[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 35 (Thursday, March 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2390-S2414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 538. A bill to provide for infant crib safety, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation 
designed to eliminate injuries and deaths that result from crib 
accidents.
  While there are strict guidelines on the manufacture and sale of new 
cribs, there are still 25 to 30 million unsafe cribs sold throughout 
the U.S. in ``secondary markets,'' such as thrift stores and resale 
furniture stores. These cribs should be taken off the market, and 
either made safe, or destroyed.
  There are a number of reasons why unsafe cribs should be taken off 
the market.
  Each year, at least 50 children ages two and under die from injuries 
sustained in cribs. That is almost one child a week.
  The number of deaths from crib incidents exceeds deaths from all 
other nursery products combined.
  Over 12,000 children are hospitalized each year as a result of 
injuries sustained in cribs.
  To illustrate the need for this legislation, I want to share with you 
the story of Danny Lineweaver.
  At the age of 23 months, Danny was injured during an attempt to climb 
out of his crib. Danny caught his shirt on a decorative knob on the 
cornerpost of his crib and hanged himself.
  Though his mother was able to perform CPR the moment she found him, 
Danny lived in a semi-comatose state for nine years and died in 1993. 
This injury and subsequent death could have been prevented.
  Since Danny's accident, we have passed laws mandating safety 
standards for the manufacture of new cribs. But this is not enough.
  There are nearly four million infants born in this country each year, 
but only one million new cribs sold. As many as half of all infants are 
placed in secondhand, hand-me-down, or heirloom cribs, cribs that are 
sold in thrift stores or resale furniture stores. These cribs may be 
unsafe, and may in fact threaten the life of the infants placed in 
them.
  This legislation requires thrift stores and retail furniture stores 
to remove decorative knobs on the cornerposts of cribs before selling 
those cribs.
  Additionally, the bill prohibits hotels and motels from providing 
unsafe cribs to guests, or risk being fined up to $1,000.
  The Infant Crib Safety Act makes the sale of used, unsafe cribs 
illegal. I hope my colleagues will join me in putting a stop to 
preventable injuries and deaths resulting from unsafe cribs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin, Mr. McCain, 
        Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Helms, Mr. Miller, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
        Cleland, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
        Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
        Thurmond, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Lott).
  S. 540. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow as 
a deduction in determining adjusted gross income the deduction for 
expenses in connection with services as a member of a reserve component 
of the Armed Forces of the United States, to allow employers a credit 
against income tax with respect to employees who participate in the 
military reserve components, and to allow a comparable credit for 
participating reserve component self-employed individuals, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished 
colleagues, including Senators Warner, Levin, McCain, Lieberman, Helms, 
Miller, Hutchinson from Arkansas, Cleland, Inhofe, and Landrieu, to 
introduce the ``Reserve Component Tax Assistance Act of 2001.''
  We are introducing this bill today because it represents one way we 
can help retain the brave men and women who serve in our military's 
Guard and reserve components. Our bill would offer much-needed support 
for them and their families by restoring a tax deduction to our 
reservists for travel expenses incurred getting to and from duty 
assignments. The bill also would provide a tax credit to employers who 
support employees serving in the reserve component.
  As my colleagues are well aware, the security of our nation hinges on 
all the men and women who serve in uniform, both active duty and 
reserves. That became very clear a decade ago, when members of our 
active duty and reserve forces came together to drive Saddam Hussein 
and the Iraqi Republican Guard out of Kuwait. Operation Desert Storm 
was one of the largest and most successful military operations since 
the inception of the all-volunteer force of the early 1970's. Its 
success was due in large part to the efforts of reserve component 
personnel. Since then, our reservists and Guardsmen and women have 
contributed in every U.S. military and humanitarian operation.
  This increased reliance on our reserve personnel came at a time when 
U.S. military forces were downsizing in response to the ``peace 
dividend'' linked to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of 
the Berlin Wall. Despite the end of the Cold War, the tempo of our 
military's operations remains at a steady beat. In fact, the military's 
dependence on our reservists and Guardsmen and women has remained at 
near Gulf War levels. The military has placed greater training and 
participation demands on our reservists, taking them away from family 
and civilian employment.
  This increased demand does not occur without cost, particularly 
financial costs to our reserve military components and their full time 
employers. The bill we are introducing today is an attempt to provide 
some additional compensation for these dedicated men and women. It is a 
small step, but one that is necessary. I urge my colleagues to support 
our bill and demonstrate our commitment to supporting the proud and 
dedicated reservists, Guardsmen and women, and employers who play such 
a pivotal role in our national defense. I am pleased that this 
legislation already has the support of the Reserve Officers 
Association, the National Guard Association, the Military Coalition, 
and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 540

       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 ``Reserve Component Tax 
     Assistance Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF THE 
                   RESERVE COMPONENT.

       (a) Deduction Allowed.--Section 162 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to certain trade or business expenses) 
     is amended by redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q) 
     and inserting after subsection (o) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(p) Treatment of Expenses of Members of Reserve Component 
     of Armed Forces of the United States.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), in the case of an individual who performs 
     services as a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States at any time during the taxable 
     year, such individual shall be deemed to be away from home in 
     the pursuit of a trade or

[[Page S2391]]

     business during any period for which such individual is away 
     from home in connection with such service.''.
       (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Elects To 
     Itemize.--Section 62(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to certain trade and business deductions of 
     employees) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) Certain expenses of members of reserve components of 
     the armed forces of the united states.--The deductions 
     allowed by section 162 which consist of expenses paid or 
     incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the performance 
     of services by such taxpayer as a member of a reserve 
     component of the Armed Forces of the United States.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2001.

     SEC. 3. CREDIT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business-related credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 45E. RESERVE COMPONENT EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the 
     reserve component employment credit determined under this 
     section is an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(1) the employment credit with respect to all qualified 
     employees of the taxpayer, plus
       ``(2) the self-employment credit of a qualified self-
     employed taxpayer.
       ``(b) Employment Credit.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The employment credit with respect to a 
     qualified employee of the taxpayer for any taxable year is 
     equal to 50 percent of the amount of qualified compensation 
     that would have been paid to the employee with respect to all 
     periods during which the employee participates in qualified 
     reserve component duty to the exclusion of normal employment 
     duties, including time spent in a travel status had the 
     employee not been participating in qualified reserve 
     component duty. The employment credit, with respect to all 
     qualified employees, is equal to the sum of the employment 
     credits for each qualified employee under this subsection.
       ``(2) Qualified compensation.--When used with respect to 
     the compensation paid or that would have been paid to a 
     qualified employee for any period during which the employee 
     participates in qualified reserve component duty, the term 
     `qualified compensation' means compensation--
       ``(A) which is normally contingent on the employee's 
     presence for work and which would be deductible from the 
     taxpayer's gross income under section 162(a)(1) if the 
     employee were present and receiving such compensation, and
       ``(B) which is not characterized by the taxpayer as 
     vacation or holiday pay, or as sick leave or pay, or as any 
     other form of pay for a nonspecific leave of absence, and 
     with respect to which the number of days the employee 
     participates in qualified reserve component duty does not 
     result in any reduction in the amount of vacation time, sick 
     leave, or other nonspecific leave previously credited to or 
     earned by the employee.
       ``(3) Qualified employee.--The term `qualified employee' 
     means a person who--
       ``(A) has been an employee of the taxpayer for the 21-day 
     period immediately preceding the period during which the 
     employee participates in qualified reserve component duty, 
     and
       ``(B) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve 
     component of an Armed Force of the United States as defined 
     in sections 10142 and 10101 of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(c) Self-Employment Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The self-employment credit of a 
     qualified self-employed taxpayer for any taxable year is 
     equal to 50 percent of the excess, if any, of--
       ``(A) the self-employed taxpayer's average daily self-
     employment income for the taxable year over
       ``(B) the average daily military pay and allowances 
     received by the taxpayer during the taxable year, while 
     participating in qualified reserve component duty to the 
     exclusion of the taxpayer's normal self-employment duties for 
     the number of days the taxpayer participates in qualified 
     reserve component duty during the taxable year, including 
     time spent in a travel status.
       ``(2) Average daily self-employment income and average 
     daily military pay and allowances.--As used with respect to a 
     self-employed taxpayer--
       ``(A) the term `average daily self-employment income' means 
     the self-employment income (as defined in section 1402) of 
     the taxpayer for the taxable year divided by the difference 
     between--
       ``(i) 365, and
       ``(ii) the number of days the taxpayer participates in 
     qualified reserve component duty during the taxable year, 
     including time spent in a travel status, and
       ``(B) the term `average daily military pay and allowances' 
     means--
       ``(i) the amount paid to the taxpayer during the taxable 
     year as military pay and allowances on account of the 
     taxpayer's participation in qualified reserve component duty, 
     divided by
       ``(ii) the total number of days the taxpayer participates 
     in qualified reserve component duty, including time spent in 
     travel status.
       ``(3) Qualified self-employed taxpayer.--The term 
     `qualified self-employed taxpayer' means a taxpayer who--
       ``(A) has net earnings from self-employment (as defined in 
     section 1402) for the taxable year, and
       ``(B) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve 
     component of an Armed Force of the United States.
       ``(d) Credit In Addition to Deduction.--The employment 
     credit provided in this section is in addition to any 
     deduction otherwise allowable with respect to compensation 
     actually paid to a qualified employee during any period the 
     employee participates in qualified reserve component duty to 
     the exclusion of normal employment duties.
       ``(e) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Maximum credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) for 
     the taxable year--
       ``(i) shall not exceed $7,500 in the aggregate, and
       ``(ii) shall not exceed $2,000 with respect to each 
     qualified employee.
       ``(B) Controlled groups.--For purposes of applying the 
     limitations in subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) all members of a controlled group shall be treated as 
     one taxpayer, and
       ``(ii) such limitations shall be allocated among the 
     members of such group in such manner as the Secretary may 
     prescribe.
     For purposes of this subparagraph, all persons treated as a 
     single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 or 
     subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 shall be treated as 
     members of a controlled group.
       ``(2) Disallowance for failure to comply with employment or 
     reemployment rights of members of the reserve components of 
     the armed forces of the united states.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under subsection (a) to a taxpayer for--
       ``(A) any taxable year in which the taxpayer is under a 
     final order, judgment, or other process issued or required by 
     a district court of the United States under section 4323 of 
     title 38 of the United States Code with respect to a 
     violation of chapter 43 of such title, and
       ``(B) the two succeeding taxable years.
       ``(3) Disallowance with respect to persons ordered to 
     active duty for training.--No credit shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a) to a taxpayer with respect to any period for 
     which the person on whose behalf the credit would otherwise 
     be allowable is called or ordered to active duty for any of 
     the following types of duty:
       ``(A) active duty for training under any provision of title 
     10, United States Code,
       ``(B) training at encampments, maneuvers, outdoor target 
     practice, or other exercises under chapter 5 of title 32, 
     United States Code, or
       ``(C) full-time National Guard duty, as defined in section 
     101(d)(5) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(f) General Definitions and Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Military pay and allowances.--The term `military pay' 
     means pay as that term is defined in section 101(21) of title 
     37, United States Code, and the term `allowances' means the 
     allowances payable to a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States under chapter 7 of that title.
       ``(2) Qualified reserve component duty.--The term 
     `qualified reserve component duty' includes only active duty 
     performed, as designated in the reservist's military orders, 
     in support of a contingency operation as defined in section 
     101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(3) Normal employment and self-employment duties.--A 
     person shall be deemed to be participating in qualified 
     reserve component duty to the exclusion of normal employment 
     or self-employment duties if the person does not engage in or 
     undertake any substantial activity related to the person's 
     normal employment or self-employment duties while 
     participating in qualified reserve component duty unless in 
     an authorized leave status or other authorized absence from 
     military duties. If a person engages in or undertakes any 
     substantial activity related to the person's normal 
     employment or self-employment duties at any time while 
     participating in a period of qualified reserve component 
     duty, unless during a period of authorized leave or other 
     authorized absence from military duties, the person shall be 
     deemed to have engaged in or undertaken such activity for the 
     entire period of qualified reserve component duty.
       ``(4) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules 
     of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall apply 
     for purposes of this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 38(b) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general business credit) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (12),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (13) and 
     inserting ``, plus'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(14) the reserve component employment credit determined 
     under section 45E(a).''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 45D the following new item:

``Sec. 45E. Reserve component employment credit.''.

[[Page S2392]]

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S. 541. A bill to improve foreign language instruction; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing The Foreign 
Language Acquisition and Proficiency Improvement Act of 2001. It is a 
bill which makes changes in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
that encourage and make possible the teaching of a second language to 
students in elementary and secondary schools, in particular, those 
schools heavily impacted by the unique problems of educating a high 
population of disadvantaged students.
  My bill also provides schools an incentive to initiate foreign 
language programs, promotes technology, distance learning, and other 
innovative activities in the effective instruction of a foreign 
language.
  According to the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C., 
the early study of a second language offers many benefits for students: 
academic achievement, positive attitudes toward diversity; flexibility 
in thinking; sensitivity to language; and a better ear for listening 
and pronunciation. Foreign language study also improves children's 
understanding of their native language, increases creativity, helps 
students get better SAT scores, and increases their job opportunities.
  The evidence shows that children who learn foreign languages score 
higher in all academic subjects than those who speak only English. Most 
developed countries recognize this and, according to the National 
Foreign Language Center, the United States is alone in not teaching 
foreign languages routinely before the age of twelve.
  In 1999, the Center for Applied Linguistics released the results of a 
U.S. Department of Education funded survey of foreign language teaching 
in preschool through twelfth grade in the United States. The results 
show a rising awareness and increase in the teaching of foreign 
languages, but in the 31 percent of elementary schools that offered 
foreign language instruction, only 21 percent had proficiency as the 
goal of the program. Among the most frequently cited problems facing 
foreign language programs were inadequate funding, inadequate in-
service teacher training, teacher shortages and a lack of sequencing 
from elementary to secondary school.
  This survey is a good snapshot of the state of the teaching of 
foreign languages K-12 in our country. It can be read as encouraging: 
that we know we should be teaching languages earlier; that more schools 
are attempting to teach foreign languages; and, that more languages are 
being taught. It also clearly shows where we need improvement: that we 
need to show accomplishment in teaching our students foreign languages; 
that more schools need to have the resources to offer the necessary 
course work for attaining this skill; and, that foreign languages 
should be a priority.
  The picture hasn't changed dramatically in the last two years.
  Last year, I chaired hearings of the Governmental Affairs 
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal 
Services which examined the relationship between foreign language 
preparedness and national security.
  These are some of the things we learned about foreign language 
learning at those hearings:
  The most attainable skill students can acquire for likely college 
admission is foreign language proficiency;
  The best predictor of foreign language proficiency in college is 
previous foreign language training, even if in another language;
  There are not enough foreign language teachers. For example, Fairfax 
County, Virginia schools have an agreement with the Education Ministry 
in Spain, which provided at least five Spanish language teachers last 
year. In Mississippi, it is not unusual to be taught French or German 
by distance learning, using live video transmission in classrooms 
around the state.
  The earlier one begins to learn any language, the quicker he or she 
will become proficient and sound like a native speaker.
  And, as to how foreign language acquisition relates to national 
security, it was clear from the testimony of representatives from the 
CIA, FBI, Department of Defense, and the State Department, that:

  There is a continuing need for highly proficient speakers of many 
languages for surveillance, reconnaissance, negotiations and other 
defense and intelligence gathering activities;
  The federal government spends up to $70,000 to train one person in a 
language as common as Spanish;
  Recruiting for language specialists includes attracting current 
teachers;
  Language learning, especially in sensitive government positions, best 
includes experience in the mother tongue country. This enhances 
cultural understanding, colloquialisms and other language usage that 
cannot be approximated in a classroom.
  Another fact is that America's businesses need foreign language 
speakers. According to a USA TODAY survey, top executives cited foreign 
language skills twice as great as any other skill in demand.
  The National Foreign Language Center published a 1999 report titled, 
Language and National Security for the 21st Century: The Federal Role 
in Supporting National Language Capacity. This report is very 
compelling in its review of the need for military and civilian 
personnel with foreign language capability. It explains that the 
language training business is estimated to be $20 billion 
internationally. That is money spent by our government, our businesses 
and individuals to teach adults a skill essential in the global 
relationships of industry, diplomacy, defense, and higher education.
  The evidence of need is great, and yet there is a lack of sufficient 
foreign language training at the K-12 level. We have one program in the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act aimed at providing incentives 
and giving grants to schools for this purpose.
  I am happy that we've been successful in raising the funding for this 
program from $5 million in 1998 to $14 million in FY 2001. However, the 
section of this law providing grants to schools that already offer 
foreign language instruction programs has never been funded. A 
frustrating aspect of this good program is that the schools in the most 
need of the assistance can't afford the ante. My amendments establish a 
50 percent set-aside for schools serving the most disadvantaged 
students, and eliminates the matching share requirement for those 
schools. This bill also increases the annual authorization for the 
program from $55,000,000 to $75,000,000.
  I hope that we will give greater attention to this program when we 
make funding decisions, so that schools without the advantages of 
plentiful resources can provide their students with a high quality and 
competitive education.
  The Foreign Language Acquisition and Proficiency Improvement Act will 
provide new opportunities and encouragement to our school children, 
teachers, and parents, so we can better meet our global business 
challenges and national security needs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD.
  S. 542. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to provide separate subheadings for hair clippers used for 
animals; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would 
make a simple correction to our Harmonized Tariff Schedule creating a 
separate subheading for hair clippers used for animals.
  The United States has been engaged in an on-going dispute with the 
European Union, EU, over the EU's refusal to import hormone-treated 
beef from the U.S. In reaction to the EU's failure to comply with a WTO 
ruling that found that this ban on treated beef has been harmful to the 
U.S. economy, the United States Trade Representative issued a list of 
products on which retaliatory duties of 100 percent would be levied. 
Pursuant to Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, the 
products designated for retaliatory duties must be related to the 
industries that are affected by the EU's non-compliance with the WTO 
decision.
  One of the many products included on the Trade Representative's list 
is hair clippers. However, no distinction

[[Page S2393]]

is made between those clippers used for animals and those used for 
humans, specifically, beard trimmers. Since both types of clippers are 
grouped within the same subheading under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule, human beard trimmers could potentially be subject to 100 
percent duties. Yet, the personal care industry and beard trimmers have 
no relationship to the current beef-hormone dispute as is required by 
Section 407.
  In an effort to prevent this inadvertent application of duties on 
beard trimmers, the bill I am introducing would provide a separate 
subheading for clippers used by animals. I believe that this simple 
clarification will ensure the fair application of our trade laws and 
provide safeguards to U.S. companies and consumers from the unintended 
consequences resulting from these types of trade disputes. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, 
        Mr. Warner, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 543. A bill to provide for equal coverage of mental health 
benefits with respect to health insurance coverage unless comparable 
limitations are imposed on medical and surgical benefits; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure and 
excitement to introduce the ``Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 
2001.'' I would also like to thank Senator Wellstone for once again 
joining me to cosponsor this important piece of legislation.
  The human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other 
organs of our body, it is subject to illness.
  And just as we must treat illnesses to our other organs, we must also 
treat illnesses of the brain.
  Building upon that, I would ask the following question: what if 
thirty years ago our nation had decided to exclude heart disease from 
health insurance coverage?
  Think about some of the wonderful things we would not be doing today 
like angioplasty, bypasses, and valve replacements and the millions of 
people helped because insurance covers these procedures.
  I would submit these medical advances have occurred because insurance 
dollars have followed the patient through the health care system. The 
presence of insurance dollars has provided an enticing incentive to 
treat those individuals suffering from heart disease.
  But sadly, those suffering from a mental illness do not enjoy those 
same benefits of treatment and medical advances because all too often 
insurance discriminates against illnesses of the brain.
  Individuals suffering from a mental illness face this discrimination 
even though medical science is in an era where we can accurately 
diagnose mental illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be 
productive.
  I simply do not understand, why with this evidence would we not cover 
these individuals and treat their illnesses like any other disease?
  There simply should not be a difference in the coverage provided by 
insurance companies for mental health benefits and medical benefits, 
merely because an individual suffers from a mental illness.
  The introduction of our Bill marks a historic opportunity for us to 
take the next step towards mental health parity. The timing of our Bill 
is even more important because the landmark Mental Health Parity Act of 
1996 will sunset on September 30 of this year.
  As my colleagues know, this is an issue I have a long involvement 
with and I would like to begin with a few observations.
  I believe that we have made great strides in providing parity for the 
coverage of mental illness. However, mental illness continues to exact 
a heavy toll on many, many lives.
  Even though we know so much more about mental illness, it can still 
bring devastating consequences to those it touches; their families, 
their friends, and their loved ones. These individuals and families not 
only deal with the societal prejudices and suspicions hanging on from 
the past, but they also must contend with unequal insurance coverage.
  I would submit the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 is a good first 
start, but the Act is also not working. While there may adherence to 
the letter of the law, there are certainly violations of the spirit of 
the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing 
limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits.
  That is why I believe it is time for a change.
  Some will immediately say we cannot afford it or that inclusion of 
this treatment will cost too much. But, I would first direct them to 
the results of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. That law contains 
a provision allowing companies to no longer comply if their costs 
increase by more than one percent.

