Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Child Protection Services Improvement Act. This bill provides education loan forgiveness for child welfare workers who have been with an agency for at least 2 years. In addition, the bill provides States with $500 million in matching grants over 5 years to improve the quality of their child welfare workers. States can use these matching grants: to improve child welfare workers' wages, increase the number of child welfare workers, reduce the turnover and vacancy rate of child welfare agencies, increase education and training of child welfare workers, attract and retain qualified candidates and coordinate services with other agencies. These dollars can also go to private welfare agencies at the States' discretion. The timing of this bill could not be better for 568,000 children in our foster care system, who have suffered from abuse and neglect. A recent joint survey by the Child Welfare League of America, the American Public Human Services Association and the Alliance for Children and Families reported that Child Welfare agencies are facing a workforce crisis. The study reported that: The average staff turnover for child welfare caseworkers in public agencies is 19.9 percent and 40 percent for private child welfare agencies in a year. The average percentage of vacant positions in public agencies is 7.4 percent and 27 percent for private agencies in a year. 46.2 percent of State child welfare workers left their job because of low salaries and 82.1 percent reported that they left their job because the workload was too high or demanding. 47.9 percent of private child welfare workers left their job because salaries were too low and 38.6 percent that they left their job because the workload was to high or demanding. Almost half of these agencies, both public and private, report difficulty in finding and retaining qualified candidates. These problems can have horrific consequences for the children who are the most vulnerable in our society. Going beyond the numbers, I am sure that many of my fellow members have looked in their local newspapers and heard of a case where a child was killed because of abuse and neglect. After suffering from abuse and neglect, Child Protection Services in States is the last line of defense in protecting these children. If these agencies falter, many of these children pay the price and sometimes that price is their life. The Child Welfare League of America, Alliance for children and Families, the National Association of Social Workers and the Catholic Charities of America have endorsed this bill. Please join with us in supporting the Child Protection Services Improvement Act and provide much needed financial resources to our child welfare workforce to protect the most vulnerable children in our society.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to dispel any notion that the tax bill before us here to help families. The total sum of the tax package is so large--$2.5 trillion and counting--that it cuts into vital spending programs that benefit families across the Nation. Today's bill is one more tax bill to make the American public believe that this Congress is going to right the wrongs of the Tax Code and spur the economy out of a recession, while simultaneously maintaining fiscal discipline and addressing the vital spending needs of our Nation. This tax bill is nothing more than an excuse for why Congress will be forced to privatize Social Security and Medicare when the baby boomers begin to retire; why we can't give a worthwhile Medicare prescription drug benefit to our seniors today; and why we need to cut vital child care programs. The tax cut before us today clearly demonstrates a lack of commitment to our children when it forces cuts in other programs that directly help children. Republicans reduce funds for the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) by $200 million in 2002 and freeze funds after 2002 in order to pay for their tax package. The child care provided through the CCDBG is a critical component to assist poor families' move from welfare to work. At the moment, the block grant only has enough money to serve 12 percent of the eligible children. We need more funding in this program, not less. As Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson said, ``welfare reform does not come cheap.'' The Republicans let Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Supplemental Grants expire in 2001. Even worse, the Republican budget encourages States to divert the remaining Federal funds to pay for State income tax credits for charitable contributions. These funds would otherwise provide critical welfare-to-work services. The Democrats' tax package is moderate in cost, allowing an increase to at least $2 billion in 2002 in title XX Social Services Block Grant Funding. Families who earn less than $27,000 will not see any of the benefit from the promised increase in the child tax credit. Furthermore, many families who earn more than $27,000 may not see a benefit in the child tax credit. In fact, 31.2 million taxpayers (24 percent of taxpayers) will get no income tax cut from the GOP tax plan. The bill promises a $1,000 family credit but nobody is honest enough to tell the American people that many families won't see the child credit doubled because the child will be over 16 years old when the credit takes effect in 2006. Families with children over the age of 11 are being promised an additional $500 but won't actually see it unless they have additional children. Let's be honest about the bill before us--it will not affect the economy anytime soon. Most of the provisions in this bill don't take effect until 2006 and some don't take full effect until 2009. The U.S. economy is facing a recession today. That being the case, why are we offering tax breaks 5, and even 8 years from now? It's quite obvious. The GOP tax plan is too expensive to fit it in today's budget. My Republican colleagues have been tasked with fitting a size 12 foot into a size 6 shoe. This legislation is one of several that will be combined to create excessive tax cuts that will provide a disproportionate amount of benefits to the wealthiest in our society. Later today, the Ways and Means Committee will mark up a bill to repeal the estate tax that is clearly designed to help the most affluent few in the United States. The Rangel substitute bill on the floor today is the responsible choice for family tax relief. The bill is honest, fair, fiscally responsible, and encourages economic prosperity. The Rangel substitute spends a fraction of the comprehensive Bush tax proposal, leaving room to pay down the debt and for other critical spending needs such as education and a Medicare prescription drug benefit. A lower national debt means lower interest costs leaving us in better fiscal shape to meet the demands of a retiring baby boom generation. The Rangel substitute benefits all families by giving all families a rate reduction; doubling the standard deduction for married couples to twice that of single individuals; adjusting and simplifying the earned income credit so lower-income families will see tax relief. Finally, the substitute fixes the alternative minimum tax (AMT) so when it appears that a family will receive tax relief, they won't be denied the relief due to the AMT. I urge my colleagues to vote for the equitable and responsible Rangel substitute and oppose the ``voodoo'' economics tax plan before us. It didn't work in the 80's and it won't work in the new millennium.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who as a physician understands full well the harm that will be done to the seniors in this country by the inadequacy of the prescription benefit that lies in the Republican budget.

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), who understands full well, better than many of us, that the very richest in this country are getting an incontrovertibly huge portion of this budget to the detriment of the average people in our districts.

