Medicare Financial Stability for Beneficiaries Act of 2009

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Wyden in reintroducing legislation that will stop the increasing financial burden being placed on wireless consumers by discriminatory taxes. On average, the typical consumer pays 15.2 percent of his/her total wireless bill in Federal, State, and local taxes, fees and surcharges--this is compared to the 7.07 percent average tax rate for other goods and services.

The Mobile Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2009 would ensure that these tax rates don't increase further by prohibiting States and local governments from imposing any new discriminatory tax on mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile service property for a period of 5 years. The bill defines ``new discriminatory tax'' as a tax imposed on mobile services, providers, or property that is not generally imposed on other types of services or property, or that is generally imposed at a lower rate.

The wireless era has changed the way the world communicates. To date, there are more than 270 million wireless subscribers in the United States, and consumers used more than 2.2 trillion minutes of airtime from July 2007 to June 2008--that is more than 6 billion minutes per day! And with this growth, more people are using the cell phone as a primary communication device as well as for data and Internet services--approximately 20 percent of households have ``cut the cord'' and use cell phones exclusively. The increased mobility and access wireless communications provide have improved our lives, our safety, and the efficiency of our work and businesses. It is estimated that the productivity value of all mobile wireless services was worth $185 billion in 2005 alone.

However, as more consumers and businesses embrace wireless technologies and applications, more States and local governments are embracing it as a revenue source and applying these excessive and discriminatory taxes, which show up on consumers' bills each month. In fact, the effective rate of taxation on wireless services has increased four times faster than the rate on other taxable goods and services between January 2003 and January 2007.

These excessive and discriminatory taxes discourage wireless adoption and use, primarily with low-income individuals and families that still view a cellular phone as a luxury when many Americans consider it a necessity. By banning these taxes, we can equalize the taxation of the wireless industry with that of other goods and services and protect the wireless consumer from the weight of exorbitant fees, surcharges, and general business taxes. We cannot allow this essential and innovative industry as well as the consumers who benefit from its amazing services and applications to suffer excessive tax rates.

Placing a moratorium on new discriminatory wireless taxes will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of wireless services. Congress took similar action with the Internet--passing the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007 last session--because of the incredible impact the Internet will continue to have on consumers and businesses alike. The future of wireless is just as bright and that is why we must ensure its continued growth.

It is confounding that telecommunications, one of the most essential components of our economy and our daily lives, is one of the most highly taxed sectors. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Wyden and me in supporting this critical bipartisan legislation so we can continue our efforts to curtail discriminatory taxes on these vital services so that all Americans can leverage the benefits they offer. I would like to thank Senator McCain for his past leadership on this issue and for cosponsoring this consumer-friendly legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, to introduce legislation that I believe continues to be crucial in the effort to improve aviation safety. Before I begin, I want to recognize the deliberate and unflagging efforts of Senator Klobuchar, whose commitment to improve the safety of commercial aviation in this country is so admirable.

We all remember last spring's news: a U.S. carrier continued flying aircraft even though critical safety checks involving cracks in their fuselages had not been performed on approximately 50 jets. In fact, an independent review concluded that these flights potentially endangered over six million passengers. What was the punitive or disciplinary action taken against the inspector who condoned--in fact, encouraged-- those aircraft to continue flying? Nothing. The PMI, or supervising inspector, continued in his role. Also, as many of you will recall, last April, American Airlines cancelled nearly 2,000 flights in order to catch up on inspections of aircraft wiring--inspections that should have been performed previously under its agreement with the FAA.

This startling news was compounded by a Department of Transportation Inspector General's report in June disclosing so-called safety inspectors are turning a blind eye to violations. Now, according to a New York Times article dated June 4, an inspector reported to his superiors that Colgan Air had been having trouble with their most recent purchase, the Bombardier Q400. The same aircraft that crashed outside of Buffalo, New York this past March. What did his superiors do with this information? They transferred the inspector to a different job, and reportedly buried the report.