  And do you know how many companies have opted out because their costs 
have increased by more than one percent? Less than ten companies 
throughout our entire country.
  With that in mind I would like to share a couple of facts about 
mental illness with my colleagues:
  Within the developed world, including the United States, 4 of the 10 
leading causes of disability for individuals over the age of five are 
mental disorders.
  In the order of prevalence the disorders are major depression, 
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder.
  Disability always has a cost and the direct cost to the United States 
per year for respiratory disease is $99 billion, cardiovascular disease 
is $160 billion, and finally $148 billion for mental illness.
  One in every five people, more than 40 million adults, in this Nation 
will be afflicted by some type of mental illness.
  Nearly 7.5 million children and adolescents, or 12 percent, suffer 
from one or more mental disorders.
  Schizophrenia alone is 50 times more common than cystic fibrosis, 60 
times more common than muscular dystrophy and will strike between 2 and 
3 million Americans.
  Let us also look at the efficacy of treatment for individuals 
suffering from certain mental illnesses, especially when compared with 
the success rates of treatments for other physical ailments. For a long 
time, many who are in this field, especially on the insurance side, 
have behaved as if you get far better results for angioplasty than you 
do for treatments for bipolar illness.
  Treatment for bipolar disorders, that is, those disorders 
characterized by extreme lows and extreme highs, have an 80 percent 
success rate if you get treatment, both medicine and care. 
Schizophrenia, the most dreaded of mental illnesses, has a 60-percent 
success rate in the United States today if treated properly. Major 
depression has a 65 percent success rate.
  Lets compare those success rates to several important surgical 
procedures that everybody thinks we ought to be doing:
  Angioplasty has a 41-percent success rate.
  Atherectomy has a 52-percent success rate.

  I would now like to take a minute to discuss the Mental Health 
Equitable Treatment Act of 2001. The Bill seeks a very simple goal: 
provide the same mental health benefits already enjoyed by Federal 
employees.
  The Bill is modeled after the mental health benefits provided through 
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, and expands the 
Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 to prohibit a group health plan from 
imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the 
coverage of mental health benefits unless comparable limitations are 
imposed on medical and surgical benefits.
  Our Bill provides full parity for all categories of mental health 
conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 
Disorders, Fourth Edition, DSM IV, with coverage being contingent on 
the mental health condition being included in an authorized treatment 
plan, the treatment plan is in accordance with standard protocols, and 
the treatment plan meets medical necessity determination criteria.
  Like the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the Bill does not require 
a health

[[Page S2394]]

plan to provide coverage for alcohol and substance abuse benefits. 
Moreover, the Bill does not mandate the coverage of mental health 
benefits, rather the Bill only applies if the plan already provides 
coverage for mental health benefits.
  In conclusion, the Bill provides mental heath benefits on par with 
those already enjoyed by Federal employees and I would urge my 
colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 543

       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 ``Mental Health Equitable 
     Treatment Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY 
                   ACT OF 1974.

       (a) In General.--Section 712 of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1185a) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 712. MENTAL HEALTH PARITY.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of a group health plan (or 
     health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a 
     plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and 
     mental health benefits, such plan or coverage shall not 
     impose any treatment limitations or financial requirements 
     with respect to the coverage of benefits for mental illnesses 
     unless comparable treatment limitations or financial 
     requirements are imposed on medical and surgical benefits.
       ``(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as requiring a group health plan (or health 
     insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) to 
     provide any mental health benefits.
       ``(c) Small Employer Exemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--This section shall not apply to any 
     group health plan (and group health insurance coverage 
     offered in connection with a group health plan) for any plan 
     year of any employer who employed an average of at least 2 
     but not more than 25 employees on business days during the 
     preceding calendar year.
       ``(2) Application of certain rules in determination of 
     employer size.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Application of aggregation rule for employers.--Rules 
     similar to the rules under subsections (b), (c), (m), and (o) 
     of section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall 
     apply for purposes of treating persons as a single employer.
       ``(B) Employers not in existence in preceding year.--In the 
     case of an employer which was not in existence throughout the 
     preceding calendar year, the determination of whether such 
     employer is a small employer shall be based on the average 
     number of employees that it is reasonably expected such 
     employer will employ on business days in the current calendar 
     year.
       ``(C) Predecessors.--Any reference in this paragraph to an 
     employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such 
     employer.
       ``(d) Separate Application to Each Option Offered.--In the 
     case of a group health plan that offers a participant or 
     beneficiary two or more benefit package options under the 
     plan, the requirements of this section shall be applied 
     separately with respect to each such option.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Financial requirements.--The term `financial 
     requirements' includes deductibles, coinsurance, co-payments, 
     other cost sharing, and limitations on the total amount that 
     may be paid with respect to benefits under the plan or health 
     insurance coverage with respect to an individual or other 
     coverage unit (including annual and lifetime limits).
       ``(2) Medical or surgical benefits.--The term `medical or 
     surgical benefits' means benefits with respect to medical or 
     surgical services, as defined under the terms of the plan or 
     coverage (as the case may be), but does not include mental 
     health benefits.
       ``(3) Mental health benefits.--The term `mental health 
     benefits' means benefits with respect to services for all 
     categories of mental health conditions listed in the 
     Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth 
     Edition (DSM IV-TR), or the most recent edition if different 
     than the Fourth Edition, as defined under the terms of the 
     plan or coverage (as the case may be), if such services are 
     included as part of an authorized treatment plan that is in 
     accordance with standard protocols and such services meet 
     applicable medical necessity criteria, but does not include 
     benefits with respect to the treatment of substance abuse or 
     chemical dependency.
       ``(4) Treatment limitations.--The term `treatment 
     limitations' means limitations on the frequency of treatment, 
     number of visits or days of coverage, or other limits on the 
     duration or scope of treatment under the plan or coverage.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after 
     January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT RELATING 
                   TO THE GROUP MARKET.

       (a) In General.--Section 2705 of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-5) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 2705. MENTAL HEALTH PARITY.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of a group health plan (or 
     health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a 
     plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and 
     mental health benefits, such plan or coverage shall not 
     impose any treatment limitations or financial requirements 
     with respect to the coverage of benefits for mental illnesses 
     unless comparable treatment limitations or financial 
     requirements are imposed on medical and surgical benefits.
       ``(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as requiring a group health plan (or health 
     insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) to 
     provide any mental health benefits.
       ``(c) Small Employer Exemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--This section shall not apply to any 
     group health plan (and group health insurance coverage 
     offered in connection with a group health plan) for any plan 
     year of any employer who employed an average of at least 2 
     but not more than 25 employees on business days during the 
     preceding calendar year.
       ``(2) Application of certain rules in determination of 
     employer size.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Application of aggregation rule for employers.--Rules 
     similar to the rules under subsections (b), (c), (m), and (o) 
     of section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall 
     apply for purposes of treating persons as a single employer.
       ``(B) Employers not in existence in preceding year.--In the 
     case of an employer which was not in existence throughout the 
     preceding calendar year, the determination of whether such 
     employer is a small employer shall be based on the average 
     number of employees that it is reasonably expected such 
     employer will employ on business days in the current calendar 
     year.
       ``(C) Predecessors.--Any reference in this paragraph to an 
     employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such 
     employer.
       ``(d) Separate Application to Each Option Offered.--In the 
     case of a group health plan that offers a participant or 
     beneficiary two or more benefit package options under the 
     plan, the requirements of this section shall be applied 
     separately with respect to each such option.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Financial requirements.--The term `financial 
     requirements' includes deductibles, coinsurance, co-payments, 
     other cost sharing, and limitations on the total amount that 
     may be paid with respect to benefits under the plan or health 
     insurance coverage with respect to an individual or other 
     coverage unit (including annual and lifetime limits).
       ``(2) Medical or surgical benefits.--The term `medical or 
     surgical benefits' means benefits with respect to medical or 
     surgical services, as defined under the terms of the plan or 
     coverage (as the case may be), but does not include mental 
     health benefits.
       ``(3) Mental health benefits.--The term `mental health 
     benefits' means benefits with respect to services for all 
     categories of mental health conditions listed in the 
     Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth 
     Edition (DSM IV), or the most recent edition if different 
     than the Fourth Edition, as defined under the terms of the 
     plan or coverage (as the case may be), if such services are 
     included as part of an authorized treatment plan that is in 
     accordance with standard protocols and such services meet 
     applicable medical necessity criteria, but does not include 
     benefits with respect to the treatment of substance abuse or 
     chemical dependency.
       ``(4) Treatment limitations.--The term `treatment 
     limitations' means limitations on the frequency of treatment, 
     number of visits or days of coverage, or other limits on the 
     duration or scope of treatment under the plan or coverage.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after 
     January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 4. PREEMPTION.

       Nothing in the amendments made by this Act shall be 
     construed to preempt any provision of State law that provides 
     protections to enrollees that are greater than the 
     protections provided under such amendments.

     SEC. 5. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     that evaluates the effect of the implementation of the 
     amendments made by this Act on the cost of health insurance 
     coverage, access to health insurance coverage (including the 
     availability of in-network providers), the quality of health 
     care, and other issues as determined appropriate by the 
     Comptroller General.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare 
     and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report 
     containing the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).

[[Page S2395]]

     
                                  ____
         Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001--Summary

       The Bill seeks to ensure greater parity in the coverage of 
     mental health benefits by prohibiting a group health plan 
     from treating mental health benefits differently from the 
     coverage of medical and surgical benefits.
       The Bill only applies to group health plans already 
     providing mental health benefits and is modeled after the 
     mental health benefits provided through the Federal Employees 
     Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).


                  Full Parity for All Mental Illnesses

       Expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA) to 
     prohibit a group health plan from imposing treatment 
     limitations or financial requirements on the coverage of 
     mental health benefits unless comparable limitations are 
     imposed on medical and surgical benefits.
       Provides full parity for all categories of mental health 
     conditions listed in the ``Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 
     of Mental Disorders,'' 4th Edition (DSM IV-TR).
       Coverage is also contingent on the mental health condition 
     being included in an authorized treatment plan, the treatment 
     plan is in accordance with standard protocols, and the 
     treatment plan meets medical necessity determination 
     criteria.
       Defines ``treatment limitations'' as limits on the 
     frequency of treatment, the number of visits, the number of 
     covered hospital days, or other limits on the scope and 
     duration of treatment and defines ``financial requirements'' 
     to include deductibles, coinsurance, co-payments, and 
     catastrophic maximums.


                      Requirements and Exemptions

       Eliminates the September 30, 2001 sunset provision in the 
     MHPA.
       Like the MHPA the bill does not require plans to provide 
     coverage for benefits relating to alcohol and drug abuse.
       There is a small business exemption for companies with 25 
     or fewer employees.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague 
from New Mexico once again to introduce a bill for fairness in health 
coverage for those with mental illness. The Mental Health Equitable 
Treatment Act of 2001 will take the critical next steps to ensure that 
private health insurance companies provide the same level of coverage 
for mental illness as they do for other diseases. This bill will be a 
major step toward ending the discrimination against people who suffer 
from mental illness.
  In 1996, I was proud to introduce the Mental Health Parity Act, a law 
which broke new ground, placing mental health alongside other medical 
and surgical coverage for parity in insurance coverage. Although the 
1996 bill was limited to parity in annual and lifetime limits in care, 
the message was clear: there is no place for discrimination against 
those with mental illness. Since the Mental Health Parity Act became 
law, we have seen that the costs have remained low and manageable, but, 
unfortunately, we have also seen that employers and insurance companies 
have taken advantage of the gaps that remain in coverage for mental 
illness. Patients have faced increases in copayment and deductible 
costs, more problems in gaining access to care, fewer approvals for 
hospital stays and outpatient days, and refusals to cover care. The 
suffering of people with mental illness has grown, and the time to end 
this discrimination is now.
  For too long, mental illness has been stigmatized as a character 
flaw, rather than as the serious disease that it is. As a result, 
people with mental illness are often ashamed and afraid to seek 
treatment, for fear that they will lose their jobs or friends; for fear 
that people will not recognize the suffering that they endure; for fear 
that they will not be able to receive help. We have all seen portrayals 
of mentally ill people as somehow different, as dangerous, or as 
frightening. Such stereotypes only reinforce the biases against people 
with mental illness. Can you imagine this type of portrayal of someone 
who has a cardiac problem, or who happens to carry a gene that 
predisposes them to diabetes? And yet, we have all known someone with a 
serious mental illness, within our families or our circle of friends, 
or in public life. Many people have courageously come forward to speak 
about their personal experiences with their illness, to help us all 
understand better the effects of this illness on a person's life, the 
ways in which effective treatments have helped them, or, sadly, the 
ways in which a loved one died through suicide as a result of untreated 
mental illness. I commend those who speak out on this issue, for their 
honesty and courage to come forward about their experiences, to help 
the world to understand the reality of this disease.
  The statistics concerning mental illness, and the state of health 
care coverage for adults and children with this disease are startling, 
and disturbing. A watershed in our understanding of the impact of 
mental disorders is the 1996 Global Burden of Disease, GBD, study, 
conducted for the World Bank and World Health Organization by experts 
at Harvard University. The GBD defined a very useful concept, called 
the Disability Adjusted Life Year, DALY, which refers to healthy years 
of life lost to either disability or premature mortality. Based on this 
measure of disease burden, mental disorders--which are prevalent 
worldwide, often begin early in life, and frequently are characterized 
by recurrent episodes, as in depression, or chronicity, as in 
schizophrenia, produce a disproportionate share of DALYs, much of which 
is due to the disabling nature of mental illness. According to the GBD 
study, in the U.S. and throughout the developed world, depression is 
the leading cause of disability, and three other mental disorders are 
among the top ten causes of disability, bipolar disorder, 
schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
  The National Institute of Mental Health, a NIH research institute 
within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, describes 
serious depression as an extremely critical public health problem. More 
than 18 million people in the United States will suffer from a 
depressive illness this year, and many will be unnecessarily 
incapacitated for weeks or months, because their illness goes 
untreated. The cost to the nation is in the billions of dollars. The 
suffering of depressed people and their families is immeasurable.
  The situation is worse for children. The 1998 Surgeon General's 
Report on Mental Health estimates that between 5 and 9 percent of those 
under age 18 have mental disorders so severe that they face 
overwhelming difficulties in their efforts to function well with their 
families, friends, and teachers. For children, mental illness carries a 
double burden: both the suffering of the disorder itself, as well as 
the lost period of healthy learning and social development needed to 
help children live up to their potential. The recent tragic episodes of 
violence in our schools remind us that inadequately treated emotional 
and behavioral disorders in our children can literally have lethal 
consequences in terms of suicide and murder.
  Our investment in mental health research is paying off well. We know 
so much more now about brain disease, behavioral and emotional 
disorders, and treatment. But without access to care, such treatments 
cannot help those who are suffering from mental illness. We know from 
NIH-funded research that available medications and psychological 
treatments, alone or in combination, can help 80 percent of those with 
depression. But without adequate treatment, future episodes of 
depression may continue or worsen in severity. Yet, the steady decline 
in the quality and breadth of health care coverage is truly disturbing.
  The inequities related to the status of mental disorders in health 
insurance is indisputable. The U.S. General Accounting Office issued a 
report in May, 2000, that verified that despite passage of the 1996 
mental health parity law, 14 percent of employers failed to comply with 
even the limited protections required by that law. Of the 86 percent 
that did comply, most (87%) continued to limit their mental health 
benefits, thus violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. In 
other words, the majority of employers who claim to provide mental 
health benefits restrict actual care through limitations on coverage or 
access, or by increasing the cost to the patient. And they do this 
despite the fact that costs are low. According to most reports on 
parity, including the most recent analysis requested by Congress from 
the National Advisory Mental Health Council, when mental health 
coverage is managed appropriately, premium increases can be as low as 1 
percent.

  Yet inequities in coverage continue, despite the 1996 law and the 
numerous state laws that have tried without success to finally put an 
end to this health care discrimination. The discrimination continues 
despite the fact that there is no biomedical justification for 
differentiating serious mental illness

[[Page S2396]]

from other serious and potentially chronic disorders, nor for judging 
mental disorders to be in any way less real or less deserving of 
treatment. What does exist and continues to grow is an extensive body 
of rigorous research that has demonstrated that treatment for mental 
disorders is both precise and cost-effective.
  Although the costs for coverage have been shown to be low, the 
consequences of untreated mental illness in our society are very 
serious and far-reaching--especially when one looks at how it affects 
individuals, families, employers, corporations, social service systems, 
and criminal justice systems. I have seen first hand in the juvenile 
corrections system what happens when mental illness is criminalized, 
when youth with mental illness are incarcerated for exhibiting symptoms 
of their illness. To treat ill people as criminals is outrageous and 
immoral. We must make treatment for this illness as available and as 
routine as treatment for any other disease. The discrimination must 
stop.
  The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001 is modeled after 
the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, and provides full parity for 
all categories of mental health conditions. Group health plans would be 
prohibited from imposing treatment limitations, including restricting 
numbers of visits or covered hospital days, or financial requirements, 
such as higher copayments, that are different from other medical/
surgical benefits. This bill is a major step forward in coverage for 
mental illness by private health insurers. It does not require that 
mental health benefits be part of a health benefits package, but 
establishes a requirement for parity in coverage for those plans that 
offer mental health benefits. This bill goes a long way toward our 
bipartisan goal: that mental illness be treated like any other disease 
in health care coverage.
  The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001 is designed to take 
a large step toward ending the suffering of those with mental illness 
who have been unfairly discriminated against in their health coverage. 
The time to pass this bill is now.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator 
Domenici and Senator Wellstone in introducing the Mental Health 
Equitable Treatment Act of 2001. This Act is an important step in the 
fight to end the stigma against mental illness and ensure that those 
suffering from mental illness receive the services they need. For too 
long, individuals with mental disorders have faced unfair treatment 
restrictions and paid more for the services they need than have 
individuals requiring medical or surgical services.
  The groundbreaking report on mental health that the Surgeon General 
released last year reveals that disproportionate cost-sharing 
requirements and treatment limitations ``reduce appropriate use, of 
mental health services,'' and ``leave people to bear catastrophic costs 
themselves.''
  The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act aims to halt these 
troubling trends by ensuring that group health plans treat mental 
health benefits the same way they do medical and surgical benefits.
  In 1996, we enacted the Mental Health Parity Act. While this 
important legislation made progress in advancing the fair treatment of 
individuals with mental illness, it did not go far enough in providing 
true protection for all people suffering from mental disorders.
  The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001 improves upon this 
earlier legislation by providing full parity for a broad range of 
mental health disorders. Under the Act, group health plans must limit 
the treatment restrictions and financial requirements that they impose 
for mental health benefits to the same level that they set for medical 
or surgical benefits. Co-payments for office visits must be comparable, 
for example, regardless of whether the office is a physician's or a 
psychiatrist's. While the Act does not apply to group health plans that 
do not provide any mental health benefits or that have 25 employees or 
less, it is a critical step in ending the blatant discrimination that 
people with mental disorders face in trying to obtain necessary and 
affordable treatment.
  As we have learned more about the brain and the way it works, we have 
developed promising treatments that can significantly improve the 
health of individuals with mental illness and help them lead productive 
lives. Success rates for treating mental illnesses are now as high as 
80 percent. Without strong parity legislation, however, these effective 
treatments will remain elusive for the millions of individuals who need 
them.
  The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act will finally help these 
individuals receive the care they need by eliminating one of the 
biggest barriers to care, cost. I strongly encourage my colleagues to 
support this groundbreaking piece of legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 544. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to provide 
that a quality grade label issued by the Secretary of Agriculture may 
not be used for imported meat food products; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor a bill on an issue 
of great importance to my state and to the entire livestock industry. 
The subject is that of restricting the quality USDA Grade Stamp to only 
U.S. livestock products. It would prohibit foreign meat from coming 
into America and unfairly receiving the USDA Grade Stamp.
  This language offered today, will insure that all meat products 
imported from foreign countries will not be allowed to use the USDA 
Grade. For years, other countries have used the USDA Grade Stamp to 
their advantage, and to the disadvantage of our own producers. 
Historically, Canada and Mexico have shipped livestock into the United 
States, and by doing so they have reaped the benefits of the premium 
given by USDA for our labeled grades.
  USDA Prime and USDA Choice grades are given a premium price in the 
marketplace. By allowing foreign countries to compete using our grade 
labels, American livestock producers are effectively prevented from 
receiving a premium for something that should belong solely to them.
  Agricultural producers from across our borders ship livestock to the 
United States, and feed them for a short period of time in order to 
bypass current restrictions. The animals are then slaughtered here as a 
United States product. This is not only unfair, but it is a betrayal of 
trust that our producers have placed in the system. It is one that 
American producers should not have to tolerate. My bill provides for a 
90 day feeding period to prevent this from happening, yet maintains the 
profits lightweight cattle from foreign countries bring to American 
feeders.
  The huge influx of imports from both Canada and Mexico, that American 
agricultural producers are currently faced with, has provided an added 
hardship to the agricultural economy. This is one obstacle that could 
easily be remedied by this legislation.
  When consumers see the USDA Grade Stamp on meat, most assume that 
they are buying a U.S. raised product. Even though imported carcasses 
are required to have a ``foreign origin mark,'' it is trimmed off prior 
to retail sales for marketing purposes. This is very misleading for our 
consumers.
  This bill will protect both the American producer and the American 
consumer. If the Grade Stamp is reserved exclusively for U.S. products, 
we eliminate the disadvantage American producers face in competing with 
imported meats. We would also be ensuring that American consumers know 
that the meat they purchase, is the top quality American product they 
have always assumed they were buying. Producers and consumers alike 
deserve to know that the USDA grade label really means what it says, 
produced in the U.S.
  This bill would also help assure the American consumer that the meat 
they are eating is disease free, something that our friends in Europe 
are truly concerned about right now.
  I am proud and pleased to sponsor this bill, and I look forward to 
moving it through the process so we may insure that Americans truly 
have the opportunity to use what is theirs and theirs alone, the USDA 
Grade.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page S2397]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 544

       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 ``USDA Grade Recission Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. QUALITY GRADE LABELING OF IMPORTED MEAT AND MEAT FOOD 
                   PRODUCTS.

       Section 1(n) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
     601(n)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) if it is an imported carcass, part thereof, meat, or 
     meat food product (including any carcass, part thereof, meat, 
     or meat food product produced from any cattle, sheep, or 
     goats that have not been fed in the United States for at 
     least 90 days) and bears a label that indicates a quality 
     grade issued by the Secretary.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 545. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the work opportunity credit to small business employees working or 
living in areas of poverty; to the Committee on Finance
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 545

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 51(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to members of targeted groups) is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (G), by 
     striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and 
     inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) a qualified small business employee.''
       (b) Qualified Small Business Employee.--Section 51(d) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating 
     paragraphs (10) through (12) as paragraphs (11) through (13), 
     respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (9) the 
     following:
       ``(10) Qualified small business employee.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified small business 
     employee' means any individual--
       ``(i) hired by a qualified small business located in a 
     population census tract with a poverty rate not less than 20 
     percent, or
       ``(ii) hired by a qualified small business and who is 
     certified by the designated local agency as residing in such 
     a population census tract.
       ``(B) Qualified small business.--The term `qualified small 
     business' has the meaning given the term `small employer' by 
     section 4980D(d)(2).
       ``(C) Use of census data.--The poverty rate for any 
     population census tract shall be determined by the most 
     recent decennial census data available.''.
       (c) Report.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall report to 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate on 
     the date which is 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act on the effect of the expansion of the work 
     opportunity credit under section 51 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, as amended by this section.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Nelson 
        of Florida):
  S. 546. A bill to expand the applicability of the increase in the 
automatic maximum amount of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance 
scheduled to take effect on April 1, 2001, to the deaths of certain 
members of the uniformed services who die before that date; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 546

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXPANDED APPLICABILITY OF INCREASE IN AUTOMATIC 
                   MAXIMUM COVERAGE UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP 
                   LIFE INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 312(c) of the 
     Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000 
     (Public Law 106-419; 114 Stat. 1854; 38 U.S.C. 1967 note) or 
     any other provision of law, the amount of Servicemembers' 
     Group Life Insurance in force under subchapter III of chapter 
     19 of title 38, United States Code, for each individual 
     described in subsection (b) at the time of such individual's 
     death as described in that subsection shall be $250,000.
       (b) Covered Individuals.--An individual described in this 
     subsection is any individual insured under section 1967 of 
     title 38, United States Code, who--
       (1) during the period beginning on October 1, 2000, and 
     ending on March 30, 2001, dies in a manner covered by such 
     insurance; and
       (2) at the time of death, had not made an election under 
     that section to be insured in an amount less than automatic 
     maximum amount provided for in that section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 547. A bill to redesignate the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund as 
the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Accounting Fund and the 
Federal Disability Insurance Accounting Fund, respectively; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple, but 
essential bill that would change the name of the Social Security Trust 
Funds to the Social Security Accounting Funds. It is my honor to have 
Congressman DeMint introducing an identical measure in the House of 
Representatives today.
  It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about the Social 
Security program. When they see and hear ``Trust Fund'', it makes them 
believe that their retirement money is sitting in a bank vault safe and 
sound. However, the truth is precisely the opposite.
  Payroll tax revenues for the Social Security program in excess of 
what is needed to pay Social Security benefits, are deposited into the 
government's general funds as part of the U.S. Treasury. They are 
accounted for through the issuance of federal securities to the Social 
Security ``trust funds''. However, the trust funds themselves do not 
hold the money; they are simply accounts.
  This legislation would accurately designate the Social Security 
program funds as accounting funds not trust funds.
  Additionally, I would like to take this opportunity to once again 
remind my colleagues of the precarious financial condition of the 
entire Social Security system and the urgent need for a serious, 
bipartisan effort to reform and revitalize this cornerstone of many 
Americans' retirement planning.
  The only way to achieve real reform of the Social Security system is 
to work together in a bipartisan manner. It's time to abandon the 
irresponsible game of playing partisan politics with Social Security. 
Democrats will have to stop using the issue to scare seniors into 
voting against Republicans. Republicans will have to resist using 
Social Security revenues to finance tax cuts. And both parties must 
stop raiding the Trust Funds to fund more government spending. We must 
face up to our responsibilities, not as Republicans or Democrats, but 
as elected representatives of the American people with a common 
obligation to protect the generation of today and of tomorrow.
  It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about Social Security 
and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the 
necessary changes to strengthen and save the nation's retirement 
program for the seniors of today and tomorrow.
  We must work together to develop fair and effective reforms that will 
preserve and protect the Social Security system for current and future 
retirees, while allowing all Americans, particularly low- and middle-
income individuals, the opportunity to share in the great prosperity 
that our nation enjoys today.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 547

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       The Act may be cited as the ``Straighter Talk on Social 
     Security Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

       The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability

[[Page S2398]]

     Insurance Trust Fund are hereby redesignated as the ``Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Accounting Fund'' and the 
     ``Federal Disability Insurance Accounting Fund'', 
     respectively.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

       (a) In General.--Sections 201, 202, 206, 215, 217, 221, 
     222, 228, 229, 703, 706, 709, 710, 1106, 1129, 1131, 1140, 
     1145, 1147, 1817, and 1840 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 401, 402, 406, 415, 417, 421, 422, 428, 429, 903, 907, 
     910, 911, 1306, 1320a-8, 1320b-1, 1320b-10, 1320b-15, 1320b-
     17, 1395i, and 1395s) are each amended (in the text and in 
     the headings) by striking ``Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance Trust Fund'' and ``Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund'' each place they appear and inserting ``Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Accounting Fund'' and 
     ``Federal Disability Insurance Accounting Fund'', 
     respectively.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Sections 201, 215, 217, 221, 
     222, 229, 231, 234, 706, 709, 1110, and 1148 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 401, 415, 417, 421, 422, 429, 431, 434, 907, 910, 
     1310, and 1320b-18)) are each amended (in the text and in the 
     headings) by striking ``Trust Funds'' and ``trust funds'' 
     each place they appear and inserting ``Funds''.

     SEC. 4. OTHER CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The following provisions are amended by 
     striking ``Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund'' and ``Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund'' each 
     place they appear and inserting ``Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Accounting Fund'' and ``Federal 
     Disability Insurance Accounting Fund'', respectively:
       (1) sections 3121 and 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986;
       (2) section 7 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 
     U.S.C. 231f);
       (3) section 8331 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (4) sections 3720A and 3806 of title 31, United States 
     Code.
       (b) Additional Amendment.--Section 405 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 655) is amended by striking 
     ``the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Funds'' and inserting ``the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Accounting Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Accounting Fund''.

     SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Whenever any reference is made in any provision of law, 
     regulation, rule, record, or document to the Federal Old-Age 
     and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund, such reference shall be considered a 
     reference to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Accounting 
     Fund or the Federal Disability Insurance Accounting Fund, 
     respectively.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 548. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide enhanced reimbursement for, and expanded capacity to, 
mammography services under the medicare program, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on finance.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by 
Senators Snowe, Mikulski, Murkowski, Murray, Schumer and Reid to 
introduce the ``Assure Access to Mammography Act of 2001.'' This 
important legislation will help improve access to life-saving breast 
screenings for millions of women.
  I lost both of my sisters to breast cancer. I strongly believe that 
if they had had access to regular mammography services and today's 
advanced treatments, they would still be alive today.
  Over the past several years, we've made a great deal of progress 
against breast cancer. In particular, we've been able to secure 
significant funding increases for research to understand the causes of 
and find treatments for breast cancer.
  Almost a decade ago, when I looked into the issue of breast cancer 
research, I discovered that barely $90 million was spent on breast 
cancer research.
  That's why, in 1992, I offered an amendment to dedicate $210 million 
in the Defense Department Budget for breast cancer research. This 
funding was in addition to the funding for breast cancer research 
conducted at the National Institutes of Health. My amendment passed 
and, overnight, it doubled Federal funding for breast cancer.
  Since then, funding for breast cancer research has been included in 
the Defense Department Budget every year.
  Today, I am proud to say, between the DoD and NIH, over $600 million 
is being spent on finding a cure for this disease.
  But our success in building our research enterprise will be pointless 
if breakthroughs in diagnosis, treatment and cures are not available 
for patients.
  That is why, a decade ago, as Chairman of the Senate Labor, Health 
and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I worked 
with Senator Mikulski to create a program, run by the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, to provide breast and cervical cancer 
screening for low-income, uninsured women. And last year, I pushed a 
new law to provide Medicaid coverage to women diagnosed through this 
program so they can get the treatment they need.
  But we still have a long way to go. Breast cancer is the second-most 
common form of cancer in the United States, next to skin cancers. 
Approximately 3 million women are living with cancer today, 2 million 
who have been diagnosed, and an estimated 1 million who do not yet now 
they have the disease. If we are going to win the war against breast 
cancer, we've got to be able to detect it early enough to apply the 
latest treatments effectively. We can prolong and save the lives of 
millions of women if the cancer is detected when it is small and has 
not yet spread to other areas of the body. Although not the perfect 
solution, screening mammograms are the best known way to diagnose 
breast cancer and reduce mortality. For example, routine mammograms in 
clinical trials resulted in a 25-30 percent decrease in breast cancer 
mortality for women aged 50-70.

  In 1990, Congress acted to ensure access to screening by creating a 
Medicare mammography benefit and provided adequate payment for 
screening mammography by setting reimbursement for the procedure at 
$55, indexed to inflation. Today that amount is $69.23. Unfortunately, 
this payment has not kept pace with the costs of the procedure, and 
women's access to screening mammography is being curtailed.
  Hundreds of facilities across the country are losing money on 
screening mammography, and since September of 1999, 243 facilities have 
closed their doors; close to 100 of them in the last 5 months. At the 
same time, one million additional women each year need regular 
mammograms.
  To compound the problem, there is increasing evidence of a shortage 
of practicing radiologists and radiology residents willing to conduct 
mammography screening and receive the necessary specialty training. 
Radiologists report that mammography is under-reimbursed and has a 
comparatively higher workload, high malpractice costs and more on-the-
job stress.
  In addition, this shortage of radiologic technologists appears to be 
worsening at the same time as the demand for medical imaging escalates. 
The number of RT trainees who take the certification exams has declined 
dramatically in the past several years, from 10,330 in 1995 to 7,149 in 
2000. Facilities nationwide report an inability to find and keep 
qualified RTs.
  As a result, women in many different parts of the country are having 
to wait many weeks and months to get a mammogram. These kinds of delays 
put women at risk for more advanced and less treatable forms of breast 
cancer.
  Some of my colleagues may have read in TIME Magazine recently about 
Paula Sperling from New York. When she called her local mammography 
facility, they told her she'd have to wait 5 months for her annual 
mammogram, even though she has a history of breast cancer in her 
family. She told TIME, ``Three or four months could mean the difference 
between a tumor that's localized and one that's spread into the lymph 
nodes.''
  In my home state of Iowa, the situation is less dire, but our 
mammography facilities are struggling because reimbursement doesn't 
come anywhere near the costs of providing the service. For example, 
Mercy Medical Center's Cedar Rapids mobile mammography unit serves 
thousands of women in 7 rural counties in the surrounding area. Many of 
these women would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to get 
their mammograms in any other way. But because of low reimbursements, 
this mobile unit lost $75,000 last year; losses that simply cannot be 
sustained. It is a day to day struggle to keep that mobile unit going.
  Congress has a responsibility to make sure our Medicare policy 
ensures that women have access to timely, quality mammography services. 
Our legislation would do the following:
  Increase the Medicare reimbursement for screening mammograms to

[[Page S2399]]

$90 for 2002, based on currently available cost data.
  Increase Medicare graduate medical education funding for added 
radiology residency slots, some of whom will choose mammography as a 
specialty.
  Increase funding for allied health profession loan programs to 
increase the supply of qualified radiologic technicians (RTs) available 
to conduct mammograms.
  In addition, we have included two important studies in our bill. 
Recent research has suggested that the Medicare reimbursement structure 
for physician work undervalues services and procedures done primarily 
in women when compared to similar male-specific procedures. Our bill 
requires the General Accounting Office to further evaluate this 
research and make recommendations to Congress on how to make Medicare 
reimbursement more equitable.
  Also, there is evidence that screening services are undervalued in 
the physician fee schedule relative to other procedures. Given the 
importance of regular screening to prevent and catch disease in the 
early stages, from breast cancer to colorectal and prostate cancer, we 
include a provision in our bill requiring the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission, MedPAC, to study this issue and make recommendations to 
Congress.
  Our legislation has the support of the American Cancer Society, 
American College of Radiologists, Society of Breast Imaging and the 
American Society of Radiologic Technologists. I ask unanimous consent 
that their letters of endorsement be printed in the Congressional 
Record. And for the sake of women across America and their families and 
friends, I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important 
bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 548

       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 ``Assure Access to Mammography 
     Act of 2001''.

  TITLE I--ENHANCED REIMBURSEMENT FOR SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY UNDER THE 
                            MEDICARE PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. ENHANCED REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM 
                   FOR SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHIES FURNISHED IN 2002.

       (a) One-Year Delay of Inclusion of Payment for Screening 
     Mammography in Physician Fee Schedule.--Section 104(c) of the 
     Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and 
     Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554) is amended by striking 
     ``January 1, 2002'' and inserting ``January 1, 2003''.
       (b) Change in Payment Amount.--Section 1834(c)(3)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(c)(3)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``$55, indexed.--'' and 
     inserting ``In general.--'';
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by striking ``a subsequent year'' and inserting ``1992 
     through 2001,''; and
       (B) by striking ``that subsequent year.'' and inserting 
     ``that year, and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) for screening mammography performed in 2002, is 
     $90.''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) BIPA amendment.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     104 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement 
     and Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554).
       (2) Mammography in 2002.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (b) shall apply with respect to screening mammographies 
     furnished during 2002.
       (d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as affecting the provisions of section 104(d) of 
     the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and 
     Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554) (relating to payment for new 
     technologies).

          TITLE II--EXPANDED CAPACITY FOR MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICES

     SEC. 201. NOT COUNTING CERTAIN RADIOLOGY RESIDENTS AGAINST 
                   GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION LIMITATIONS.

       For cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 
     2001, and before October 1, 2006, in applying the limitations 
     regarding the total number of full-time equivalent residents 
     in the field of allopathic or osteopathic medicine under 
     subsections (d)(5)(B)(v) and (h)(4)(F) of section 1886 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) for a hospital, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not take into 
     account a maximum of 3 residents in the field of radiology to 
     the extent the hospital increases the number of radiology 
     residents above the number of such residents for the 
     hospital's most recent cost reporting period ending before 
     October 1, 2001.

     SEC. 202. ALLIED HEALTH PROFESSIONAL FUNDING.

       Section 757 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     294g) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this part--
       ``(1) $55,600,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 1999 through 2001;
       ``(3) $70,600,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(4) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2003 
     and each subsequent fiscal year.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``, 754, and 755.'' 
     and inserting ``and 754; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) not less than $15,000,000 for awards of grants and 
     contracts under section 755.''.

  TITLE III--STUDIES AND REPORTS ON MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR GENDER-
                    SPECIFIC AND SCREENING SERVICES

     SEC. 301. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR 
                   GENDER-SPECIFIC SERVICES.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study of the relative value units established 
     by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the 
     medicare physician fee schedule under section 1848 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) for physicians' 
     services that are gender-specific.
       (b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     study conducted under subsection (a), together with such 
     recommendations regarding the appropriateness of adjusting 
     the relative value units for physicians' services that are 
     gender-specific as the Comptroller General determines 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 302. MEDPAC STUDY AND REPORT ON MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT 
                   FOR SCREENING SERVICES.

       (a) Study.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission shall 
     conduct a study of the relative value units established by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the medicare 
     physician fee schedule under section 1848 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) for screening services that 
     are reimbursed under such fee schedule.
       (b) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2002, the Commission 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the study conducted 
     under subsection (a), together with such recommendations 
     regarding the appropriateness of adjusting the relative value 
     units for screening services that are reimbursed under the 
     physician fee schedule as the Comptroller General determines 
     appropriate.
                                  ____



                                      American Cancer Society,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Tom: On behalf of the American Cancer Society and its 
     more than 28 million supporters, I am writing to thank you 
     for recognizing the importance of assuring that American 
     women have adequate access to mammography and for drafting 
     legislation aimed at addressing this complex issue. We are 
     most grateful for your leadership and commitment.
       As you know, there have been increasing indicators that 
     suggest an erosion in the current capacity to meet the breast 
     imaging needs of American women. We have been troubled by 
     recent reports of problems related to economic pressures, 
     personnel shortages, and a growing disinterest in mammography 
     on the part of practicing radiologists and recent residency 
     program graduates. Unfortunately, we do not yet have much 
     concrete data to illuminate the extent of the problem.
       The Society is currently working in collaboration with the 
     Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) and the American College of 
     Radiology (ACR) to gather data to better understanding the 
     underlying systemic problems that are reflected in a growing 
     number of anecdotal reports about problems with mammography. 
     We are also in the process of convening a series of meetings 
     with other breast cancer advocacy groups to try to answer the 
     questions raised by the recent news reports.
       The Society strongly believes that continued access to 
     quality mammography must be assured and that this issue must 
     be addressed in a timely fashion. Increasing women's access 
     to high quality breast cancer screening is a goal that has 
     long had strong bi-partisan Congressional support, as 
     evidenced by the enactment of legislation in 1990 to provide 
     a Medicare breast cancer screening benefit and the passage of 
     the ``Mammography Quality Standards Act'' in 1992. Congress 
     has also taken steps to increase access to mammography and 
     breast cancer treatment for the medically underserved by 
     establishing the Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection 
     Program and enacting the Breast & Cervical Cancer Treatment 
     Act. In addition, thanks to successful

[[Page S2400]]

     public-private partnerships, many women have gotten the 
     message about the importance of regular mammograms. Your 
     support on these issues has been greatly appreciated.
       Now that women are getting the message and seeking out 
     screening services, the country needs to ensure that the 
     capacity to provide mammography services meets the demand. 
     Approximately 40,600 Americans will die this year from breast 
     cancer. We knew that early detection is key to saving lives 
     from breast cancer, and it increases a women's treatment 
     options. Mammography is the only scientifically proven tool 
     currently available to detect breast cancer before the onset 
     of symptoms. The aging of the baby boomer population means 
     that the number of American women requiring regular screening 
     is increasing dramatically at an estimated rate of over one 
     million per year.
       Your legislation, the ``Assure Access to Mammography Act,'' 
     is an important step in addressing these issues. We know that 
     increasing the reimbursement rate and raising the number of 
     radiology residents--measures addressed in your legislation--
     are important components of the mammography capacity issue. 
     We also believe the MedPAC study called for in the bill will 
     lay the groundwork for shoring up future capacity by 
     evaluating whether or not screening services are undervalued 
     in the physician fee schedule.
       Once again, we commend you for your leadership on this 
     critical issue. As our data collection and analysis efforts 
     progress, we look forward to sharing this information with 
     you and working together to ensure that women across the 
     country continue to have access to high quality mammography 
     services. If you or your staff have any additional questions, 
     please contact Megan Gordon, Manager of Federal Government 
     Relations (202-661-5716).
           Sincerely,
                                                  Daniel E. Smith,
            National Vice President, Federal and State Government 
     Relations.
                                  ____



                                American College of Radiology,

                                       Reston, VA, March 12, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the American College of 
     Radiology (ACR), I would like to commend you on your efforts 
     to improve women's health by introducing the ``Assure Access 
     to Mammography Act of 2001'' and offer the College's full 
     support for the enactment of this legislation.
       As you know, the College has been working closely with you 
     and your staff to address the growing access problem to 
     timely mammography screening. For over a decade, the Congress 
     and the College have recognized screening mammography as an 
     essential element in women's health and have been committed 
     to providing this valuable service. With the enactment of 
     this legislation, that commitment to women's health will 
     continue.
       Raising reimbursement for screening mammography, and 
     maintaining that level of reimbursement, will allow 
     radiologists to continue providing this lifesaving service in 
     a timely fashion and help avoid the delays that have been 
     widely reported in the media. The College also fully supports 
     the provisions in your legislation regarding the need for 
     additional radiologists and associated allied health 
     personnel. In addition, your provisions requesting the study 
     of Medicare reimbursement of gender-specific services and 
     Medicare reimbursement for screening services in general are 
     solely needed.
       Since the College and you share the common goal of 
     continuing to provide timely access to screening mammography, 
     ACR looks forward to continuing our work together to pass 
     this vital legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                           Harvey L. Neiman, M.D.,
     Chair, Board of Chancellors.
                                  ____



                                    Society of Breast Imaging,

                                       Reston, VA, March 12, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: Mammography can have a significant 
     impact on women's lives. When screening mammography detects 
     breast cancer at an early stage, women have a better chance 
     of survival and an improved quality of life. Early detection 
     may also spare many women from mastectomy. The American 
     Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, and many 
     other medical organizations now recommend that women begin 
     annual screening mammography at age 40 years.
       The number of screening mammograms performed each year in 
     our country has doubled over the past decade. There are now 
     56 million American women age 40 or older. About 30 million 
     women have had a mammogram during the past 2 years.
       The need for mammography is expected to increase even 
     further in the future. Each year, a greater percentage of 
     women in the breast cancer age group follow the mammography 
     screening guidelines. Also, the population of women age 40 
     and older will grow by 1 million each year over the next five 
     years.
       Today, our medical care system is unable to keep up with 
     this increasing demand for mammography by providing this 
     examination in a timely manner. Waiting time for a 
     mammography appointment has increased. Many facilities now 
     report waits of weeks or even months. The underlying reason 
     for these excessively long waits is inadequate reimbursement 
     rates. At current reimbursement rates, mammography usually 
     loses money. The more mammograms performed, the greater the 
     loss. The current Medicare reimbursement rate of $68.00 for a 
     screening mammogram is less than the cost of performing the 
     examination. Reimbursement rates for other health care plans 
     are based upon the Medicare fee schedule. At current 
     reimbursement rates, many hospitals and clinics have been 
     unable to purchase enough mammography equipment, hire enough 
     radiologists and technologists, and pay for enough office 
     space for breast imaging.
       Long waits for a mammography appointment lead to 
     unnecessary anxiety. Some women feel discouraged. Others may 
     even be deterred from having a mammogram. Extremely long 
     waiting times may result in delay in diagnosis and treatment 
     of breast cancer. This can shorten a woman's life.
       If the trend in financial loses from the performance of 
     mammography continues, the availability of this study will be 
     further curtailed. Some hospitals and medical facilities may 
     even be forced to stop performing this examination. And, most 
     facilities cannot afford to expand despite the projected 
     increasing need for mammograms.
       The Society of Breast Imaging supports your proposed 
     legislation. By bringing reimbursement rates in line with the 
     cost of performing mammography, your bill will ensure that 
     American women will have access to this lifesaving procedure.
           Sincerely,
                                        Stephen A. Feig, MD, FACR,
     President.
                                  ____

         American Society of Radiologic Technologists,
                                                    March 9, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the American Society of 
     Radiologic Technologists (ASRT), a nationwide organization 
     representing more than 87,000 medical imaging and radiation 
     therapy professionals, we would like to express our strong 
     support for the ``Fairness in Mammography Reimbursement Act 
     of 2001.''
       ASRT supports your call for increases in both mammography 
     reimbursement and federal support for allied health 
     professions educational program grants. ASRT recognizes that 
     current reimbursements do not cover costs for performance of 
     these procedures. In addition, shortages of qualified 
     radiologic technologists have had an adverse affect on access 
     to quality mammography services. We appreciate your 
     acknowledgment that the problem of access to quality 
     mammography is both a reimbursement problem, as well as a 
     personnel problem.
       In 1991, you were one of the first Senators to recognize 
     the need to improve access to and the quality of mammography 
     services. Your cosponsorship of the Woman's Health Equity Act 
     of 1991--which ultimately became the Mammography Quality 
     Standards Act (MQSA) of 1992--was an important first step 
     towards improving the quality of radiologic imaging services. 
     An important component of that bill was the establishment of 
     minimum federal standards for radiologic technologists 
     performing mammography services.
       While considerable progress has been made since 1992 in 
     improving the quality of mammography services, we regret that 
     a similar statement cannot be made with respect to other 
     radiologic imaging services. We would therefore like to take 
     this opportunity to bring to your attention legislation we 
     are promoting entitled the Consumer Assurance of Radiologic 
     Excellence (CARE). This legislation is designed to increase 
     the quality of all radiologic services and reduce medical 
     errors by establishing federal minimum standards for 
     education and credentialing of personnel who perform plan or 
     deliver medical imaging procedures or radiation therapy.
       Again, we commend and support your efforts to improve 
     access and availability of quality mammography services and 
     we look forward to working with you on Legislation that will 
     improve the quality of all medical imaging services.
           Sincerely,
                               Michael DelVecchio, B.S., R.T. (R),
                                                   ASRT President.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join Senator 
Harkin and Senator Mikulski as an original cosponsor of the Assure 
Access to Mammography Act of 2001. This bill addresses an emerging need 
in the fight for breast cancer--the need for adequate reimbursement for 
screening mammography in the Medicare Program and the need to preserve 
access to mammographies services for women across the country.
  Mr. President, we are clearly making small gains in fighting breast 
cancer, which is one of the most challenging and daunting health 
problems in America today. There is no question that a diagnosis of 
breast cancer is something that every woman dreads. But for an 
estimated 192,200 American women, this is the year their worst fears 
will

[[Page S2401]]

be realized. One thousand new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed 
among the women in Maine, and 200 women in my home state will die from 
this tragic disease. The fact is, one in nine women will develop breast 
cancer during their lifetime, and for women between the ages of 35 and 
54, there is no other disease which will claim more lives.
  But the fact is that mammograms are the most powerful weapon we have 
in the fight against breast cancer. They enable us to detect and treat 
breast cancer at its earliest stage when the tumors are too tiny to be 
detected by a woman or her doctor, providing a better prognosis. An 
estimated 30 million mammograms were performed last year at a cost of 
over $2 billion--a valuable down-payment in our fight against an 
unmerciful killer. And due to the aging of the baby boom generation it 
is estimated that more than one million additional women each year will 
need regular mammograms.
  In 1990 we succeeded in making screening mammography the very first 
preventive benefit available under Part B of the Medicare Program, and 
we set the reimbursement level in statute. In 1998, the Medicare 
Program alone provided over 6 million mammography procedures. 
Unfortunately the Medicare payment, which was indexed to inflation 
under the statute, has not kept pace with the actual increase in health 
care costs. Last year the Medicare reimbursement for a screening 
mammogram was $69.23--well under the mean cost of $90 per procedure.
  There is evidence that radiology clinics are closing their doors, and 
that radiologists are no longer able to provide mammography services 
due to the simple fact that providers are not reimbursed enough for 
their work and cannot justify the losses they incur by providing 
mammography services. Over the past 18 months 243 facilities have 
closed their doors; close to 100 of them in just the past four months. 
This is a problem that must be addressed immediately.
  The legislation we introduce today would increase Medicare 
reimbursement for screening mammograms to $90 for 2002, insuring that 
radiologists across the country are appropriately reimbursed for the 
valuable service they provide.
  On March 7, 2001, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a 
fascinating report evaluating the new technologies of mammography 
titled ``Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for the Early 
Detection of Breast Cancer.''
  At the same time, the IOM recommended analyzing current Medicare and 
Medicaid reimbursement rates for mammography to determine whether they 
adequately cover the total costs of providing the procedure. The report 
also recommends that the Health Resources and Services Administration 
(HRSA) undertake or fund a study to analyze trends in speciality 
training for breast cancer screening among radiologists and radiologic 
technologists, and examine factors affecting the decision of 
practitioners to enter or remain in the field.
  We have taken these recommendations very seriously and by introducing 
this legislation today, we are acting to preserve access to 
mammography. The truth is we simply cannot risk slipping back in our 
fight against breast cancer.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this very important 
bill and work towards passing it this year.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators 
Harkin, Snowe, Murkowski, Murray, Schumer, and Reid in introducing the 
Assure Access to Mammography Act of 2001. The goal of this bill is to 
help ensure that women have access to screening mammograms.
  Breast cancer mortality has decreased because of early detection, 
diagnosis, and treatment. Mammography is vital to early detection, yet 
I have seen press reports about women having to wait weeks or months 
for a mammogram. In Maryland, waiting times for mammograms at some 
facilities have increased from one to two weeks to six to eight weeks. 
In addition, some wait times have increased from one to two days to two 
weeks for a diagnostic mammogram. In these cases, usually a woman has 
already had a suspicious finding from a screening mammogram and has to 
wait longer to get the results of a diagnostic mammogram to determine 
if she has breast cancer or not.
  I have also heard about mammography facilities closing down because 
they could no longer make ends meet. In fact, a couple mammography 
facilities in the Baltimore area have closed their doors. This 
coincides with a national trend. Over the last 18 months, close to 250 
mammography facilities have closed down, with almost 100 facilities 
closing between October 2000 and February 2001. Women living in areas 
with no or few mammogram facilities are less likely to have mammograms 
than those living in areas with more facilities.
  At the same time, the size of the population requiring annual 
mammograms is increasing about one million per year. The American 
population is aging. There will be 70 million Americans aged 65 and 
over in 2030. Age is also the most important risk factor for breast 
cancer. A woman's chance of getting breast cancer is 1 out of 2,212 by 
age 30. This increases to 1 out of 23 by age 60 and 1 out of 10 by age 
80. More than 85 percent of breast cancers occur in women over the age 
of 50. This means that more and more women will be on Medicare and need 
screening mammograms. Screening mammograms have been shown to reduce 
breast cancer mortality by 25-30 percent in women age 50-70. About 68 
percent of Maryland women age 65 and older had a mammogram within the 
last year. More women will need this screening at the same time that we 
are seeing fewer mammography facilities available to provide this 
valuable service to women.
  Eleven years ago, I introduced the Medicare Screening Mammography 
Amendments of 1990 to provide Medicare coverage of annual screening 
mammography. This bill set out the conditions under which Medicare 
would cover screening mammograms and how they would be reimbursed. My 
legislation was included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990. Before that, Medicare did not cover routine annual screening 
mammograms. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) reimburses 
screening mammograms at a rate of $55 indexed to inflation. This means 
that for 2001, Medicare pays $69.23 for screening mammograms. Last 
year, Congress changed how Medicare pays for screening mammograms. 
Starting in 2002, screening mammograms will be reimbursed through the 
Medicare physician fee schedule like diagnostic mammograms and other 
services.
  Mammography is a unique procedure. Screening mammography has been 
reimbursed differently under Medicare than diagnostic mammography. 
Mammography is also one of the most technically challenging 
radiological procedures. Ensuring the quality of the image is difficult 
and mammograms are the most difficult radiologic images to read. I 
authored the mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 to set uniform 
quality standards for mammography facilities, personnel, and equipment 
so that women would have safe and reliable mammograms. These standards 
are unique to mammography. A study has found that allegation of error 
in the diagnosis of breast cancer is now the most prevalent reason for 
medical malpractice lawsuits among all claims against physicians and is 
associated with the second highest indemnity payment size.
  Last week, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report entitled 
``Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for the Early 
Detection of Breast Cancer''. Among the IOM's recommendations is that 
HCFA should analyze the current Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement 
rates for mammography, including a comparison with other radiological 
techniques, to determine whether they adequately cover the total costs 
of providing the procedure. The cost analysis should include the costs 
associated with meeting the requirements of the Mammography Quality 
Standards Act. The bill we are introducing today would delay for one 
year (until 2003) the inclusion of screening mammography in the 
Medicare physician fee schedule. This would give time for HCFA to 
collect data and review Medicare reimbursement rates for screening 
mammography before moving it into the physician fee schedule and to 
help ensure a smooth transition into the fee schedule. This is 
important given the unique characteristics of mammography that I

[[Page S2402]]

have already outlined. In the meantime, the bill would increase 
Medicare reimbursement for screening mammograms to $90 in 2002 to help 
decrease waiting times and the closure of mammography facilities so 
that women have timely access to screening mammograms.

  In addition, there is evidence that fewer numbers of radiologists and 
technologists are going into mammography. That's why this bill 
increases Medicare Graduate Medical Education funding for additional 
radiology residency slots and increases funding for Allied Health 
Professions programs to increase the supply of radiologic technologists 
(RTs) able to conduct mammograms. The IOM report last week acknowledges 
this concern by recommending that the Health Resources and Services 
Administration (HRSA) should undertake or fund a study that analyzes 
trends in specialty training for breast cancer screening among 
radiologists and radiologic technologists and that examines the factors 
that affect practitioners' decision to enter or remain in the field.
  Finally, this bill would require a General Accounting Office study of 
the Medicare reimbursement structure for gender-specific procedures and 
require a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission study of Medicare 
reimbursement for screening services. These studies will provide 
important information for Congress and HCFA to consider as we look at 
ways to improve and modernize Medicare.
  I'm pleased that this legislation has the support of the American 
Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology, the American Society 
of Radiologic Technologists, and the Society of Breast Imaging. I hope 
this bill will begin a conversation about the adequacy of Medicare 
reimbursement of screening mammograms. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to 
consider this bill as they craft Medicare reform legislation. A decade 
ago Congress provided coverage of annual mammograms to women under 
Medicare. This legislation will help ensure that the promise we made a 
decade ago remains a meaningful promise to current and future Medicare 
beneficiaries. Without it, some women at risk for breast cancer may not 
have access to screening that could detect cancer earlier and help them 
live longer.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 549. A bill to ensure the availability of spectrum to amateur 
radio operators; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Amateur Radio 
Spectrum Protection Act of 2001. This bill would help preserve the 
amount of radio spectrum allocated to the Amateur Radio Service during 
this era of dramatic change in our telecommunications system. I am 
pleased to be joined today in this bi-partisan effort by Senator Daniel 
Akaka.
  Organized radio amateurs, more commonly known as `ham' operators, 
through formal agreements with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
the National Weather Service, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and 
other government and private relief services, provide emergency 
communication when regular channels are disrupted by disaster. In 
Idaho, these trained volunteers have performed tasks as various as 
helping to rescue stranded back-country hikers, organizing cleanup 
efforts after the Payette River flooded, and helping the Forest Service 
communicate during major forest fires. In other communities, they may 
be found monitoring tornado touchdowns in the Midwest, helping 
authorities reestablish communication after a hurricane in the Gulf or 
sending ``health and welfare'' messages following an earthquake on the 
West Coast. Not only do they provide these services using their own 
equipment and without compensation, but they also give their personal 
time to participate in regular organized training exercises.
  In addition to emergency communication, amateur radio enthusiasts use 
their spectrum allocations to experiment with and develop new circuitry 
and techniques for increasing the effectiveness of the precious natural 
resource of radio spectrum for all Americans. Much of the electronic 
technology we now take for granted is rooted in amateur radio 
experimentation. Moreover, amateur radio has long provided the first 
technical training for youngsters who grow up to be America's 
scientists and engineers.
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Federal Communications 
Commission, FCC, to conduct spectrum auctions to raise revenues. Some 
of that revenue may come from the auction of current amateur radio 
spectrum. This bill simply requires the FCC to provide the Amateur 
Radio Service with equivalent replacement spectrum if it reallocates 
and auctions any of the Service's current spectrum.
  The Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2001 will protect these 
vital functions while also maintaining the flexibility of the FCC to 
manage the nation's telecommunications infrastructure effectively. It 
will not interfere with the ability of commercial telecommunications 
services to seek the spectrum allocations they require. I ask my 
colleagues to join the more than 670,000 U.S. licensed radio amateurs 
in supporting this measure and welcome their co-sponsorship.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 549

       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 ``Amateur Radio Spectrum 
     Protection Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) More than 650,000 radio amateurs in the United States 
     are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission.
       (2) Among the basic purposes of the Amateur Radio and 
     Amateur Satellite Services are to provide voluntary, 
     noncommercial radio service, particularly emergency 
     communications.
       (3) Emergency communications services by volunteer amateur 
     radio operators have consistently and reliably been provided 
     before, during, and after floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, 
     forest fires, earthquakes, blizzards, train accidents, 
     chemical spills, and other disasters.
       (4) The Federal Communications Commission has taken actions 
     which have resulted in the loss of at least 107 MHz of 
     spectrum to radio amateurs.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL POLICY REGARDING REALLOCATION OF AMATEUR 
                   RADIO SPECTRUM.

       Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     303) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(z) Notwithstanding subsection (c), after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection--
       ``(1) make no reallocation of primary allocations of bands 
     of frequencies of the amateur radio and amateur satellite 
     services;
       ``(2) not diminish the secondary allocations of bands of 
     frequencies to the amateur radio or amateur satellite 
     service; and
       ``(3) make no additional allocations within such bands of 
     frequencies that would substantially reduce the utility 
     thereof to the amateur radio or amateur satellite service;
     unless the Commission, at the same time, provides equivalent 
     replacement spectrum to amateur radio and amateur satellite 
     service.''.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Idaho (Mr. Crapo) for introducing this very important legislation that 
will help to protect and preserve the radio spectrum necessary to 
ensure the continuation of the Amateur Radio Service. The Amateur Radio 
Spectrum Act of 2001 is a bipartisan effort to secure the amateur radio 
spectrum as the telecommunications industry continues to change.
  Amateur radio operators, more commonly known as ``hams,'' have been 
around as long as radio itself, and a few pioneers in amateur radio 
provided valuable insight into the current communications system that 
we know today. While many people may look at amateur radio operators as 
radio enthusiasts with a fun hobby, I would like to remind everyone 
that they also provide a valuable service to communities all over the 
world.
  Mr. President, the Amateur Radio Service was created by the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) to utilize amateur radio operators to 
provide backup emergency communications. These operators set up and 
operate organized communications networks locally for governmental and 
emergency officials.
  While television and radio broadcast stations are the more common 
methods of providing emergency information to

[[Page S2403]]

the public, these stations may not be in service for weeks after such 
disasters as tornados and hurricanes. Instead, this valuable emergency 
service usually is provided by the Amateur Radio Service. Through 
several networks that are decentralized, with many transceivers and 
antennas, amateur radio operators are able to transmit safety and 
health conditions in times of disasters.
  In the State of Hawaii, the sole source of information in the 
immediate aftermath of Hurricane Iniki, which hit the island of Kauai 
on September 11, 1992, was from amateur radio operators. The 
devastation to the island was immense; one out of five of the island's 
power and telephone poles were down, power, cable television, and phone 
lines were out, cellular phone, microwave dishes, two-way radio antenna 
boosters, television station translators, and radio station 
transmitters were damaged. Kauai Electric Company was inoperable and 
100 percent of its customers were without power. While the company did 
have a disaster plan, no one fathomed that a storm would have such a 
devastating effect. Fortunately, amateur radio operators on Kauai were 
able to keep state officials informed about the island's condition.
  Mr. President, Senator Crapo and I are here today because the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the FCC to conduct spectrum 
auctions as a means to increase revenue. While these auctions may not 
immediately take away from the Amateur Radio Service, there is nothing 
to prevent the FCC from selling off portions of the spectrum currently 
utilized by amateur radio operators.
  Mr. President, this bill will protect the Amateur Radio Service by 
requiring the FCC to provide the Service with equivalent spectrum if it 
reallocates and auctions any of the Service's current spectrum. The 
Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2001 will ensure that the 
valuable service provided by amateur radio operators will continue.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Crapo in this bipartisan 
effort to protect the Amateur Radio Service and ask my colleagues to 
support this important measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Baucus, 
        Mr. Cochran, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 550. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act 
to provide equitable access for foster care and adoption services for 
Indian children in tribal areas; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to 
correct an inequity in the laws affecting many Native American 
children. I am joined by Senators McCain, Inouye, Baucus, Feinstein, 
and Cochran in supporting this important piece of legislation. This 
effort is also supported by the National Indian Child Welfare 
Association, American Public Human Services Association, and National 
Congress of American Indians.
  Every year, for a variety of often tragic reasons, thousands of 
children across the country are placed in foster care. To assist with 
the cost of food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision and school 
supplies, foster parents of children who have come to their homes 
through state court placement receive money through Title IV-E of the 
Social Security Act. Additionally, states receive funding for 
administrative training and data collection to support this program. 
Unfortunately, because of a legislative oversight, many Native American 
children who are placed in foster care by tribal courts do not receive 
foster care and adoptive services to which all other income-eligible 
children are entitled.
  Not only are otherwise eligible Native children denied foster care 
maintenance payments, but this inequity also extends to children who 
are adopted through tribal placements. Currently, the IV-E program 
offers limited assistance for expenses associated with adoption and the 
training of professional staff and parents involved in the adoption. 
These circumstances, sadly, have meant that many Indian children 
receive little Federal support in attaining the permanency they need 
and deserve.
  In many instances, these children face insurmountable odds. Many come 
from abusive homes. Foster parents who open their doors to care for 
these special children deserve our help. These generous people who take 
these children into their homes should not have sleepless nights 
worrying about whether they have the resources to provide nourishing 
food or a warm coat, or even adequate shelter for these children. This 
legislation will go a long way to ease their concerns.
  Currently, some tribes and states have entered into IV-E agreements, 
but these arrangements are the exception. They also, by and large, do 
not include funds to train tribal social workers and foster and 
adoptive parents. This bill would make it clear that tribes would be 
treated like States when they run their own programs under the IV-E 
program. The bill would make funding fair and equitable for all 
children, Native and non-Native.
  The bill I am introducing today would do the following:
  Extend the Title IV-E entitlement programs to tribal placements in 
foster and adoptive homes;
  Authorize tribal governments to receive direct funding from the 
Department of Health and Human Services for administration of IV-E 
programs (tribes must have HHS-approved programs):
  Allow the Secretary flexibility to modify the requirements of the IV-
E law for tribes if those requirements are not in the best interest of 
Native children; and
  Allow continuation of tribal-State IV-E agreements.
  In a 1994 report, HHS found that the best way to serve this 
underfunded group is to provide direct assistance to tribal governments 
and qualified tribal families. I want to emphasize that this bill would 
not result in reduced funding for the States, as they would continue to 
be reimbursed for their expenses under the law. I strongly believe 
Congress should address this oversight and provide equitable benefits 
to Native American children who are under the jurisdiction of their 
tribal governments, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation with 
my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Inouye, Baucus, Feinstein and Cochran, 
to amend the Social Security Act and extend eligibility for Indian 
tribes to fully implement, like states, the Title IV-E Foster Care and 
Adoption Assistance Act. This important legislation will make certain 
that Indian children living in tribal areas have the same access to 
services of the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program 
enjoyed by other children nationwide.
  The purpose of the Title IV-E program is to ensure that children 
receive adequate care when placed in foster care and adoption programs. 
The Title IV-E program operates as an open-ended entitlement program 
for eligible state governments with approved plans. State governments 
receive funding for foster care maintenance payments to cover food, 
shelter, clothing, school supplies, and liability insurance for income-
eligible children placed in foster homes by state courts, and for 
related administrative and training costs.
  While Congress intended that the Title IV-E program should benefit 
all eligible children, Indian children who are under the jurisdiction 
of the respective tribal court are generally not considered eligible. 
When enacted, the Title IV-E law did not properly consider that Indian 
tribal governments retain sole jurisdiction over the domestic affairs 
of their own tribal members, particularly Indian children.
  State administrators have attempted to meet the intended goals of 
these programs by extending their efforts to Indian country. However, 
administrative and jurisdictional hurdles make it nearly impossible to 
provide these services. As a result, Indian children in need of foster 
care and child support are not accorded the same level of service as 
other children nationwide. Tribal governments, who are legally 
responsible for Indian children in foster care, are not entitled to 
federal reimbursement for children placed in foster care by a tribal 
court, unless the tribe, as a public agency, enters into a cooperative 
agreement with the state.
  A cooperative agreement may not sound all that difficult, but in 
reality,

[[Page S2404]]

such an agreement can prove impossible. Rather than providing 
incentives, current law often discourages states from entering into 
agreements with tribes. For example, a state is accountable for tribal 
compliance with Title IV-E requirements. If a tribe cannot fulfill a 
matching requirement, the state must assume the costs on behalf of the 
tribe in order to retain federal funds. It is entirely possible that 
states could lose their Title IV-E funds if tribal records were out of 
compliance.
  Unfortunately, State-tribal relations are not always productive, 
particularly when disputes arise over issues unrelated to child 
welfare. Providing this direct eligibility for tribal governments, with 
the same accountability and enforcement requirements, will resolve such 
problems. State agencies have indicated that direct participation by 
the tribes would help address an overburden of casework and preclude 
tension over jurisdictional issues. While direct tribal authority would 
be authorized by enactment of this legislation, I want to make clear 
that we have no intention to supplant or discourage State-tribal 
agreements. Existing agreements will be honored, while allowing Indian 
tribes to directly access needed resources for further protection for 
income-eligible Indian children.
  The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated that this legislation 
would cost $236 million over a five-year period, which generally 
amounts to less than 1 percent of total federal Title IV-E 
expenditures. While this legislation does not currently include any 
identified offsets to pay for adding tribal eligibility for this 
entitlement program, I have been assured by Senator Daschle that the 
inclusion of an offset, prior to final passage, will in no way affect 
the Social Security Trust Fund or increase the federal debt. We have 
pledged to work together to find the necessary and agreeable offset for 
this program.
  Enactment of this legislation will bring an end to the disparate 
treatment of eligible Indian children under Title IV-E programs. I urge 
my colleagues to correct this unfair oversight and make the benefits of 
the Title IV-E entitlement program available for all children as 
intended.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am happy to co-sponsor this legislation 
with my colleagues, Senators Daschle, McCain, Inouye, Feinstein, and 
Cochran, to extend the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance 
programs to Indian tribes. This legislation will enhance tribal 
sovereignty by giving tribes choices when it comes to providing child 
welfare services to their children.
  Hundreds of thousands of children are currently in foster care due to 
abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The programs authorized under Title IV-
E of the Social Security Act play an important role in safeguarding the 
well-being of these children. The programs provide funding to states to 
cover the costs of food, shelter, clothing, and other supplies for 
eligible children that are placed in foster care. States also receive 
funding for related administrative and training costs.
  Unfortunately, thousands of Native American children who meet income 
eligibility criteria are not automatically eligible to receive this 
funding if they are placed in foster care or up for adoption by a 
tribal agency. Under current law, only states can directly benefit from 
this funding source. In order to receive these monies, tribes must form 
cooperative agreements with their respective states.
  In Montana, all seven of our tribes have developed foster care 
agreements with the state government, and the agreements reportedly are 
successful for the parties involved. But we are lucky. Not all tribes 
or states have been able to form these agreements with each other. Nor 
should they have to.
  This legislation will allow tribes, like states, to submit plans to 
the Department of Health and Human Services in order to receive Title 
IV-E payments directly. Or tribes could continue their cooperative 
state agreements. The point is, this bill will give tribes choices when 
it comes to their child welfare services. It will enhance tribal 
sovereignty. And for many tribes, it will give them access to funding 
sources currently not available to them.
  I believe this legislation is important for Indian children and 
tribal sovereignty. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this 
bill and making Title IV-E programs available to all eligible children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 551. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify 
the individual income tax by providing an election for eligible 
individuals to only be subject to a 15 percent tax on wage income with 
a tax return free filing system, to reduce the burdens of the marriage 
penalty and alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is a great deal of discussion and 
debate going on right now about cutting taxes. Everyone, it seems, 
supports a tax cut although there is great disagreement over how big it 
should be, when it should take effect and who it should benefit.
  The American people deserve and need a tax cut, and I hope they will 
get one.
  But there is another part to this discussion that's not getting much 
attention. The American people also deserve and need tax 
simplification. There is broad agreement on this question, much broader 
and much deeper than any consensus on the need for a tax cut.
  I think we ought to act to provide it.
  Just a few months ago, the press reported several independent studies 
showing that American families and business will spend at least $115 
billion trying to comply with federal tax laws this year. That is an 
enormous amount of money. It represents an enormous amount of time, an 
enormous amount of effort, and I'm pretty certain, it represents an 
enormous amount of frustration for tens of millions of American 
taxpayers.
  Lately there has been a lot of talk about lifting tax burdens, and we 
should be talking about that, but let's also talk about one of the 
biggest tax burdens of all: the tax compliance burden, the colossal 
hassle taxpayers face to file their tax returns each year. I think it 
is simply inexcusable that it is so complex, so difficult, and so 
expensive for Americans to fulfill this basic civic duty.
  I find it even more unacceptable that we should do nothing to lift 
this burden, even as the nation is focused on lifting the tax burden 
when it comes to what is owed.
  We must do both.
  As I mentioned, taxpayers will spend somewhere around $115 billion 
and more than 3 billion hours this year in the effort to meet their 
federal income tax obligations. At this very moment, millions of 
taxpayers are probably just beginning the gut-wrenching process of 
wading through complex forms and instruction books so they can meet 
this year's fast-approaching filing deadline. After completing this 
annual ritual, they will once again start barraging congressional 
offices with letters imploring us to simplify the tax code. I don't 
blame them for doing so.
  They are right. Each little provision in the tax code has a 
justification, but together they add up to a big headache for the 
American taxpayer. We can't blame the IRS for the misery endured this 
year or in the years ahead. There's no way to truly simplify tax day 
unless Congress changes the underlying law. Nevertheless, the President 
and Congress appear ready to move forward with tax relief of possibly 
historic proportions without addressing the tax compliance burden that 
most Americans urgently want fixed.
  That's why I am pleased to be joined by Senators Gregg and Durbin in 
re-introducing a tax reform proposal that we call the ``Fair and Simple 
Shortcut Tax'', FASST plan. Our plan would give most taxpayers the 
opportunity to pay their federal income taxes without having to prepare 
a tax return if they so choose. More than thirty countries already 
enable their citizens to pay their federal taxes in this way. We 
believe tax simplification along these lines can work in this country, 
too.
  Our bill is based on a principle that both sides of the aisle 
generally are eager to espouse, namely, choice. The bill would allow 
taxpayers to choose to pay their taxes without complexity, paperwork 
and hassle. Those who prefer to use the current system, with its

[[Page S2405]]

complexity and expenses, could do so if they wanted. But if they want 
something simpler, they could choose our approach instead.
  Under FASST, most taxpayers could forget about filing a federal tax 
return on April 15th. Instead, their entire income tax liability would 
be withheld at work. There would be no more deciphering statements from 
mutual funds, no more frantic search for records and receipts, and no 
last minute dash to the Post Office in order to meet the midnight 
deadline. According to Treasury Department officials who have studied 
it, the FASST plan could give at least 70 million Americans the 
opportunity to elect the no-return option.
  Specifically, under the FASST plan, most taxpayers could choose the 
no-filing option by filling out a slightly modified W- 4 form at work. 
Using tables prepared by the IRS, their employers would determine the 
employee's exact tax obligation at a single rate of 15 percent on 
wages, after several major adjustments, and withhold that amount. This 
amount would satisfy the taxpayer's entire federal income tax 
obligation for the year, absent some unforeseeable changes in 
circumstances.
  The FASST plan would be available for couples earning up to $100,000 
in wages and no more than $5,000 in other income such as interest, 
dividends or capital gains. In the case of individual taxpayers, the 
wage and non-wage income limits would be $50,000 and $2,500, 
respectively. Popular deductions would continue under this plan: the 
standard deduction, personal exemptions, the child credit and Earned 
Income Tax Credit, along with a deduction for home mortgage interest 
expenses and property taxes. Our bill would include critical 
savings incentives for average Americans by exempting up to $5,000 of 
all interest, dividends and capital gains income from taxation for 
couples, $2,500 for singles. Moreover, savings contributions made 
through employers would be excluded from the wage calculations in the 
beginning.

  Consider some of the advantages of this hassle-free plan:
  No taxpayers would lose. If a taxpayer prefers to file an ordinary 
return, he or she would still have that choice, and no one would be 
forced to lose a tax deduction that he or she wants to keep.
  Wages would be taxed at a single, low rate of 15 percent.
  A deduction for home mortgage interest expenses, the Earned Income 
Tax Credit, and other popular parts of our current tax code would be 
preserved. Other major tax reform plans would eliminate those 
deductions, which many people count on.
  The alternative minimum tax, AMT, and the marriage penalty would be 
eliminated.
  Compliance costs for taxpayers and government alike would fall. If 70 
million Americans chose the FASST option, hundreds of millions of 
dollars now spent on paper pushing could be used in more productive 
ways.
  Those taxpayers who continued to file under the old system would get 
relief too. The plan would reduce the marriage penalty by making the 
standard deduction for married couples double the amount available for 
single filers. Also, it would virtually eliminate the complicated AMT 
for most sole proprietors, farmers and other small businesses by 
exempting the first $1 million in self-employment income from the AMT 
calculations. This legislation also would provide a 50 percent credit 
for up to $1,000 in expenses that businesses might incur implementing 
the FASST plan. In addition, it would grant taxpayers who continue to 
use the current system a 50 percent tax credit for up to $200 in tax 
preparer expenses, provided they file their returns electronically. 
Finally, the bill would offer individuals a substantial incentive for 
savings and investment by exempting up to $500 of dividend and interest 
income, $1,000 for couples.
  Our bill is both simple and fair, and it gives most taxpayers the 
choice to avoid the annual tax filing nightmare that they have come to 
dread.
  In testimony before a Senate subcommittee last year, IRS Commissioner 
Rossotti testified that it's ``unquestionable that this bill provides 
significant tax simplification.'' Imagine how much better life would be 
if April 15th were just another day. Under the FASST plan, for millions 
of Americans, that could be true.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 551

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fair and 
     Simple Shortcut Tax Plan''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

               TITLE I--FAIR AND SIMPLE SHORTCUT TAX PLAN

     SEC. 101. FAIR AND SIMPLE SHORTCUT TAX PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to 
     determination of tax liability) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

             ``PART VIII--FAIR AND SIMPLE SHORTCUT TAX PLAN

``Sec.  60.  Tax on individuals electing FASST.
``Sec.  60A.  Computation of applicable taxable income.
``Sec.  60B.  Credit against tax.
``Sec.  60C.  Election.
``Sec.  60D.  Liability for tax.

     ``SEC. 60. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS ELECTING FASST.

       ``(a) Tax Imposed.--If an individual who is an eligible 
     taxpayer has an election in effect under this part for a 
     taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 15 
     percent of the taxpayer's applicable taxable income.
       ``(b) Coordination With Other Taxes.--The tax imposed by 
     this section shall be in lieu of any other tax imposed by 
     this subchapter. The preceding sentence shall not apply to 
     taxes described in section 26(b)(2) other than subparagraph 
     (A) thereof.

     ``SEC. 60A. COMPUTATION OF APPLICABLE TAXABLE INCOME.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this part, the term 
     `applicable taxable income' means the taxpayer's applicable 
     wage income, minus--
       ``(1) the standard deduction,
       ``(2) the deductions for personal exemptions provided in 
     section 151, and
       ``(3) the homeowner expense deduction allowable under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(b) Applicable Wage Income.--For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `applicable wage income' means, 
     with respect to an individual, wages received by such 
     individual for the taxable year for services performed as an 
     employee of an employer.
       ``(2) Employment.--The term `employment' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 3121(b).
       ``(3) Wages.--The term `wages' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 3401(a).
       ``(c) Homeowner Expense Deduction Allowed.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), there 
     shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an 
     amount equal to the product of--
       ``(A) $5,000, and
       ``(B) a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of 
     months in such year in which the taxpayer owned and used 
     property as the taxpayer's principal residence (within the 
     meaning of section 121) and the denominator of which is 12.
       ``(2) Special rules.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Married individuals.--In the case of a married 
     individual, the ownership and use requirements of paragraph 
     (1) shall be treated as met for any month if either spouse 
     meets them.
       ``(B) Divorce; cooperative housing.--Rules similar to the 
     rules of paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 121(d) shall 
     apply.
       ``(C) Out-of-residence care.--If a taxpayer becomes 
     physically or mentally impaired while owning and using 
     property as a principal residence, then the taxpayer shall be 
     treated as meeting the ownership and use requirements of 
     paragraph (1) during any period the taxpayer owns the 
     property and resides in any facility (including a nursing 
     home) licensed by a State or political subdivision to care 
     for an individual in the taxpayer's condition.

     ``SEC. 60B. CREDITS AGAINST TAX.

       ``No credit shall be allowed against the tax imposed by 
     this part other than--
       ``(1) the credit allowable under section 24 (relating to 
     child tax credit),
       ``(2) the credit allowable under section 32 (relating to 
     earned income credit), and
       ``(3) the credit for overpayment of tax under section 6402.

     ``SEC. 60C. ELECTION.

       ``(a) Election.--An eligible taxpayer may elect to have 
     this part apply for any taxable year.
       ``(b) Eligible Taxpayer.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this part, the term 
     `eligible taxpayer' means, with respect to any taxable year, 
     a taxpayer who receives--

[[Page S2406]]

       ``(A) applicable wage income in an amount not in excess 
     of--
       ``(i) $100,000, in the case of a taxpayer described in 
     section 1(a), and
       ``(ii) 50 percent of the amount in effect under clause (i) 
     for the taxable year, in the case of any other taxpayer, and
       ``(B) gross income (determined without regard to applicable 
     wage income) in an amount not in excess of--
       ``(i) $5,000, in the case of a taxpayer described in 
     section 1(a), and
       ``(ii) 50 percent of the amount in effect under clause (i) 
     for the taxable year, in the case of any other taxpayer.
       ``(2) Exclusions.--The term `eligible taxpayer' shall not 
     include--
       ``(A) a married individual unless the individual and the 
     spouse both have the same taxable year and both make the 
     election,
       ``(B) a nonresident alien individual, or
       ``(C) an estate or trust.
       ``(3) Inflation adjustments.--In the case of a taxable year 
     beginning after 2002, each dollar amount under paragraph (1) 
     shall be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2001' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(b) Form of Election.--
       ``(1) In general.--An individual shall make an election to 
     have this part apply for any taxable year by furnishing an 
     election certificate to such individual's employer not later 
     than the close of the first payroll period after the 
     individual commences work for such employer or January 1 of 
     the taxable year to which such election relates, whichever is 
     later.
       ``(2) Contents of certificate.--The election certificate 
     furnished under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) contain such information as the Secretary requires to 
     enable the Secretary to carry out this part and enable the 
     employer to withhold the appropriate amount of wages under 
     section 3402, and
       ``(B) contain a certification by the employee under penalty 
     of perjury that the information furnished is correct.
       ``(3) Amendment of certificate.--A new election certificate 
     shall be filed within 30 days after the date of any change in 
     the information required under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Election certificate.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `election certificate' means the withholding 
     exemption certificate used for purposes of chapter 24.
       ``(5) Advance payment of earned income amount.--The 
     Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
     necessary to allow an eligible taxpayer to treat an election 
     certificate furnished under this section as including an 
     earned income eligibility certificate under section 3507 in 
     the case of an eligible individual claiming the earned income 
     credit under section 32.
       ``(c) Period Election In Effect.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     election under this section shall be effective for the 
     taxable year for which it is made and all subsequent taxable 
     years.
       ``(2) Termination.--An election under this part shall 
     terminate with respect to an individual for any taxable year 
     and all subsequent taxable years if at any time during such 
     taxable year such individual--
       ``(A) is no longer an eligible taxpayer,
       ``(B) elects to terminate such individual's election, or
       ``(C) commits fraud with respect to any information 
     required to be provided under this section.
       ``(d) Safe Harbor for Ineligibility.--In the case of an 
     individual who has a termination under subsection (c)(2)(A), 
     no addition to tax under section 6654 shall apply to any 
     underpayment attributable to eligible wage income of such 
     individual for such taxable year if such underpayment was not 
     due to fraud, negligence, or disregard of rules or 
     regulations (within the meaning of section 6662).
       ``(e) Marital Status.--For purposes of this part, marital 
     status shall be determined under section 7703.

     ``SEC. 60D. LIABILITY FOR TAX.

       ``(a) Amount Withheld Treated as Satisfaction of 
     Liability.--Except as provided in this section, any amount 
     withheld as tax under section 3402(t) for an eligible 
     individual with an election in effect under section 60C for 
     the taxable year shall be treated as complete satisfaction of 
     liability for the tax imposed by section 60(a) for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)--
       ``(1) Overpayment.--If the amount withheld as tax under 
     section 3402(t) for an eligible taxpayer with an election in 
     effect under section 60C for the taxable year exceeds the tax 
     imposed under section 60(a) for the taxable year, the excess 
     amount shall be treated as an overpayment for purposes of 
     section 6402.
       ``(2) Underpayment.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     amount withheld as tax under section 3402(t) for an eligible 
     taxpayer is less than the tax imposed under section 60(a) and 
     such underpayment is not due to fraud, the Secretary may 
     assess and collect such underpayment in the same manner as if 
     such underpayment were on account of a mathematical or 
     clerical error appearing on a return of the individual for 
     the taxable year.
       ``(B) De minimis exception.--If the amount by which the tax 
     imposed by section 60(a) exceeds the amount withheld as tax 
     under section 3402(t) by less than the lesser of $100 or 10 
     percent of the tax so imposed, the taxpayer shall be treated 
     as having no underpayment.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions 
     of this section, including regulations--
       ``(1) to allow a refund of an overpayment under subsection 
     (b)(1) to a taxpayer without requiring additional filing of 
     information by the taxpayer, and
       ``(2) to notify taxpayers of eligibility for credits 
     allowable under section 60B and allow a claim and refund of 
     any credit not claimed by an eligible taxpayer during the 
     taxable year.''.
       (b) Withholding From Wages.--Section 3402 (relating to 
     income tax collected at source) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(t) Withholding Under the Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax 
     Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--An employer making payment of wages to 
     an individual with an election in effect under section 60C 
     shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax (in lieu of 
     the tax required to be deducted and withheld under subsection 
     (a)) determined in accordance with tables prescribed by the 
     Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Withholding tables.--The Secretary shall prescribe 1 
     or more tables which set forth amounts of wages and income 
     tax to be deducted and withheld based on information 
     furnished to the employer in the employee's election form and 
     to ensure that the aggregate amount withheld from such 
     employee's wages approximates the tax liability of such 
     individual for the taxable year. Any tables prescribed under 
     this paragraph shall--
       ``(A) apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during 
     such periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and
       ``(B) be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be 
     deducted and withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most 
     appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to 
     reflect the provisions of chapter 1 applicable to such 
     periods, including taking into account any credits allowable 
     under section 24 or 32.

     The Secretary shall provide that any other provision of this 
     section shall not apply to the extent such provision is 
     inconsistent with the provisions of this subsection.
       ``(2) Election Certificate.--
       ``(A) In general.--In lieu of a withholding exemption 
     certificate, an employee shall furnish the employer with a 
     signed election certificate and any amended election 
     certificate at such time and containing such information as 
     required under section 60C.
       ``(B) When certificate takes effect.--
       ``(i) First certificate furnished.--An election certificate 
     furnished to an employer in cases in which no previous such 
     certificate is in effect shall take effect as of the 
     beginning of the first payroll period ending, or the first 
     payment of wages made without regard to a payroll period, on 
     or after the date on which such certificate is so furnished.
       ``(ii) Replacement certificate.--An election certificate 
     furnished to an employer which replaces an earlier 
     certificate shall take effect as of the beginning of the 1st 
     payroll period ending (or the 1st payment of wages made 
     without regard to a payroll period) on or after the 30th day 
     after the on which the replacement certificate is so 
     furnished.''.
       (c) Waiver of Requirement to File Return of Income.--
     Subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 6012 (relating to persons 
     required to make return of income) is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of clause (iii), by striking the period at 
     the end of clause (iv) and inserting ``, or'', and by 
     inserting after clause (iv) the following new clause:
       ``(v) who is an eligible taxpayer with an election in 
     effect for the taxable year under section 60C.''.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of parts for subchapter A of chapter 1 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Part VIII. Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax Plan.''.

       (2) Section 6654(a) is amended by inserting ``and section 
     60C(d)'' after ``this section''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

     SEC. 102. TAX CREDIT FOR EMPLOYER FASST PLAN STARTUP COSTS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 (relating to business related credits) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 45E. FASST PLAN EMPLOYER START-UP CREDIT.

       ``(a) Credit Allowed.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, the Fair and 
     Simple Shortcut Tax plan start-up credit determined under 
     this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to the 
     lesser of--
       ``(A) 50 percent of eligible start-up costs of the taxpayer 
     for the taxable year, or
       ``(B) $1,000.
       ``(2) Maximum credit.--The maximum credit allowed with 
     respect to a taxpayer under this subsection for all taxable 
     years shall not exceed the amount determined under paragraph 
     (1) for all taxable years.

[[Page S2407]]

       ``(b) Eligible start-up costs.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `eligible start-up costs' means amounts 
     paid or incurred by an employer (or any predecessor) during 
     the 1 year period beginning on the date on which the employer 
     first employs 1 or more employees with an election in effect 
     under section 60C for the taxable year, in connection with 
     carrying out the withholding requirements of section 3402.
       ``(c) Credit Available for Each Worksite.--If a taxpayer 
     maintains a separate worksite for employees, such person 
     shall be treated as a single employer with respect to such 
     worksite for purposes of the credit allowable under 
     subsection (a).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 38(b) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (12),
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (13), 
     and inserting a comma and ``plus'', and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(14) the Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax plan start-up 
     credit determined under section 45E.''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 45E. Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax plan start-up credit.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

             TITLE II--PROVISIONS TO SIMPLIFY THE TAX CODE

     SEC. 201. REDUCTION IN MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD 
                   DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 63(c)(2) (relating to basic 
     standard deduction) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Basic standard deduction.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the basic standard deduction is--
       ``(A) 200 percent of the amount under subparagraph (C) for 
     the taxable year, in the case of a joint return or a 
     surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
       ``(B) 150 percent of such amount, in the case of a head of 
     household (as defined in section 2(b)), and
       ``(C) $3,000, in the case of an individual who is not 
     married and who is not a surviving spouse or head of 
     household or a married individual filing a separate 
     return.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

     SEC. 202. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX EXCLUSION OF SELF-
                   EMPLOYMENT INCOME AND CERTAIN ITEMS OF 
                   PREFERENCE AND ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Increased Exemption for Self-Employment Income.--
     Section 55(d)(1) (relating to exemption amount for taxpayers 
     other than corporations) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Exemption amount for taxpayers other than 
     corporations.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a 
     corporation, the term `exemption amount' means the sum of--
       ``(A) an amount equal to--
       ``(i) $45,000 in the case of--

       ``(I) a joint return, or
       ``(II) a surviving spouse,

       ``(ii) $33,750 in the case of an individual who--

       ``(I) is not a married individual, or
       ``(II) is not a surviving spouse, and

       ``(iii) $22,500 in the case of--

       ``(I) a married individual who files a separate return, or
       ``(II) an estate or trust, and

       ``(B) an amount equal to the lesser of--
       ``(i) the self employment income (as defined in section 
     1402(b)) of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or
       ``(ii) $1,000,000.
     For purposes of this paragraph, the term `surviving spouse' 
     has the meaning given to such term by section 2(a), and 
     marital status shall be determined under section 7703.''.
       (b) Exclusion of Certain Items of Preference and 
     Adjustments.--Section 55 (relating to alternative minimum tax 
     imposed) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Special Rule for Small Businesses.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this part, in computing 
     the alternative minimum taxable income of a taxpayer to which 
     this subsection applies for any taxable year--
       ``(A) no adjustments provided in section 56 which are 
     attributable to a trade or business of the taxpayer shall be 
     made, and
       ``(B) taxable income shall not be increased by any item of 
     tax preference described in section 57 which is so 
     attributable.
       ``(2) Application.--
       ``(A) In general.--This subsection shall apply to a 
     taxpayer for a taxable year if the taxpayer is not a 
     corporation and the gross receipts of the taxpayer for the 
     taxable year from all trades or businesses do not exceed 
     $1,000,000.
       ``(B) Special rules.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     paragraphs (2), (3)(B), and (3)(C) of section 448(c) shall 
     apply for purposes of this subsection.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 55(d)(3) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(A)(i)'' in subparagraph (A),
       (2) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(A)(ii)'' in subparagraph (B),
       (3) by striking ``paragraph (1)(C)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(A)(iii)'' in subparagraph (C), and
       (4) by striking ``paragraph (1)(C)(i)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(A)(iii)(I)'' in the second sentence.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

     SEC. 203. NONREFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT FOR TAX PREPARATION 
                   EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 25B. TAX PREPARATION EXPENSES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the 
     lesser of--
       ``(1) 50 percent of the qualified tax preparation expenses 
     of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or
       ``(2) $100.
       ``(b) Qualified Tax Preparation Expenses.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `qualified tax preparation expenses' 
     means expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year by an 
     individual in connection with the preparation of the 
     taxpayer's Federal income tax return for such taxable year, 
     but only if such return is electronically filed. Such term 
     shall include any expenses related to an income tax return 
     preparer.
       ``(c) Denial of Deduction.--No deduction shall be allowed 
     under this chapter for any amount taken into account in 
     determining the credit under this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Tax preparation expenses.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenses paid or incurred for taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2001.

     SEC. 204. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME 
                   FROM TAX.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 
     (relating to amounts specifically excluded from gross income) 
     is amended by inserting after section 115 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 116. PARTIAL EXCLUSION OF DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST 
                   RECEIVED BY INDIVIDUALS.

       ``(a) Exclusion From Gross Income.--In the case of an 
     individual who does not have an election in effect under 
     section 60C for the taxable year, gross income does not 
     include dividends and interest otherwise includible in gross 
     income which are received during the taxable year by such 
     individual.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The aggregate amount excluded under 
     subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed $500 
     ($1,000 in the case of a joint return).
       ``(c) Certain Dividends Excluded.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to any dividend from a corporation which, for the 
     taxable year of the corporation in which the distribution is 
     made, or for the next preceding taxable year of the 
     corporation, is a corporation exempt from tax under section 
     501 (relating to certain charitable, etc., organization) or 
     section 521 (relating to farmers' cooperative associations).
       ``(d) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Treatment of certain dividends.--

  ``For treatment of dividends received from regulated investment 
companies and real estate investment trusts, see sections 854(a), 
854(b), and 857(c).

       ``(2) Certain nonresident aliens ineligible for 
     exclusion.--In the case of a nonresident alien individual, 
     subsection (a) shall apply only--
       ``(A) in determining the tax imposed for the taxable year 
     under section 871(b)(1) and only in respect of dividends 
     which are effectively connected with the conduct of a trade 
     or business within the United States, or
       ``(B) in determining the tax imposed for the taxable year 
     under section 877(b).
       ``(3) Dividends from employee stock ownership plans.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply to any dividend described in 
     section 404(k).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (C) of section 32(c)(5) is amended by 
     striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i), by striking the 
     period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``; or'', and 
     by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:
       ``(iii) interest and dividends received during the taxable 
     year which are excluded from gross income under section 
     116.''.
       (2) Subparagraph (A) of section 32(i)(2) is amended by 
     inserting ``(determined without regard to section 116)'' 
     before the comma.
       (3) Subparagraph (B) of section 86(b)(2) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(B) increased by the sum of--
       ``(i) the amount of interest received or accrued by the 
     taxpayer during the taxable year which is exempt from tax, 
     and
       ``(ii) the amount of interest and dividends received during 
     the taxable year which are excluded from gross income under 
     section 116.''.
       (4) Subsection (d) of section 135 is amended by 
     redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) and by inserting 
     after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:

[[Page S2408]]

       ``(4) Coordination with section 116.--This section shall be 
     applied before section 116.''.
       (5)(A) Subsection (a) of section 246A is amended--
       (i) by inserting ``or the exclusion from gross income under 
     section 116,'' after ``245(a)'' in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1), and
       (ii) by inserting ``received by a corporation'' after 
     ``dividend'' in paragraph (1).
       (B) Subsection (e) of section 246A is amended by inserting 
     ``or the exclusion from gross income under section 116'' 
     after ``245''.
       (6) Paragraph (2) of section 265(a) is amended by inserting 
     before the period ``, or to purchase or carry obligations or 
     shares, or to make deposits, to the extent the interest 
     thereon is excludable from gross income under section 116''.
       (7) Subsection (c) of section 584 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new flush sentence:

     ``The proportionate share of each participant in the amount 
     of dividends or interest received by the common trust fund 
     and to which section 116 applies shall be considered for 
     purposes of such section as having been received by such 
     participant.''.
       (8) Subsection (a) of section 643 is amended by 
     redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8) and by inserting 
     after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Dividends or interest.--There shall be included the 
     amount of any dividends or interest excluded from gross 
     income under section 116.''.
       (9)(A) Subsection (a) of section 854 is amended by 
     inserting ``section 116 (relating to partial exclusion of 
     dividends and interest received by individuals) and'' after 
     ``For purposes of''.
       (B) Paragraph (1) of section 854(b) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' in subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``subparagraphs (A) and (B)'',
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), 
     and
       (iii) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) Exclusion under section 116.--If the aggregate 
     dividends and interest received by a regulated investment 
     company during any taxable year are less than 95 percent of 
     its gross income, then, in computing the exclusion under 
     section 116, rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (A) 
     shall apply.''.
       (C) Paragraph (2) of section 854(b) is amended by inserting 
     ``the exclusion under section 116 and'' after ``for purposes 
     of''.
       (10) Subsection (c) of section 857 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Restrictions Applicable to Dividends Received From 
     Real Estate Investment Trusts.--For purposes of section 116 
     (relating to partial exclusion of dividends and interest 
     received by individuals) and section 243 (relating to 
     deductions for dividends received by corporations), a 
     dividend received from a real estate investment trust which 
     meets the requirements of this part shall not be considered 
     as a dividend.''.
       (11) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 115 the following new item:

``Sec. 116. Partial exclusion of dividends and interest received by 
              individuals.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 553. A bill to help establish and enhance early childhood family 
education programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
creates a competitive grant program modeled on one of Minnesota's 
greatest successes in education, the Early Childhood and Family 
Education program. Let me first mention my gratitude to some of the 
finest educators my home state has to offer--Betty Cooke, Lois 
Engstrom, Jackie Anderson, and Don Kramlinger. I would like to also 
thank Ernie Pines for his vision and spirit and former Minnesota State 
Senator Jerry Hughes, whose vision for early childhood education in the 
sixties has led to stronger families today. Of course, I must also 
thank the many early childhood education coordinators, parent 
educators, teachers and paraprofessionals in our small rural 
communities for reaching from within to give parents and their children 
every opportunity to succeed.
  The ECFE program, which has broad bipartisan support in Minnesota, is 
based on the idea that the family provides a child's first and most 
important learning environment, and parents are a child's first and 
most significant teachers. ECFE is a voluntary, center-based, parent-
child education program that is open to all families in a school 
district or locality with children under the age of 5 regardless of 
cost. It provides concurrent or joint classes for parents and children 
that include training in parenting skills and children's social, 
emotional, cognitive and physical development. The classes teach ways 
for parents to foster strong learning environments for their children 
and ways to help prepare children for kindergarten. They provide 
activities geared toward enhancing children's social, emotional, 
cognitive and physical development and school readiness.
  ECFE is not a child care program, but rather offers parents a few 
hours a week to get the support they need to be better parents and 
teachers for their children through discussion groups, play activities 
for kids, parent-child interactive activities, home visits, early 
screening for health and developmental problems and community resource 
referrals.

  The program addresses the need of all communities and has been 
successful in all communities and with all types of families, whether 
it is dealing with the unique needs of immigrant communities, 
communities of color, suburban communities, first time families, single 
parent families, families with members with disabilities, families with 
a history of abuse and families that for whatever reason, want some 
extra help and support as they try to be the best parents that they 
can.
  The program in Minnesota has been extraordinarily successful. It is 
the largest early childhood program in Minnesota and is now offered in 
districts that together encompass 99 percent of the population of 
infants and toddlers in the state. 44 percent of all young children and 
their families participate in the program.
  Four different studies of outcomes of the ECFE program have all 
concluded that ECFE is effective with all types of families. Benefits 
for children include improved social interactions and relationships, 
improved social skills, increased self confidence and self-esteem, and 
improvement in language and communication skills. For parents, ECFE 
increases the ability to know what is important for children's healthy 
growth and development over time, improves their confidence and leads 
to far higher participation in parental involvement activities in 
elementary school.
  A recent study by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement 
at the United States Department of Education has described the 
Minnesota ECFE program as an example of the type of program that can 
provide children and families with ``continuity and [can] ease the 
critical transition to school.''
  The words of parents probably tell the story the best. One parent 
said, ``when my son throws things, I try to keep it in perspective. I 
no longer yell and slap. I relax and do not push him all the time. I've 
learned different ways to discipline.'' Another said, ``Raising a child 
is a wonderful, awesome and sometimes overwhelming experience. It is a 
shame that a job so important is generally without adequate 
preparation. ECFE provides some of that preparation, knowledge and 
support that is vital to being a good parent. It is not a frill, it is 
a necessity.''

  Recently, I had the opportunity to spend a morning at the South 
Washington County School's ECFE program. There I met with a group of 
parents who were committed to being the best parents they could be. I 
met a father who was learning English, a single mother who was learning 
child raising skills from other mothers in the class, and a new 
immigrant from Korea who talked of the isolation she felt before 
meeting other parents in her community. This program was a model as it 
combined Early Childhood Family Education with Adult Basic Education 
giving parents the tools to not only be great parents, but to learn 
English and obtain their GED as well. These parents told me that ECFE 
was teaching them to better parent their children.
  Last year, the Minnesota Early Care and Education Finance Commission, 
a non-partisan Commission dedicated to improving the lives of young 
children in Minnesota, issued a report called ``The Action Plan for 
Early Care and Education in Minnesota.'' That non-partisan Commission, 
led by Don Fraser, the former Mayor of Minneapolis, and Bob Caddy 
issued a challenge to the people of my state when they unequivocally 
concluded that ``without question, the importance of the parent child 
relationship must be asserted as a

[[Page S2409]]

fundamental moral value of our state.'' They asked for a ``new covenant 
between parents and Minnesota.''
  Today I ask for the same between parents and the United States. The 
need is so clearly established. 40 percent of all American children 
enter kindergarten unprepared for school. This is unacceptable. We know 
that children need to be in a stimulating environment to spur the brain 
development that is critical to intelligence. We know the role that 
parents can play in creating that environment. ECFE will help with 
this.
  We have an obligation to do more for children. The whole debate 
around the elementary and secondary education act and our desire to 
close the achievement gap between poor and more affluent students will 
be moot if we do not intervene early. The achievement gap is greatest 
when children start school. If we want children to have an equal start, 
we have to start with our youngest children. ECFE is not the only 
answer, but it is one way to meet this covenant so aptly called for in 
Minnesota, that we have with our parents and our children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. Murray (for herself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 554. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
expand medicare coverage of certain self-injected biologicals; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Collins, Mikulski, Cantwell, Cochran, and Chafee in 
introducing the Access to Innovation for Medicare Patients Act of 2001. 
This legislation will give Medicare patients access to innovative 
medical treatments that are convenient and affordable and will remove a 
bureaucratic burden to promising new drugs.
  For many years, patients with diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, 
multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C and deep vein thrombosis could only get 
effective treatments in a doctor's office. This method of drug delivery 
puts a great burden on patients with limited mobility.
  Fortunately, in recent years, new medical technologies have created 
promising drug treatments that patients can use in their own homes. 
These drugs don't have to be administered by a doctor. Patients can 
inject the drugs themselves. So instead of traveling to a doctor's 
office several times a week, patients can now get the same treatments 
in their own homes. These new treatments, known as self-injectible 
biologics, mean patients can save time and have a better quality of 
life.
  Biologics are genetically-engineered proteins that must be infused or 
injected into a patient to be effective. If swallowed orally, biologics 
simply pass through the body during the digestion process and are not 
absorbed into the system. These drugs represent a major breakthrough in 
disease treatment and management.
  Today, many patients with private insurance and those on Medicaid 
have coverage for many self-injectible biologics. Unfortunately, 
patients on Medicare do not. Today, Medicare discriminates against 
these effective medical treatments and patients are feeling the impact.
  The time has come to remove this unfair burden and give Medicare 
patients access to self-injectible biologics. As sponsors of this bill, 
we believe that Medicare should not discriminate against patients who 
are treated with the same drugs either in a doctor's office or at home. 
The bill we are introducing today will correct this mistake and ensure 
that Medicare patients have access to safe, promising drugs.
  Our legislation has been endorsed by the Arthritis Foundation, the 
American Public Health Association, National Association of Retired 
Federal Employees, National Council on the Aging, National Farmers 
Union, National Hispanic Council on Aging, Association of Jewish Aging 
Services and the Visiting Nurses Associations of America.
  I want my colleagues to understand that this bill does not address 
the broader need for prescription drug coverage overall. Congress still 
must address that hole in the Medicare system. But this bill does 
correct a clear mistake in Medicare's payment rules for self-
injectible biologics.

  This unfair policy has several consequences. First, it prevents 
patients from getting the treatments they need. The FDA has recently 
approved several new self injected biologics to treat rheumatoid 
arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C and deep vein thrombosis. 
Medicare beneficiaries should have immediate access to these new 
treatments without delay. Many of these diseases hinder a patient's 
mobility and quality of life. It is difficult to explain to these 
patients that in order to have treatments covered they must travel to 
their physicians office once, twice or even three times a week. Many of 
these patients are disabled and depend on family or friends for 
transportation. Patients in rural areas are particularly hurt by this 
policy, where their doctor may be many miles away. These patients might 
have to drive 50 or 60 miles a week. For individuals living on fixed 
income, this policy is especially difficult.
  This outdated policy hits women the hardest. As many of my colleagues 
know, more women are covered by Medicare, and women are twice as likely 
as men to live with a disabling, chronic condition. Women are also 
twice as likely as men to live in poverty after age 65. Older women or 
disabled women simply do not have the same economic resources as men. 
In addition, many of the illnesses that could be treated with self 
injected biologics strike women in larger numbers. Rheumatoid arthritis 
and multiple sclerosis most often affect women. Any policy that limits 
access to new innovative treatments for rheumatoid arthritis and 
multiple sclerosis places women at a severe disadvantage.
  In addition to the impact this policy has on patients, it also affect 
drug development. This practice discourages drug companies from 
offering patients new drugs that are self-injectible. That can hinder 
innovations and developments in biotechnology research. In the future, 
companies may choose not to develop self injected biologics. Our 
policies should promote new drug development, not discourage it.
  As you know, the U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly to doubling NIH 
funding to encourage more research. it's one of my top priorities, and 
we are on track. However, I am troubled that patients on Medicare might 
not benefit from our efforts. It is counterproductive to invest in 
medical research, but then deny Medicare beneficiaries the fruits of 
that investment.
  I would like to briefly mention one particular new self-injected 
biologic treatment that has literally changed the lives of hundreds of 
RA patients. This particular treatment, Enbrel, took well over 10 years 
to develop and bring to patients. Since its introduction, however, it 
has dramatically improved the lives of RA suffers. I have heard from 
many patients about how Enbrel has allowed them to remain productive 
and how it has dramatically reduced their daily pain and suffering. 
Since RA can and does lead to disability, preventing or delaying the 
disabled effects of this disease means huge economic savings for all of 
us. Medicare should not discriminate against this new, patient-friendly 
therapy simply because it is self-injected.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully review this legislation and to talk 
to patients and health providers about how an outdated policy hinders 
access and discourages innovation and how the measure we are 
introducing today can give Medicare patients access to innovative 
drugs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 555. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a 
tolerance for the presence of methylmercury in seafood, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month the Food and Drug Administration 
issued new consumer guidance, warning pregnant women, women of 
childbearing age, nursing mothers, and young children not to eat shark, 
swordfish, king mackerel, and tilefish in order to avoid exposure to 
methylmercury. I commend the FDA

[[Page S2410]]

for issuing this guidance, which is important information for the most 
vulnerable members of our population. Unfortunately, despite 
acknowledging the problem of mercury contamination in large fish, the 
FDA still has not revised its so-called ``action level,'' which is 
important data for consumers and local governments, nor do they enforce 
this level. There is a lot more to be done to protect the public, and 
after so many years of delays, we should not wait any longer.
  That is why Senator Harkin and I are introducing important 
legislation today to promote food safety and protect thousands of 
Americans, especially pregnant women and young children, from the 
serious risks of methylmercury. The ``Mercury-Safe Seafood Act of 
2001'' requires the Food and Drug Administration to establish a formal 
tolerance for safe methylmercury levels in seafood. It mandates seafood 
testing to ensure compliance, along with public education and health 
advisories to inform the public.
  Mercury is a dangerous poison that is still not fully regulated in 
the United States. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 
coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, and other sources spew 150 
tons of mercury into the atmosphere each year. Although new and 
expected EPA rules address much of this pollution, full compliance and 
large emission reductions are still years away. Much of this mercury 
returns to earth with rain to pollute our waterways. It accumulates in 
fish as methylmercury, especially in large predatory species, and is 
passed on to the humans who eat these fish. Methylmercury is a powerful 
neurotoxin that affects the human central nervous system. It is 
especially harmful to pregnant women, infants, and young children, 
where even small doses can cause permanent damage to their developing 
brains and nervous systems.
  Last year's comprehensive report by the National Academy of Sciences, 
``Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury,'' estimates that 60,000 
newborns each year may be at risk from prenatal mercury exposure. Two 
weeks ago, the Centers for Disease Control released preliminary results 
from an ongoing study showing that 10 percent of American women may 
have potentially hazardous levels of mercury. This means that a lot 
more newborns may be at risk. This is a public health problem we cannot 
ignore.
  Certain commercial seafood species--large predators such as 
swordfish, shark, mackerel, and tuna--can have dangerously high levels 
of methylmercury contamination. Food and Drug Administration data 
throughout the 1990's showed numerous fish samples with high mercury 
levels, exceeding FDA's own action level and presenting a direct hazard 
to consumers. FDA stopped testing for mercury in 1998, which means they 
have no way to enforce their action level. Yet recent testing by 
independent organizations still shows high mercury levels in some fish 
species.

  FDA's action level of 1.0 part per million was established in 1979 
using information from the 1970's, without regard for the greater 
vulnerability of pregnant women, infants, and children. More recent 
studies have highlighted the damaging effects of mercury, especially 
for these populations. In 1997, EPA's ``Mercury Study Report to 
Congress'' recommended a level five times more strict than FDA's action 
level, and this was confirmed by last year's National Academy of 
Sciences report. FDA's current action level, even if there were 
sampling and enforcement, is not stringent enough to protect the most 
vulnerable American consumers from mercury.
  Last month the General Accounting Office released a report on seafood 
safety, at the request of Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar. That report 
confirms that FDA has not acted vigorously enough to address the issue 
of mercury in seafood.
  This bill seeks to remedy these problems. It amends the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require a tolerance level for methylmercury 
in seafood, with special attention to pregnant women, infants, and 
children. This will replace FDA's outdated and unenforced action level 
with a formal tolerance that must be enforced. It mandates ongoing 
sampling of mercury levels to ensure compliance. This will restart the 
testing which FDA stopped three years ago. It mandates public education 
and health advisories to ensure the public is aware of the new 
standards and of the risks of mercury contamination in seafood. It 
requires consideration of last year's National Academy of Sciences 
report, which clearly shows the need for prompt, strong action. 
Finally, it authorizes modest appropriations to support not only FDA's 
sampling and public education but also the efforts of our States to 
protect our citizens from methylmercury in freshwater fish.
  I enjoy fishing and I love eating fish. This legislation is not meant 
to harm the fishing industry--it is meant to help bring the safest fish 
to market for the American consumer. Most importantly, this bill will 
protect pregnant women and young children who may now unknowingly be 
exposed to high levels of mercury. No one can dispute the science that 
tells us mercury is toxic and unsafe at certain levels in fish. We need 
to bring those levels down. But, until we do, we also need to keep the 
food supply safe for all Americans--especially those most at risk.
  We have a responsibility to protect the American public, especially 
our children. Until such time as mercury emissions are drastically 
reduced and seafood is no longer contaminated, we must take this action 
to protect Americans from this dangerous pollutant..
  The American Public Health Association has endorsed this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows.

                                 S. 555

       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 ``Mercury-Safe Seafood Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants, waste 
     incinerators, and other anthropogenic sources continues to 
     contaminate inland waterways and territorial waters of the 
     United States;
       (2) mercury accumulates in fish as methylmercury and is 
     passed on to humans that eat those fish;
       (3) methylmercury is a potent neurotoxin that, even in 
     small quantities--
       (A) can cause serious damage to the human central nervous 
     system and adverse effects on many other systems in the human 
     body;
       (B) is especially harmful to pregnant women and young 
     children; and
       (C) puts an estimated 60,000 newborns at risk for adverse 
     neurodevelopmental effects each year in the United States 
     from in utero exposure;
       (4) certain commercial seafood species can have dangerously 
     high levels of methylmercury, as evidenced by Food and Drug 
     Administration data acquired in the 1990's, up to the time 
     that the agency discontinued domestic sampling in 1998;
       (5) the Food and Drug Administration's long-standing action 
     level of 1.0 parts per million for methylmercury in fish--
       (A) is out of date; and
       (B) according to scientific evidence, does not adequately 
     protect pregnant women and young children;
       (6) the comprehensive Mercury Study Report to Congress 
     issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in December 
     1997 recommended a methylmercury consumption limit of 0.1 
     micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, which is 5 
     times lower than the Food and Drug Administration's current 
     action level;
       (7) the report entitled ``Toxicological Effects of 
     Methylmercury'', issued by the National Academy of Sciences 
     in July 2000, confirmed that the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's limit is ``scientifically justifiable for the 
     protection of public health'';
       (8) the report entitled ``Food Safety: Federal Oversight of 
     Seafood Does Not Sufficiently Protect Consumers'', issued by 
     the General Accounting Office in February 2001, highlights 
     the inadequacies of Food and Drug Administration guidance 
     regarding methylmercury in commercial seafood;
       (9) many States have been forced to issue mercury 
     advisories for inland waterways and health warnings regarding 
     the fish that may be caught in those waterways; and
       (10) some States have also issued mercury advisories for 
     commercial seafood.

     SEC. 3. TOLERANCE FOR METHYLMERCURY IN SEAFOOD.

       Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 402(a)(2), by inserting after ``section 512; 
     or'' the following: ``(D) if it is seafood that bears or 
     contains methylmercury that is unsafe within the meaning of 
     section 406A(a); or''; and
       (2) by inserting after section 406 the following:

[[Page S2411]]

     ``SEC. 406A. TOLERANCE FOR METHYLMERCURY IN SEAFOOD.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall by regulation 
     establish a tolerance for the presence of methylmercury in 
     seafood.
       ``(b) Requirements.--The tolerance established under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) be based on a scientific analysis of the health risks 
     attributable to methylmercury; and
       ``(2) be set at a level for which the Secretary determines 
     that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
     from aggregate exposure to methylmercury in seafood, 
     including all anticipated dietary exposures for which there 
     is reliable information.
       ``(c) Seafood Deemed Unsafe.--Any seafood bearing or 
     containing methylmercury shall be deemed to be unsafe for 
     purposes of section 402(a)(2)(D) unless the quantity of 
     methylmercury is within the limits of the tolerance.
       ``(d) Pregnant Women, Infants, and Children.--In 
     establishing or modifying the tolerance under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall ensure that there is a reasonable 
     certainty that no harm will result to pregnant women, 
     infants, and children from aggregate exposure to 
     methylmercury.
       ``(e) Sampling System.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall 
     establish a system for the collection and analysis of samples 
     of seafood to determine the extent of compliance with the 
     tolerance under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Monitoring.--The sampling system shall provide 
     statistically valid monitoring (including market-basket 
     studies) with respect to compliance with the tolerance.
       ``(3) Avoidance of duplication of effort.--To the extent 
     practicable, the sampling system shall be consistent with, 
     and shall be coordinated with, other seafood sampling systems 
     that are in use, so as to avoid duplication of effort.
       ``(f) Public Education and Advisory System.--
       ``(1) Public education.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     private and public organizations (including cooperative 
     extension services and appropriate State entities) shall 
     design and implement a national public education program 
     regarding the presence of methylmercury in seafood.
       ``(2) Features.--The program shall provide--
       ``(A) information to the public regarding--
       ``(i) Federal standards and good practice requirements; and
       ``(ii) promotion of public awareness, understanding, and 
     acceptance of the standards and requirements;
       ``(B) information to health professionals so that health 
     professionals may improve diagnosis and treatment of mercury-
     related illness and advise individuals whose health 
     conditions place those individuals at particular risk; and
       ``(C) such other information or advice to consumers and 
     other persons as the Secretary determines will promote the 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(3) Health advisories.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, shall work with the 
     States and other appropriate entities to--
       ``(A) develop and distribute regional and national 
     advisories concerning the presence of methylmercury in 
     seafood;
       ``(B) develop standardized formats for written and 
     broadcast advisories regarding methylmercury in seafood; and
       ``(C) incorporate State and local advisories into the 
     national public education program under paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 4. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF NATIONAL ACADEMY OF 
                   SCIENCES.

       In carrying out section 406A(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (as added by section 3), the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of 
     Food and Drugs, shall consider the findings of the National 
     Academy of Sciences regarding the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's recommended level for methylmercury exposure and the 
     presence of methylmercury in seafood, as such findings are 
     described in the report issued by the National Academy of 
     Sciences in July 2000.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Sampling.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out sampling under section 406A(e) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by section 3) $500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
       (b) Public Education and Advisory System.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to develop and implement the 
     public education and advisory system under section 406A(f) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by section 
     3) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
       (c) State Support.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     support efforts of the States to sample noncommercial fish 
     and inland waterways for mercury and to produce State-
     specific health advisories related to mercury $2,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
       (2) Equitable distribution.--The Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall distribute amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1) equitably among the States 
     through programs in existence on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 6. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the progress of the 
     Secretary in establishing the tolerance required by section 
     406A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by 
     section 3).
       (b) Contents.--The report shall include a description of 
     the research that has been conducted or reviewed with respect 
     to the tolerance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Schumer, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Mr. Reed, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 556. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from 
electric powerplants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am here to announce the 
introduction of the Clean Power Act of 2001 which reduces emissions 
from power plants of the four primary air pollutants. These four 
pollutants, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and carbon 
dioxide are the major cause of the nation's most serious public health 
and environmental problems: smog, soot, acid rain, mercury 
contamination, and global warming. The Clean Power Act set standards 
for these four serious pollutants that are both cost-effective and 
technologically feasible.
  The 1970 Clean Air Act, and its subsequent amendments, were enacted 
to improve the quality of our nation's air. This was a major milestone 
in environmental legislation. I was proud to be one of the principle 
negotiators of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Those were 
important steps to take to improve the quality of our Nation's air and 
since that time we have made significant headway in that direction. 
Although current legislation sets standards for nitrogen oxides and 
sulfur dioxide, they are at levels that we now know are far too high to 
protect us from the devastating effects of resulting smog, acid rain, 
and increased respiratory disease. Currently, there is no standard for 
carbon dioxide pollution, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for 
global warming, and no standard for mercury emissions, a dangerous 
pollutant linked to cognitive and developmental ailments in children 
and responsible for fish advisories in forty states. Therefore, there 
is still much to be done to protect the quality of our nation's air and 
now is the time to take the next step.
  Electric generating power plants are our nation's single largest 
source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Annual power 
plants emissions are responsible for 64 percent of the nation's sulfur 
dioxide, or 13 million tons, 26 percent of the nitrogen oxides, or 6 
million tons, 40 percent of the carbon dioxide, that's over 2 billion 
tons, and 52 tons of mercury.
  Updating electric power plants represent the most cost-effective way 
to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Many of the 
most polluting power plants were exempt from stringent controls imposed 
by the original Clean Air Act and today, after more than 30 years, they 
are still in use. As a result, these outdated power plants can emit 
between 10 and 100 times the amount of nitrogen oxides and sulfur 
dioxide pollution emitted by a modern power plant.
  Sulfur dioxide fine particle pollution for U.S. power plants cuts 
short the lives of over 30,000 people each year. Ground-level ozone 
smog triggers over 6.2 million asthma attacks each summer in the 
eastern United States alone; another 160,000 people are sent to the 
emergency room and 53,000 are hospitalized due to smog induced 
respiratory distress. The National Academy of Sciences' National 
Research Council has concluded that over 60,000 children are born in 
the U.S. each year at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental effects due 
to in utero exposure to mercury. Over forty states have issued fish 
consumption advisories to mitigate this threat. Power plants are our 
nation's largest unregulated source of mercury emissions.
  Fortunately, we now have technologies available that will permit

[[Page S2412]]

power plants to reach the levels set in the Clean Power Act. The 
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury reductions are set at 
levels in the Clean Power Act that are known to be cost effective with 
available technologies. The Clean Power Act will allow power plants to 
use market-oriented mechanisms in order to reach these much needed 
emissions standards for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and carbon 
dioxide. Therefore, with new technologies at our disposal and trading 
mechanisms providing flexibility to the utilities, we no longer need to 
compromise the health of our great nation; neither it's citizens nor 
it's environment. We only need the will to act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman).
  S. 557. A bill to clarify the tax treatment of payments made under 
the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a simple bill that stands for 
the proposition that when the Federal Government burns your house down 
it is not a taxable event.
  I can't believe any member of this chamber would argue that the 
Federal Government is so hard up for revenue that it would try to tax 
the very payment that it makes to someone whose home, business, and 
community it burned down.
  Let me summarize the events:
  The Park Service decided to start a fire--a so-called ``controlled 
burn.''
  The Park Service didn't follow its own guidelines regarding when it 
is safe to conduct a controlled burn.
  They lit a fire when the rules were clear that they shouldn't.
  The fire raged out of control and burned 48,000 acres.
  It burned down hundreds of homes, and businesses.
  No dispute that this fire should never have been set.
  Congress passed a bill to compensate the victims for their losses.
  When Congress passed the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act we were 
assured that the FEMA payments to the victims of the Cerro Grande Fire 
would not be taxed under current law.
  Well, apparently there are some in the IRS who now have a different 
view.
  While it only took Congress 50 days from the day the fire was lit to 
the day legislation creating the claims process was signed into law, it 
has taken the IRS at least seven months to answer pretty basic 
questions, and the best they can offer is that people have extra time 
to file their income taxes.
  These victims should be paid. They should rebuild their lives and the 
IRS shouldn't be trying to tax the payments that are intended to put 
them back to the same place they were on the day before the Park 
Service lit the fire.
  I hope my colleagues will support me in expeditiously passing this 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCain (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Baucus, 
        and Mr. Campbell):
  S. 558. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax credits for investment in Indian reservation economic development, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation, 
along with my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Inouye, Baucus and 
Campbell, to foster economic investment, development, and growth in 
Native American communities. This legislation would establish 
investment tax credits that will serve to attract private sector 
investments on Indian reservations.
  As a nation, the United States ranks third in entrepreneurial 
activity among the world's leading economies. The level of 
entrepreneurial activity in the country remains strong despite recent 
fluctuations in the market. However, what also remains are deep pockets 
of poverty in our country that have not substantially improved along 
with the economic growth that has swept the rest of our Nation, and 
those areas include Native American reservations.
  During my tenure in the Congress, I have worked on various 
legislative initiatives to help Indian tribes address the problems and 
barriers they face in attracting private sector activity onto 
reservation areas. Indian country, both historically and at the present 
time, cannot successfully compete with other areas in attracting 
businesses due to the unique issues affecting Indian country, such as 
jurisdictional complexities, taxation, and infrastructure deficits. 
Most Indian communities continue to struggle to provide basic jobs, 
infrastructure, housing and telephone service to tribal members.
  Some of my colleagues might only be aware of the handful of Indian 
tribes that have been successful in generating economic revenues 
through gaming activities. However, for the majority of Indian tribes, 
the main economic activity is the kind generated by federal or tribal 
government employment. I understand why this is the case, but I also 
believe that free enterprise must be allowed to flow freely on Indian 
lands as it does in the rest of our nation.
  By their very nature, governments, including tribal governments, 
simply are not good at running businesses. I know this is acknowledged 
by many tribes, who, consistent with their cultural traditions, have 
created tribal corporations or cooperative ventures that mix private 
sector business with tribal principles. I believe that private 
investment needs to be encouraged on Indian reservations if we are to 
see a significant improvement in the economies of Indian tribes.
  The investment tax credits we are proposing today are geared 
specifically to Indian reservations where there is economic need. The 
full credit is available to those reservations whose Indian 
unemployment rate exceeds the Nation's average unemployment by 300 
percent. One-half of the credit is available on reservations where the 
unemployment rate is 150 to 300 percent of the national average. No 
investment tax credit is provided where the Indian unemployment rate is 
less than 150 percent of the national average. The bill is restricted 
to non-gaming related economic activity, which would prevent the 
investment from being used for development and/or operation of gaming 
establishments on Indian reservations.
  While this legislation may not be the panacea for all the economic 
ills afflicting Indian reservations today, I believe that the adoption 
of a specific program of Indian tax incentives would be a critical step 
toward the goal of providing Indian tribal governments with the 
opportunity to strengthen their economies.
  In previous Congresses, I have offered amendments to the federal tax 
code to create incentives for private sector investment on Indian 
reservations and remove inequities in the tax code so that tribal 
governments can enjoy the same tax benefits accorded other nontaxable 
government entities. I have offered these provisions, not to provide an 
advantage to Indians, but merely to give them the same kind of tax 
incentives and benefits the Congress has given other economically 
depressed areas and other units of government. We have been successful 
in enacting a few measures, but given the extremely underdeveloped 
economies of Native American communities, I believe we should enact 
these additional tax incentives.
  My colleagues and I are sponsoring this measure today because we 
believe these investment tax credits are necessary to reach out to 
those tribal communities that do not have the economic advantage of 
living near a booming metropolitan area, or do not enjoy the benefits 
of Indian gaming revenue. We believe that a strategy of tax incentives 
such as this legislation proposes is the most effective way that the 
federal government can act to stimulate reservation economic 
development. Tax incentives do not depend for their effectiveness on 
the actions of federal bureaucracies that are often slow-moving and 
unimaginative. The incentives are usable only by viable businesses 
ready and able to invest in Indian communities, which will consequently 
foster a strong entrepreneurial environment on Native American 
reservations.
  I look forward to working with my respective colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to enact this important legislation. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 558

       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 ``Indian Reservation Economic 
     Investment Act of 2001''.

[[Page S2413]]

     SEC. 2. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT FOR PROPERTY ON INDIAN 
                   RESERVATIONS.

       (a) Allowance of Indian Reservation Credit.--Section 46 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to investment 
     credits) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (3) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding after paragraph 
     (3) the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) the Indian reservation credit.''.
       (b) Amount of Indian Reservation Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 48 of such Code (relating to the 
     energy credit and the reforestation credit) is amended by 
     adding after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Indian Reservation Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 46, the Indian 
     reservation credit for any taxable year is the Indian 
     reservation percentage of the qualified investment in 
     qualified Indian reservation property placed in service 
     during such taxable year, determined in accordance with the 
     following table:

The Indian reservation percentage is--reservation property which is--
  Reservation personal property..................................10....

  New reservation construction property..........................15....

  Reservation infrastructure investment..........................15....

       ``(2) Qualified investment in qualified indian reservation 
     property defined.--For purposes of this subpart--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified Indian reservation 
     property' means property--
       ``(i) which is--

       ``(I) reservation personal property;
       ``(II) new reservation construction property; or
       ``(III) reservation infrastructure investment; and

       ``(ii) not acquired (directly or indirectly) by the 
     taxpayer from a person who is related to the taxpayer (within 
     the meaning of section 465(b)(3)(C)).

     The term `qualified Indian reservation property' does not 
     include any property (or any portion thereof) placed in 
     service for purposes of conducting or housing class I, II, or 
     III gaming (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).
       ``(B) Qualified investment.--The term `qualified 
     investment' means--
       ``(i) in the case of reservation infrastructure investment, 
     the amount expended by the taxpayer for the acquisition or 
     construction of the reservation infrastructure investment; 
     and
       ``(ii) in the case of all other qualified Indian 
     reservation property, the taxpayer's basis for such property.
       ``(C) Reservation personal property.--The term `reservation 
     personal property' means qualified personal property which is 
     used by the taxpayer predominantly in the active conduct of a 
     trade or business within an Indian reservation. Property 
     shall not be treated as `reservation personal property' if it 
     is used or located outside the Indian reservation on a 
     regular basis.
       ``(D) Qualified personal property.--The term `qualified 
     personal property' means property--
       ``(i) for which depreciation is allowable under section 
     168;
       ``(ii) which is not--

       ``(I) nonresidential real property;
       ``(II) residential rental property; or
       ``(III) real property which is not described in subclause 
     (I) or (II) and which has a class life of more than 12.5 
     years.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, the terms `nonresidential 
     real property', `residential rental property', and `class 
     life' have the respective meanings given such terms by 
     section 168.
       ``(E) New reservation construction property.--The term `new 
     reservation construction property' means qualified real 
     property--
       ``(i) which is located in an Indian reservation;
       ``(ii) which is used by the taxpayer predominantly in the 
     active conduct of a trade or business within an Indian 
     reservation; and
       ``(iii) which is originally placed in service by the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(F) Qualified real property.--The term `qualified real 
     property' means property for which depreciation is allowable 
     under section 168 and which is described in subclause (I), 
     (II), or (III) of subparagraph (D)(ii).
       ``(G) Reservation infrastructure investment.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `reservation infrastructure 
     investment' means qualified personal property or qualified 
     real property which--

       ``(I) benefits the tribal infrastructure;
       ``(II) is available to the general public; and
       ``(III) is placed in service in connection with the 
     taxpayer's active conduct of a trade or business within an 
     Indian reservation.

       ``(ii) Property may be located outside the reservation.--
     Qualified personal property and qualified real property used 
     or located outside an Indian reservation shall be reservation 
     infrastructure investment only if its purpose is to connect 
     to existing tribal infrastructure in the reservation, and 
     shall include, but not be limited to, roads, power lines, 
     water systems, railroad spurs, and communications facilities.
       ``(H) Coordination with other credits.--The term `qualified 
     Indian reservation property' shall not include any property 
     with respect to which the energy credit or the rehabilitation 
     credit is allowed.
       ``(3) Real estate rentals.--For purposes of this section, 
     the rental to others of real property located within an 
     Indian reservation shall be treated as the active conduct of 
     a trade or business in an Indian reservation.
       ``(4) Indian reservation defined.--For purposes of this 
     subpart, the term `Indian reservation' means--
       ``(A) a reservation, as defined in section 4(10) of the 
     Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1903(10)), or
       ``(B) lands held under the provisions of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) by a Native 
     corporation as defined in section 3(m) of such Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1602(m)).
       ``(5) Limitation based on unemployment.--
       ``(A) General rule.--The Indian reservation credit allowed 
     under section 46 for any taxable year shall equal--
       ``(i) if the Indian unemployment rate on the applicable 
     Indian reservation for which the credit is sought exceeds 300 
     percent of the national average unemployment rate at any time 
     during the calendar year in which the property is placed in 
     service or during the immediately preceding 2 calendar years, 
     100 percent of such credit;
       ``(ii) if such Indian unemployment rate exceeds 150 percent 
     but not 300 percent, 50 percent of such credit; and
       ``(iii) if such Indian unemployment rate does not exceed 
     150 percent, 0 percent of such credit.
       ``(B) Special rule for large projects.--In the case of a 
     qualified Indian reservation property which has (or is a 
     component of a project which has) a projected construction 
     period of more than 2 years or a cost of more than 
     $1,000,000, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting 
     `during the earlier of the calendar year in which the 
     taxpayer enters into a binding agreement to make a qualified 
     investment or the first calendar year in which the taxpayer 
     has expended at least 10 percent of the taxpayer's qualified 
     investment, or the preceding calendar year' for `during the 
     calendar year in which the property is placed in service or 
     during the immediately preceding 2 calendar years'.
       ``(C) Determination of indian unemployment.--For purposes 
     of this paragraph, with respect to any Indian reservation, 
     the Indian unemployment rate shall be based upon Indians 
     unemployed and able to work, and shall be certified by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(6) Coordination with nonrevenue laws.--Any reference in 
     this subsection to a provision not contained in this title 
     shall be treated for purposes of this subsection as a 
     reference to such provision as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph.''.
       (2) Lodging to qualify.--Paragraph (2) of section 50(b) of 
     such Code (relating to property used for lodging) is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by 
     striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and 
     inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the following 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) new reservation construction property.''.
       (c) Recapture.--Subsection (a) of section 50 of such Code 
     (relating to recapture in case of dispositions, etc.), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Special rules for indian reservation property.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, during any taxable year, property 
     with respect to which the taxpayer claimed an Indian 
     reservation credit--
       ``(i) is disposed of; or
       ``(ii) in the case of reservation personal property--

       ``(I) otherwise ceases to be investment credit property 
     with respect to the taxpayer; or
       ``(II) is removed from the Indian reservation, converted, 
     or otherwise ceases to be Indian reservation property,

     the tax under this chapter for such taxable year shall be 
     increased by the amount described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Amount of increase.--The increase in tax under 
     subparagraph (A) shall equal the aggregate decrease in the 
     credits allowed under section 38 by reason of section 48(c) 
     for all prior taxable years which would have resulted had the 
     qualified investment taken into account with respect to the 
     property been limited to an amount which bears the same ratio 
     to the qualified investment with respect to such property as 
     the period such property was held by the taxpayer bears to 
     the applicable recovery period under section 168(g).
       ``(C) Coordination with other recapture provisions.--In the 
     case of property to which this paragraph applies, paragraph 
     (1) shall not apply and the rules of paragraphs (3), (4), and 
     (5) shall apply.''.
       (d) Basis Adjustment To Reflect Investment Credit.--
     Paragraph (3) of section 50(c) of such Code (relating to 
     basis adjustment to investment credit property) is amended by 
     striking ``energy credit or reforestation credit'' and 
     inserting ``energy credit, reforestation credit, or Indian 
     reservation credit other than with respect to any expenditure 
     for new reservation construction property''.
       (e) Certain Governmental Use Property To Qualify.--
     Paragraph (4) of section 50(b) of such Code (relating to 
     property used by governmental units or foreign persons or 
     entities) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and 
     (E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) Exception for reservation infrastructure 
     investment.--This paragraph

[[Page S2414]]

     shall not apply for purposes of determining the Indian 
     reservation credit with respect to reservation infrastructure 
     investment.''.
       (f) Application of At-Risk Rules.--Subparagraph (C) of 
     section 49(a)(1) of such Code is amended by striking ``and'' 
     at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end 
     of clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the 
     end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) the qualified investment in qualified Indian 
     reservation property.''.
       (g) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 48 of such Code is amended by striking the 
     heading and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 48. ENERGY CREDIT; REFORESTATION CREDIT; INDIAN 
                   RESERVATION CREDIT.''.

       (2) The table of sections for subpart E of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 48 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 48. Energy credit; reforestation credit; Indian reservation 
              credit.''.

       (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 559. A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I realize that I am not going out on a 
limb here, but I want to say this: I support Campaign Finance Reform. 
To that end, today I am introducing the Campaign Finance Integrity Act 
of 2001.
  My bill would:

       Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their 
     contributions from individuals in the state or district in 
     which they are running.
       Equalize contributions from individuals and political 
     action committees, PACs, by raising the individual limit from 
     $1000 to $2500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5000 to 
     $2500.
       Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation.
       Reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by 
     allowing political party committees to match dollar for 
     dollar the personal contribution of a candidate above $5000.
       Require corporations and labor organizations to seek 
     separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, 
     initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for 
     political activity, and requires annual full disclosure of 
     those activities to members and shareholders.
       Prohibit depositing an individual contribution by a 
     campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are 
     reported.
       Encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing 
     of reports by fax machines and other emerging technologies 
     and to make that information accessible to the public on the 
     Internet less than 24 hours of receipt.
       Ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings.

  This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate 
back into his district or state to raise money from individual 
contributions. It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure 
requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or 
the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the 
best disinfectant.
  The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what 
they want in a political campaign is preserved--but the right of the 
public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is 
also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own 
decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely 
information.

                          ____________________