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who understands that we could take the $50 billion a year that we are going to give away to a few rich Americans in estate tax relief and fund a decent prescription-drug benefit for our seniors with that same money. (Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of the time that I control to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, the Joint Economic Committee has been granted the authority to control one hour of the budget debate since passage of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 authored by Senator Hubert Humphrey and Congressman Gus Hawkins. It is our duty to present views on the current state of the U.S. economy and provide input into the budget debate before us. I am proud to be here today to continue the tradition begun by Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins. The Budget before us is not one of which those two men would be proud. Rather than leading us down an economic path of balanced growth and full employment, the budget before us today has the real potential to dismantle great strides made in our economy during the past decade. Each day we anxiously watch stock market fluctuations highlight the fact that this budget is far too dependent upon highly imprecise economic forecasts. If the budget outlook weakens and this bill has already become law, the basic workings of government will be greatly hindered by returning to the days of budget deficits. My key concerns with the budget before us lie in three areas: (1) The $1.6 trillion in tax cuts are too large, are weighted too heavily toward those with upper incomes, and jeopardize our government's ability to continue necessary funding levels for other important national priorities such as educating our children, defending our borders, and caring for our sick; (2) The budget raids the Medicare Trust Fund. Baby Boomers begin becoming eligible for Medicare in 2011. The time for protecting Medicare's fiscal resources is now. The budget before us fails that test; and (3) Drugs are too integral a part of medical care today for Medicare to continue to serve seniors adequately unless we add a prescription drug benefit. The budget before us fails to dedicate any new dollars to a Medicare prescription drug benefit. a matter of priorities: tax breaks for the wealthy over other needed priorities A budget is essentially a statement of priorities and this budget makes abundantly clear that the priority is tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of needed government spending in other areas. President Bush and his Congressional followers have crafted a tax plan that on the surface appears to have something for everyone in order to help spur the economy. However, upon closer inspection, it is quite clear that there are many children left behind with the GOP tax cuts, but a generous helping hand offered to workers who earn over $373,000 annually. First, I would like to dispel any notion that the GOP tax plan will actually help spur the current slowdown in the economy. The tax breaks proposed thus far will only help spur the economy if taxpayers see immediate relief and if the tax breaks are distributed equitably amongst all income groups. This will not happen under the tax plan passed by the Ways & Means Committee. The economic stimulus will happen when the tax cuts are fully phased-in. In order to control the exorbitant cost of the tax package, the Republicans can't allow the tax cuts to take full effect until 2006 or later. Are my colleagues predicting an economic slowdown five years from now? Even if the tax beaks were to take full effect much sooner, it is highly unlikely that the U.S. would see much economic stimulation. The bulk of the tax package benefits those in the top 1% income group. Workers in the 1% income group receive an average income of $1.1 million annually and will receive an average tax break of $28,608 annually. These folks will account for over thirty percent of the tax revenues lost. Meanwhile, those workers earning less than $27,000 will only see a meager tax break of $239 annually, comprising only six percent of the lost tax revenues. We cannot afford to spend trillions of dollars on a tax benefit that is concentrated on the wealthiest income-earners. The cost of these tax cuts eat up resources that could otherwise be used for important governmental programs that help many more people. We can and should be increasing our investment in education. President Bush has made education one of his highest rhetorical priorities. Unfortunately, this budget fails to follow through with the resources necessary to make great strides. In fact, it provides less than half the average increase Congress has granted Department of Education appropriations for the last five years. The budget before us today clearly demonstrates a lack of commitment to our children. Republicans reduce funds for the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) by $200 million in 2002 and freeze funds after 2002. The child care provided through the CCDBG is important to help poor families move from welfare to work. At the moment, the block grant only has enough money to serve 12 percent of the eligible children. We need more funding in this program, not less. As Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson said, welfare reform does not come cheap. The Republicans let Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Supplemental Grants expire in 2001. Even worse, the Republican budget encourages states to divert the remaining federal funds to pay for state income tax credits for charitable contributions. These funds would otherwise provide critical welfare-to-work services. Democrats Boost Title XX Social Services Block Grant Funding in the Democratic budget would allow an increase to at least $2 billion in 2002. And those are only a few examples of important domestic spending arenas where this budget falls far short.

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who agrees with the statement from the Alliance of Retired Americans that the budget before us could cause Medicare, which has out-performed conventional commercial health systems over the past decade, to go into a financial nose dive and insolvency by the year 2010 or so.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, at the balance of the speakers we have listed.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Chair intends to call a vote at this point, and after the vote, we would continue using the time that has been allocated to the Joint Economic Committee, is that it, and it would be the time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton)? Mr. Chairman, I have just a few speakers, and I have some time remaining, and I might as well do it now after we recognized the speakers, but I would ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of the Joint Economic Committee's time on the minority to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, if that is agreeable with the gentleman's side.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I reserved the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I hope my estimate does not turn out like the budget to be 20 minutes. Are not economics exciting, Mr. Chairman? The Joint Economic Committee has been granted the authority to control this part of the budget debate, and it has been a tradition since I guess 1978 when Senator Humphrey and Congressman Gus Hawkins first authored the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act. It is our duty to present the views on the current stay of the U.S. economy and provide input into the budget debate before us. Now, this budget is not one of which those two men would be proud, and the budget before us today has the real potential to dismantle the great strides our economy has made in the past decade. I would like to get this economic debate into the terms of my distinguished colleague from Iowa, who had sort of a better grasp of economics, this kitchen table, now back in California, where I come from, in San Lorenzo, California, my in-laws have a kitchen table. As a matter of fact, it is the only table they have to eat from in their house. They are going to be watching this, and they are going to figure it out. I think they are going to say with this Republican budget, those folks are eating the filet mignon and why we are sitting here with our Hamburger Helper? It is kind of interesting. My father-in-law kind of figured out what our tax breaks would be under this budget, and I can tell my colleagues this without giving away too much detail about Frank and Mary, they are going to save $239, all right? Their son-in-law, that is me, is going to get a tax cut bigger than their annual income. They do not think that is very fair, but it may be because I am their son-in-law, but I do not think it is very fair either, because what they are not telling you in this great economic budget that 50 percent of all of this tax cut is going to people who make more than $200,000 a year. Congress conveniently put all of us congressmen into that upper echelon. We are all going to get an average of about $28,000 a year tax cut, and our constituents are going to get probably less than a thousand bucks. I hope my colleagues all can go home and talk to their constituents around the kitchen table and tell them what you have done to them and those who pay payroll taxes are not going to save a nickel on this budget. They are going to