[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10999-S11005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Mrs. BOXER:
S. 3232. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain projects in California
for the use or reuse of reclaimed water and for the design and
construction of demonstration and permanent facilities for that
purpose, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
california reclaimed water act for the 21st century
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the
California Reclaimed Water Act for the 21st century. As California
takes its first steps into the 21st century, it is undeniable that the
quality of water, the quantity of water, and the availability of water
are among the most formidable challenges to our 34 million citizens and
the many diverse regions of our fast growing state. Our farmers, urban
dwellers, sport and commercial fishing interests, tribes, mountain
communities and environmentalists all seek a more reliable and a more
certain water future. Recycled water plays an important part in meeting
California's water needs today and will play an even more important
role in the next several decades.
California is making significant progress in its effort to put its
water house in order. Between March and June of this year, two major
water policy initiatives occurred in California. On March 7, 2000,
California voters overwhelmingly approved a $2 billion water bond.
Further, on August 28, 2000, Governor Gray Davis and Interior Secretary
Bruce Babbitt signed the landmark CALFED water agreement which broadly
sets a course for California's water future. Water recycling and reuse
is a major element of both these new actions and policies.
The existing federal program to support water recycling is found in
title XVI, Public Law 102-575 and was enacted in 1992. The law
authorized recycling projects and studies throughout California,
including in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. The
law also authorized projects in Colorado and Arizona. The 1992 law also
called for a special Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation and Reuse study to investigate
[[Page S11000]]
how the use of recycled water could relieve water supply pressure in
California. That study is being prepared by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, State of California's Department of Water Resources,
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Central Basin and
West Basin Municipal Water Districts, City of Los Angeles, City of San
Diego, San Diego Water Authority, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
and the South Orange County Reclamation Authority. It should soon be
completed.
Expressing continued support for the title XVI program, in 1996
Congress authorized a second group of water recycling projects in
California, from Watsonville to Ventura County, and from Pasadena to
Orange County, plus individual projects in Utah, New Mexico, Texas and
Nevada. The legislation I introduce today builds upon these
congressional efforts, voter ballot initiatives and agency studies. The
bill authorizes a series of title XVI water recycling projects and
directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with various water
districts throughout the State including: Castaic Lake Water Agency
Reclaimed Water Project Lake County, Clear Lake Basin Water Reuse
Project East Bay Municipal Utility District and the San Ramon Serves
District Recycled Water Project Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Inland
Empire Regional Water Recycling Project in San Bernardino County San
Pablo Baylands Water Reuse Project in Sonoma, Napa, Marin and Solano
Counties State of California Water Recycling Program Regional Brine
Lines (salt removal) in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay and
the Santa Clara Valley areas Chino Basin Watermaster, Inland Empire
Utilities Agency, Western Municipal Water District and the Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority for the Lower Chino Dairy Area Desalination
Demonstration and Reclamation Project.
Additional research, in cooperation with the WateReuse Foundation, is
mandated and two previously authorized projects, one in Los Angeles and
the other in the San Gabriel Basin, are modified. Finally, my bill
mandates that the proposed projects be coordinated with the CALFED
Program. Taken together, these projects will have the capacity to
produce hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water. The Inland Empire
Regional Water Recycling Project, for example, is designed to yield up
to 66,000 acre feet of recycled water annually. Each acre foot of
recycled water reduces the demand for imported water from the Bay-Delta
and the Colorado River. Inland proposed to ``drought proof'' its region
with these and related investments.
Beneficiaries of these projects and these investments include the
immediate service areas, downstream neighbors, and towns and
communities throughout California. Water recycling projects in
California also reduce the demand for imported water, be it from the
San Francisco Bay-Delta or the Colorado River. Recycling and reuse
investments in Southern California have the effect of helping the Bay-
Delta by reducing demand for additional imported Bay-Delta water. These
same investments benefit California's neighboring states up and down
the Colorado River. As more water is developed locally, pressure is
reduced for imports.
