[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3437-S3453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Corzine)
  S. 687. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 
higher education more affordable by providing a tax deduction for 
higher education expenses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Higher 
Education Affordability and Fairness Act.
  It is easy to forget that less than ten years ago this nation faced 
an endless stream of budget deficits. Today, through fiscal 
responsibility and the hard work and sacrifice of the American people, 
an unprecedented budget surplus has taken the place of annual deficits.
  Clearly, there are many priorities to be addressed with this good 
fortune. The time has come to ease the tax burden on the American 
public through a reduction in tax rates. We must reserve a portion of 
the surplus for necessary investments in education, a prescription drug 
benefit, as well as a continuation of the progress we have made in 
reducing the national debt. Among those priorities we must include 
programs and policies to increase the affordability of a college 
education. I believe that this can be done through expanding tax 
credits and making college tuition tax deductible.
  A college degree is becoming a prerequisite for the advanced skills 
that have become necessary in this global, information-based economy. 
And financially, a college education is integral to achieving middle-
class earning power. In 1999, the average male college graduate earned 
90 percent more than the average male high school graduate. In the late 
1970's the difference in pay was only 50 percent.
  While the benefits and the need of higher education have increased, 
so, too have the costs. In the last decade, the cost of sending a child 
to college has increased 40 percent, nearly two and a half times the 
rate of inflation.
  Too often, the struggle to send a child to college consumes the 
budget of working families. In New Jersey, families spend anywhere from 
30 to 50 percent of their incomes on college expenses, leaving little 
for the mortgage, medical bills, long-term care for a parent, or even a 
car payment.

[[Page S3438]]

  In years past, Congress has sought to address college affordability 
by providing a HOPE Scholarship tax credit of up to $1,500 for the 
first two years of expenses and a Lifetime Learning tax credit of up to 
$1,000 for the third and fourth years as well as for graduate school. 
For low-income families, Congress has increased funding to $8.75 
billion for Pell grants, a need-based grant program that will help send 
four million Americans to college this year.
  But more can and should be done.
  Under existing law, taxpayers cannot deduct higher education expenses 
from their taxes, unless the expenses meet a very narrow definition as 
``work-related''. In addition, families living in high cost states like 
New Jersey or California do not receive the same benefits as those 
living in lower cost states because of unfair income limitations. 
Finally, a family who invests in an Education IRA cannot use the 
savings for a child's college education and also receive the benefits 
of the HOPE or Lifetime Learning tax credits. Today, I am introducing 
the Higher Education Affordability and Fairness Act, HEAFA, to address 
these issues.
  HEAFA would allow families who take the HOPE tax credit to deduct up 
to the next $8,000 in tuition expenses not covered by the credit, 
capping the deduction at $15,000 in tuition expenses in one year if a 
family has more than one child in college. Families ineligible for the 
Hope Scholarship, due to its income limitations, would be able to 
deduct $5,000 of tuition costs.
  The bill would also increase the Lifetime Learning credit to 20 
percent of $10,000 of tuition, from the current 20 percent of $5,000, 
and provide families with the choice of taking either the credit or a 
deduction on up to $10,000 of tuition, $5,000 if a family earns more 
than $120,000 a year.
  HEAFA would raise the phase-out limit for the HOPE credit to $60,000 
for singles and $120,000 for couples, allowing more families to 
benefit.
  In order to ensure that savings go to the intended beneficiaries, 
families and students, the bill directs an annual study to examine 
whether the federal income tax incentives to provide education 
assistance affect higher education tuition rates.
  Finally, to address the needs of low-income families, the bill 
expresses the sense of the Senate that the maximum annual Pell Grant 
should be increased to $4,700 per student.
  With so many families struggling today to pay their mortgages, afford 
the high cost of prescription drugs and contribute to the long-term 
care of their parents, helping families better afford college is the 
least we can do.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 690. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
expand and improve coverage of mental health services under the 
medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the 
Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act, a bill to improve the 
delivery of mental health services through the Medicare health care 
system. This improvement and modernization of mental health services in 
the Medicare system is long overdue. It has remained virtually 
unchanged since it was enacted by Congress in 1965. In the 36 years 
since then, the scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of mental 
illnesses and the vast improvements in medications and other effective 
treatments have dramatically changed our understanding and treatment of 
mental illness. Yet, the health care systems, both public and private, 
lag behind in the treatment of this potentially life-threatening 
disease. As we work to improve health care for all Americans, in all 
health care systems, the ever-growing population of older Americans 
make it all the more urgent that we bring the Medicare system into the 
21st century, and bring mental health care to those in need.
  Though often undetected and untreated, mental health problems among 
the elderly are widespread and life-threatening. Americans aged 65 
years and older have the highest rate of suicide of any population in 
the United States. Sadly, these suicide rates increase with age. While 
this age group accounts for just 13 percent of the U.S. population, 
Americans 65 and older account for 20 percent of all suicide deaths. 
All too often, depression among the elderly is ignored or 
inappropriately treated. This disease, and other illnesses such as 
Alzheimer's disease, anxiety and late-life schizophrenia, can lead to 
severe impairment or death.
  Major depression is strikingly prevalent among older people, with 
between 8 and 20 percent of older people in community-based studies 
showing symptoms of depression. Studies of patients in primary care 
settings show that up to 37 percent report such symptoms, although they 
often go untreated. Depression is not a ``normal'' part of aging, but a 
serious, debilitating disease. Almost 20 percent of individuals age 55 
and older experience a serious mental disorder. What is most alarming 
is that most elderly suicide victims, 70 percent, have visited their 
primary care doctor in the month prior to their completed suicide. It 
is critical that the mental health expertise be provided within the 
Medicare system, and that screening, diagnosis, and treatment be 
provided in a timely manner.
  Despite this need, Medicare coverage for mental health services is 
much more expensive for elderly patients than coverage for other 
outpatient services. In order to receive mental health care, seniors 
must pay, out of their own pockets, 50 percent of the cost of a visit 
to their mental health specialist, an extremely unfair burden to 
place on the elderly, who are so often facing other health or life 
difficulties as well. For all other health care services, the copayment 
for Medicare participants is 20 percent, not 50 percent.

  We know that substance abuse, particularly of alcohol and 
prescription drugs, among adults 65 and older is one of the fastest 
growing health problems in the United States. With seventeen percent of 
this age group suffers from addiction or substance abuse. While 
addiction often goes undetected and untreated among older adults, aging 
and disability only makes the body more vulnerable to the effects of 
these drugs, further exacerbating underlying health problems, and 
creating a serious need for treatment that recognizes these 
vulnerabilities.
  Medicare also provides health care coverage for non-elderly 
individuals who are disabled, through Social Security Disability 
Insurance, SSDI. According to the Health Care Financing Agency, HCFA, 
Medicare is the primary health care coverage for the 5 million non-
elderly, disabled people on SSDI. More than 20 percent of these 
individuals have a diagnosis of mental illness and/or addiction, and 
also face severe discrimination in their mental health coverage.
  What will this bill do? The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act 
has several important components. First, the bill reduces the 50 
percent copayment for mental health care to 20 percent, which makes the 
copayment equal to every other outpatient service in Medicare. This is 
straightforward, fair, and the right thing to do. By doing so, this 
provision will increase access to mental health care overall, 
especially for those who currently forego seeking treatment and find 
themselves suffering from worsening mental health conditions. Second, 
the bill adds intensive residential services to the Medicare mental 
health benefit package. This provision will give people suffering from 
diseases such as schizophrenia or Alzheimer's disease an alternative to 
going to nursing homes. Instead, they will be able to be cared for in 
their homes or in more appropriate residential settings. I also ask the 
Secretary for Health and Human Services to conduct a study of the 
current Medicare coverage criteria to determine the extent to which 
people with these forms of illnesses are receiving the appropriate care 
that is needed.
  Finally, my bill expands the number of mental health professionals 
eligible to provide services through Medicare to include clinical 
social workers and licensed professional mental health counselors. 
Provision of adequate mental health services provided through Medicare 
requires more trained and experienced providers for the aging and 
growing population and should include those who are appropriately 
licensed and qualified to deliver such care.
  These changes are needed now. The bill enjoys the strong support of 
many mental health groups including, among others, the National 
Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Mental Health Association, 
theAmerican Psychological Association, the National

[[Page S3439]]

Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social 
Workers, the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, the Bazelon 
Center for Mental Health Law, the International Association of 
Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services, the American Counseling 
Association, the American Mental Health Counselors Association, the 
Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Health, the American Association 
of Marriage and Family Therapists, the National Association of 
Psychiatric Health Systems, the American Association of Pastoral 
Counselors, the Association for the Advancement of Psychology, the 
National Association of County Behavioral Health Directors, the 
Tourette Syndrome Association, the National Association of Anorexia 
Nervosa and Associated Disorders, the Suicide Prevention and Advocacy 
Network, the Suicide Awareness/Voices of Education organization, the 
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Association of 
Suicidology, the Kristin Brooks Hope Center, the The National Hopeline 
Network 1-800-SUICIDE, the Suicide Prevention Services of Illinois, and 
the National Resource Center for Suicide Prevention and Aftercare. I 
commend these organizations and the American Psychiatric Association 
for their leadership role in fighting for improved mental health care 
coverage for seniors under Medicare.

  U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher recognized the urgency of the 
problems with Medicare in his recent reports on mental health: ``Mental 
Health: A Report of the Surgeon General'' and ``The Surgeon General's 
Call to Action to Prevent Suicide''. Dr. Satcher stated, ``Disability 
due to mental illness in individuals over 65 years old will become a 
major public health problem in the near future because of demographic 
changes. In particular, dementia, depression and schizophrenia, among 
other conditions, will all present special problems for this age 
group.'' Dr. Satcher also underscored the life-threatening nature of 
this problem. He noted that the rate of major clinical depression and 
the incidence of suicide among senior citizens is alarmingly high. This 
report cites that about one-half of patients relocated to nursing homes 
from the community are at greater risk for depression. At the same 
time, the Surgeon General emphasizes that depression ``is not well-
recognized or treated in primary care settings,'' and calls attention 
to the alarming fact that older people have the highest rates of 
suicide in the U.S. population. Contrary to what is widely believed, 
suicide rates actually increase with age, and, as the Surgeon General 
points out, ``depression is a foremost risk factor for suicide in older 
adults.''
  Clearly, our nation must take steps to ensure that mental health care 
is easily and readily available under the Medicare program. The 
Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2001 takes an important 
first step in that direction. It is time to take this potential fatal 
illness seriously. I believe we must do everything we can to make 
effective treatments available in a timely manner for older adults and 
others covered by Medicare, and help prevent relapse and recurrence 
once mental illness is diagnosed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill as we begin our work in 
this new century. It is time to treat the elderly in our society, 
particularly those with serious, debilitating diseases, with the care, 
respect and fairness they deserve. 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. 690

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) In General.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare 
     Mental Health Modernization Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

        TITLE I--ESTABLISHING PARITY FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Sec. 101. Elimination of lifetime limit on inpatient mental health 
              services.
Sec. 102. Parity in treatment for outpatient mental health services.

 TITLE II--EXPANDING COVERAGE OF COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Sec. 201. Coverage of intensive residential services.
Sec. 202. Coverage of intensive outpatient services.

  TITLE III--IMPROVING BENEFICIARY ACCESS TO MEDICARE-COVERED SERVICES

Sec. 301. Excluding clinical social worker services from coverage under 
              the medicare skilled nursing facility prospective payment 
              system and consolidated payment.
Sec. 302. Coverage of marriage and family therapist services.
Sec. 303. Coverage of mental health counselor services.
Sec. 304. Study of coverage criteria for Alzheimer's disease and 
              related mental illnesses.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Older people have the highest rate of suicide of any 
     population in the United States, and the suicide rate of that 
     population increases with age, with individuals 65 and older 
     accounting for 20 percent of all suicide deaths in the United 
     States, while comprising only 13 percent of the population of 
     the United States.
       (2) Disability due to mental illness in individuals over 65 
     years old will become a major public health problem in the 
     near future because of demographic changes. In particular, 
     dementia, depression, schizophrenia, among other conditions, 
     will all present special problems for this age group.
       (3) Major depression is strikingly prevalent among older 
     people, with between 8 and 20 percent of older people in 
     community studies and up to 37 percent of those seen in 
     primary care settings experiencing symptoms of depression.
       (4) Almost 20 percent of the population of individuals age 
     55 and older, experience specific mental disorders that are 
     not part of normal aging.
       (5) Unrecognized and untreated depression, Alzheimer's 
     disease, anxiety, late-life schizophrenia, and other mental 
     conditions can be severely impairing and may even be fatal.
       (6) Substance abuse, particularly the abuse of alcohol and 
     prescription drugs, among adults 65 and older is one of the 
     fastest growing health problems in the United States, with 17 
     percent of this age group suffering from addiction or 
     substance abuse. While addiction often goes undetected and 
     untreated among older adults, aging and disability makes the 
     body more vulnerable to the effects of alcohol and drugs, 
     further exacerbating other age-related health problems. 
     Medicare coverage for addiction treatment of the elderly 
     needs to recognize these special vulnerabilities.
       (7) The disabled are another population receiving 
     inadequate mental health care through medicare. According to 
     the Health Care Financing Administration, medicare is the 
     primary health care coverage for the 5,000,000 non-elderly, 
     disabled people on Social Security Disability Insurance. Up 
     to 40 percent of these individuals have a diagnosis of mental 
     illness.
       (8) The current medicare benefit structure discriminates 
     against the millions of Americans who suffer from mental 
     illness and maintains an outdated bias toward institutionally 
     based service delivery. According to the report of the 
     Surgeon General on mental health for 1999, intensive 
     outpatient services, such as psychiatric rehabilitation and 
     assertive community treatment, represent state-of-the-art 
     mental health services. These evidence-based community 
     support services help people with psychiatric disabilities 
     improve their ability to function in the community and reduce 
     hospitalization rates by 30 to 60 percent, even for people 
     with the most severe mental illnesses.

        TITLE I--ESTABLISHING PARITY FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

     SEC. 101. ELIMINATION OF LIFETIME LIMIT ON INPATIENT MENTAL 
                   HEALTH SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1812 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2); and
       (C) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (2) by striking subsection (c).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 102. PARITY IN TREATMENT FOR OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1833 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395l) is amended by striking subsection (c).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2002.

 TITLE II--EXPANDING COVERAGE OF COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

     SEC. 201. COVERAGE OF INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL SERVICES.

       (a) Coverage Under Part A.--Section 1812(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395d(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and

[[Page S3440]]

       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) intensive residential services (as defined in section 
     1861(ww)) furnished to an individual for up to 120 days 
     during any calendar year, except that such services may be 
     furnished to the individual for additional days (not to 
     exceed 20 days) during the year if necessary for the 
     individual to complete a course of treatment.''.
       (b) Services Described.--Section 1861 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x), as amended by sections 102(b) 
     and 105(b) 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 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:

                    ``Intensive Residential Services

       ``(ww)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term 
     `intensive residential services' means a program of 
     residential services (described in paragraph (2)) that is--
       ``(A) prescribed by a physician for an individual entitled 
     to benefits under part A who is under the care of the 
     physician; and
       ``(B) furnished under the supervision of a physician 
     pursuant to an individualized, written plan of treatment 
     established and periodically reviewed by a physician (in 
     consultation with appropriate staff participating in such 
     services), which plan sets forth--
       ``(i) the individual's diagnosis,
       ``(ii) the type, amount, frequency, and duration of the 
     items and services provided under the plan, and
       ``(iii) the goals for treatment under the plan.

     In the case of such an individual who is receiving qualified 
     psychologist services (as defined in subsection (ii)), the 
     individual may be under the care of the clinical psychologist 
     with respect to such services under this subsection to the 
     extent permitted under State law.
       ``(2) The program of residential services described in this 
     paragraph is a nonhospital-based community residential 
     program that furnishes acute mental health services or 
     substance abuse services, or both, on a 24-hour basis. Such 
     services shall include treatment planning and development, 
     medication management, case management, crisis intervention, 
     individual therapy, group therapy, and detoxification 
     services. Such services shall be furnished in any of the 
     following facilities:
       ``(A) Crisis residential programs or mental illness 
     residential treatment programs.
       ``(B) Therapeutic family or group treatment homes.
       ``(C) Residential detoxification centers.
       ``(D) Residential centers for substance abuse treatment.
       ``(3) No service may be treated as an intensive residential 
     service under paragraph (1) unless the facility at which the 
     service is provided--
       ``(A) is legally authorized to provide such service under 
     the law of the State (or under a State regulatory mechanism 
     provided by State law) in which the facility is located or 
     meets such certification requirements that the Secretary may 
     impose; and
       ``(B) meets such other requirements as the Secretary may 
     impose to assure the quality of the intensive residential 
     services provided.
       ``(4) No service may be treated as an intensive residential 
     service under paragraph (1) unless the service is furnished 
     in accordance with standards established by the Secretary for 
     the management of such services.''.
       (c) Amount of Payment.--Section 1814 of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``other than intensive residential 
     services,'' after ``hospice care,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

              ``Payment for Intensive Residential Services

       ``(m)(1) The amount of payment under this part for 
     intensive residential services under section 1812(a)(5) shall 
     be equal to an amount specified under a prospective payment 
     system established by the Secretary, taking into account the 
     prospective payment system to be established for psychiatric 
     hospitals under section 124 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and 
     SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     1501A-332), as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(6) of 
     Public Law 106-113.
       ``(2) Prior to the date on which the Secretary implements 
     the prospective payment system established under paragraph 
     (1), the amount of payment under this part for such intensive 
     residential services is the reasonable costs of providing 
     such services.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 202. COVERAGE OF INTENSIVE OUTPATIENT SERVICES.

       (a) Coverage.--Section 1832(a)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395k(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(K) intensive outpatient services (as described in 
     section 1861(xx)).''.
       (b) Services Described.--Section 1861 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x), as amended by section 202(b), 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:

                    ``Intensive Outpatient Services

       ``(xx)(1) The term `intensive outpatient services' means 
     the items and services described in paragraph (2) prescribed 
     by a physician and provided within the context described in 
     paragraph (3) under the supervision of a physician (or, to 
     the extent permitted under the law of the State in which the 
     services are furnished, a non-physician mental health 
     professional) pursuant to an individualized, written plan of 
     treatment established by a physician and is reviewed 
     periodically by a physician or, to the extent permitted under 
     the laws of the State in which the services are furnished, a 
     non-physician mental health professional (in consultation 
     with appropriate staff participating in such services), which 
     plan sets forth the patient's diagnosis, the type, amount, 
     frequency, and duration of the items and services provided 
     under the plan, and the goals for treatment under the plan.
       ``(2)(A) The items and services described in this paragraph 
     the items and services described in subparagraph (B) that are 
     reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of 
     the individual's condition, reasonably expected to improve or 
     maintain the individual's condition and functional level and 
     to prevent relapse or hospitalization, and furnished pursuant 
     to such guidelines relating to frequency and duration of 
     services as the Secretary shall by regulation establish 
     (taking into account accepted norms of clinical practice).
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the items and 
     services described in this paragraph are as follows:
       ``(i) Psychiatric rehabilitation.
       ``(ii) Assertive community treatment.
       ``(iii) Intensive case management.
       ``(iv) Day treatment for individuals under 21 years of age.
       ``(v) Ambulatory detoxification.
       ``(vi) Such other items and services as the Secretary may 
     provide (but in no event to include meals and 
     transportation).
       ``(3) The context described in this paragraph for the 
     provision of intensive outpatient services is as follows:
       ``(A) Such services are furnished in a facility, home, or 
     community setting.
       ``(B) Such services are furnished--
       ``(i) to assist the individual to compensate for, or 
     eliminate, functional deficits and interpersonal and 
     environmental barriers created by the disability; and
       ``(ii) to restore skills to the individual for independent 
     living, socialization, and effective life management.
       ``(C) Such services are furnished by an individual or 
     entity that--
       ``(i) is legally authorized to furnish such services under 
     State law (or the State regulatory mechanism provided by 
     State law) or meets such certification requirements that the 
     Secretary may impose; and
       ``(ii) meets such other requirements as the Secretary may 
     impose to assure the quality of the intensive outpatient 
     services provided.''.
       (c) Payment.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to intensive outpatient 
     services (as defined in section 1861(xx)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act (as added by subsection (b)) furnished under the 
     medicare program, the amount of payment under such Act for 
     such services shall be 80 percent of--
       (A) during 2002 and 2003, the reasonable costs of 
     furnishing such services; and
       (B) on or after January 1, 2004, the amount of payment 
     established for such services under the prospective payment 
     system established by the Secretary under paragraph (2) for 
     such services.
       (2) Establishment of pps.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to intensive outpatient 
     services (as defined in section 1861(xx)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act (as added by subsection (b)) furnished under the 
     medicare program on or after January 1, 2004, the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services shall establish a prospective 
     payment system for payment for such services. Such system 
     shall include an adequate patient classification system that 
     reflects the differences in patient resource use and costs, 
     shall provide for an annual update to the rates of payment 
     established under the system.
       (B) Adjustments.--In establishing the system under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall provide for adjustments 
     in the prospective payment amount for variations in wage and 
     wage-related costs, case mix, and such other factors as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate.
       (C) Collection of data and evaluation.--In developing the 
     system described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary may 
     require providers of services under the medicare program to 
     submit such information to the Secretary as the Secretary may 
     require to develop the system, including the most recently 
     available data.
       (D) Reports to congress.--Not later than October 1 of each 
     of 2002 and 2003, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the progress of the Secretary in establishing the 
     prospective payment system under this paragraph.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1835(a)(2) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395n(a)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;

[[Page S3441]]

       (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(G) in the case of intensive outpatient services, (i) 
     that those services are reasonably expected to improve or 
     maintain the individual's condition and functional level and 
     to prevent relapse or hospitalization, (ii) an 
     individualized, written plan for furnishing such services has 
     been established by a physician and is reviewed periodically 
     by a physician or, to the extent permitted under the laws of 
     the State in which the services are furnished, a non-
     physician mental health professional, and (iii) such services 
     are or were furnished while the individual is or was under 
     the care of a physician or, to the extent permitted under the 
     law of the State in which the services are furnished, a non-
     physician mental health professional.''.
       (2) Section 1861(s)(2)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(s)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting ``and intensive 
     outpatient services'' after ``partial hospitalization 
     services''.
       (3) Section 1861(ff)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(ff)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or, to the extent permitted under the 
     law of the State in which the services are furnished, a non-
     physician mental health professional,'' after ``under the 
     supervision of a physician'' and after ``periodically 
     reviewed by a physician''; and
       (B) by striking ``physician's'' and inserting 
     ``patient's''.
       (4) Section 1861(cc) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``physician--'' and 
     inserting ``physician or, to the extent permitted under the 
     law of the State in which the services are furnished, a non-
     physician mental health professional--'' and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(E), by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``, except that a patient receiving social and 
     psychological services under paragraph (1)(D) may be under 
     the care of a non-physician mental health professional with 
     respect to such services to the extent permitted under the 
     law of the State in which the services are furnished''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2002.

  TITLE III--IMPROVING BENEFICIARY ACCESS TO MEDICARE-COVERED SERVICES

     SEC. 301. EXCLUDING CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES FROM 
                   COVERAGE UNDER THE MEDICARE SKILLED NURSING 
                   FACILITY PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM AND 
                   CONSOLIDATED PAYMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by 
     inserting ``clinical social worker services,'' after 
     ``qualified psychologist services,''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1861(hh)(2) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``and other than services furnished to an inpatient 
     of a skilled nursing facility which the facility is required 
     to provide as a requirement for participation''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 302. COVERAGE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST SERVICES.

       (a) Coverage of Services.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)), as amended by sections 
     102(a) and 105(a) 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--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (U);
       (2) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (V); 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(W) marriage and family therapist services (as defined in 
     subsection (yy));''.
       (b) Definition.--Section 1861 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x), as amended by sections 201(b) and 202(b), 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:

                ``Marriage and Family Therapist Services

       ``(yy)(1) The term `marriage and family therapist services' 
     means services performed by a marriage and family therapist 
     (as defined in paragraph (2)) for the diagnosis and treatment 
     of mental illnesses, which the marriage and family therapist 
     is legally authorized to perform under State law (or the 
     State regulatory mechanism provided by State law) of the 
     State in which such services are performed provided such 
     services are covered under this title, as would otherwise be 
     covered if furnished by a physician or as incident to a 
     physician's professional service, but only if no facility or 
     other provider charges or is paid any amounts with respect to 
     the furnishing of such services.
       ``(2) The term `marriage and family therapist' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(A) possesses a master's or doctoral degree which 
     qualifies for licensure or certification as a marriage and 
     family therapist pursuant to State law;
       ``(B) after obtaining such degree has performed at least 
     two years of clinical supervised experience in marriage and 
     family therapy; and
       ``(C) is licensed or certified as a marriage and family 
     therapist in the State in which marriage and family therapist 
     services are performed.''.
       (c) Provision for Payment Under Part B.--Section 
     1832(a)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395k(a)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``(v) marriage and family therapist services;''.
       (d) Amount of Payment.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1833(a)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)), as amended by sections 105(c) 
     and 223(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--
       (A) by striking ``and'' before ``(U)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, and (V) with respect to marriage and family 
     therapist services under section 1861(s)(2)(W), the amounts 
     paid shall be 80 percent of the lesser of (i) the actual 
     charge for the services or (ii) 75 percent of the amount 
     determined for payment of a psychologist under clause (L)''.
       (2) Development of criteria with respect to consultation 
     with a physician.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall, taking into consideration concerns for patient 
     confidentiality, develop criteria with respect to payment for 
     marriage and family therapist services for which payment may 
     be made directly to the marriage and family therapist under 
     part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act under which 
     such a therapist must agree to consult with a patient's 
     attending or primary care physician in accordance with such 
     criteria.
       (e) Exclusion of Marriage and Family Therapist Services 
     From Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective Payment System.--
     Section 1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)), as amended in section 301(a), is 
     further amended by inserting ``marriage and family therapist 
     services (as defined in subsection (yy)(1)),'' after 
     ``clinical social worker services,''.
       (f) Coverage of Marriage and Family Therapist Services 
     Provided in Rural Health Clinics and Federally Qualified 
     Health Centers.--Section 1861(aa)(1)(B) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(1)(B)) is amended by 
     striking ``or by a clinical social worker (as defined in 
     subsection (hh)(1)),,'' and inserting ``, by a clinical 
     social worker (as defined in subsection (hh)(1)), or by a 
     marriage and family therapist (as defined in subsection 
     (yy)(2)),''.
       (g) Inclusion of Marriage and Family Therapists as 
     Practitioners for Assignment of Claims.--Section 
     1842(b)(18(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395u(b)(18)(C)), as amended by section 105(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, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new clause:
       ``(vii) A marriage and family therapist (as defined in 
     section 1861(yy)(2)).''.
       (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 303. COVERAGE OF MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR SERVICES.

       (a) Coverage of Services.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)), as amended in section 
     302(a), is further amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (V);
       (2) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (W); 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(X) mental health counselor services (as defined in 
     subsection (zz)(2));''.
       (b) Definition.--Section 1861 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x), as amended by sections 201(b), 202(b), and 
     302(b), is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:

      ``Mental Health Counselor; Mental Health Counselor Services

       ``(zz)(1) The term `mental health counselor' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(A) possesses a master's or doctor's degree in mental 
     health counseling or a related field;
       ``(B) after obtaining such a degree has performed at least 
     2 years of supervised mental health counselor practice; and
       ``(C) is licensed or certified as a mental health counselor 
     or professional counselor by the State in which the services 
     are performed.
       ``(2) The term `mental health counselor services' means 
     services performed by a mental health counselor (as defined 
     in paragraph (1)) for the diagnosis and treatment of mental 
     illnesses which the mental health counselor is legally 
     authorized to perform under State law (or the State 
     regulatory mechanism provided by the State law) of the State 
     in which such services are performed provided such services 
     are covered under this title as would otherwise be covered if 
     furnished by a physician or as incident to a physician's 
     professional service, but only if no facility or other 
     provider charges or is paid any amounts with respect to the 
     furnishing of such services.''.
       (c) Payment.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1833(a)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 13951(a)(1)), as amended by section 302(d), is 
     further amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' before ``(V)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, and (W) with respect to mental health 
     counselor services

[[Page S3442]]

     under section 1861(s)(2)(X), the amounts paid shall be 80 
     percent of the lesser of (i) the actual charge for the 
     services or (ii) 75 percent of the amount determined for 
     payment of a psychologist under clause (L)''.
       (2) Development of criteria with respect to consultation 
     with a physician.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall, taking into consideration concerns for patient 
     confidentiality, develop criteria with respect to payment for 
     mental health counselor services for which payment may be 
     made directly to the mental health counselor under part B of 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act under which such a 
     counselor must agree to consult with a patient's attending or 
     primary care physician in accordance with such criteria.
       (d) Exclusion of Mental Health Counselor Services From 
     Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective Payment System.--Section 
     1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)), as amended by sections 301(a) and 
     302(e), is further amended by inserting ``mental health 
     counselor services (as defined in section 1861(zz)(2)),'' 
     after ``marriage and family therapist services (as defined in 
     subsection (yy)(1)),''.
       (e) Coverage of Mental Health Counselor Services Provided 
     in Rural Health Clinics and Federally Qualified Health 
     Centers.--Section 1861(aa)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(1)(B)), as amended by section 302(f), is 
     further amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' before ``marriage and family 
     therapist services''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or mental health counselor services (as 
     defined in section 1861(zz)(2)),'' after ``marriage and 
     family therapist services (as defined in subsection 
     (yy)(1)),''.
       (f) Inclusion of Mental Health Counselors as Practitioners 
     for Assignment of Claims.--Section 1842(b)(18)(C) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(18)(C)), as amended 
     by section 302(g), is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following new clause:
       ``(viii) A mental health counselor (as defined in section 
     1861(zz)(1)).''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 304. STUDY OF COVERAGE CRITERIA FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE 
                   AND RELATED MENTAL ILLNESSES.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall 
     conduct a study to determine whether the criteria for 
     coverage of any therapy service (including occupational 
     therapy services and physical therapy services) or any 
     outpatient mental health care service under the medicare 
     program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act unduly 
     restricts the access of any medicare beneficiary who has been 
     diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease or a related mental 
     illness to such a service because the coverage criteria 
     requires the medicare beneficiary to display continuing 
     clinical improvement to continue to receive the service.
       (2) Determination of new coverage criteria.--If the 
     Secretary determines that the coverage criteria described in 
     paragraph (1) unduly restricts the access of any medicare 
     beneficiary to the services described in such paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall identify alternative coverage criteria that 
     would permit a medicare beneficiary who has been diagnosed 
     with Alzheimer's disease or a related mental illness to 
     receive coverage for health care services under the medicare 
     program that are designed to control symptoms, maintain 
     functional capabilities, reduce or deter deterioration, and 
     prevent or reduce hospitalization of the beneficiary.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     committees of jurisdiction of Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under subsection (a) together with such 
     recommendations for legislative and administrative action as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 691. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey 
certain land in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Nevada, to the 
Secretary of the Interior, in trust for the Washoe Indian Tribe of 
Nevada and California; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Washoe Tribe 
Lake Tahoe Access Act.
  I introduced this bill in the 106th Congress, and it passed in the 
Senate with unanimous consent. The bill subsequently passed the House 
with unrelated amendments. Unfortunately, due to a shortage of time, 
the two versions of the bill were never reconciled and neither version 
became law. Although the bill was introduced just last year, it has a 
much longer history to it. In 1997, I help convene a Presidential Forum 
to discuss the future of the Lake Tahoe basin. A diverse group of 
Federal, State, and local government leaders addressed the challenges 
facing the extraordinary natural, recreational, and ecological 
resources of the Lake Tahoe region. Goals and an action plan developed 
during the Lake Tahoe Forum were codified as ``Presidential Forum 
Deliverables''. These Deliverables include a commitment to support the 
traditional and customary use of the Lake Tahoe basin by the Washoe 
Tribe. Perhaps, most importantly, the Deliverables include a provision 
designed to provide the Washoe Tribe access to the shore of Lake Tahoe 
for cultural purposes.
  The ancestral homeland of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 
included an area of over 5,000 square miles in and around the Lake 
Tahoe basin. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the members of 
the Washoe Tribe have the opportunity to engage in traditional and 
customary cultural practices on the shore of Lake Tahoe including 
spiritual renewal, land stewardship, Washoe horticultural and ethno-
botany, subsistence gathering, traditional learning, and reunification 
of tribal and family bonds forever. The parties that participated in 
the Lake Tahoe Presidential Forum endorsed this important bill, and 
nearly four years later, the concept embodied by this bill continues to 
enjoy broad support. For example, the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance had 
indicated its support for this bill. The lands conveyed by this bill to 
the Washoe Tribe would be managed in accordance with the Lake Tahoe 
Regional Plan, and would not preclude or hinder public access around 
the lake.
  This act will convey 24.3 acres from the Secretary of Agriculture to 
the Secretary of the Interior to be held in trust for the Washoe Tribe. 
This is land located within the Lake Tahoe Management Unit north of 
Skunk Harbor, Nevada. The land in question would be conveyed with the 
expectation that it would be used for traditional and customary uses, 
and stewardship conservation of the Washoe Tribe, and will not permit 
any commercial use. The provision of this bill prohibiting development 
of this land was specifically requested by leaders of the Washoe Tribe. 
The bill provides that if the Tribe attempts to exploit the land for 
any commercial development purpose, title to the land will revert to 
the Secretary of Agriculture. Again this is a safeguard, not just 
agreed to by the Washoe Tribe, but suggested by them. Finally, I would 
like to highlight the fact that Senator Ensign of Nevada joins me today 
to introduce this important bill. I know that Senator Ensign values the 
wonders of Lake Tahoe, and his support for this bill will help ensure 
that the Washoe Tribe will one day call the shores of Lake Tahoe home 
once again.
  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. 691

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

     SECTION 1. WASHOE TRIBE LAND CONVEYANCE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the ancestral homeland of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada 
     and California (referred to in this Act as the ``Tribe'') 
     included an area of approximately 5,000 square miles in and 
     around Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada, and Lake Tahoe was 
     the heart of the territory;
       (2) in 1997, Federal, State, and local governments, 
     together with many private landholders, recognized the Washoe 
     people as indigenous people of Lake Tahoe Basin through a 
     series of meetings convened by those governments at 2 
     locations in Lake Tahoe;
       (3) the meetings were held to address protection of the 
     extraordinary natural, recreational, and ecological resources 
     in the Lake Tahoe region;
       (4) the resulting multiagency agreement includes objectives 
     that support the traditional and customary uses of National 
     Forest System land by the Tribe; and
       (5) those objectives include the provision of access by 
     members of the Tribe to the shore of Lake Tahoe in order to 
     reestablish traditional and customary cultural practices.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to implement the joint local, State, tribal, and 
     Federal objective of returning the Tribe to Lake Tahoe; and
       (2) to ensure that members of the Tribe have the 
     opportunity to engage in traditional and customary cultural 
     practices on the shore of Lake Tahoe to meet the needs of 
     spiritual renewal, land stewardship, Washoe horticulture and 
     ethnobotany, subsistence gathering, traditional learning, and 
     reunification of tribal and family bonds.

[[Page S3443]]

       (c) Conveyance on Condition Subsequent.--Subject to valid 
     existing rights, the easement reserved under subsection (d), 
     and the condition stated in subsection (e), the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall convey to the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     trust for the Tribe, for no consideration, all right, title, 
     and interest in the parcel of land comprising approximately 
     24.3 acres, located within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management 
     Unit north of Skunk Harbor, Nevada, and more particularly 
     described as Mount Diablo Meridian, T15N, R18E, section 27, 
     lot 3.
       (d) Easement.--
       (1) In general.--The conveyance under subsection (c) shall 
     be made subject to reservation to the United States of a 
     nonexclusive easement for public and administrative access 
     over Forest Development Road #15N67 to National Forest System 
     land, to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (2) Access by individuals with disabilities.--The Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall provide a reciprocal easement to the 
     Tribe permitting vehicular access to the parcel over Forest 
     Development Road #15N67 to--
       (A) members of the Tribe for administrative and safety 
     purposes; and
       (B) members of the Tribe who, due to age, infirmity, or 
     disability, would have difficulty accessing the conveyed 
     parcel on foot.
       (e) Condition on Use of Land.--
       (1) In general.--In using the parcel conveyed under 
     subsection (c), the Tribe and members of the Tribe--
       (A) shall limit the use of the parcel to traditional and 
     customary uses and stewardship conservation for the benefit 
     of the Tribe;
       (B) shall not permit any permanent residential or 
     recreational development on, or commercial use of, the parcel 
     (including commercial development, tourist accommodations, 
     gaming, sale of timber, or mineral extraction); and
       (C) shall comply with environmental requirements that are 
     no less protective than environmental requirements that apply 
     under the Regional Plan of the Tahoe Regional Planning 
     Agency.
       (2) Termination and reversion.--If the Secretary of the 
     Interior, after notice to the Tribe and an opportunity for a 
     hearing, based on monitoring of use of the parcel by the 
     Tribe, makes a finding that the Tribe has used or permitted 
     the use of the parcel in violation of paragraph (1) and the 
     Tribe fails to take corrective or remedial action directed by 
     the Secretary of the Interior--
       (A) title to the parcel in the Secretary of the Interior, 
     in trust for the Tribe, shall terminate; and
       (B) title to the parcel shall revert to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HELMS:
  S. 692. A bill to issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel 
Eagle: to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today I sending to the desk S. 692, a bill 
that would grant a waiver of the so-called Jones Act to the Scour Barge 
Eagle, a ship owned by the State of North Carolina. Enactment of this 
essential legislation will enable the Eagle to clear silt buildup on 
the river bottom along the dock and wharf facilities of the North 
Carolina State Ports Authority.
  The Scour Barge Eagle is an old U.S. Army barge outfitted with a pump 
and pipe system, commonly known as a ``scour jet.'' The ship directs 
pressured water at silt build-up points along areas adjacent to the 
docking facilities of the North Carolina State Ports Authority in 
Wilmington. Proper drafts at berths along the docking facilities must 
be maintained in order for ships to on-load and off-load cargo, 
especially bulk cargos.
  While it is clearly documented that the Scour Barge Eagle was built 
by Peden Steel Company in Raleigh, around 1943, this legislation is 
nevertheless essential because the State of North Carolina is unable to 
establish a continuous title chain. In the past Congress has passed 
similar legislation to grant Jones Act waivers so that similar vessels 
could operate in the coastwise trades.
  Mr. President, a bill identical to the one I'm offering today was 
incorporated into S. 1089, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2000, 
which the Senate approved by unanimous consent last year. The House 
failed to pass the Senate bill, making it necessary to re-introduce 
this bill as I am doing today.
  I do hope that the Senate will swiftly adopt this legislation. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of 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. 692

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

     SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION FOR THE EAGLE.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 883), chapter 121 of title 46, United States 
     Code, and section 1 of the Act of May 28, 1906 (46 U.S.C. 
     App. 292), the Secretary of Transportation shall issue a 
     certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
     employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel EAGLE (hull 
     number BK-1754, United States official number 1091389) if the 
     vessel--
       (1) is owned by a State, a political subdivision of a 
     State, or a public authority chartered by a State;
       (2) if chartered, is chartered to a State, a political 
     subdivision of a State, or a public authority chartered by a 
     State;
       (3) is operated only in conjunction with--
       (A) scour jet operations; or
       (B) dredging services adjacent to facilities owned by the 
     State, political subdivision, or public authority; and
       (4) is externally identified clearly as a vessel of that 
     State, subdivision, or authority.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 693. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to provide additional 
safeguards for beneficiaries with representative payees under the Old-
Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program or the Supplemental 
Security Income program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
aimed at protecting Social Security benefits of some of the most 
vulnerable people in our society.
  Today, I am introducing, along with my colleagues Senator Breaux and 
Senator Burns, the Social Security Beneficiaries Protection Act of 
2001. This legislation, identical to legislation introduced in the 
106th Congress, is meant to provide additional safeguards for 
beneficiaries with organizational representative payees. Sometimes, 
beneficiaries are not capable of managing their benefits on their own. 
Usually, in these situations, a family member or close friend manages 
their benefits for them. However, there are those who, for whatever 
reason, don't have family or friends who are able to act as the 
representative payee. In those cases an organizational representative 
payee can handle their benefit checks.
  Approximately, 750,000 Social Security beneficiaries have an 
organization handling their monthly checks. These organizations include 
social service agencies, banks and hospitals. Most of these 
organizations provide a much needed service.
  However, in the spring of last year, the Senate Special Committee on 
Aging, which I chaired at the time, held a hearing examining the 
fraudulent misuse of benefits by some organizational representative 
payees. The hearing highlighted the findings of an investigation 
conducted by the Social Security Administration's, SSA, Office of 
Inspector General, OIG. James Huse, Inspector General for SSA testified 
that since fiscal year 1998 the Social Security Administration has 
identified over $7.5 million in losses to beneficiaries. In several of 
those cases, hundreds of individuals were victims of severe abuses by 
organizational representative payees.
  Another witness at the hearing, Ms. Betty Byrd testified to the 
hardship that is placed on a beneficiary who is the victim of a 
dishonest representative payee. Ms. Byrd was 70 years old and required 
a representative payee because of an extended hospital stay 100 miles 
from her home, followed by placement in an assisted living facility. 
Her fee-for-service organizational representative payee, Greg Gamble, 
was responsible for collecting Ms. Byrd's benefits and paying her 
utility bills, medical expenses, and rent. However, Mr. Gamble had his 
own ideas for how to spend Ms. Byrd's money. He stopped paying her rent 
and as a result she was forced to sell her trailer. The power was 
turned off because he stopped paying her utility bills. Her care 
facility informed her that Mr. Gamble was several months behind on her 
payments. The nursing home threatened to evict her. In her own words 
she was left, ``almost homeless, without medical care, and in serious 
financial trouble.'' Mr. Gamble was caught and pled guilty to using his 
clients' benefits for his own purposes. He has agreed to pay back 
$303,314.
  The primary purpose of this legislation, which is based on 
recommendations by Social Security Administration Office of Inspector 
General, is to provide immediate relief to victims of representative 
payee fraud. By providing SSA with the authority to re-

[[Page S3444]]

issue benefits victims would be made whole again.

  This legislation would also provide for additional accountability by 
payees to the SSA in an effort to prevent abuses from taking place in 
the future. While the Social Security Administration does have a 
selection process in place, it needs strengthening.
  The Social Security Beneficiaries Protection Act of 2001 would 
require that non-governmental fee-for-service organizational 
representative payees be licensed and bonded. Under current law, an 
organization representative payee is only required to get one or the 
other.
  For any month in which the Social Security Commissioner or the courts 
have determined that an organizational representative payee misused all 
or part of an individual's benefits he or she would be required to 
forfeit the fees. The legislation would also make the representative 
payee liable for any misused benefits.
  Ms. Byrd's story demonstrates there is a need for stronger safeguards 
to protect the elderly and disabled who require an organizational 
representative payee. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important 
legislation and help protect the most vulnerable Social Security 
beneficiaries.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Dodd, 
        Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 694. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that a deduction equal to fair market value shall be allowed for 
charitable contributions of literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly 
compositions created by the donor; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the 
Artist-Museum Partnership Act, to enable our country to keep cherished 
art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public 
institutions, while erasing an inequity in our tax code that currently 
serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums 
and libraries. This is the same bill I introduced last year with my 
colleagues Senator Bennett and Senator Lieberman. I would like to thank 
them for their leadership in this area and also to thank Senators Dodd, 
Cochran, Lincoln, Reid, and Domenici for cosponsoring this bipartisan 
bill.
  In a nutshell, our bill would allow artists, writers and composers 
who donate works to museums and libraries to take a tax deduction equal 
to the fair market value of the work. This is something that collectors 
who make similar donations are already able to do. If we as a nation 
want to ensure that art works created by living artists are available 
to the public in the future, for study or for pleasure, it is something 
that artists should be allowed to do as well. Under current law, 
artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost 
of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper, ink, which does not even come 
close to their true value. This is unfair to artists and it hurts 
museums and libraries, large and small, that are dedicated to 
preserving works for posterity.
  In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works 
produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in 
the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and 
libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and 
strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty and its 
cultural heritage. Anyone who has gazed at a painting in a museum or 
examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a 
greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, 
knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of 
them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country.
  Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a 
deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress 
changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. 
Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums 
and cultural institutions. The sharp decline in donations to the 
Library of Congress clearly illustrates this point. Until 1969, the 
Library of Congress received 15 to 20 large gifts of manuscripts from 
authors each year. In the four years following the elimination of the 
deduction, the library received only one such gift. Instead, many of 
these works have been sold to private collectors, and are no longer 
available to the general public.
  For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky 
planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of 
Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a 
private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive 
loss to our cultural heritage. This loss was an unintended consequence 
of the tax bill that should now be corrected.
  More than 30 years ago, Congress changed the law for artists in 
response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of 
the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that 
time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse 
of fair market value determinations. Under this legislation, artists 
who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly 
compositions, would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/
collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes 
providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing 
appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them 
to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel.
  In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, 
which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to 
display. The institutions must also certify that it intends to put the 
work to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. 
For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must 
be used by that organization for educational purposes. It could not be 
sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be 
donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not 
intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting 
the donee's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the 
fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion 
of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar works, or 
related activities.
  This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment 
of self-created works--how the same work is treated before and after an 
artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs 
of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible 
from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, 
when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed 
on the fair market value.
  Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that our bill 
would cost $48 million over 10 years. This is a moderate price to pay 
for our education and the preservation of our cultural heritage. The 
time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 
law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by 
their creators. This bill could, and I believe would, make a critical 
difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather 
than sell it to a private party, where it may become lost to the public 
forever.
  I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan 
legislation. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
letters from the Association of Art Museum Directors, The Museum of 
Fine Arts, Houston, the Theatre Communications Group, Inc., and the 
Whitney Museum of American Art in support of this bill.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                               Whitney Museum of American Art,

                                      New York, NY, April 3, 2001.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Senator Robert Bennett,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Bennett: On behalf of the staff and 
     Board of Trustees of the Whitney Museum of American Art, I 
     thank you for introducing the ``Artist-Museum Partnership 
     Act''. This legislation, which would allow artists, writers 
     and composers to deduct the fair-market value of a 
     contribution of their own work to a charitable institution, 
     will benefit museums, and their visitors, across the country.
       As a result of changes to the tax code of 1969, visual 
     artists, writers and composers

[[Page S3445]]

     can no longer take a deduction based on the fair-market value 
     of a contribution of their own work. The artists' deduction 
     is limited to the cost of materials in preparing the work--in 
     the case of a visual artist, canvas and paint. However, a 
     collector, making an identical donation, may take the fair-
     market value deduction for the work. Once the artist dies, 
     his or her spouse may donate the work for a fair-market value 
     deduction. In addition, works of art left to an artist's 
     estate are evaluated at the fair-market value for purposes of 
     determining estate taxes.
       Since the 1969 repeal, contributions to museum and 
     libraries by living artists and writers have all but 
     disappeared, depriving the public of access to its cultural 
     heritage. Many of these pieces are sold abroad or into 
     private collections and never seen again.
       Thank you again for your continued support of artists and 
     arts institutions in this country. We are all deeply 
     appreciative.
           Sincerely,
     Maxwell L. Anderson.
                                  ____

                                            Theatre Communications


                                                  Group, Inc.,

                                      New York, NY, April 4, 2001.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Senator Robert Bennett,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Bennett: On behalf of Theatre 
     Communications Group--the national service organization for 
     the American theatre--and the 384 not-for-profit theatres 
     across the country that comprise our membership and which 
     present performances to a combined annual attendance of more 
     than 17 million people, I thank you for introducing the 
     ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act''. This legislation, which 
     would allow artists, writers and composers to deduct the 
     fair-market value of a contribution of their own work to a 
     charitable institution, is fully supported by Theatre 
     Communications Group, which endorses its passage.
       As a result of changes to the tax code of 1969, visual 
     artists, writers and composers can no longer take a deduction 
     based on the fair-market value of a contribution of their own 
     work. The artists' deduction is limited to the cost of 
     materials in preparing the work--in the case of a visual 
     artist, canvas and paint. However, a collector, making an 
     identical donation, may take the fair-market value deduction 
     for the work. Once the artist dies, his or her spouse may 
     donate the work for a fair-market value deduction. In 
     addition, works of art left to an artist's estate are 
     evaluated at the fair-market value for purposes of 
     determining estate taxes.
       Since the 1969 repeal, contributions to museums and 
     libraries by living artists and writers have all but 
     disappeared, depriving the public of access to its cultural 
     heritage. Many of these pieces are sold abroad or into 
     private collections and never seen again.
       Thank you again for your continued support of artists and 
     arts institutions in this country.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ben Cameron,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    Association of


                                         Art Museum Directors,

                                      New York, NY, April 4, 2001.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Senator Robert Bennett,
     U.S. Senate
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Bennett: On behalf of the 
     Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), founded in 1916 
     and representing 170 art museums nationwide, I thank you for 
     introducing the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act''. This 
     legislation, which would allow artists, writers and composers 
     to deduct the fair-market value of a contribution of their 
     own work to a charitable institution, is fully supported by 
     the AAMD, which endorses its passage.
       As a result of changes to the tax code of 1969, visual 
     artists, writers and composers can no longer take a deduction 
     based on the fair-market value of contribution of their own 
     work. The artists' deduction is limited to the cost of 
     materials in preparing the work--in the case of a visual 
     artist, canvas and paint. However, a collector, making an 
     identical donation, may take the fair-market value deduction 
     for the work. Once the artist dies, his or her spouse may 
     donate the work for a fair-market value deduction. In 
     addition, works of art left to an artist's estate are 
     evaluated at the fair-market value for purposes of 
     determining estate taxes.
       Since the 1969 repeal, contributions to museum and 
     libraries by living artists and writers have all but 
     disappeared, depriving the public of access to its cultural 
     heritage. Many of these prices are sold abroad or into 
     private collections and never seen again.
       Thank you again for your continued support of artists and 
     arts institutions in this country.
           Sincerely,
                                          Millicent Hall Gaudieri,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                             The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston,

                                      Houston, TX, March 28, 2001.
     Senator Robert Bennett,
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Bennett and Leahy: On behalf of the Trustees 
     of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, I would like to express 
     my appreciation to you for introducing the ``Artist-museum 
     Partnership Act.'' The legislation is long overdue and will 
     be useful to museums in soliciting original works of art from 
     artists. May museums do not have funds to purchase art and 
     must rely on donations. Since 1969, when the law was repealed 
     that allowed artists to take a fair-market value deduction, 
     contributions from living artists to museums has dramatically 
     decreased.
       Many important works by regional or ethnic artists are sold 
     rather than donated because the majority of artists simply 
     cannot afford to donate their works when they can only take a 
     deduction equal to the cost of materials. The bill you have 
     drafted is an important step in helping small and mid-sized 
     museums add these works to their collections for the public 
     to enjoy.
       Thank you again for this thoughtful piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter C. Marzio,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Senator from 
Vermont today to introduce the Artist-Museum Partnership Act. This 
important legislation will remove an unfortunate inequity in our tax 
code by allowing living artists to deduct the fair-market value of 
their art work when they contribute the work to museums or other public 
institutions.
  As the tax code is currently written, art collectors are allowed to 
deduct the fair market value of any piece of art donated to a museum. 
At the same time, if the artist who created that work of art were to 
donate the same piece, he or she would be allowed to deduct only the 
material cost of the work, which may be nothing more than a canvas, a 
tube of paint, and a wooden frame. This inequity has created a 
disincentive for artists who would otherwise donate their work to 
museums. The solution is simple: treat collectors and artists the same 
way. This bill will do just that.
  While this bill will certainly help artists, the real beneficiaries 
are museums, historians, and most importantly, the general public. This 
change in the tax code will increase the number of original pieces 
donated to public institutions, giving scholars greater access to an 
artist's work during the lifetime of that artist, as well as providing 
for an increase in the public display of such work. Museum-goers will 
have a greater opportunity to learn not only from the master artists of 
past centuries, but also from artists who are at the forefront of their 
fields today.
  I want to thank Senator Leahy for his work on this bill. He and I 
have introduced similar legislation in the past, and we hope that our 
colleagues will see this bill for what it is a reasonable solution to 
an unintentional inequity in our tax code. I urge my colleagues to 
support this common-sense legislation. The fiscal impact of the Artist-
Museum Partnership Act on the federal budget will be minimal, but the 
benefit to our nation's cultural and artistic heritage cannot be 
overstated. This minor correction to the tax code is long overdue, and 
the Senate should act on this legislation to remedy the problem.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Byrd):
  S. 695. A bill to provide parents, taxpayers, and educators with 
useful, understandable school report cards; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Standardized 
School Report Card Act, along with Senators Bingaman and Byrd.
  Every six to nine weeks, schools all across the country send parents 
report cards evaluating how their child is doing. Rarely, however, do 
parents ever get any sense of how their child's school is performing. 
And let's face it: The two are inextricably linked. It is not as 
meaningful for a child to be among the best in his or her school if the 
school itself is among the worst.
  As a parent of two children in public school, I believe it is very 
important for parents, taxpayers, teachers, and the public to have some 
way of measuring how their school is performing, relative to other 
schools in the area, the state, the country, and even the world. The 
legislation I am introducing today along with Senators Bingaman and 
Byrd would give parents and taxpayers an important tool for evaluating 
how their school is doing.
  Our legislation would require that schools and states develop an 
annual, easily understandable report card and widely disseminate it to 
parents, taxpayers, teachers, and the public.

[[Page S3446]]

  I am pleased that the concept of school report cards has bipartisan 
support. President Bush called for school-by-school report cards on 
student achievement in his ``No Child Left Behind'' education plan. In 
addition, Senator Daschle and the others have provided for school 
report cards in S. 10, the Educational Excellence for All Learners Act. 
And the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, which was 
reported by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions, includes some limited school report card language that I 
think can form the basis for helpful reports for parents and taxpayers.
  The Standardized School Report Card Act that I am introducing today 
would require schools and states to cover eight key, basis areas in 
their report cards, plus any other areas of indicators of quality they 
want to include. The eight subject areas schools would be ``graded'' on 
are: Student performance; attendance, graduation and dropout rates; 
professional qualifications of teachers; average class size; school 
safety; parental involvement; student access to technology; and whether 
they have been identified by the State for improvement. These eight 
areas were chosen largely because they were the ones parents themselves 
said they felt were most critical, in focus groups around the country 
conducted by the Center for Community Change.
  Some might say this legislation is unnecessary. After all, according 
to Education Week, 36 states already require schools to publish a 
school report card. In addition, the Congressional Research Services 
has looked at the kinds of data that states already require their 
schools to report and/or collect. According to the CRS, 47 states have 
``report cards'' in at least one of the eight areas specified by the 
Standardized School Report Card Act.
  However, the content of these report cards varies widely. In fact, 
according to a report by Education Week, no two state report cards 
cover exactly the same information, so they cannot be a useful tool for 
parents and educators to compare their school with other schools in the 
state or nation.
  For instance, in my state of North Dakota, the state Department of 
Public Instruction has designed a ``school district profile'' that is 
published for each school district in the state. These profiles include 
lots of interesting and helpful information, including a lot of data 
not required by my legislation. However, there is also some valuable 
data missing from this report that parents would want to know about, 
such as the number of teachers who have emergency certification or the 
incidents of school violence.

  By requiring all schools to report on at least these eight key areas, 
my school report card legislation will provide parents with the ability 
to measure how their school is doing relative to other schools.
  Schools will also have to be sure that they widely disseminate their 
report cards. According to Education Week, most people have never seen 
a report card for their local school, even though 90 percent think a 
school report card would be helpful.
  This legislation is not about the Federal government wresting control 
of education away from local school boards, where it belongs. Rather, 
it is about whether parents, no matter where they live, have an 
opportunity and the ability to measure how well their children are 
doing from community to community, school to school, state to state?
  As a nation, we spend more than $375 billion annually to provide an 
education to our elementary and secondary children. Parents and 
taxpayers deserve to know what we are getting for the money we are 
spending on K-12 education.
  Those in this country who are concerned about our education system 
know that we must make some improvements. How do we make improvements? 
You create a blueprint, a plan, for fixing what is wrong. But before 
you can do that, you must first assess what is right and what is wrong. 
And we do not have a basic approach by which parents can measure what 
is right or wrong with their local school.
  The lack of obtainable, understandable information is a major barrier 
to parents' more active involvement in the education of their children. 
In Georgia, the number of schools developing local school improvement 
plans increased by 300 percent following the first publication of 
report cards in 1996. I feel strongly that's because parents will hold 
their schools accountable if they have the information they need to 
determine whether improvements are needed.
  Times have changed. This is not 40 years ago when we as a country 
could tie one hand behind our back and beat anybody else in the world 
at almost anything, and do it easily. We now face shrewd, tough 
international competition in every direction we look. We now face 
competition in the job market, in our economies, and in our schools. 
Our children compete with countries that send their kids to school 240 
days a year, while we send our kids to school 180 days a year.
  In short, parents have a right to know whether their kids are 
receiving a quality education, no matter what State they live in, no 
matter what city or school district they live in. I encourage my 
colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. When the Senate begins debate 
on the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, I intend to work 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strengthen the school 
report card provisions already in the Senate bill.
  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. 695

       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 ``Standardized School Report 
     Card Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) According to the report ``Quality Counts 99'', by 
     Education Week, 36 States require the publishing of annual 
     report cards on individual schools, but the content of the 
     report cards varies widely.
       (2) The content of most of the report cards described in 
     paragraph (1) does not provide parents with the information 
     the parents need to measure how their school or State is 
     doing compared with other schools and States.
       (3) Ninety percent of taxpayers believe that published 
     information about individual schools would motivate educators 
     to work harder to improve the schools' performance.
       (4) More than 60 percent of parents and 70 percent of 
     taxpayers have not seen an individual report card for their 
     area school.
       (5) Dissemination of understandable information about 
     schools can be an important tool for parents and taxpayers to 
     measure the quality of the schools and to hold the schools 
     accountable for improving performance.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to provide parents, taxpayers, 
     and educators with useful, understandable school report 
     cards.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       The terms used in this Act have the meanings given the 
     terms under section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.

     SEC. 5. REPORT CARDS.

       (a) State Report Cards.--Each State educational agency 
     receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 shall produce and widely disseminate an 
     annual report card for parents, the general public, teachers 
     and the Secretary of Education, in easily understandable 
     language, with respect to elementary schools and secondary 
     schools in the State. The report card shall contain 
     information regarding--
       (1) student performance on statewide assessments in 
     language arts, mathematics, and history, plus any other 
     subject areas in which the State requires assessments, 
     including--
       (A) comparisons with students from different school 
     districts within the State, and, to the extent possible, 
     comparisons with students throughout the Nation;
       (B) a statement on the 3-year trend in the percentage of 
     students performing at the basic, proficient, and advanced 
     levels; and
       (C) a statement of the percentage of students not tested 
     and a listing of categories of the reasons why such students 
     were not tested;
       (2) attendance and 4-year graduation rates, the number of 
     students completing advanced placement courses, and the 
     annual school dropout rate, as calculated by procedures 
     conforming with the National Center for Education Statistics 
     Common Core of Data;
       (3) professional qualifications of teachers in the State, 
     including the percentage of class sections taught by teachers 
     who are not certified to teach in that subject, and the 
     percentage of teachers with emergency or provisional 
     certification;
       (4) average class size in the State broken down by school 
     level;
       (5) school safety, including the safety of school 
     facilities, incidents of school violence

[[Page S3447]]

     and drug and alcohol abuse, and the number of instances in 
     which a student was determined to have brought a firearm to 
     school under the State law described in the Gun-Free Schools 
     Act of 1994 and the incidence of student suspensions and 
     expulsions;
       (6) to the extent practicable, parental involvement, as 
     measured by the extent of parental participation in school 
     parental involvement policies described in section 1118(b) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
       (7) student access to technology, including the number of 
     computers for educational purposes, the number of computers 
     per classroom, and the number of computers connected to the 
     Internet;
       (8) information regarding the schools identified by the 
     State for school improvement; and
       (9) other indicators of school performance and quality.
       (b) School Report Cards.--Each school receiving assistance 
     under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, or 
     the local educational agency serving that school, shall 
     produce and widely disseminate an annual report card for 
     parents, the general public, teachers and the State 
     educational agency, in easily understandable language, with 
     respect to elementary or secondary education, as appropriate, 
     in the school. The report card shall contain information 
     regarding--
       (1) student performance in the school on statewide 
     assessments in language arts, mathematics, and history, plus 
     any other subject areas in which the State requires 
     assessments, including--
       (A) comparisons with other students within the school 
     district, in the State, and, to the extent possible, in the 
     Nation;
       (B) a statement on the 3-year trend in the percentage of 
     students performing at the basic, proficient, and advanced 
     levels; and
       (C) a statement of the percentage of students not tested 
     and a listing of categories of the reasons why such students 
     were not tested;
       (2) attendance and 4-year graduation rates, the number of 
     students completing advanced placement courses, and the 
     annual school dropout rate, as calculated by procedures 
     conforming with the National Center for Education Statistics 
     Common Core of Data;
       (3) professional qualifications of the school's teachers, 
     including the percentage of class sections taught by teachers 
     not certified to teach in that subject, and the percentage of 
     teachers with emergency or provisional certification;
       (4) average class size in the school broken down by school 
     level, and the enrollment of students compared to the rated 
     capacity of the school;
       (5) school safety, including the safety of the school 
     facility, incidents of school violence and drug and alcohol 
     abuse, the number of instances in which a student was 
     determined to have brought a firearm to school under the 
     State law described in the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, and 
     the incidence of student suspensions and expulsions;
       (6) parental involvement, as measured by the extent of 
     parental participation in school parental involvement 
     policies described in section 1118(b) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965;
       (7) student access to technology, including the number of 
     computers for educational purposes, the number of computers 
     per classroom, and the number of computers connected to the 
     Internet;
       (8) information regarding whether the school has been 
     identified for school improvement; and
       (9) other indicators of school performance and quality.
       (c) Model School Report Cards.--The Secretary of Education 
     shall use funds made available to the Office of Educational 
     Research and Improvement to develop a model school report 
     card for dissemination, upon request, to a school, local 
     educational agency, or State educational agency.
       (d) Disaggregation of Data.--Each State educational agency 
     or school producing an annual report card under this section 
     shall disaggregate the student data reported under subsection 
     (a) or (b), as appropriate, in the same manner as results are 
     disaggregated under section 1111(b)(3)(I) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (e) Dissemination and Accessibility of Report Cards.--
       (1) State report cards.--State annual report cards under 
     subsection (a) shall be disseminated to all elementary 
     schools, secondary schools, and local educational agencies in 
     the State, and made broadly available to the public through 
     means such as posting such reports on the Internet and 
     distribution to the media, and through public agencies.
       (2) Local and school report cards.--Local educational 
     agency report cards and elementary school and secondary 
     school report cards under subsection (b) shall be 
     disseminated to all elementary schools and secondary schools 
     served by the local educational agency and to all parents of 
     students attending such schools, and shall be made broadly 
     available to the public through means such as posting such 
     report on the Internet and distribution to the media, and 
     through public agencies.
       (f) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Education shall 
     award a grant to each State having a State report card that 
     meets the requirements of subsection (a) to enable the State 
     to annually publish report cards for each elementary and 
     secondary school that receives funding under the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and is served by the 
     State. The amount of a State grant under this section shall 
     be equal to the State's allotment under subsection (g)(2).
       (g) Reservations and Allotments.--
       (1) Reservations.--From the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (j) to carry out this Act for each fiscal year the 
     Secretary of Education shall reserve--
       (A) \1/2\ of 1 percent of such amount for payments to the 
     Secretary of the Interior for activities approved by the 
     Secretary of Education consistent with this Act, in schools 
     operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on the 
     basis of their respective needs for assistance under this 
     Act; and
       (B) \1/2\ of 1 percent of such amount for payments to 
     outlying areas, to be allotted in accordance with their 
     respective needs for assistance under this Act, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Education, for activities approved by the 
     Secretary of Education that are consistent with this Act.
       (2) State allotments.--From the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (j) for a fiscal year and remaining after amounts 
     are reserved under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Education 
     shall allot to each State having a State report card meeting 
     the requirements of subsection (a) an amount that bears the 
     same relationship to such remainder as the number of public 
     school students enrolled in elementary schools and secondary 
     schools in the State bears to the total number of such 
     students so enrolled in all States.
       (h) Within-State Allocations.--Each State educational 
     agency receiving a grant under subsection (f) shall allocate 
     the grant funds that remain after carrying out the activities 
     required under subsection (e)(1) to local educational 
     agencies in the State.
       (i) State Reservation of Funds.--Each State educational 
     agency receiving a grant under subsection (f) may reserve --
       (1) not more than 10 percent of the grant funds to carry 
     out activities described in subsections (a) and (b), and 
     subsection (e)(1), for fiscal year 2002; and
       (2) not more than 5 percent of the grant funds to carry out 
     activities described in sections (a) and (b), and subsection 
     (e)(1), for fiscal year 2003 and each of the 3 succeeding 
     fiscal years.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act, $5,000,0000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK:
  S. 696. A bill to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 
applying spectrum aggregation limits to spectrum assigned by auction 
after 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Third 
Generation Wireless Internet Act. This legislation, which I first 
introduced in the 106th Congress, is needed today more then ever. The 
Act requires The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to lift the 
current cap on the amount of spectrum any one company may be licensed 
to use in a market.
  Today, over 104 million Americans are benefitting from the products 
and services being offered by our nation's wireless industry. The 
public has benefited from stiff competition among industry participants 
as 244.8 million Americans can choose between three and eight wireless 
service providers, with 181.7 million of them able to choose from at 
least five service providers. The result of this competition has been a 
fifty percent decrease in wireless rates between 1988 and 2000, while 
the total number of minutes used has increased forty-two percent over 
that same period.
  Impressive as is the development of the wireless marketplace, our 
nation's wireless industry is fast approaching a crossroads where it 
will transition from voice and text messaging services to a marriage of 
wireless mobility with the power of the Internet and broadband Internet 
access: the ability to deliver voice, video, and data simultaneously 
over one wireless device. This transition will be made possible by the 
deployment of third generation technology, commonly referred to as 
``3G,'' which combines wireless mobility with transmission speeds and 
capacity resembling that of the broadband pipes being laid primarily in 
urban markets by wireline companies.
  Congress, the FCC, and the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration continue to work to identify sufficient 
spectrum resources for a timely 3G deployment. The Third Generation 
Wireless Internet Act will ensure that companies currently at the 
limits of the spectrum they are permitted to use under FCC regulations 
will still be able to participate in 3G deployment once the spectrum is 
identified.
  Just as Internet access, especially broadband Internet access, 
promises to

[[Page S3448]]

be a great equalizer across socio-economic lines, 3G promises to be a 
great equalizer between those consumers with access to broadband and 
those without. As Congress continues to look for ways to close the 
digital divide as it relates to broadband, wireless technology can play 
a key role in ensuring that all Americans have access to broadband 
irrespective of their geographic location. It is incumbent upon 
Congress to recognize and act upon the potential of 3G to close the gap 
between urban and rural broadband access, and the Third Generation 
Wireless Internet Act does just that.
  I request 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. 696

       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 ``Third-Generation Wireless 
     Internet Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Mobile telephony has been one of the fastest growing 
     industries of the telecommunications sector, offering 
     consumers innovative services at affordable rates.
       (2) Demand for mobile telecommunications services has 
     greatly exceeded industry expectations.
       (3) Mobile carriers are poised to bring high-speed Internet 
     access to consumers through wireless telecommunications 
     devices.
       (4) Third Generation mobile systems (hereinafter referred 
     to as ``3G'') are capable of delivering high-speed data 
     services for Internet access and other multimedia 
     applications.
       (5) Advanced wireless services such as 3G may be the most 
     efficient and economic way to provide high-speed Internet 
     access to rural areas of the United States.
       (6) Under the current Federal Communications Commission 
     rules, commercial mobile service providers may not use more 
     than 45 megahertz of combined cellular, broadband Personal 
     Communications Service, and Specialized Mobile Radio spectrum 
     within any geographic area.
       (7) Assignments of additional spectrum may be needed to 
     enable mobile operators to keep pace with the demand for 3G 
     services.
       (8) The application of the current Commission spectrum cap 
     rules to new spectrum auctioned by the FCC would greatly 
     impede the deployment of 3G services.

     SEC. 3. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.

       Section 332(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     332(c)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(9) Non-Application of Spectrum Aggregation Limits to New 
     Auctions.--
       ``(A) The Commission may not apply section 20.6(a) of its 
     regulations (47 C.F.R. 20.6(a)) to a license for spectrum 
     assigned by initial auction held after December 31, 2000.
       ``(B) The Commission may relax or eliminate the spectrum 
     aggregation limits of section 20.6 of its regulations (47 
     C.F.R. 20.6), but may not lower these limits.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Hagel, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Lincoln, 
        Mr. Brownback, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Warner, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
        Roberts, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Daschle, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Milkulski, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Carper, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Biden, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bayh, and 
        Mr. Miller):
  S. 697. A bill to modernize the financing of the railroad retirement 
system and to provide enhanced benefits to employees and beneficiaries; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Baucus, and 18 
other of our colleagues, I rise today to introduce the Railroad 
Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. This bill represents 
an important opportunity in the 65-year history of the Railroad 
Retirement system. Rail labor and rail management, working together, 
developed a proposal that would build on the system's strengths to 
modernize Railroad Retirement to provide better, more secure benefits 
at a lower cost to employers and employees. This proposal was further 
refined as a result of extensive discussions last year between rail 
labor and management and the congressional committees of jurisdiction.
  The bill we are introducing today builds on our efforts in the 106th 
Congress to reform the Railroad Retirement system. Last year, the 
predecessor to this bill, H.R. 4844, passed the House by a vote of 391-
25, and received similar bipartisan support in the Senate. Eighty 
senators signed a letter urging quick passage of the legislation, and 
on September 28, 2000, it was favorably reported by the Finance 
Committee. H.R. 4844 was placed on the Senate legislative calendar, but 
unfortunately, this is where the bill remained. Despite an overwhelming 
majority of Members in both houses in support of the bill, time ran out 
and the 106th Congress adjourned without this bill being brought up on 
the Senate floor.
  Both rail labor and rail management have come to the Congress to seek 
changes to their pension plan because Railroad Retirement is a unique 
system. It is the only private industry pension plan established in 
statute and administered by the federal government. As such, any 
changes in Railroad Retirement can be made only through legislative 
action. Historically, such legislation has reflected negotiated 
agreement by management and labor with the Congress followed by 
congressional consideration and enactment of necessary statutory 
changes. The legislation we introduce today continues this practice and 
embodies the reform principles agreed to by rail management and the 
vast majority of rail labor this past year.
  Some may ask, why reform the Railroad Retirement system at this time? 
Railroad Retirement has served railroad workers, their families, and 
their surviving spouses well for 65 years. Its roots reach back to the 
struggle to find answers to the hardships that resulted from the Great 
Depression of the 1930s. Today, the Railroad Retirement system is 
fiscally strong, providing benefit payments to more than 673,000 
retirees and other beneficiaries. The most recent report to Congress by 
the Railroad Retirement Board's chief actuary, which addressed the 
2000-2073 period, indicated that no cash-flow problems are expected to 
arise over that period. This strength, combined with the willingness of 
rail labor and rail management to work together constructively, 
provides an opportunity to address a number of concerns about Railroad 
Retirement that have developed in recent years.
  First, Railroad Retirement is very costly, both to employers and 
employees. It has two components: Tier I, which is largely equivalent 
to Social Security, and Tier II, which provides additional benefits and 
is similar to a private, defined benefit pension plan. Tier I and Tier 
II are funded primarily through payroll taxes on employers and 
employees--15.3 percent combined for Tier I, including Medicare, and 21 
percent for Tier II. Together, these payroll taxes make up a staggering 
36.3 percent of taxable payroll, a figure substantially higher than the 
cost other industries face to provide retirement benefits to their 
employees. This high cost represents a major financial burden to both 
employees and employers. Perhaps worse still, it constitutes a major 
disincentive for employers to hire new employees under Railroad 
Retirement.
  A second factor that led to the development of this legislation is 
the adequacy of the Railroad Retirement benefit structure. One special 
area of concern among retirees has been the widow's and widower's 
benefit under the Tier II portion of Railroad Retirement. Indeed, this 
was the subject of a 1998 hearing by the Ground Transportation 
Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 
That hearing was a spur to rail management and rail labor to engage in 
discussions about a broad range of issues affecting the system.
  Let me explain the reasons why this bill has the strong support of 
railroad retirees, railroad management, and the great majority of rail 
labor.
  First, it provides for increased responsibility by the railroad 
industry for the financial health of Railroad Retirement. Under current 
law, if changes in tax rates or benefits are needed to assure the 
financial health of the system, Congress is required to pass new 
legislation. The bill being introduced today would make Tier II tax 
rates more responsive to actual financing needs by establishing an 
automatic tax adjustment schedule. Under this statutory schedule, 
payroll taxes would be