continue to pay that old Social Security, that Medicare tax and not get any relief. While the 1 percent, those who make $900,000 a year or more average a $46,000 tax cut and get 43 percent of the benefits, the average American is not going to get bupkes. The distinguished gentleman from Iowa talked about a watershed budget. Remember, I did not grow up on a farm, but I wonder if the watershed is the one with the half moon carved in the door, because that may be where this budget came from. Because my colleagues talk about a top-to-bottom review, we could not have enough time, Mr. Chairman, to get to the middle, all of this is going to be a top review, because the bottom and the middle are not going to get anything. I would like to go on for a moment to what concerns people, because I do not think they believe that this economic thing is on the level, the average American is going to get anything. Not only are they not going to get anything, the rich are going to get their tax cut out of the Medicare trust fund, because the Republicans are stealing the money out of the Medicare trust fund to give the tax cut to the very rich. Boy, is that going to come home in a few years. The Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill, himself, as he talks about running Alcoa, he would not accept a long-range projection for more than 6 quarters. He would not trust them. He is going to trust a 10-year projection, which is really stretching it. Mr. Chairman, I am feeling pretty good about this economic projection right now. Medicare is not going to have a prescription drug benefit, because the tax cut that is being advertised as $1.6 trillion is really $3 trillion dollars. I mean, the Republicans cannot count. We have already passed the $958 billion the committee has. The Committee on Ways and Means has reported out another $399 billion we are going to consider that on the floor this week. The phase-out of the estate and gift taxes is going to be $267 billion, for Bush's proposal for tax incentive for charitable contribution $56 million; education IRAs, $6 million; the pension, IRAs liberalization $64 million; Bush's proposal for permanent extension research grant $50 million; and on and on, $2,397 million, and the debt service costs $556, a grand total of $2,953 tax cut, and my colleagues are trying to tell us that is $1.6 trillion. My colleagues better take their shoes and socks off when my colleagues try and get above 10 because the numbers do not add up. Then, after raiding the trust fund, not having any money left for a prescription drug benefit, giving all of this money to the rich, you from Iowa tell us you are willing to waste our seed corn, because the real economic benefits in our budget should come from educating our youth so we do not have to bring in all the foreign workers in the Silicon Valley because we do not have enough kids who have had a good education to handle the computer programming and the other things we have to do. We should be ashamed of starving our children from the education they need, of providing health care to our seniors, providing health care to the youth in this country, providing a prescription drug benefit, all at the benefit of giving a few huge tax cuts to these extremely rich Republicans. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, please, to vote against this budget. Let us give a little more Hamburger Helper out of that filet mignon than we are giving to the very rich and let us make some economic sense out of this economic Wizard of Oz story. It does not add up. It helps only a few rich people. It is a travesty to the fair American system. It is not fair. It is not economic, and it is going to break the country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Rep. Sherrod Brown and a number of additional colleagues to introduce the ``Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act.'' Companion legislation is being introduced by Sen. Rockefeller in the Senate as well. More than 43 million Americans have no health insurance today. There are many approaches to solutions for decreasing the number of uninsured. As most of my colleagues are aware, I support the creation of a universal health care system in which each and every American would have health insurance coverage. That is the most fair, affordable, and sustainable solution to our national health care needs. However, that won't be accomplished overnight. In the meantime, there are steps that Congress can and should be taking to develop immediate, if smaller, solutions to providing people affordable health insurance coverage options. One such step is to pass legislation that would provide certain groups of individuals the option of buying into Medicare. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that a majority of voters believe that the next population of the uninsured who should be helped is those aged 55-64. I agree. A Commonwealth Fund study from July 2000 found that more than half of uninsured adults in the 50-64 age range trusted Medicare the most as a source of health insurance and nearly two-thirds of them would be interested in enrolling in Medicare early if that option were available. So, expanding Medicare would likely be a very attractive option to people of this age. While the 55-64 segment of our population has a lower overall percentage of uninsured than other age segments, once these people lose insurance it is often difficult or impossible for them to obtain affordable coverage in the private insurance marketplace. And, with the aging of the baby boom generation, this is a quickly growing segment of our population. In 1999, there were 23.1 million Given all of these facts, I have joined with many colleagues to introduce the Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act of 2001, a bill to expand access to Medicare's purchasing power to certain individuals below age 65. The Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act would enable eligible individuals to harness Medicare's clout in the marketplace to get much more affordable health coverage than they are able to purchase in the private sector market that currently exists. And, to make this coverage more affordable, we have attached a 50 percent tax credit to it. The bill would provide a very vulnerable population (age 55-64) with three new options to obtain health insurance (All numbers referenced below are based on the 2000 version of the bill so they are subject to change in our new legislation) Individuals 62-65 years old with no access to health insurance could buy into Medicare by paying a base premium (about $326 a month) during those pre-Medicare eligibility years and a deferred premium during their post-65 Medicare enrollment (about $4 per money in 2005 for an individual who participated in the full three years of the new program). The deferred premium is designed to reimburse Medicare for the extra costs due to the fact that sicker than average people are likely to enroll in the program. The deferred premium would be payable out of the enrollee's Social Security check between the ages of 65-85. Individuals 55-62 years old who have been laid off and have no access to health insurance, as well as their spouse, could buy into Medicare by paying a monthly premium (about $460 a month). There would be no deferred premium. Certain eligibility requirements would apply. Retirees aged 55 or older whose employer-sponsored coverage is terminated could buy into their employer's health insurance for active workers at 125 percent of the group rate. This would be a COBRA expansion, with no relationship to Medicare. Again, our new bill, The Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act of 2001 supplements our previous versions of this legislation by incorporating a new 50 percent tax credit that would be attached to each of the three programs. Thus, the actual cost to the enrollees would be substantially less than the cost under the proposals in last year's legislation. Affordability is a key component of expanding health insurance coverage. Adding a tax credit to the programs increases their affordability so that more people age 55 and older can take advantage of the program. Last year's analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, indicated that more than 500,000 currently uninsured people would gain health insurance coverage by enactment of the Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit The Medicare Early Access Act and Tax Credit Act isn't the total solution for people age 55-64 who lack access to health insurance coverage. However, if passed, it would make available health insurance options for these individuals at much less than the cost of what is available today. This is a meaningful step forward in expanding health insurance coverage to a segment of our population that is quickly losing coverage in the private sector. The Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act is legislation that we should be able to agree upon and to enact so that people age 55-64 have a new, viable option for health insurance coverage. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the House and Senate to enact the Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act. A more detailed summary of the legislation follows: Medicare Early Access and Tax Credit Act (Please note: all numbers below are based on CBO/Joint Committee on Taxation analysis of the legislation in 2000. We will have updated figures once the new version of the bill is analyzed.)

