Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, as well as Senators Jeffords, Kyl, Coleman and Clinton, in introducing the Medicare Innovation Responsiveness Act of 2003. Given all that is going on in the world today, it is sometimes difficult to focus on issues related to Medicare coverage, coding and payment procedures. But we must, because every day there are seniors and people with disabilities in need of lifesaving and life-enhancing medical treatments and technologies. And every day, there are creative people in Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and all across our great country developing new ways to prevent and treat illness and save lives. Medicare patients should not be denied access to these new procedures and technologies because the Medicare program is slow to respond to innovations in medical care and the changing needs of patients. Congress passed legislation with strong bipartisan support in 1999 and in 2000 to try to address these problems. Unfortunately, however, Medicare has failed to deliver on key commitments in the legislation and these barriers persist. That is why we are here today--to introduce legislation that will finally make timely access to lifesaving advanced medical tests and treatments for Medicare patients a reality. Our bill builds on constructive approaches the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has taken recently to help Medicare keep up with advancements in treating patients. For example, CMS recently took proactive, unprecedented steps to address one of the newest innovations in minimally invasive cardiology that will soon be available for patients: drug-eluting stents. These tiny medal scaffolds, long-used to reopen blocked heart arteries, can be more effective now that researchers have combined them with time- released drugs to prevent the growth of unwanted cells. The Agency established new hospital inpatient codes and reimbursements for the new stints because it recognized that the technology will quickly become the standard of care when approved by FDA in the coming weeks. The Agency understood the potential the stents hold to transform patient care and health care delivery--and acted in a timely fashion. This forward-looking approach should be the rule, not the exception, in dealing with new treatment breakthroughs. And that is what our legislation today seeks to achieve. At an event where Senator Lincoln and I spoke to underscore the need for this legislation, we were pleased to be joined by medical professionals from our respective states, people who took time out of their busy schedules to come to Washington, DC and help us explain the importance of some of the provisions in the bill we are introducing today. For example, three years after a mandate from Congress, Medicare has yet to provide special transitional payments for any new medical device used in the inpatient setting. As a result, Medicare will continue to take anywhere from 15 months to five years to integrate a new medical technology into the inpatient setting--and that is after it has already been approved as safe and effective by the FDA. Dr. Mark Wholey from Pittsburgh is involved in research on carotid stenting, and he commented today on the promise of this new treatment option and the importance of reducing barriers to Medicare patient access for new and innovative technologies. In another area of coverage policy, Medicare discourages development of breakthrough devices like heart assist devices because it does not cover the routine costs of clinical trials for many innovative technologies. Dr. Walter Pae, Professor of Surgery at Penn State University, also came to Washington today to share some details of the pioneering work he is doing at Hershey Medical Center and to reinforce the importance of patient access to these promising clinical trials. These reforms are reasonable and bipartisan. Most importantly, they are critical to patients in need of new and breakthrough technologies. I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and my colleagues on the Finance Committee in moving these important reforms in Committee and the Senate this year.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object, I may have a Senator on the way down to the Chamber who is trying to fit in here. How long is the Senator from New Jersey going to speak?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, much has been made about deficits. I just want to know what the Senate has accomplished today--I should argue, what the Democrats have tried to accomplish. As you can see from these charts, this is a list of the Democratic amendments that were voted on today. They add up to a 10-year cost of $666 billion in brand new Federal spending, for which, as you can see by these votes, the vast majority of Democrats voted. If this amendment is agreed to, at least on the Democratic side, that number will go to $675 billion in new spending over the next 10 years. Compare that to what we want to do, which is a very modest reduction in taxes over those 10 years, and you see the same spending priorities versus giving money back to taxpayers--the same amount of money.

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.