The FAA's overarching role is to serve as a protector of the public trust; not as a public relations and management tool for the commercial airlines. What I find most offensive throughout these reports is the willingness by the FAA to ignore safety concerns or inspection violations, to presume that due to the tremendous level of success regarding safety protections for so long, they no longer are required to follow the procedures that created that high level of safety, instead, as the Inspector General's report indicated, they want to ``avoid a negative effect on the FAA'' by enforcing those measures.

That is why Senator Klobuchar and I are committed to closing the revolving door between the airlines and the FAA. We need to codify our safety expectations into law and hold anyone who tries to undermine the integrity of the safety process accountable. By establishing a cooling- off period so that FAA inspectors cannot immediately go to work for an airline they used to inspect, and demanding that the FAA establish a national review team of experienced inspectors to conduct periodic, unannounced audits of FAA air carrier inspection facilities will guarantee that aircraft inspections are carried out in a rigorous and timely fashion. The American people, not the airlines, are the primary responsibility of the FAA. It is my hope that these provisions will assist in returning the FAA to their core mission: safety.

Mr. President, for countless communities around the country, our oceans are the heartbeat of their histories and economies. In fact, according to a report by the Joint Oceans Commission, healthy oceans and coasts are an important means of transportation, trade, and national security. Ocean-dependent industries generate about $138 billion and support millions of jobs in the United States' economy.

According to the National Ocean Economic Project, 30 U.S. coastal States accounted for 82 percent of total population and 81 percent of all U.S. jobs in 2006. In my home State of Washington, the Port of Seattle's facilities and activities alone support 190,000 jobs, and the State has 3,000 fishing vessels that employ 10,000 fishermen.

There is no group that is more important to the health and safety of our ports, fishing industry, and maritime community than the U.S. Coast Guard. The brave men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard are charged with many missions--from serving as our environmental stewards, performing search and rescue missions, and protecting us from terrorism, to helping clean up oil spills and enforcing fisheries laws. They are largely responsible for keeping these coastal economic engines running, and have proved time and time again that they are, as their motto says, ``Always ready.''

But for the Coast Guard to do its job Congress needs to support those who serve in its ranks. We have a responsibility to ensure the Coast Guard has the tools it needs to carry out the missions of today, while looking ahead to the challenges of tomorrow.

The bill I am introducing today, The Coast Guard Authorization Act for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, is designed to help the Coast Guard move toward the future, and ensure our maritime industries remain the clean and safe economic engine our nation's coastal communities have depended on for generations.

As the U.S. experiences major oil spills, tropical storms, hurricanes, and terrorism, our maritime economy faces ever-present threats. Congress needs to uphold its end of the bargain and provide the legislative backing the Coast Guard needs to do its job, and do its job well.

This bill gives the Coast Guard greater authority to work with international maritime authorities, get better access to global safety and security information, and work more cooperatively with other nations on law enforcement; allows the Coast Guard to rework its command structure and increase its alignment with other armed forces; better supports the men and women who serve in the U.S. Coast Guard by allowing greater reimbursement for medical-related expenses and allowing Coast Guard service-members to participate in the Armed Forces Retirement Home system; and directs the Coast Guard to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis for recapitalizing its polar icebreaker fleet so the service can prepare for future mission demands in the Arctic.

This bill also contains the most ambitious reform of its acquisitions program in the Coast Guard's history. The Coast Guard is struggling right now to replace their rapidly aging fleet of ships, aircraft, and facilities. At a cost of $24 billion, the Deepwater program is the Coast Guard's largest and most complex acquisition program ever. Congress has a responsibility to ensure there is transparency and oversight so this program is as efficient and effective as possible.