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, a lot of Members of Congress have been criticizing HCFA lately, largely because they are trying to carry out impossible complex laws passed by Members of Congress. We also complain that HCFA isn't competitive enough. In the BBA of 1997, we gave authority to HCFA to carry out competitive bidding demonstrations on the purchase of durable medical equipment. Those demonstrations are indeed showing substantial savings. I would like to enter in the Record a press release of March 1st describing the progress of these demonstrations. Mr. Speaker, Congress should immediately allow those demonstrations to become permanent and to be extended nationwide. Congress should stop calling HCFA inefficient when we aren't willing to give it the power to be efficient. [From the HCFA Press Office, Mar. 1, 2001] Second Round of Medicare Competitive Bidding Project for Medical Supplies in Polk County, FLA. Medicare has launched the second round of its successful pilot project in Polk County, Fla., that uses competition to provide quality medical equipment and supplies to beneficiaries at better prices. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 authorizes the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to demonstrate how competitive bidding can help Medicare beneficiaries and the program pay more reasonable prices for quality medical equipment and supplies. Several studies by the U.S. General Accounting (GAO) and the HHS Inspector General have shown that the Medicare program and its beneficiaries often pay more for medical equipment and supplies than the prices paid by other insurers and individual patients. Requiring suppliers interested in serving Medicare beneficiaries to submit bids including quality and price information assures access to high-quality medical equipment at a fairer price. The changes also can reduce Medicare waste and abuse. During the first round of the Polk County demonstration, HCFA, the agency that administers Medicare, invited companies to compete to sell medical equipment and supplies to 92,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Polk County. Bids were evaluated on the basis of quality and price. The new rates set by this competitive process are saving individual beneficiaries and Medicare an average of 17 percent on the cost of certain medical supplies, while protecting quality and access for Polk County beneficiaries. The competitive bidding process took place in the spring of 1999. The new rates took effect on Oct. 1, 1999, and will remain in effect until Sept. 30, 2001. HCFA implemented a similar demonstration in three Texas counties in the San Antonio area--Bexar, Comal and Guadelupe counties. Suppliers who wished to sell products in five categories to Medicare beneficiaries in the region were required to compete on the basis of quality and price in the spring of 2000. As in the Polk County process, the new prices are saving individual beneficiaries and Medicare an average of 20 percent on the cost of certain medical supplies while protecting quality and access for San Antono beneficiaries. The new rates took effect on Feb. 1, 2001, and will remain in effect until Dec. 31, 2002. In the second round of the Polk County demonstration, suppliers will again compete this spring on the basis of quality and price for four of categories of medical equipment and supplies categories included in the first round of the pilot. The categories are: oxygen supplies; hospital beds; urological supplies and surgical dressings. The fifth product category, enteral nutrition, is not being included in the second round because the focus of the demonstration is on medical equipment and supplies delivered to the home, and enteral nutrition is primarily provided to nursing home residents. The rates determined for the second round are to take effect on Oct. 1, 2001, and will remain in effect until Sept. 30, 2002.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I vehemently oppose President Bush's tax cut plan and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I did not support the bill in the Ways and Means Committee markup because the House has not adopted a budget; the tax cut is one piece of a larger tax plan that imperils Social Security and Medicare; the bill leaves no room for more deserving priorities like a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors and better education for our children; and it provides far greater tax breaks to wealthy Americans-- like members of Congress--than it does to the vast majority of working families. A prudent family who has just experienced an increase in their annual salary would not run out to buy a yacht before they figure out how much debt they have on their credit cards, whether or not they're saving enough for the kids' college education, and if their retirement savings plan is in order. Likewise, Congress is acting irresponsibly by not setting spending priorities before blowing all our forecasted resources on a massive--not requested--tax cut. President Bush did not send Congress a budget proposal. He sent Congress a blueprint for disaster dressed up in partisan rhetoric. The Bush ``budget'' is merely the rationale for a bloated tax cut. There are also some $20 billion in domestic spending cuts for next year alone that the President has yet to detail in his budget. These cuts could result in fewer cops on the street, less relief for over-crowded schools, less research and development for alternative energy, and reductions in federal emergency assistance. Nor, does the President take into account all of the obligations that Congress is required to calculate when we devise a real budget. Congress is forced to account for an increase in population and therefore an increase in spending programs. Congress must account for additional interest on the debt when the debt isn't paid down and instead spent on a $2.5 trillion tax cut. Congress must account for the annual tax extenders that are renewed every single year. However, this Administration seems to think itself immune from taking into account these real costs to the federal government. This Congress isn't remotely ready to debate--much less vote on--a nearly $1 trillion tax cut which is only the smaller portion of an eventual $2.5 trillion tax cut. President Bush is attempting to persuade the American public that his number one priority is education and that he also wants to protect Medicare and provide a new prescription drug benefit in the program. This is a blatant attempt to mislead America's seniors and parents alike. The $2.4 billion in education spending increases pales in comparison to the $2.6 trillion cut the President plans to give primarily to the wealthiest Americans. The Administration's budget blueprint calls for a 12% increase in education spending. But once again, this figure is completely misleading. Bush calculates $2.1 billion in funds that Congress already provided for 2002 appropriations and already designated for specific education programs. You can't truthfully count these funds twice. Likewise, the President is double-counting on Medicare and Social Security. His rhetoric states that he's protecting the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. In fact, his budget raids both trust funds--that Congress has consistently voted to put into a ``lock box'' to be used only to extend the solvency of Medicare and Social Security--as a resource to fund the wrong-headed priorities of his budget. Because of the overwhelming size of the tax cut he's proposing, he also fails to provide the necessary resources to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Make no bones about it--the funds don't exist in President Bush's budget to provide seniors with an adequate and affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit. And, his use of the Trust Fund to finance other parts of his budget could imperil the program's future. Finally, the President attempts to sell his tax package to the American people by advertising it as an economic stimulus. The problem with this misleading advertisement is that the entire tax plan isn't fully phased in until 2006. Most economists agree that most of the tax relief that has been promised by the President won't take effect until the economy has recovered. I want my constituents to know the real substance of what I am about to vote on. This rate reduction tax bill is a small part of a larger problem. There is no real budget in place that spells out the realities of our spending priorities. The bill before us today sets up the federal government for increasing deficits. The tax benefits of this bill--which are wrongly directed to disproportionately assist the wealthy--arrive too late to provide any real stimulus for the economy. This will then force Congress to make drastic cuts to the programs that low and middle-income workers rely on like Medicare, Social Security and quality public education. It is unfair to leave our children with the burden of our federal debt so that the GOP can give away trillions of dollars to America's wealthiest taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 3.

Mr. STARK. Regular order, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty clear, because I talked to my colleagues a few months ago about why I did not intend to support removing the inheritance tax to make my children even richer than they will be, and so I am here today to explain to my colleagues in the simplest terms about what greed has done. I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) will do far better than I will on this, but my accountant tells me that under the Republican plan, I will save $28,253.82. Under the Democratic alternative as proposed by our distinguished ranking member and the Democrats, I would save $737, a difference of $27,500. My father-in-law is a retired teamster in San Marino, California. He has had a small business. He and people under $44,000 a year will receive $316 under the Bush plan, $289 under ours, a $25 difference. The $27,500 that my Republican colleagues are giving to Members of Congress is going to us instead of paying for a drug benefit for seniors. That is what is the issue today. The Republicans would destroy Medicare and Social Security by giving the money to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and to me who arguably do not need it and deny decent benefits to the seniors in this country. It is clear.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to follow my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle from California and from New York. The gentleman who preceded me is arguably somewhat more wealthy than I am, and I think I would just like to explain in terms he and I can understand.

Mr. STARK. No.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 624, the Organ Donation Improvement Act. H.R. 624 is an important piece of legislation that provides financial assistance to living donors to cover the travel expenses associated with donating an organ, and provides new funds for programs to educate the public with respect to organ donation. In a National Kidney Foundation Survey, one out of four family members said that financial considerations prevented them from volunteering to become a living donor. When you consider airfare, hotel, ground transportation, and food for a few days, the costs add up. This bill would provide grants to states, transplant centers, organ procurement organizations, and other public entities to enable them to pay for the non-medical travel and subsistence expenses incurred by a donor in conjunction with organ donation. It is targeted to recipients with incomes below $35,000 a year who might not otherwise be able to aide a donor in paying for travel costs. More people would be able to become living donors if we remove this cost barrier. In a country as wealthy as ours, we cannot allow those who are in need of an organ to miss a life-saving opportunity because of a lack of travel funds for a family member or other matching donor. Moreover, we must facilitate more people becoming living organ donors by removing whatever obstacles we can. This bill would also authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to states or contract with organizations to educate the public on organ donation. States that receive grants would be required to submit annual reports to the Secretary assessing the effectiveness of the programs, so that successful programs can be replicated in other states. We need to get as many people as possible to fill out organ and tissue pledge cards, and enter their information in the National Marrow Donor Program Registry through education campaigns. The Federal government needs to work with States, and non- profit organizations to reach every person in this country. Any of us could one day need a transplant. This bill takes a step in the right direction, but it should be considered a piece in a broader effort to increase organ donation in this country. Every 14 minutes a new name is added to the transplant waiting list. We need to insure that every 14 minutes a new donor signs a pledge card. We have far to go before we've reached that goal, but this bill moves us closer. Secretary Thompson has already indicated that he plans to launch a national awareness campaign and to do more to recognize donors and their families. This would be a great opportunity for Congress to collaborate with him to draw attention to this life-saving issue. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this important legislation to increase organ donations.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Karen Thurman, in support of this resolution that extends the message that Congress supports the goals of National Donor Day and urges the President to issue a proclamation calling on the nation to conduct appropriation activities and programs to support increased organ donation. February 10, 2001 was the fourth National Donor Day organized by Saturn and the United Auto Workers. To date, the successful efforts of the groups involved have resulted in over 4,000 potential donors being added to the National Marrow Donor Program Registry, over 25,000 units of blood being collected, and tens of thousands of organ and tissue pledge cards being distributed. Last year's events included an emphasis on the disproportionally high need for minority donors. Recipients often need an organ from a donor of the same ethnicity, and organ donation among minorities has historically been lower than the rest of the population, making minorities less likely to find a matching donor. We need to continue such efforts to reach out to minorities and encourage them to become donors. There are still over 70,000 people on the transplant waiting list. We need to reemphasize our commitment to the National Donor Day and the importance of organ, tissue, and blood donation. We also need to put more resources into programs with similar goals to take steps toward making each day a national donor day. I urge President Bush to join us in these efforts to encourage people to give the gift of life, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that improper Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers declined in fiscal year (FY) 2000 to an estimated level of 6.8 percent. This level compares with an error rate of approximately 8 percent in FY 1999. The error rate has fallen by roughly half since it was first estimated at approximately 14 percent in FY 1996. The FY 2000 payment error rate represents improper payments of $11.9 billion out of total payments of $173.6 billion in the traditional fee- for-service Medicare program. This improper payment amount compares with improper payments of $13.5 billion in FY 1999 and $23.2 billion in FY 1996. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) met its target for reducing the Medicare error rate to 7 percent in FY 2000 and continues to take steps to meet its FY 2002 goal of 5 percent. Mr. Speaker, this continued decline in the Medicare error rate demonstrates the success of all the actions that HCFA has taken to reduce billing errors in Medicare over the past five years. According to the Inspector General, the significant, sustained improvement reflects HCFA's improved oversight, its efforts to clarify Medicare payment policies, and its insistence that doctors and health care providers fully document the services that they provide. Other factors have been new initiatives and resources to prevent, detect and eliminate errors and fraud in Medicare. Mr. Speaker, many criticized HCFA when the payment error rate was 14 percent and demanded that HCFA reduce it. Now many criticize HCFA for the actions it has taken to reduce payment errors and for insisting that providers file claims accurately. I say that we should praise HCFA for its efforts to reduce Medicare payment errors, and we should ensure that HCFA does not diminish its efforts to reduce those errors still further. We should not be satisfied with payment errors in Medicare. To achieve further reductions in Medicare payment errors, we must reduce the complexity of Medicare payment rules and improve provider education and information, but we must continue to insist on accuracy in claims filing. We must increase the resources available to HCFA to help providers file their claims properly and to monitor claims to ensure correctness. We must also provide the resources to upgrade HCFA's claims processing systems and other information technology systems, without which we cannot hope to continue to reduce errors in Medicare payments. It is important to understand that the error rate does not measure the level of fraud in Medicare, although some errors could be the result of fraud. Instead, the error rate measures the percentage of payments made by Medicare that were not supported by documentation by providers or that otherwise did not meet Medicare payment requirements. According to the Inspector General, virtually all of the claims examined in the audit were paid correctly by Medicare based on the information that providers submitted in the claims. The error rate was calculated by examining a statistically valid sample of Medicare claims, and auditors reviewed the medical records supporting the claims with the assistance of medical experts. The sample findings were then projected over the universe of Medicare fee-for-service benefit payments.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to S.J. Res. 6 to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's ergonomics standard. Using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the OSHA ergonomics standard would be an extraordinary action, the first of its kind. It would be the first time in 30 years Congress reversed a legally established worker safety measure. It would be the first time CRA has been used to overturn any federal rule or regulation, much less one that was issued through ten years of public process. The regulations, scheduled to go into effect this October, draw from the businesses that have successfully prevented ergonomic injuries or reduced their severity in the workplace. Repetitive injuries are one of the leading causes of work-related illness. More that 647,000 American workers suffer serious injuries and illnesses due to musculoskeletal disorders, costing businesses $15 to $20 billion annually in workers' compensation costs. The standard--ten years in the making--could be overturned without any meaningful consideration of the facts and without workers having a chance to be heard. One hour of debate time is insufficient when it comes to the health and safety of the American worker. Don't be misled. Use of the CRA would not send the standard back to the drawing board. Rather, it would effectively prohibit OSHA from issuing a protective standard to address the nation's largest job safety program. This effort should be seen for what it is--an effort to kill any ergonomics standard once and for all. Unfortunately, the ergonomics regulations are opposed by the majority party for the cost they would impose upon employers without regard for the value they would provide to the workforce and the long-term benefits to our economy. Basic safety in the workforce should be given, not some benefit that can be dropped at an employer's whim. I oppose efforts to delay or overturn regulations that would enhance safety in the workplace. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution before us today.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Medicare pays different amounts for various medical procedures, depending on where the service is performed. In general (but not always), we pay more for a procedure in a hospital outpatient department, less for the same procedure in an ambulatory surgical center, and often even less when that procedure is performed in a doctor's personal office. Some people--the very frail or those who are quite sick--often need to be cared for in a setting where intensive support services can be quickly provided. But for most, these various procedures can be performed safely in a variety of settings. For those who do not need back-up support, it would seem that Medicare ought to pay no more than the lowest cost site of service. I've introduced legislation to ensure that type of savings--savings that would run into the hundreds of millions per year. The following letter from a group of doctors describes why we should enact this change--ASAP. February 14, 2001. Representative Pete Stark, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Stark: We are a group of six urologists. We are writing this letter to voice our concerns about, and ask for your help in clarifying/rectifying HCFA reimbursement policy as it relates to site of service payments. To briefly summarize, three routine and frequently performed urology procedures are reimbursed at very different rates when performed in a physician's office versus an ambulatory surgical center. The procedures, corresponding CPT codes and associated payments are: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office ASC CPT code and description pmt. pmt. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 52000 Cystourethroscopy.............................. $179 $418 52281 Cystourethrscopy w/urethral calibration/ 232 569 dilation............................................. 55700 Prostate biopsy................................ 178 506 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As you can see, if the bill for these procedures is sent to Part A Medicare instead of Part B Medicare the reimbursement is tremendously higher. This is true even though they are exactly the same service provided with identical equipment. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has stated ``All else being equal, Medicare should pay for ambulatory care based on the service, not the setting in which it is provided.'' AUA Health Policy Brief, Page 5, December 1998). The major cost drivers of providing these services are basically identical regardless of site of service (cost of cystoscopes, ultrasound imaging equipment, power tables, sterilization equipment, light sources, irrigation fluid, ancillary personnel, and cost per square foot of space). We believe this present policy adversely and unfairly affects all providers who aren't owners of an ASC as well as Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare beneficiaries are concerned about access and quality of care. Presently we provide these services at four locations. Without a level reimbursement policy concerning site of service, we will have to consider closing some offices and congregating all or most of these procedures at one centrally located ASC.