Mr. SANTORUM. I call for the regular order.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and thank Chaplain Ogilvie for his service and devotion to the entire Senate family over the past 8 years. Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie has been the Chamber's spiritual leader since the 104th Congress, having been nominated to the Chaplaincy by Majority Leader Robert Dole in 1995, the same year I joined the United States Senate. Throughout his tenure here, he has fulfilled his role as ``an intercessor, trusted prayer partner, and faithful counselor'' with the commitment, compassion, and comforting grace of a learned and sincere man of God. There are many among us in the Senate who have sought his wisdom and found solace in his council and friendship. In addition to listening to his beautiful prayers at the commencement of each legislative session, I have been a regular participant in his weekly Bible study groups. Like many of my colleagues, I have watched Dr. Ogilvie execute his office with a great joy for the work he does and a deep respect for the moral difficulties we often face as the Nation's lawmakers. In times both of celebration and distress, Chaplain Ogilvie always did more than make himself available to the thousands of Senate members, staff, and employees; he reached out to our community and brought us together, inviting all faiths and all kinds to be a part of the family. Throughout the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and in the confusing, frightening time that followed, we witnessed Dr. Ogilvie's amazing capacity for calming and focusing our thoughts, encouraging their expression, and reminding us of the strength we possess when we put our faith in God. Chaplain Ogilvie has been a particularly important figure in my private and professional lives. We pray together daily and frequently discuss questions of ethics, religion, and law. But he has also shared in the personal experiences and sorrows that my own family has undergone. Prayerfully guiding me and my wife through the loss of our son, Gabriel, Dr. Ogilvie's reassuring words and his friendship were an invaluable source of peace for us then, as they continue to be now. I have much admiration for Lloyd John Ogilvie, and am grateful to him, for leading us all by the example of his life. As he relinquishes the Senate Chaplaincy and returns to California and to his wife, he reminds us that our most important responsibilities are always to our families and loved ones, and through them, to God. Thank you, Lloyd, for showing us where the right path leads, for serving the Senate and our Lord faithfully, and for helping the Senate family to weather our personal and collective difficulties. Your guidance and your companionship will be greatly missed.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Miller, the bipartisan Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003. During the 107th Congress, we were successful in legislating sweeping reforms in education with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. This year we hope to complete reauthorization of another important federal education initiative--the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, this year. As we consider this legislation, our greatest responsibility is to improve the quality of the education that students with special needs receive. One of the problems fostered by the current system, which stands in direct contrast to our purpose, is the excessive paperwork burden imposed on our special education teachers. This burden takes valuable time away from classroom instruction and is a source of ongoing frustration for the special education teachers working on the frontlines. As a result, this undermines the goal of providing the best quality education possible to all children. The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act addresses this problem and seeks to offer solutions that will benefit special education teachers and most importantly the children they instruct. This bipartisan legislation includes four main provisions to correct the problem of burdensome paperwork. First, the Department of Education, in cooperation with state and local educational agencies, would be required to reduce the amount of paperwork by 50 percent within 18 months of enactment of the legislation and would be encouraged to make additional reductions. Second, the General Accounting Office, GAO, would conduct a study to determine how much of the paperwork burden is caused by Federal regulations compared to State and local regulations; the number of mediations that have been conducted since mediations were required to be made available under the 1997 IDEA amendments; the use of technology in reducing the paperwork burden; and GAO would make recommendations on steps that Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, and the States and local districts can take to reduce this burden within six months of the passage of this legislation. Third, mediation would be mandatory for all legal disputes related to Individual Education Programs, IEPs, to better empower parents and schools to focus resources on a quality education for children rather than unnecessary litigation within one year of enactment of this legislation. Fourth, the Department of Education is directed to conduct research to determine best practices for successful mediation, including training practices, that can help contribute to the effort to reduce paperwork, improve student outcomes, and free up teacher resources for teaching. The Department would also provide mediation training support services to support state and local efforts. The resources to fund these requirements would come from money appropriated through Part D of IDEA. The Council for Exceptional Children, CEO, states, ``No barrier is so irksome to special educators as the paperwork that keeps them from teaching.'' According to a CEC report, concerns about paperwork ranked third among special education teachers, out of a list of 10 issues. The CEC also reports that special education teachers are leaving the profession at almost twice the rate of general educators. Statistics concerning the amount of time special education teachers spend completing paperwork are telling. 53 percent of special education teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their job to a great extent. They spend an average of five hours per week on paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average of two hours per week. More than 60 percent of special education teachers spend a half to one and a half days a week completing paperwork. One of the biggest sources of paperwork, the individualized education program, IEP, averages between 8 and 16 pages long, and 83 percent of special education teachers report spending from a half to one and a half days each week in IEP-relating meetings. One special education teacher expressed her frustration with excessive paperwork to me. ``I began my professional career as a lawyer, but found that I had a passion for interacting with and helping students and became a teacher. However, I decided last year that I could no longer work with special education students from my district. I came this decision reluctantly and solely on the basis of the increasing and burdensome amount of paperwork required for special education summer services. As a teacher, your job is to interact, teach, and participate in a student's learning