Unfortunately, the Coast Guard's Deepwater program has experienced major failures and setbacks. The program utilized a private sector lead systems integrator, LSI, know as Integrated Coast Guard Systems, ICGS, to oversee acquisition of a ``system of systems.'' When the Deepwater contract was originally awarded in 2002, the Coast Guard did not have the personnel within their ranks to manage such a large contract. Congress was told that outsourcing that role to industry would save the Coast Guard time and money over the long run.

That approach, which may have seemed innovative at the time, has not produced the promised results. Instead of cost and time savings, we have seen cost overruns, schedule delays, less competition and inadequate technical oversight.

The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, IG, released three reports in 2006 and early 2007 detailing some of the problems with Deepwater, including problems with electronics equipment, crucial design flaws and cost overruns created by a faulty contract structure and lack of oversight, and serious issues with the 123-foot cutter conversion project.

This legislation wipes the slate clean and makes fundamental changes to the Coast Guard's acquisition program. It requires the Coast Guard to abandon the industry-led Lead Systems Integrator and get back to basics--full and open competition for all future assets.

It requires a completely new ``analysis of alternatives'' for all future Deepwater acquisitions to ensure that the Coast Guard is getting the assets best-suited for their needs.

It requires the Coast Guard to follow a rigorous acquisitions process to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

And, it gives the Coast Guard the tools it needs to manage acquisitions effectively, including requiring the Coast Guard to make internal management changes to ensure open competition, increase technical oversight and improve reporting to Congress.

This legislation takes major steps towards getting the Coast Guard the assets they need while ensuring responsible management of taxpayer dollars. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the changes I am proposing today so we can get this program back on track and help the Coast Guard accomplish its missions.

If we fail to pass legislation, we are doing a major disservice to those very people we depend on. We will do so as they continue to place their lives at risk while they perform the mission of the Coast Guard.

This bill is good for taxpayers, good for the Coast Guard, and good for every American depending on them to be, ``Always ready.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Healthy Living, Healthy Aging Demonstration Project Act of 2009. This act will provide for a demonstration project to examine whether community-level public health interventions can result in lower rates of chronic disease for individuals who are about to enter the Medicare program. Prevention is a key to health at any age, but especially later in life. I am proud to be introducing a cornerstone of health care reform today.

American people and the U.S. Government need this prevention act for two main reasons. Health care costs continue to rise exponentially and chronic diseases are the number one cause of death and disability in the U.S. One hundred thirty-three million Americans, representing 45 percent of the total population, have at least one chronic disease. Chronic diseases kill more than 1.7 million Americans each year, and are responsible for 7 out of every 10 deaths in the U.S. Furthermore, the vast majority of cases of chronic disease could be better prevented or managed.

The World Health Organization has estimated that if the major risk factors for chronic disease were eliminated, at least 80 percent of all heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes would be prevented, and that more than 40 percent of cancer cases would be prevented. In addition, depressive disorders are common, chronic, and costly. The World Health Organization identified major depression as the fourth leading cause of worldwide disease in 1990, causing more disability than even certain types of heart disease. Research shows that mental health screenings after disease diagnosis for diabetic patients can be cost effective and improve health.

The Healthy Living, Healthy Aging Demonstration Project Act of 2009 will address these costly and chronic health problems before people enter the Medicare program. It calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide 5-year grants to community partnerships that include the state or local public health department and other community stakeholders such as health centers, providers, small businesses, and rural health clinics to fund evidence-based community-level prevention and wellness strategies. The types of community-based prevention strategies we are looking at in this program include walking programs, group exercise classes, anti-smoking programs, programs to highlight healthy dining options at restaurants, and expanding access to farmer's markets, nutritious foods, and other programs and services recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services.

The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS and in partnership with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC would implement the demonstration program to test whether these public health interventions targeting 55-64 year olds result in lower rates of chronic disease and reduce costs for the Medicare program. One assessment level of the act will measure the effects of adopting healthy lifestyle strategies on specific individuals who enroll in prevention programs in their communities.