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I have recently sent the following letter to Bristol Myers Squibb highlighting the extent to which this company has been inflating its drug prices and engaging in other deceptive business practices. The evidence provided shows that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. has knowingly and deliberately inflated their representation of the average wholesale price (``AWP'') which is utilized by the Medicare and Medicaid programs in establishing drug reimbursements to providers. In doing so, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. is abusing the public trust, endangering patients by affecting physician prescribing practices, and exploiting America's seniors and disabled who are forced to pay 20 percent of these inflated drug costs. And American taxpayers are picking up the rest of the tab. To help bring an end to these harmful, misleading practices, I have called on the FDA to conduct a full investigation into such business practices. These practices must stop and these companies must return the money to the public that is owed because of their abusive practices. I submit the following letter to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. to the Congressional Record. February 22, 2001. Mr. Peter Dolan, President, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., New York, NY. Dear Mr. Dolan: Ongoing Congressional investigations have uncovered compelling evidence that Bristol-Myers Squibb (``Bristol'') has for many years deliberately overstated the prices of some of its prescription drugs in order to cause the Medicare and Medicaid programs to pay inflated amounts to Bristol's customers. Bristol's participation in this scheme is costing American taxpayers billions of dollars in excessive drug costs and is jeopardizing the public's health safety and welfare. Bristol touts itself as ``America's Most Admired Pharmaceutical Company'' and says it is 11 out of 1,025 companies measured for ``social responsibility''. Yet, I think it is outrageous that your company would falsely inflate prices at a time when Medicare and the states' Medicaid Programs battle the crisis of spiraling prescription drug prices. The price manipulation scheme is executed through Bristol's falsely inflated representations of average wholesale price (``AWP''), direct price (``DP'') and wholesaler acquisition cost (``WAC''), which are utilized by Medicare, Medicaid and most private third party payers in establishing drug reimbursements to providers. The difference between the inflated representations of AWP, DP and WAC versus the true prices that providers are paying is regularly referred to in your industry as ``the spread''. Bristol has control over the AWP's, DP's and WAC's published for its drugs and directs national publishers to change their prices. An internal Bristol document directing a national publisher of drug prices to increase all of Bristol's AWPs for oncology drugs by multiplying Bristol's supplied direct prices by a 25% factor rather than the previous 20.5% factor. A variance of 16% to 20% between direct drug prices and AWPs represents a range that would more than generously cover inventory costs, normal price variances and any reasonable mark-up on oncology drugs occurring in the wholesale marketplace [Bristol sold the vast majority of its infusion oncology drugs directly to oncologists through its wholly owned OTN subsidiary, and while OTN did not mark up drug prices or at any time own the drugs, it was instead paid a commission directly from Bristol without the occurrence of any significant mark-ups at the wholesale level]. None of the 4.5% price increase was intended to provide more revenues to Bristol or enable wholesalers to charge higher prices to oncologist. There were no significant price markups at the wholesale level. Instead, the increase in the AWP created a spread that, in itself, provided a financial kickback to oncologists for prescribing Bristol's cancer drugs. Since the additional 4.5% orchestrated by Bristol in 1992, the Medicare Program has needlessly paid more than an estimated $60 million dollars for just two of Bristol's cancer drugs-this taxpayer abuse does not even account for additional Medicare beneficiary co-payments. To add insult to injury, one of the drugs Taxol (Paclitaxel) was significantly developed with taxpayer funds by the National Institute of Health. A similar AWP increase by Glaxo drew the following objection from its competitor, Smith Kline Beecham: In an apparent effort to increase reimbursement to physicians and clinics, effective 1/10/95, Glaxo increased AWP for Zofran by 8.5% while simultaneously fully discounting this increase to physicians . . . The net effect of these adjustments is to increase the amount of reimbursement available to physicians from Medicare and other third party payors whose reimbursement is based on AWP. Since the net price paid to Glaxo for the non-hospital sales of the Zofran multi-dose vial is actually lower, it does not appear that the increase in AWP was designed to increase revenue per unit to Glaxo. Absent any other tenable explanation, this adjustment appears to reflect an intent to induce physicians to purchase Zofran based on the opportunity to receive increased reimbursement from Medicare and other third party payors. In fact, we have had numerous verbal reports from the field concerning Glaxo representatives who are now selling Zofran based on the opportunity for physicians to receive a higher reimbursement from Medicare and other third-party payors while the cost to the physician of Zofran has not changed. The evidence clearly shows that Bristol has intentionally reported inflated prices and engaged in other improper business practices in order to cause its customers to receive windfall profits from Medicare and Medicaid when submitting claims for certain drugs. The evidence further reveals that Bristol manipulated prices for the express purpose of expanding sales and increasing market share of certain drugs where the arranging of a financial benefit or inducement would influence the decisions of healthcare providers submitting the Medicare and Medicaid claims. Indeed, Bristol did not falsify published prices in connection with other drugs, where sales and market penetration strategies did not include the arranging of such financial ``kickbacks'' to the healthcare provider. In the case of the drugs for which Bristol sought to arrange a financial kickback at the expense of the government programs, the manipulated discrepancies between your company's falsely inflated AWP's and DP's versus their true costs are staggering. For example, in the 2000 edition of the Red Book, Bristol reported an AWP of $1296.64 for one 20mg/ ml, 50ml vial of Vepesid (Etoposide) for injection [NDC #00015-3062-20], while Bristol was actually offering to sell the exact same drug to Innovatix members (a In addition to Bristol's unconscionable price manipulation of Vepesid, I am also concerned about Bristol's newer drug Etopophos. As the following excerpts from Bristol's own documents reveal, Bristol's earlier participation in the false price manipulation scheme with respect to Etoposide (Vepesid) interfered with physicians medical decisions to use Etopophos: ``The Etopophos product profile is significantly superior to that of etoposide injection . . .''. ``Currently, physician practices can take advantage of the growing disparity between VePesid's [name brand for Etoposidel list price (and, subsequently, the Average Wholesale Price [AWPI] and the actual acquisition cost when obtaining reimbursement for etoposide purchases. If the acquisition price of Etopophos is close to the list price, the physician's financial incentive for selecting the brand is largely diminished''. Bristol thus acknowledges that financial inducements influence the professional judgment of physicians and other healthcare providers. Bristol's strategy of increasing the sales of its drugs by enriching, with taxpayer dollars, the physicians and others who administer drugs is reprehensible and a blatant abuse of the privileges that Bristol enjoys as a major pharmaceutical manufacturer in the United States. Physicians should be free to choose drugs based on what is medically best for their patient. Inflated price reports should not be used to financially induce physicians to administer Bristol's'drugs. Bristol's conduct, in conjunction with other drug companies, has cost the taxpayers billions of dollars and serves as a corruptive influence on the exercise of independent medical judgment. Bristol