Presently, negotiations are underway between California and the other
six states of the Colorado River Basin. California is being asked to
reduce the amount of water it takes from the Colorado River. In fact,
as a result of these talks, California faces a reduction of some
800,000 acre feet. The water recycling projects proposed in this
legislation can help California meet this challenge. As a result, Utah,
Colorado, Nevada and Arizona also benefit from these programs. Unlike
traditional Bureau of Reclamation water projects, these water recycling
projects require a majority of funds to be locally provided. Consistent
with title XVI limitations on recycling projects as authorized in 1992
and 1996, the projects proposed in my bill require 75 percent local
funding. Federal cost sharing is limited to 25 percent. Moreover, this
bill specifies that none of the funds can be used for annual operation
and maintenance costs. Those annual expenses are the responsibility of
the local water districts or management agency.
The water recycling projects authorized by my bill are part of a
long-term solution to some of California's most difficult challenges.
Water recycling is not the only solution. But, water recycling and
water reuse can play a significant part as these projects can be
designed, built, and placed on line within a short time. This bill
helps communities throughout California. This bill helps communities in
Southern California, reducing pressure on the Bay-Delta water supplies.
And, this bill respects our neighboring states up and down the Colorado
River. I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 3232
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``California Reclaimed Water
Act for the 21st Century''.
SEC. 2. COORDINATION OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.
Section 1602 of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Coordination With CALFED Bay-Delta Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall coordinate projects
under this title with projects and programs under the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program referred to in the California Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act (division E
of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-748).
``(2) Federal expenditures.--The Secretary shall take into
account Federal expenditures under this title in making
determinations under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program relating to
the equitable implementation of ecosystem restoration and
water management.
``(f) Compliance With National Environmental Policy Act of
1969.--Each project under this title shall be carried out in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS.
The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended--
(1) by inserting after section 1601 the following:
``Subtitle A--Specific Projects'';
(2) by redesignating sections 1631, 1632, 1633, and 1634
(43 U.S.C. 390h-13, 390h-14, 390h-15, 390h-16) as sections
1640, 1671, 1672, and 1631, respectively;
(3) by moving section 1631 (as redesignated by paragraph
(2)) to follow section 1630;
(4) by inserting before section 1671 (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``Subtitle B--Studies and Research'';
(5) by inserting after section 1631 (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``SEC. 1632. CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY RECLAIMED WATER
PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Castaic Lake Water Agency, California, may participate in the
design, planning, and construction of the Castaic Lake Water
Agency reclaimed water project, California, to reclaim and
reuse wastewater within and outside the service area of the
Castaic Lake Water Agency for ecosystem restoration,
irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other public
purposes.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
``SEC. 1633. CLEAR LAKE BASIN WATER REUSE PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with Lake
County, California, may participate in the design, planning,
and construction of the Clear Lake Basin water reuse project
to obtain, store, and use reclaimed wastewater in Lake County
for ecosystem restoration, irrigation, recreational,
industrial, and other public purposes.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $9,000,000.
``SEC. 1634. SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide design and
construction assistance for the East Bay Municipal Utility
District/Dublin San Ramon Services District advanced
wastewater reuse treatment project, California, for use for
ecosystem restoration, irrigation, recreational, industrial,
and other public purposes.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
[[Page S11001]]
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
``SEC. 1635. INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency, may participate in the
design, planning, and construction of the Inland Empire
regional project described in the report submitted under
section 1606 to recycle water for ecosystem restoration,
irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other public
purposes.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
``SEC. 1636. SAN PABLO BAYLANDS WATER REUSE PROJECTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
Sonoma, Napa, Marin, and Solano Counties, California, may
participate in the design, planning, and construction of
water reuse projects, to be known collectively as the `San
Pablo Baylands water reuse projects', to obtain, store, and
use reclaimed wastewater for ecosystem restoration,
irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other public
purposes.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of any project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
``SEC. 1637. CALIFORNIA WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide assistance to
the State of California in carrying out projects that receive
funding under chapter 7, article 4, of the Safe Drinking
Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood
Protection Act of the State of California to recycle water
for ecosystem restoration, irrigation, recreational,
industrial, and other public purposes.
``(b) Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into such
agreements as are necessary to carry out this section.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(d) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of any project
described in subsection (a).
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Upon approval of
the Act referred to in subsection (a), there is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000.