experience, in particular that of a student of special needs. As a result of the paperwork and fear of lawsuits by school districts, I am no longer able to interact with my students.'' There are three primary factors associated with burdensome paperwork. The first factor is federal regulations. The 1997 IDEA regulations set forth the necessary components of the IEP and require teachers to complete an array of paperwork in addition to the IEP. According to the National School Boards Association, NSBA, ``These requirements result in consuming substantial hours per child and cumulatively are having a negative impact on special educators and their function.'' Second, there are misconceptions at the state and local levels regarding Federal regulations that result in additional requirements imposed by the States and local school districts. The U.S. Department of Education compiled a sample IEP with all the necessary components, and it is five pages long. However, most IEPs are much longer. The third factor is litigation and the threat of litigation. In order to be prepared for due process hearings and court proceedings, school district officials often require extensive documentation so that they are able to prove that a free appropriate public education, FAPE, was provided to the special education student. A key provision of the bill makes mediation mandatory for all legal disputes related to IEPs. There are several benefits to using mediation as an alternative to due process hearings and court proceedings. According to the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, CADRE, mediation is a constructive option for children, parents, and teachers and allows families to maintain a positive relationship with teachers and service providers. Parents have the benefit of working together with educator and service providers as partners instead of as adversaries. If an agreement cannot be reached as a result of mediation, parties to the dispute would retain existing due process and legal options. Mediation is also a much less costly, less time consuming alternative for all parties concerned. Parents do not have to pay for mediation sessions, because under the 1997 IDEA amendments, States are required to bear the cost for mediation. States and local districts save a lot of money as well. According to the Michigan Special Education Mediation Program, MSEMP, the average hearing cost to the state is $40,000; it pays approximately $700 per mediation session. The NSBA reports that attorney fees for school districts average between $10,000 to $25,000. In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Education says that it pays mediators $250 per session. The cost effectiveness of mediation is apparent. Not only does mediation save money, it saves time as well. According to the Washington State Department of Education, a mediation session may generally be scheduled within 14 days of a parental request, whereas it may take up to a year to secure a court date. Most importantly, mediation is a successful alternative to due process hearings. At least some form of agreement is reached in 80 percent of sessions nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 85 percent of voluntary special education mediations end in agreement in which both parties are satisfied. According to the New York State Dispute Resolution Association, mediation ending in resolution of the conflict occurs for 75 percent of referrals, and in Wisconsin, approximately 84 percent of those who chose mediation would use it again. The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act is meant to alleviate a serious problem that causes frustration and discouragement among dedicated special education teachers who expend energy and countless hours in order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to learn. It is only fair and right to find ways to reduce paperwork in order to give teachers more time to spend educating our students and changing their lives, and less time wading through stacks of paper. I would invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation to help teachers, schools, and parents provide a better education for all students so that no child is left behind.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Miller, the bipartisan Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003. During the 107th Congress, we were successful in legislating sweeping reforms in education with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. This year we hope to complete reauthorization of another important federal education initiative--the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, this year. As we consider this legislation, our greatest responsibility is to improve the quality of the education that students with special needs receive. One of the problems fostered by the current system, which stands in direct contrast to our purpose, is the excessive paperwork burden imposed on our special education teachers. This burden takes valuable time away from classroom instruction and is a source of ongoing frustration for the special education teachers working on the frontlines. As a result, this undermines the goal of providing the best quality education possible to all children. The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act addresses this problem and seeks to offer solutions that will benefit special education teachers and most importantly the children they instruct. This bipartisan legislation includes four main provisions to correct the problem of burdensome paperwork. First, the Department of Education, in cooperation with state and local educational agencies, would be required to reduce the amount of paperwork by 50 percent within 18 months of enactment of the legislation and would be encouraged to make additional reductions. Second, the General Accounting Office, GAO, would conduct a study to determine how much of the paperwork burden is caused by Federal regulations compared to State and local regulations; the number of mediations that have been conducted since mediations were required to be made available under the 1997 IDEA amendments; the use of technology in reducing the paperwork burden; and GAO would make recommendations on steps that Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, and the States and local districts can take to reduce this burden within six months of the passage of this legislation. Third, mediation would be mandatory for all legal disputes related to Individual Education Programs, IEPs, to better empower parents and schools to focus resources on a quality education for children rather than unnecessary litigation within one year of enactment of this legislation. Fourth, the Department of Education is directed to conduct research to determine best practices for successful mediation, including training practices, that can help contribute to the effort to reduce paperwork, improve student outcomes, and free up teacher resources for teaching. The Department would also provide mediation training support services to support state and local efforts. The resources to fund these requirements would come from money appropriated through Part D of IDEA. The Council for Exceptional Children, CEO, states, ``No barrier is so irksome to special educators as the paperwork that keeps them from teaching.'' According to a CEC report, concerns about paperwork ranked third among special education teachers, out of a list of 10 issues. The CEC also reports that special education teachers are leaving the profession at almost twice the rate of general educators. Statistics concerning the amount of time special education teachers spend completing paperwork are telling. 