employed a number of other financial inducements to stimulate the sales of its drugs at the expense of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs that were concealed from the Government. Such inducements included volume discounts, rebates, off invoice pricing and free goods designed to lower the net cost to the purchaser while concealing the actual cost of the drug from reimbursement officials. Bristol provided free Etopophos to Drs. Lessner and Troner in exchange for the Miami oncologist's agreement to purchase other Bristol cancer drugs. This arrangement had the effect of lowering the net cost of the cancer drugs to the oncologist and creating an even greater spread than would already result from the invoiced prices. The value of the free goods is often significant: Similarly, other exhibits show that Bristol provided free Cytogards in order to create a lower than invoice cost to physicians that purchased other cancer drugs through the Oncology Therapeutic Network. It is important to note that the above free good examples created financial incentives to the physicians that were over and above the spread created by the difference between Bristol's reported prices and regular prices provided to the market. Bristol's price manipulation scheme was directed at both the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. Bristol commonly reported prices directly to Medicare carriers as well as State Medicaid Programs. Exhibit 8, attached hereto, contains examples of Bristol's price reports that were routinely directed to State Medicaid Programs and Medicare carriers through Western Union Mailgrams. This scheme is further illustrated by Bristol's fraudulent price representations about its drug Blenoxane. Bristol's AWP fraud with respect to Blenoxane is clearly demonstrated in Composite Exhibit 9, attached hereto, which consists of invoices relating to sales of the drug by Oncology Therapeutic Network to Jeffery N. Paonessa, MD, an oncologist practicing in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1995, Bristol caused an AWP to be published of $276.29 when it sold Blenoxane to Dr. Paonessa for $224.22. In 1996, Bristol increased its reports of AWP to $291.49, while continuing to sell the drug to Dr. Paonessa for $224.27. In 1997, Bristol falsely reported that it had increased its AWP to $304.60 when, in reality, it lowered the price to oncologists as reflected by its price to Dr. Paonessa of $155.00. In 1998, Bristol again reported a false AWP of $304.60 while reducing its price to oncologists as reflected by the $140.00 price to Dr. Paonessa. The following chart summarizes this information: Blenoxane 15--NDC#00015-3010-20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Price to Year Red Book Florida Spread AWP oncologist ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1995............................. $276.29 $224.22 $52.07 1996............................. 291.49 224.22 67.27 1997............................. 304.60 155.00 149.60 1998............................. 304.60 140.00 164.60 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is essential that the Health Care Financing Administration (``HCFA'') and other government reimbursement authorities receive truthful and accurate information from Bristol regarding drugs for which the government reimburses. The evidence uncovered by the Congressional investigations to date seems to reveal a conscious, concerted and successful effort by Bristol to actively mislead HCFA and others about the price of their drugs. I have forwarded this matter to the Department of Justice and request that Bristol's conduct be investigated under the Anti-Kickback and Prescription Drug Marketing Statutes. Bristol's price manipulation has already caused the Medicare and Medicaid Programs unconscionable damage. The inflation index for prescription drugs continues to rise at a rate of more than twice that of the consumer price index. The American taxpayer, Congress and the press are being told that these increases are justified by the cost of developing new pharmaceutical products. Bristol and several other manufacturers are clearly exploiting the upward spiral in drug prices by falsely reporting that prices for some drugs are rising when they are in truth and in fact failing. This fraudulent price manipulation cannot be permitted to continue. I urge Bristol to immediately examine its corporate conscience, correct its behavior and make amends for the injuries it has caused government programs to date. It is time to earn your claims for social responsibility. Please share this letter with your Board of Directors and in particular with the Board's Corporate Integrity Committee. Sincerely, Pete Stark, Ranking Member.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I support ``The SSI Modernization Act of 2001,'' for which I am an original cosponsor. In 1972, the Congress passed legislation to create the Supplementary Security Income (SSI) Program to help the most vulnerable in our society. The SSI Program provides a base level of a support to the elderly, disabled and blind who do not qualify for Social Security or whose Social Security benefits are inadequate. Currently, about 6.6 million of these individuals rely on SSI to provide income for the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter. Unfortunately, Congress has done little since the creation of SSI to ensure that the program serves the recipients in the 21st century as well as it did in the 20th century. As a result, the program now serves a population living at a level of 70 percent of poverty and does not serve those at or near the poverty line. This bill does six items to modernize SSI: 1. It rewards SSI recipients who want to work by increasing the amount of earned income excluded from reducing the SSI benefit from $65 to $130 a month and indexes it to inflation in future years. This limit has not been increased since 1972 and would be $260 a month if they had kept pace with inflation. 2. It increases the General Income exclusion from $20 to $40 of income per month and would index the amount to inflation in future years. This exclusion means that the first $40 of income received by an SSI recipient will not be used to reduce their benefit check. For recipients who have a significant work history and receive a Social Security benefit, they will be able to retain more of their Social Security benefit. This limit has not been increased since 1972 and would be $80 if it had kept pace with inflation. 3. The bill increases the amount of resources that recipients are allowed to own from $2,000 to $3,000 for an individual and from $3,000 to $4,500 for a couple and then indexes it for inflation in future years. If these resources limits had kept pace with inflation they would be $6,000 for an individual and $9,000 for a couple. 4. The amount of infrequent or irregular income that recipients are allowed to earn before benefit reduction is increased from $10 to $20 a month for earned income and $20 to $40 a month for unearned income. These limits have not been changed since 1981. 5. The bill delays SSI eligibility redeterminations for disabled children from 18 years old until one of two things occur first: either the person becomes 21 years old or finishes secondary school. 6. SSI would exclude the entire amount of educational grants, scholarships from SSI income determinations and exclude it for up to 9 months for SSI resource determinations. This is a small incremental bill that makes some long overdue technical improvements to SSI. I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly enact this legislation to improve the lives of the most economically vulnerable Americans who depend on SSI.