``SEC. 1638. REGIONAL BRINE LINES.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Southern california.--The Secretary, in cooperation
with units of local government, may carry out a program under
the Federal reclamation laws to assist agencies in projects
to construct regional brine lines to export the salinity
imported from the Colorado River to the Pacific Ocean as
identified in--
``(A) the Salinity Management Study prepared by the Bureau
of Reclamation; and
``(B) the Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation and Reuse Study prepared by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
``(2) San francisco bay and santa clara valley.--The
Secretary may carry out a study of, and a program under the
Federal reclamation laws to assist water agencies in,
projects to construct regional brine lines in the San
Francisco Bay area and the Santa Clara Valley area,
California.
``(b) Agreements and Regulations.--The Secretary may enter
into such agreements and promulgate such regulations as are
necessary to carry out this section.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) Projects.--The Federal share of the cost of a project
to construct regional brine lines described in subsection (a)
shall not exceed--
``(A) 25 percent of the total cost of the project; or
``(B) $50,000,000.
``(2) Study.--The Federal share of the cost of the study
described in subsection (a)(2) shall be 50 percent.
``(d) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of any project
described in subsection (a).
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.
``SEC. 1639. LOWER CHINO DAIRY AREA DESALINATION
DEMONSTRATION AND RECLAMATION PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Chino Basin Watermaster, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency,
the Western Municipal Water District, and the Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority and acting under the Federal
reclamation laws, shall participate in the design, planning,
and construction of the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination
demonstration and reclamation project.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed--
``(1) 25 percent of the total cost of the project; or
``(2) $50,000,000.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''; and
(6) by inserting after section 1672 (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``SEC. 1673. RESEARCH CONCERNING WATER REUSE.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
WateReuse Foundation, shall develop and carry out a program
to conduct research concerning water reuse in relation to--
``(1) public health;
``(2) water quality;
``(3) new technology and techniques;
``(4) salt management;
``(5) economics;
``(6) ecosystem restoration; and
``(7) other important matters.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005, to remain available
until expended.''.
SEC. 4. WEST BASIN COMPREHENSIVE DESALINATION DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.
Section 1605 of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-3) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) West Basin Comprehensive Desalination Demonstration
Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
West Basin Municipal Water District, shall participate in the
planning, design, and construction of the components of the
West Basin Comprehensive Desalination Demonstration Program
in Los Angeles County, California.
``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50
percent of the total.
``(3) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds
for the operation or maintenance of the components described
in paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Los Angeles Area.--Section 1613 of the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43
U.S.C. 390h-11) is amended by striking subsection (b) and
inserting the following:
``(b) Water Recycling Project.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in the
design, planning, and construction of a water recycling
project, to be known as the `City of Los Angeles Water
Recycling Program', to reclaim and reuse wastewater within
the city of Los Angeles and surrounding area for ecosystem
restoration, irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other
public purposes.
``(2) Components.--The water recycling project shall
consist of--
``(A) the central city project, a multiphase project that
may provide up to 4,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water
for ecosystem restoration and for industrial, commercial, and
irrigation customers near downtown Los Angeles; and
``(B) the harbor water recycling project, a multiphase
project that may provide up to 25,000 acre-feet per year of
recycled water to the Los Angeles Harbor area.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of the
projects described in subsections (a) and (b) shall not
exceed 25 percent of the total cost of the projects.
``(2) Maximum federal share.--The Federal share with
respect to the water recycling project described in
subsection (b) shall not exceed $12,000,000.
``(d) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of any project
described in subsection (a) or (b).''.
(b) San Gabriel Basin.--Section 1640(d) of the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43
U.S.C. 390h-13(d)) (as redesignated by section 3(a)(2)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(other than section
1614)'' after ``this title''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) San gabriel basin.--In the case of the project
authorized by section 1614, the Federal share of the cost of
the project shall not exceed $50,500,000.''.
SEC. 6. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act is amended--
(1) in section 1640 (43 U.S.C. 390h-13) (as redesignated by
section 3(a)(2))--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``1630'' and inserting
``1632''; and
(B) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``(other than
sections 1634, 1636, 1637, 1638, and 1639)'' after
``authorized by this title'';
[[Page S11002]]
(2) in section 1671(c) (43 U.S.C. 390h-14(c)) (as
redesignated by section 3(a)(2)), by striking ``section
1633'' and inserting ``section 1672''; and
(3) in section 1672 (43 U.S.C. 390h-15) (as redesignated by
section 3(a)(2))--
(A) in the section heading, by inserting ``FOR GROUNDWATER
STUDY'' before the period; and
(B) by striking ``section 1632'' and inserting ``section
1671''.
(b) The table of contents in section 2 of the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C.
prec. 371; Public Law 102-575) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the item relating to section 1601
the following:
``Subtitle A--Specific Projects'';
and
(2) by striking the items relating to sections 1631 through
1634 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 1631. Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project.
``Sec. 1632. Castaic Lake Water Agency reclaimed water project.
``Sec. 1633. Clear Lake Basin water reuse project.
``Sec. 1634. San Ramon Valley recycled water project.
``Sec. 1635. Inland Empire regional water recycling project.
``Sec. 1636. San Pablo Baylands water reuse projects.
``Sec. 1637. California water recycling program.
``Sec. 1638. Regional brine lines.
``Sec. 1639. Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and
reclamation project.
``Sec. 1640. Authorization of appropriations.
``Subtitle B--Studies and Research
``Sec. 1671. Groundwater study.
``Sec. 1672. Authorization of appropriations for groundwater study.
``Sec. 1673. Research concerning water reuse.''.
______
Mr. WELLSTONE.
S. 3233. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for Medicare beneficiary copayments for outpatient mental
health services that are the same as beneficiary copayments for other
part B services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
MEDICARE MENTAL HEALTH MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2000
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare
Mental Health Modernization Act, a bill to improve the delivery of
mental health services through the Medicare health care system. This
improvement and modernization of mental health services in the Medicare
system is long overdue, as it has remained virtually unchanged since it
was enacted by Congress in 1965. In the 35 years since then, the
scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of mental illnesses and
the enormous improvements in medications and other effective treatments
have dramatically changed our understanding and treatment of mental
illness. Yet, the health care systems, both public and private, lag
behind in its treatment of this potentially life-threatening disease,
one that affects the young and the old. As we work to improve health
care for all Americans, in all health care systems, the ever-growing
population of older Americans make it all the more urgent that we bring
the Medicare system into the 21st century, and bring mental health care
to those in need.
Though they are so often not recognized, mental health problems among
the elderly are widespread and life-threatening. Americans aged 65
years and older have the highest rate of suicide of any population in
the United States, and suicide rates increase with age. While this age
group accounts for only 13 percent of the U.S. population, Americans 65
and older account for 20 percent of all suicide deaths. All too often,
depression among the elderly is untreated or inappropriately treated,
and this disease and other illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease,
anxiety, late-life schizophrenia, can lead to severe impairment or
death.
Major depression is strikingly prevalent among older people, with
between 8 and 20 percent of older people in community studies showing
symptoms of depression. Studies of patients in primary care settings
show that up to 37 percent are experiencing such symptoms, although
they often go untreated. Depression is not a normal part of aging, but
a serious debilitating disease. Almost 20 percent of the population of
individuals age 55 and older experience a serious mental disorder. What
is most alarming is that most elderly suicide victims--70 percent--have
visited their primary care doctor in the month prior to their completed
suicide. It is critical that the mental health expertise that is needed
be provided within the Medicare system, and that screening, diagnosis,
and treatment be provided in a timely manner.
Medicare coverage for mental health services is markedly different
from other outpatient services. In order to receive mental health care,
seniors must pay, out of their own pockets, half the cost of a visit to
their mental health specialist, an extremely unfair burden to place on
the elderly, who are so often facing other health or life difficulties
as well.
We know too that substance abuse, particularly of alcohol and
prescription drugs, among adults 65 and older is one of the fastest
growing health problems in the United States, with 17 percent of this
age group suffering from addiction or substance abuse. While addiction
often goes undetected and untreated among older adults, aging and
disability only makes the body more vulnerable to the effects of these
drugs, further exacerbating underlying health problems, and creating a
serious need for treatment that recognizes these vulnerabilities.
Medicare also provides health care coverage for non-elderly
individuals who are disabled, through Social Security Disability
Insurance, SSDI. According to the Health Care Financing Agency, HCFA,
Medicare is the primary health care coverage for the 5 million non-
elderly, disabled people on SSDI. Up to 40 percent of these individuals
have a diagnosis of mental illness and/or addiction, and also face
severe discrimination in their mental health coverage.
What will my bill do? The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act
has several important components. First, the bill reduces this
discriminatory 50 percent copayment for mental health care to 20
percent, which is equal to the level that applies to every other
outpatient service in Medicare. This is straightforward, fair, and the
right thing to do. By doing so, this provision will increase access to
mental health care overall, especially for those who currently forego
seeking treatment, and instead, find themselves suffering from
worsening mental health conditions. Secondly, the bill adds intensive
residential services to the Medicare mental health benefit package.
This provision will give people suffering from mental illnesses such as
Alzheimer's disease or late-life schizophrenia an alternative to going
to nursing homes. Instead, they will be able to be cared for in their
homes or in more appropriate residential settings. I also ask the
Secretary for Health and Human Services to conduct a study of the
current Medicare coverage criteria to determine the extent to which
people with these forms of illnesses are receiving the appropriate care
that is needed.
Finally, my bill expands the number of mental health professionals
eligible to provide services through Medicare to include clinical
social workers and licensed professional mental health counselors.
Provision of adequate mental health services provided through Medicare
requires more trained and experienced providers for the aging and
growing population and should include those who are appropriately
licensed and qualified to deliver such care.
These changes are needed now. The mental health groups most concerned
with medicare improvement are strongly supportive of this bill,
including, among others, the American Counseling Association, the
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Mental Health
Association, the American Psychological Association, the Bazelon Center
for Mental Health Law, and the National Association of State Mental
Health Program Directors. The U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher
recognized the urgency in his recent reports on mental health: ``Mental
Health: A Report of the Surgeon General'' and ``The Surgeon General's
Call to Action to Prevent Suicide''. Dr. Satcher stated, ``Disability
due to mental illness in individuals over 65 years old will become a
major public health problem in the near future because of demographic
changes. In particular, dementia, depression, and schizophrenia, among
other conditions, will all present special problems for this age
group.''
For too long we have continued to neglect those with mental illness
in
[[Page S11003]]
our society, and the Medicare system is no exception. I urge your
cosponsorship of this bill as we begin our work in this new century. It
is time to treat the elderly in our society, particularly those with
serious, debilitating diseases, with the care, respect, and fairness
they deserve.
______
By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 3234. A bill to protect the public's ability to fish for sport,
and for other purposes, to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
the freedom to fish act
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to send to the desk a bill
that is called the Freedom to Fish Act. The legislation cosponsored by
Senator Hutchison addresses an unsettling situation arising over access
to our nation's public coastal resources. I understand that it is very
late in the session to be introducing new legislation, but I believe
this matter is significantly important to require immediate
recognition. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment
of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public
access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine
protected areas. Many in the environmental community are lauding the
creation of these undersea national parks as the silver bullet solution
to our over-exploited fisheries and degraded habitat. The bill I am
introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize
our nation's approximately ten million marine recreational anglers. For
while I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, I disagree
strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access
to public waters.
I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to
protecting and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. However,
I believe that restricting public access to those waters is not the
appropriate vehicle for accomplishing that goal in most cases. The
notion of a marine park is certainly not new, having its origins in
successful land management practices. The establishment of wildlife
refuges, national parks and forests has shown clear benefits to the
natural species living on those lands and fresh waters. However, in the
transfer from the land to the marine waters one very important aspect
of the protected area has been neglected. While sport fishing is nearly
universally accepted throughout this nation's terrestrial parks, and
wilderness areas, those advocating the use of marine parks take pains
to specifically restrict the access of recreational anglers. This seems
ironic to me, as an increasing number of recreational anglers practice
catch and release fishing and all contribute money to their state's
fish and game departments through the payment of license fees and
taxes. I believe these anglers to be among this nation's first
conservationists and their contributions to the resource need to be
recognized.
In response to criticism and attacks against our Nation's sportsmen
and women, I introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. The act establishes
guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy
these resources is preserved in all but the most serious cases. It
provides assurances that the angling public will have a place at the
table when decisions are made regarding their use of the resource.
Second, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that recreational anglers
will be prohibited from an area only when they have been shown to be
causing significant adverse effects on that fishery resource. Further,
should prohibitions be justified, this bill prevents areas larger than
scientifically necessary from being closed. In those cases, criteria
will be established so that once certain goals have been reached, the
area will reopen to the public immediately. Restricting public
admission to our coastal waters should not be our first course of
action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the
single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend
public access against those that would try to restrict it under the
cloak of marine resource protection. With that, I submit the Freedom to
Fish Act for your review and discussion.
______
Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
S. 3235. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for a deferral of tax on gain from the sale of telecommunications
businesses in specific circumstances or a tax credit and other
incentives to promote diversity of ownership in telecommunications
businesses; to the Committee on Finance.
Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2000
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce revised
legislation that will make sure that new entrants and small businesses
will have the chance to enter and grow in today's megacorporation-
dominated telecommunications marketplace. Together with my good friend
and colleague, Communications Subcommittee Chairman Conrad Burns, I am
pleased to bring forward for the Senate's consideration The
Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2000.
Mr. President, no one needs to be told that any small business faces
significant barriers in trying to enter the telecommunications
industry. These barriers are even more formidable when the entrepreneur
happens to be a woman or a member of a minority group, due to their
historically more difficult job of obtaining needed financing.
Therefore, in this current telecom industry mixer, small businesses,
especially those owned by minorities or women, are often left without
partners, watching as bigger, more established companies, get to dance.
That's not right, but there is an answer. The answer isn't to forbid
mergers out-of-hand, or to retain hopelessly outdated FCC ownership
restrictions, or to pursue constitutionally or economically doomed set-
aside programs. The answer is to give established industry players
economic incentives to deal with new entrants and small businesses that
counterbalance the incentives they have to deal with larger companies.
And that's what this bill does. The Telecommunications Ownership
Diversity Act of 2000 will promote entry into the telecommunications
industry during this period of unprecedented restructuring by providing
carefully-limited changes to the tax law. These changes to the tax law
are an indispensable component of the solution. Under current law,
smaller companies typically must purchase properties for cash, and cash
transactions are fully taxable to the seller. So naturally sellers of
telecommunications businesses prefer to sell for stock, which is tax-
deferred, and which large companies have to offer.
The Act will level the playing field for new entrants and small
businesses by giving telecommunications business sellers a tax deferral
when the property is bought for cash by a small business
telecommunications company. The Act will also encourage the entry of
new players and the growth of existing small businesses by enabling the
seller of a telecommunications business to claim the tax deferral on
capital gains if it invests the proceeds of any sale of its business in
purchasing an interest in an eligible small business.
In recognition of the convergence of telecommunications services and
the growing importance of wireless and other services as an essential
component of the telecommunications market, the telecommunications
businesses eligible for this capital gains tax deferral are broadly
defined to include not only broadcast and cable TV-type businesses, but
also wireline and wireless telephone service providers and resellers.
To eliminate the potential for abuse, the Act would require the
eligible purchaser to hold any property acquired for three years,
during which time it could only be sold to an unrelated eligible
purchaser. The General Accounting Office is required to thoroughly
audit and report on the administration and effect of the Act every two
years.
Mr. President, this legislation represents a significant step toward
helping to ensure that small companies share a portion of the
investment benefits our tax laws give to major telecommunications
companies. Over the next several months, we look forward to working
with interested organizations to further refine this legislation.
Specifically, we would welcome comments on how to further refine the
concepts of qualified telecommunications business and eligible
purchaser so as to ensure that this legislation meets its
[[Page S11004]]
goals in the most fair and effective manner. Moreover, we note that
this legislation contains a ``control'' test that is intended to ensure
that this legislation is not subject to abuse--and actually benefits
those that it is intended to help. We recognize, however, that this
control test may also need to be refined as we go forward.
Mr. President, hallmark developments in the telecommunications
industry have been made by gifted individuals with small companies and
unlimited vision. In this sense the telecommunications industry is a
true microcosm of the American free-market system, in which the
benefits produced by its entrepreneurs generate benefits that extend to
all of us. It is therefore critically important that new entrants and
small businesses have a chance to participate across the broad spectrum
of industries that will make up the telecommunications industry in the
Information Age. The Act will help them do that, and Senator Burns and
I are proud to sponsor it and to work for its enactment.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 3237. A bill to provide for an international scientific commission
to assess changes in global climate patterns, to conduct scientific
studies and analyses on behalf of nations, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
international climate change science commission act
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this bill provides for the creation of an
international scientific commission to assess changes in global climate
patterns and to conduct scientific studies and analysis on behalf of
the nations of the world.
The Commerce Committee held three hearings on the subject of climate
change this year. We heard from several witnesses on the science of
global warming, the impacts of climate change on the United States, and
solutions to climate change.
One of the most salient points of the three hearings was the
importance of good science to the policymaking process. Most
importantly, any action the United States takes in response to claims
of global warming must be based on the best science available and not
on rhetoric or political expedience. We must continue to invest in our
research capabilities to fully understand the scientific interactions
between humans, the land, the ocean, and the atmosphere.
Based upon testimonies received by the Commerce Committee, the
knowledge base in some countries is far greater than in others. To
solve this global problem of climate change, we must rely upon all the
resources and knowledge available to us. We must ensure that the United
States research program is providing the maximum returns on our
investment dollars. It was both surprising and disappointing to see
that for a recent assessment of the United States, we had to rely upon
two foreign computer models. We must do better.
Mr. President, I feel it is of vital importance that we allow
scientists the opportunity to pursue knowledge as opposed to being
constrained by politics. In introducing this bill entitled,
International Climate Change Science Commission Act, it is my hope and
intention that the membership of the Commission will be filled by those
who are scientists and fully appreciate the pursuit of truth and
knowledge. I hope this commission will provide them with an opportunity
to freely research, discuss, and document their scientific findings.
Mr. President, I realize this bill will not pass this session.
However, it is my hope that by introducing this bill a discussion will
begin in the scientific community of how to better structure this piece
of legislation and to ensure that the best available science is used
for policy decisions. After discussions with the scientific community,
I intend to re-introduce this bill or a new version of the measure next
session and hopefully then move towards its enactment.
I also plan to offer other pieces of legislation next year in this
area. There are several types of actions that may be taken to address
this situation as indicated in the Commerce Committee's hearing,
``Solutions to Climate Change,'' held on September 21, 2000.
______
Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3238. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
protections for individuals who need mental health services, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
the mental health access act of 2000
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on
behalf of the more than 50 million Americans each year who suffer from
mental illness. This bill, the Mental Health Access Act, removes one of
the many barriers to health care faced by those who have been treated
for a mental condition.
The Mental Health Access Act limits the ability of health plans to
redline individuals with a preexisting mental health conditions. I
undertook this initiative when I learned that some of my constituents
were being turned away from health plans in the private non-group
market due solely to a past history of treatment for mental conditions.
Unfortunately, under the current system of care in the United States,
individuals who are undergoing treatment or have a history of treatment
for mental illness may find it difficult to obtain private health
insurance, especially if they must purchase it on their own and do not
have an employer-sponsored group plan available to them. In part this
is because while the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPPAA) protects millions of Americans in the group health
insurance market, it affords few protections for individuals who apply
for private non-group insurance.
The Mental Health Access Act closes this loophole by limiting any
preexisting condition exclusion relating to a mental health condition
to not more than 12 months and reducing this exclusion period by the
total amount of previous creditable coverage. It prohibits any health
insurer that offers health coverage in the individual insurance market
from imposing a preexisting condition exclusion relating to a mental
health condition unless a diagnosis, medical advice or treatment was
recommended or received within the 6 months period to the enrollment
date. And it prohibits health plans in the individual market from
charging higher premiums to individuals based solely on the
determination that the such individual has had a preexisting mental
health condition. These provisions apply to all health plans in the
individual market, regardless of whether a state has enacted an
alternative mechanism (such as a risk pool) to cover individuals with
preexisting health conditions.
The Mental Health Access Act complements ongoing efforts to enhance
parity between mental health services and other health benefits. This
is because parity alone will not help individuals who do not have
access to any affordable health insurance due to preexisting mental
illness discrimination. The Access Act does not mandate that insurers
provide mental health services if they are not already offering such
coverage. It simply prohibits plans in the private non-group market
from redlining individuals who apply for general health insurance based
solely on a past history of treatment for a mental condition.
Recognizing that we are nearing the close of this year's legislative
session. I plan to reintroduced this bill when Congress returns and it
is my hope that many of my colleagues will join me. In the meantime, I
have asked the General Accounting Office (GAO)to examine the extent to
which private health insurers medically underwrite for mental health
conditions by either denying coverage or raising premiums, often to a
level that is unaffordable for many individuals. Specifically, I have
asked the GAO to examine: the types of mental health conditions for
which individual health insurers typically underwrite; the degree to
which there is an actuarial basis for these carrier practices; the
prevalence of medical underwriting for mental health conditions that
result in denying coverage or raising premiums; and the extent of state
laws that prevent or constrain insurers from denying coverage or
raising premiums due to a history of mental health conditions,
including consumer protections such as appeals procedures and access to
information.
It simply does not make sense that just because a person seeks
treatment
[[Page S11005]]
for mental illness he or she is rendered uninsurable. I invite my
colleagues to enlist in this important initiative to ensure that such
individuals are not discriminated against when applying for health
insurance coverage.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Jeffords,
and Mr. Johnson):
S. 3242. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act to encourage equity investment in rural cooperatives and other
rural businesses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
national rural cooperative and business equity fund act
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Craig and I are introducing
the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act to create a
new public/private partnership designed to attract equity investment in
cooperatives and other businesses in rural America. Senators Daschle,
Jeffords, and Johnson are cosponsoring this bipartisan measure.
The Iowa 2010 Strategic Planning Council was commissioned by Governor
Vilsack to identify barriers to Iowa's economic development progress
over the next ten years. The council found that two very significant
hurdles were lack of venture funding and access to capital.
The situation is no different in many other rural areas. Many new
rural businesses, particularly cooperatives and farmer-owned
businesses, have tremendous difficulty acquiring equity capital--
especially those involving value-added agricultural processing.
In Iowa alone, I have seen many cases where equity capital would have
made a big difference in the future of a rural business. And every time
we lose an opportunity to help a business, it means fewer jobs, fewer
well-paying jobs, and less income for rural and small town America.
In fact, just recently, in eastern Iowa, a group of turkey producers
joined together to purchase the soon-to-be-closed West Liberty packing
plant from Louis Rich. Ultimately--with the assistance of a USDA loan
guarantee and state and private support--the co-op successfully
purchased the plant. However, they almost went under because of limited
equity. Only by the skin of our teeth are those jobs still in Iowa and
those farmers still enjoying the benefits of cooperative ownership of
that plant. In too many other cases, good ideas have been shattered
because of a lack of equity.
My state has made some progress through the Iowa Department of
Economic Development's ``Community Economic Betterment Account'' or
CEBA, which recently set aside some funding for venture capital. But
far more resources are needed in Iowa and across Rural America.
That's why this legislation is so important. If we pass the National
Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act, we will help quality
rural cooperatives and businesses succeed and expand, and we will
create jobs and raise the incomes of employees and farmers.
We're opening this bill up to discussion today with the hope of
passing it in the next Congress. I believe this legislation has a
strong start in the support of Senators Craig, Daschle, Jeffords, and
Johnson. We also have the support of a number of national organizations
that are key players in rural economic development including: Agribank,
the American Bankers Association, CoBank, the Farm Credit Council, the
Independent Community Bankers Association, the National Cooperative
Business Association, the National Cooperative Bank, National Farmers
Union, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the
National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Cooperation.
The equity fund created by this legislation will have a 12-person
Board of Directors that would decide which proposals to fund. This
board would include the Secretary of Agriculture and two of his or her
appointees, and the remainder of the Board would be made up of private
investors in the fund. The first $150 million in private sector
investments will be matched dollar for dollar by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture over a three year period. As a compensation for the lower
rate of return in the equity fund relative to other investments, the
Department of Agriculture will guarantee up to 50 percent of an
investment. Debentures, which would be guaranteed, could also be
issued.
Businesses applying for equity from the fund must be sponsored by a
local entity, such as a bank, a regional or local development council,
or a cooperative or economic development group. The businesses must be
based in rural areas, and they cannot be primarily retail businesses.
Cooperatives and other businesses receiving an equity investment from
the fund will be required to invest a substantial amount of their own
capital.
The Fund is intended to support projects that will provide off-farm
income, additional markets for agricultural products, and new business
opportunities in rural communities. A diverse range of viable projects,
representing a variety of business structures, operating in rural
communities of various sizes would be encouraged.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues and those concerned about rural
economic development to examine this measure between Congresses and at
the beginning of the coming Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able
to make the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund a
reality.
____________________