More specifically, program requirements in this act include an individual

health screening conducted by the state or local public health department or its designee. An individual health screening will include the appropriate test for diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, and tobacco use. Insured individuals who screen positive for chronic disease will be referred for treatment and for mental health screening and treatment to their existing providers or in-network providers. Individuals identified with chronic disease risk factors, such as high blood pressure or obesity, would be engaged in the community health interventions funded through the demonstration, such as walking programs, group exercise classes, or anti-smoking programs. Uninsured individuals who screen positive for chronic disease would be referred to the pre-selected clinical referral source for the demonstration site. Uninsured individuals who do not screen positive for chronic disease will receive information on healthy lifestyle choices and may also enroll in community level prevention interventions.

This program will not only conduct community-based prevention strategies, screenings and health assessments, but also help support follow-up care for uninsured individuals identified with chronic diseases, including determining eligibility for public programs.

I would like to thank Dr. Mary Polce-Lynch from Randolph-Macon College, who has been working in my office through the American Psychological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Daniella Gratale from Trust for America's Health, for their work on this important prevention bill.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation to help Americans adopt the healthiest lifestyles possible and to prevent chronic diseases in later life.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Department of Agriculture's decision to end the Philadelphia School District's Universal Feeding Pilot Program and to introduce legislation extending the program. While changes to the Philadelphia program may be necessary, the appropriate time to consider these changes is during congressional reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act. Senator Casey and I are seeking to extend the program through the 2012-13 school year. This extension is necessary to ensure that thousands of children in Philadelphia's poorest schools are not deprived of the nutritional assistance they have relied on for over 17 years.

Recognizing the value of proper nutrition to successful learning, Congress, in 1946, passed the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This act provides the authority for the School Lunch Program, as well as several other child nutrition initiatives. In 1966 Congress expanded on its commitment to child nutrition by passing the Child Nutrition Act, which authorized the School Breakfast Program. These programs have continued to evolve through changing times and changing technologies to ensure that the goal of providing nutrition assistance to our Nation's school children is met.

In 1991 the Department of Agriculture worked with the Philadelphia School District to develop a more streamlined method of reimbursing the School District for meals served under the National School Breakfast and School Lunch Program, and ensuring all eligible students receive free meals.

This new method eliminated paper applications for free school meals, and replaced them with a socioeconomic survey based method of determining reimbursement rates and eligibility.

Paper applications are costly, and parents too often fail to return them. The socioeconomic survey based approach was chosen because it reduced administrative overhead costs and is thought to better ensure that all eligible students are accounted for. In addition, by providing Universal Service the stigma associated with receiving a free or reduced price school meal is eliminated. Indeed, during the first year of the Universal Feeding Pilot Program, the Philadelphia School District saw a 14 percent increase in lunch participation in elementary schools, a 45 percent increase in middle schools and a 180 percent increase in high schools. The Philadelphia Universal Feeding Pilot Program has successfully increased student participation in the school meal program. Should this program be ended, as the Department of Agriculture would have it, children in the Philadelphia School District will have their ability to learn undermined by Washington, DC, bureaucrats.

The students and parents in 200 of Philadelphia's poorest schools have not filled out paper applications for free and reduced priced school meals in over seventeen years. It is almost certain that some parents will fail to return paper applications to the school district, resulting in the underreporting of eligible students. In fact, the Secretary of Agriculture tacitly acknowledges the ineffectiveness of paper applications by offering outreach assistance to the Philadelphia School District.

A decrease in the amount of students claiming free or reduced lunches will lower the Department of Agriculture's reimbursement rate to the Philadelphia School District. Reducing the school meal reimbursement rate will not only cause the Philadelphia School District budgetary problems in relation to the school meals program, but because other grant funding is often based on the percentage of low income students in a district, as determined by participation rates in the school meal program, the District could potentially lose millions of dollars in other state and Federal grant funding. Federal E-rate funding, for example, which is used for educational technology, is based directly on school meal program eligibility percentages.

Congress is expected to take up the Child Nutrition Act reauthorization later this year. Universal Feeding and the National School Breakfast and Lunch Program will be a part of this debate, and this is an appropriate time and place to consider changes to the program. We know from experience that Congressional action is not always as swift as planned, and that the legislative calendar changes from week to week if not from day to day.

Therefore, Senator Casey and I introduce legislation today to extend the Philadelphia School District's Universal Feeding Pilot Program through the close of the 2012-2013 school year to ensure that Philadelphia school children receive the necessary nutritional assistance until Congress can enact a new policy.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Financial Stability for Beneficiaries Act of 2009.

This legislation would ensure that low-income Medicare beneficiaries can access the benefits to which they are entitled through one of the Medicare Savings Programs, MSP, and/or the Part D Low-Income Subsidy,

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Collins, Lieberman and Harkin to introduce the Medicare Independent Living Act of 2009. This legislation would eliminate Medicare's ``in the home'' restriction for the coverage of mobility devices, including wheelchairs and scooters, for those with disabilities and expected long-term needs. This includes people with multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, osteoarthritis, and cerebrovascular disease including acute stroke and conditions like aneurysms.

As currently interpreted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, the ``in the home'' restriction only permits beneficiaries to obtain wheelchairs that are necessary for use inside the home. As a result, seriously disabled beneficiaries who would primarily utilize a wheelchair outside the home are prevented from receiving this critical and basic equipment through Medicare. For example, this restriction prevents beneficiaries from receiving wheelchairs to access their work, the community-at-large, place of worship, school, physician's offices, or pharmacies.

As the Medicare Rights Center in a report entitled ``Forced Isolation: Medicare's `In The home' Coverage Standards for Wheelchairs'' in March 2004 notes, ``This effectively disqualifies you from leaving your home without the assistance of others.''

Furthermore, in a Kansas City Star article dated July 3, 2005, Mike Oxford with the National Council on Independent Living noted, ``You look at mobility assistance as a way to liberate yourself.'' He added that the restriction ``is just backward.''

In fact, policies such as these are not only backward but directly contradict numerous initiatives aimed at increasing community integration of people with disabilities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Ticket-to-Work Program, the New Freedom Initiative, and the Olmstead Supreme Court decision.

According to the Medicare Rights Center update dated March 23, 2006, ``This results in arbitrary denials. People with apartments too small for a power wheelchair are denied a device that could also get them down the street. Those in more spacious quarters get coverage, allowing them to scoot from room to room and to the grocery store. People who summon all their willpower and strength to hobble around a small apartment get no help for tasks that are beyond them and their front door.''

In New Mexico, I have heard this complaint about the law repeatedly from our State's most vulnerable disabled and senior citizens. People argue the provision is being misinterpreted by the administration and results in Medicare beneficiaries being trapped in their home.

The Independence Through Enhancement of Medicare and Medicaid, ITEM, Coalition adds in a letter to CMS on this issue in November 25, 2005, ``There continues to be no clinical basis for the `in the home' restriction and by asking treating practitioners to document medical need only within the home setting, CMS is severely restricting patients from receiving the most appropriate devices to meet their mobility needs.''

My legislation would clarify that this restriction does not apply to mobility devices, including wheelchairs, for people with disabilities in the Medicare Program. The language change is fairly simple and simply clarifies that the ``in the home'' restriction for durable medical equipment does not apply in the case of mobility devices needed by Medicare beneficiaries with expected long-term needs for use ``in customary settings such as normal domestic, vocational, and community activities.''

This legislation is certainly not intended to discourage CMS from dedicating its resources to reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system, as those efforts are critical to ensuring that Medicare remains financially viable and strong in the future. However, it should be noted that neither Medicaid nor the Department of Veterans Affairs impose such ``in the home'' restrictions on mobility devices.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.