53 percent of special education teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their job to a great extent. They spend an average of five hours per week on paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average of two hours per week. More than 60 percent of special education teachers spend a half to one and a half days a week completing paperwork. One of the biggest sources of paperwork, the individualized education program, IEP, averages between 8 and 16 pages long, and 83 percent of special education teachers report spending from a half to one and a half days each week in IEP-relating meetings. One special education teacher expressed her frustration with excessive paperwork to me. ``I began my professional career as a lawyer, but found that I had a passion for interacting with and helping students and became a teacher. However, I decided last year that I could no longer work with special education students from my district. I came this decision reluctantly and solely on the basis of the increasing and burdensome amount of paperwork required for special education summer services. As a teacher, your job is to interact, teach, and participate in a student's learning experience, in particular that of a student of special needs. As a result of the paperwork and fear of lawsuits by school districts, I am no longer able to interact with my students.'' There are three primary factors associated with burdensome paperwork. The first factor is federal regulations. The 1997 IDEA regulations set forth the necessary components of the IEP and require teachers to complete an array of paperwork in addition to the IEP. According to the National School Boards Association, NSBA, ``These requirements result in consuming substantial hours per child and cumulatively are having a negative impact on special educators and their function.'' Second, there are misconceptions at the state and local levels regarding Federal regulations that result in additional requirements imposed by the States and local school districts. The U.S. Department of Education compiled a sample IEP with all the necessary components, and it is five pages long. However, most IEPs are much longer. The third factor is litigation and the threat of litigation. In order to be prepared for due process hearings and court proceedings, school district officials often require extensive documentation so that they are able to prove that a free appropriate public education, FAPE, was provided to the special education student. A key provision of the bill makes mediation mandatory for all legal disputes related to IEPs. There are several benefits to using mediation as an alternative to due process hearings and court proceedings. According to the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, CADRE, mediation is a constructive option for children, parents, and teachers and allows families to maintain a positive relationship with teachers and service providers. Parents have the benefit of working together with educator and service providers as partners instead of as adversaries. If an agreement cannot be reached as a result of mediation, parties to the dispute would retain existing due process and legal options. Mediation is also a much less costly, less time consuming alternative for all parties concerned. Parents do not have to pay for mediation sessions, because under the 1997 IDEA amendments, States are required to bear the cost for mediation. States and local districts save a lot of money as well. According to the Michigan Special Education Mediation Program, MSEMP, the average hearing cost to the state is $40,000; it pays approximately $700 per mediation session. The NSBA reports that attorney fees for school districts average between $10,000 to $25,000. In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Education says that it pays mediators $250 per session. The cost effectiveness of mediation is apparent. Not only does mediation save money, it saves time as well. According to the Washington State Department of Education, a mediation session may generally be scheduled within 14 days of a parental request, whereas it may take up to a year to secure a court date. Most importantly, mediation is a successful alternative to due process hearings. At least some form of agreement is reached in 80 percent of sessions nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 85 percent of voluntary special education mediations end in agreement in which both parties are satisfied. According to the New York State Dispute Resolution Association, mediation ending in resolution of the conflict occurs for 75 percent of referrals, and in Wisconsin, approximately 84 percent of those who chose mediation would use it again. The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act is meant to alleviate a serious problem that causes frustration and discouragement among dedicated special education teachers who expend energy and countless hours in order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to learn. It is only fair and right to find ways to reduce paperwork in order to give teachers more time to spend educating our students and changing their lives, and less time wading through stacks of paper. I would invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation to help teachers, schools, and parents provide a better education for all students so that no child is left behind.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Dr. Daniel J. Wechter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record prior to the vote on S. 3, four letters from specialists in maternal fetal medicine in response to the letter the Senator from California had printed in the Record yesterday.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield to the Senator from Illinois 7 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand that S. 607 introduced earlier today by Senators Ensign and Gregg, and others, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 70, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent the resolution and the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 24, National Correctional Officers and Employees Week, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 46, National Civilian Conservation Corps Day, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittees on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security and on Border Security, Immigration and Citizenship be authorized to meet to conduct a joint hearing on ``Border Technology: Keeping Terrorists out of the United States--2003'' on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Tentative Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Undersecretary for Border and Transportation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; Accompanied by: Robert Mocny, Director of Entry-Exit Program, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC; Woody Hall, Interim Director, Office of Information & Technology, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC. Panel II: Nancy Kingsbury, Managing Director of Applied Research and Methods, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC; Stephen E. Flynn, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY.