Steens. There is no

[[Page 18140]]

assurance that this will always be the case.
  Third, the Steens includes many wilderness study areas. We now have 
the opportunity to begin resolving the status of these lands that have 
been in limbo for twenty years. There is no assurance that Oregon's 
future elected officials, working with all concerned parties, will ever 
again have such a unique opportunity to address this contentious issue.
  The fact of the matter is that protecting the ecological health of 
the Steens isn't going to happen by osmosis. It has taken the hard work 
of the Oregon Congressional delegation, Governor Kitzhaber, Secretary 
Babbitt and numerous staff and private citizens of Oregon to get this 
legislation where it is today. It will take a bit more hard work to get 
a Senate-passed bill.
  It is my task, as a United States Senator, to move this legislation 
forward through the committee hearing and Senate floor processes. In 
that context, this bill will most likely have to be fine-tuned to 
accommodate additional concerns. I look forward to working with all my 
colleagues to see that this bill is passed before the lights go down on 
the 106th Congress. But one major aspect of this bill can never change: 
the protections for the ecological treasure that is the Steens will be 
put in place while we also preserve the important historical ranching 
culture that thrives there.
  There have been issues raised about the valuation of the land 
exchanges that make the adoption of over 170,000 acres of wilderness 
possible in this bill. Let me make it perfectly clear that this bill 
should stand or fall on whether there is significant public value at 
the end of the day. I believe the Senate will find that the 
expenditures authorized by this legislation purchase the sum of a 
greater public value than can be accounted for by its individual parts. 
I will continue to work to assure that this legislation achieves the 
greatest environmental good possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 3053. A bill to prohibit commercial air tour operations over 
national parks within the geographical area of the greater Yellowstone 
ecosystem; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


   The Yellowstone and Teton Scenic Overflight Exclusion Act of 2000

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
protect two crown jewels of the National Park Service, Yellowstone and 
Grand Teton National Parks.
  Specifically, the ``Yellowstone and Teton Scenic Overflight Exclusion 
Act of 2000'' would prohibit all scenic flights--both fixed wing and 
helicopter--over these two parks. A recent proposal for scenic 
helicopter tours near Grand Teton Park has many in this area of Wyoming 
concerned about the tranquility of Yellowstone and Teton parks. In 
fact, the proposal has evoked strong opposition by citizens in the area 
and over 4,500 people have signed a petition in support of banning 
these tours.
  We need to protect the resources and values of these parks in the 
interest of all who visit and enjoy these national treasures--today and 
for future generations. Every visitor should have the opportunity to 
enjoy the tranquil sounds of nature unimpaired in these parks.
  I don't take the idea of legislation lightly. I am aware that the 
recently passed National Parks Air Tour management Act provides a 
process that attempts to address scenic overflight operations. But this 
area of the country is unique and therefore requires quick and decisive 
action. For example, the proposed commercial air tour operations 
originate from the Jackson Hole Airport, the only airport in the 
continental United States that is entirely within a national park. 
Consequently, every time a commercial air tour operation takes off or 
lands, it is flying through Grand Teton National Park. Further, 
commercial air tour operations by their nature fly passengers 
purposefully over the parks, at low altitudes, at frequent intervals 
and often to the very locations and attractions favored by ground-based 
visitors. These threats to the enjoyment of these two parks require 
banning commercial air tour operations in the area.
  It is my hope that this legislation can be enacted quickly to ensure 
the preservation of natural quiet and provide the assurance that 
visitors can enjoy the sounds of nature at Grand Teton and Yellowstone 
national parks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Craig, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        McConnell, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 3054. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
Act to reauthorize the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out pilot 
projects to increase the number of children participating in the summer 
food service program for children; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                     summer meals for poor children

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
improve the summer food service program, which provides summer meals to 
poor children.
  On an average school day in 1999, nearly 27 million children received 
lunches supported by the national school lunch program. Of that total, 
over 15 million of these children were poor. Over 7 million children 
participated in the school breakfast program and more than 6 million of 
these children were poor. These statistics clearly show that the 
American people are generous and compassionate regarding the 
nutritional status of our children, especially poor children who may 
not have access to enough food at home.
  However, most of these poor children lose access to school lunches 
and breakfasts once the school year is over. The Federal Government 
does have programs to provide summer meals, but only about 22 percent 
of the poor children who get a school lunch also get a summer meal. 
Common sense tells us that children's hunger does not go on vacation at 
the end of the school year.
  Basically, children can receive federally subsidized summer meals in 
2 ways: through the summer food service program; or, if they are in 
summer school or year-round school, through the regular national school 
lunch and school breakfast programs.
  Summer school and year-round school students can get the regular 
school lunch and breakfast programs. Just as in the regular school 
year, students can receive free, reduced price or full price meals, 
depending upon their families' income. In July 1999, 1.1 million 
children received free or reduced price meals this way.
  The summer food service program was created to provide summer meals 
for children who are not in summer school or year-round school. The 
establishment of a summer food service program site depends upon a 
local entity agreeing to operate a site. At the local level, the summer 
food service program (SFSP) is run by approved sponsors, including 
school districts, local government agencies, camps, private nonprofit 
organizations or post-secondary schools sponsoring NCAA National Youth 
Sports Programs. Sponsors provide free meals to a group of children at 
a central site, such as a school or a community center or at satellite 
sites, such as playgrounds. Sponsors receive payments from USDA, 
through their State agencies, for the documented food costs of the 
meals they serve and for their documented operating costs.
  The program is targeted toward serving poor children. States approve 
SFSP meal sites as open, enrolled, or camp sites. Open sites operate in 
low-income area where at least half of the children come from families 
with incomes at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty level, 
making them eligible for free and reduced-price meals. Meals and snacks 
are served free to any child at the open site.
  Enrolled sites provide free meals to all children enrolled in an 
activity program at the site if at least half of them are eligible for 
free and reduced-price meals. Camps may also participate in SFSP. They 
receive payments only for the meals served to children who are eligible 
for free and reduced-price school meals.
  At most sites, children receive either one or two reimbursable meals 
or a

[[Page 18141]]

meal and a snack each day. Camps and sites that primarily serve migrant 
children may be approved to serve up to three meals to each child, each 
day.
  Participation in the SFSP and the summer portion of the school lunch 
program varies widely by State. Comparing the number of low-income 
children in summer programs to the number who get free and reduced 
price meals during the regular school year gives a reasonable measure 
of how well the summer meal needs of low-income children are being met. 
According to the most recent data supplied by USDA, only about 22 
percent of those children who received a regular school lunch also 
received a summer meal. Again according to USDA, participation ranges 
from over 53 percent in the District of Columbia to under 3 percent in 
Alaska. My home state of Indiana serves under 10 percent of these 
children.
  In August, I visited the successful summer feeding program 
implemented this year by the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated 
School Corporation in Indiana. I discussed with community leaders ideas 
to encourage more participation in the program throughout my home 
state.
   Mr. President, hunger does not take a summer vacation. We need to 
examine new means of encouraging local entities to agree to offer the 
summer food service program in poor areas. In talking with program 
experts, a recurring problem they mentioned regarding the decision to 
enter the program was the amount of paperwork necessary to gain USDA 
approval.
  That is why we propose today legislation to provide a targeted method 
of increasing participation in those states with very low 
participation. This method will be tested for a few years to see if it 
is effective and, thus, should be extended to all states.
  Under current SFSP law, sponsors get a food cost reimbursement and an 
administrative reimbursement of the amounts that they document, up to a 
maximum amount. Based on the most recent data available, SFSP sponsors 
document costs sufficient to receive the maximum reimbursement over 90 
percent of the time. Some institutions (e.g., schools, parks 
departments) may not offer the SFSP because they do not want to put up 
with the administrative burden of documenting all their costs in a 
manner acceptable to USDA. Under the regular school lunch program, 
schools do not have to document their costs, but instead automatically 
receive their meal reimbursements. The extra paperwork burden of 
documenting all their costs may discourage sponsors from offering 
summer meals. Public sponsors, such as schools and parks departments, 
have to meet public accounting standards that make it unlikely that 
money meant for child nutrition could be siphoned off and used for 
unlawful purposes.
  My bill would establish a pilot project to reduce the paperwork 
required of schools and other public institutions (like parks 
departments) to run a summer food service program, and thus, hopefully, 
encourage more sponsors to join the program and offer summer meals. The 
bill would allow, in low participation states, public sponsors to 
automatically receive the maximum reimbursement for both food costs and 
administrative costs. In this way, the SFSP would be identical to the 
school lunch program.
  Low participation states would be defined as those states where the 
number of children receiving summer meals (compared to the number 
receiving free or reduced price lunches during the school year) was 
less than half the national average participation in the summer meals 
programs (compared to the number receiving free or reduced price 
lunches during the school year). This pilot program would run for 3 
years, FY 01 to FY 03.
  USDA would be required to study whether reducing the paperwork burden 
increased participation in the program. USDA would also be required to 
study whether meal quality or program integrity was affected by 
removing the requirement for sponsors to document their spending. 
Results of the study will be available for the 2003 child nutrition 
reauthorization.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Hutchinson):
  S. 3055. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
revise the payments for certain physician pathology services under the 
medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.


         physician pathology services fair payment act of 2000

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and my 
colleague, Senator Hutchinson, to introduce the ``Physician Pathology 
Services Fair Payment Act of 2000.'' This important legislation allows 
independent laboratories to continue to receive direct payments from 
Medicare for the technical component of pathology services provided to 
hospital inpatients and outpatients. This bill encompasses both the 
inpatient and outpatient technical components in a comprehensive manner 
than will allow Congress to address both of these pressing issues in a 
single legislative vehicle.
  As you know, many hospitals, particularly small and rural hospitals, 
make arrangements with independent laboratories to provide physician 
pathology services for their patients. They do so because these 
hospitals typically lack the patient volume or funds to sustain an in-
house pathology department. Yet, if the hospitals are to continue to 
provide surgery services in the local community, Medicare requires them 
to provide, directly or under arrangements, certain physician pathology 
services. Without these arrangements, patients may have to travel far 
from home to have surgery performed.
  Recently, HCFA delayed implementation of new inpatient and outpatient 
technical component (TC) reimbursement rules until January 1, 2001. 
However, many providers esepectially those in rural or medically 
underserved areas, remain concerned that the new rules will impose 
burdensome costs and administrative requirements on hospitals and 
independent laboratories that have operated in good faith under the 
prior policy. For hospitals and independent laboratories that have 
operated in good faith under the prior policy. For hospitals and 
independent laboratories with existing arrangements, changing the way 
Medicarepays for the TC physician pathology services provided to 
hospitals is likely to strain already scarce resources by creating new 
costs that cannot be easily absorbed. For the first time, independent 
laboratories will have to generate two bills--one for the technical 
components to the hospital and onother to Medicare for the professional 
components. Since each laboratory may serve five, ten or more 
hospitals, these separate billings will be costly and complicated.
  The ``Physician Pathology Services Fair Payment Act of 2000'' is 
essential to the many communities in my home state of South Dakota, and 
across the country, who rely on the continued presence of pathology 
services to retain a high-quality health care delivery system that is 
both responsive and accessible to each and every individual requiring 
these services. Pathologists provide an extremely powerful and valuable 
resource to these communities and the ``Physician Pathology Services 
Fair Payment Act of 2000'' will ensure that these health care 
professionals continue to positively impact the lives of not only South 
Dakotans but the lieves of millions of Americans who utilize these 
services without perhaps even knowing the critical role that they play 
in our health care delivery system.
  Mr. President, I ank unanimous consent that the complete text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3055

       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 ``Physician Pathology Services 
     Fair Payment Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PHYSICIAN PATHOLOGY SERVICES 
                   UNDER MEDICARE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, when an independent

[[Page 18142]]

     laboratory, under a grandfathered arrangement with a 
     hospital, furnishes the technical component of a physician 
     pathology service with respect to--
       (1) an inpatient fee-for-service medicare beneficiary, such 
     component shall be treated as a service for which payment 
     shall be made to the laboratory under section 1848 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) and not as an 
     inpatient hospital service for which payment is made to the 
     hospital under section 1886(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(d)); and
       (2) an outpatient fee-for-service medicare beneficiary, 
     such component shall be treated as a service for which 
     payment shall be made to the laboratory under section 1848 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) and not as a hospital outpatient 
     service for which payment is made to the hospital under the 
     prospective payment system under section 1834(t) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395l(d)).
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Grandfathered arrangement.--The term ``grandfathered 
     arrangement'' means an arrangement between an independent 
     laboratory and a hospital--
       (A) that was in effect as of July 22, 1999, even if such 
     arrangement is subsequently renewed; and
       (B) under which the laboratory furnishes the technical 
     component of physician pathology services with respect to 
     patients of the hospital and submits a claim for payment for 
     such component to a medicare carrier (and not to the 
     hospital).
       (2) Inpatient fee-for-service medicare beneficiary.--The 
     term ``inpatient fee-for-service medicare beneficiary'' means 
     an individual who--
       (A) is an inpatient of the hospital involved;
       (B) is entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.); and
       (C) is not enrolled in--
       (i) a Medicare+Choice plan under part C of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-21 et seq.);
       (ii) a plan offered by an eligible organization under 
     section 1876 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm); or
       (iii) a medicare managed care demonstration project.
       (3) Outpatient fee-for-service medicare beneficiary.--The 
     term ``outpatient fee-for-service medicare beneficiary'' 
     means an individual who--
       (A) is an outpatient of the hospital involved;
       (B) is enrolled under part B of title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.); and
       (C) is not enrolled in--
       (i) a plan or project described in paragraph (2)(C); or
       (ii) a health care prepayment plan under section 
     1833(a)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(A)).
       (4) Medicare carrier.--The term ``medicare carrier'' means 
     an organization with a contract under section 1842 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u).
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to services 
     furnished on or after July 22, 1999.

                          ____________________