[[Page S3449]]

raised or lowered automatically, without any further action by 
Congress, depending on the level of funds available to pay Railroad 
Retirement benefits. The schedule is designed to maintain a minimum 
balance of 4 years of benefit payments and a maximum balance of 6 
years. The four year minimum reserve balance represents a higher 
balance than has existed in the Railroad Retirement Account (RRA) for 
most of the past 40 years. Rail employers have agreed to bear entirely 
any tax schedule increases--employees and employers would share any tax 
decreases that might occur. Employees would have the option of seeking 
congressional action to convert any planned decrease in the employee 
tax rate to a benefit increase, and management has agreed to support 
such action.
  Second, the bill provides for greater flexibility in the investment 
of Railroad Retirement assets. This investment provision would apply 
only to Tier II, the portion of the program that is similar to a 
private pension plan and is funded entirely from industry sources. Tier 
I, the portion that is similar to Social Security and is linked to the 
Social Security system, would not be affected.
  Currently, investment of RRA assets is limited by law to U.S. 
Government securities. Actuarial projections for the RRA assume an 
annual return of 6 percent on investments. Between 1985 and 1998, the 
average annual return on RRA investments was unusually high at 9.12 
percent, but this still lagged far behind the average annual return to 
large multi-employer pension plans of 15.17 percent over the same 
period. The differential in returns between RRA investments and private 
pension plan investment portfolios contributes significantly to the 
high cost of funding the benefits provided from the RRA.
  This bill would provide the authority for the industry assets in the 
RRA to be invested in a diversified investment portfolio, as are the 
assets of private sector retirement plans. In the process of developing 
this proposal, concerns were raised by some Members of Congress that 
this aspect of the legislation could result in government intrusion 
into the equity markets. While the funds that would be invested are, in 
effect, railroad industry pension funds which, through historical 
circumstance, have been maintained in a government account, we have 
included a provision to draw a bright line distinction from current 
investment practice.
  The Congressional Committees of jurisdiction worked with labor and 
management last year to create a new structure that separates the new 
investment activity from the Railroad Retirement Account. This 
structure has been included in the legislation we introduce today. It 
would establish a new Railroad Retirement Investment Trust (RRIT), 
whose exclusive purpose would be the investment of RRA assets entrusted 
to it by the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB). The RRIT would not be an 
agency or instrumentality of the federal government. RRA assets would 
be transferred to the RRIT for investment and from the RRIT to a 
centralized disbursement agent that would pay the various components of 
the aggregate railroad retirement benefit in a single check to 
beneficiaries.
  The RRIT would have seven trustees chosen by the Railroad Retirement 
Board: three representing labor, three representing management and one 
representing the public interest. Trustees of the RRIT would be 
required to have experience and expertise in the management of 
financial investments and pension plans, and would be subject to 
fiduciary standards similar to those required by ERISA. The RRIT 
trustees would set investment guidelines for the prudent management of 
the assets entrusted to it, and select outside investment advisors and 
managers to implement its policies. Earnings on RRIT investments would 
be available only for the purpose of paying Railroad Retirement 
benefits and necessary expenses of the RRIT. I believe that these 
measures will allow for increased returns on the industry's pension 
plan while building an effective firewall between the government and 
the private markets.
  Third, this legislation would improve benefits for retirees and their 
families. In particular, it would resolve the concern regarding the 
benefit for widows and widowers under Tier II. Under current law, while 
the retired employee is alive, the couple receives a Tier II benefit 
equal to 145 percent of the retiree's benefit--the retiree's benefit 
plus a spousal benefit of 45 percent of the retiree's benefit. When the 
retiree dies, the spouse is left with a Tier II benefit of 50 percent 
of the retiree's benefit--a reduction of almost two-thirds. Under this 
bill, the surviving spouse would receive a Tier II benefit equal to 
that received by the retiree, preventing such a drastic reduction in 
survivor income.
  Also of key importance is a reduction in the current early retirement 
age of 62 with 30 years of service to age 60 with 30 years of service. 
This would return the age at which a railroad employee can retire with 
full benefits to what it was prior to 1984. It is significant that rail 
labor and rail management have agreed to revise their national 
collective bargaining agreement to conform the age of eligibility for 
retiree health benefits to 60, if this legislation is passed. There are 
also two other benefit improvements: the vesting requirement would be 
lowered from 10 to 5 years, a change which would align Railroad 
Retirement with current private industry pension practices; and the 
bill would also eliminate an arbitrary cap on Tier II benefits, known 
as the ``Railroad Retirement Maximum'', which can result in retirees 
and their spouses having their earned benefits substantially reduced.
  Fourth, Tier II payroll tax rates would be reduced for employers. 
Railroad employers currently pay 16.1 percent of taxable payroll into 
the RRA, which, as I have mentioned, is a rate substantially higher 
than other industries' pension contributions. The reduction of employer 
taxes would be phased in over the first 3 years following enactment of 
the bill. Employee tax rates would continue at the current 4.9 percent. 
Further tax reductions for employers and tax reductions for employees 
would be possible as provided under the tax adjustment mechanism I have 
already described. In addition, the supplemental annuity tax, a 26.5 
cents-per-hour tax paid entirely by rail employers, would be 
eliminated. Supplemental annuity benefits would continue to be paid to 
eligible beneficiaries.
  The legislation being introduced today is nearly identical to the 
legislation that was reported last year by the Senate Finance 
Committee, with the exception of updated effective dates.
  I am concerned that certain aspects of this bill have been 
undeservedly criticized since it was first introduced last year, and I 
believe it is important to put these criticisms to rest in order to 
avoid any further misconceptions.
  First, the legislation's budget impact has been mischaracterized and 
overstated. Under current scoring rules, CBO is required to treat the 
initial purchase of private securities by the Railroad Retirement 
Investment Trust as a government ``outflow.'' These private securities 
would become an asset of the RRIT, but would not be scored as a 
corresponding government ``inflow'' under current budget scoring rules, 
a decision which, I am told, the CBO characterized as a ``close call.'' 
CBO further indicated that some budget experts believe that OMB's long-
standing practice under ``Circular A-11'' may be ``ill-suited to 
purchases of financial assets that the government acquires as a way of 
preserving, or enhancing, the value of cash balances,'' and that they 
``may consider a different budget treatment in the future.''
  Simply put, even if the estimated $14.8 billion acquisition of 
private securities is scored as an initial outlay, the assets received 
in return would produce on-budget revenues in the form of interest, 
dividends and capital gains. Over time, these revenues will contribute 
to increasing future surpluses and reducing debt service. In fact, CBO 
estimated that after the third year under the Railroad Retirement and 
Survivors' Improvement Act, the program would add to the surplus in 
every succeeding year in ever-increasing amounts.
  Second, some have expressed concern that the transfer of federal 
income taxes on railroad retirement benefits into the Railroad 
Retirement trust fund is a Government subsidy. In fact, railroad 
retirees, concerned about the future of Railroad Retirement, agreed in 
1983 to the taxation of their benefits and the dedication of the 
proceeds to Railroad Retirement as a form of benefit cut to help 
support the long-term solvency of the program. If benefits

[[Page S3450]]

had been cut in the conventional way, there would be no question as to 
whether this would be considered a subsidy.
  Third, critics' claims that this legislation relies on Social 
Security funds or makes any changes to Social Security reflect a total 
misunderstanding of the relationship between Railroad Retirement and 
Social Security. Since 1950 there has been a financial interchange 
mechanism between Railroad Retirement and the Social Security system 
that ensures that neither system is advantaged or disadvantaged by 
which system covers a worker. The current bill would make no changes to 
this interchange process or to Social Security. As in the past, these 
Tier I funds would be available to pay benefits, would be considered 
assets of the Railroad Retirement program, and would be limited to 
investments in federal government securities.
  Railroad Retirement has always been a bipartisan concern. I hope that 
many more of our colleagues will join us in taking this opportunity to 
improve Railroad Retirement and the lives of its more than 673,000 
beneficiaries, and that we act early to ensure that there is plenty of 
time in this session to accomplish this important task.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch as a 
lead cosponsor of the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement 
Act of 2001. The intent of this legislation is quite simple: improve 
the benefits of Railroad Retirement and modernize the financing of 
system. Many would agree that the current railroad retirement system is 
archaic and inequitable. As an example, one need look no further than 
the severe reduction in benefit payments faced by the 178,000 widows 
and widowers under the current policy. This is something that must be 
addressed promptly and the legislation we are introducing today 
improves survivor benefits substantially. Montana has about 6,600 
railroad retirement beneficiaries and about 3,200 active rail 
employees. Railroads are an important industry in Montana and many 
Montanans count on the railroad. I am cosponsoring this legislation to 
make sure railroad employees, retirees and their families receive 
adequate benefits from a system they can count on.
  This legislation has strong support from railroad companies, labor 
organizations, and retirees. When enacted, this legislation will 
provide earlier vesting and a lower minimum retirement age for railroad 
labor; improved benefits for widows and widowers of railroad retirees; 
and enhance the investment of pension contributions from rail companies 
and employees.
  Rail labor and rail management have come to the Congress to seek 
changes to their pension plan because Railroad Retirement is a unique 
system. It is the only private industry pension plan established in 
statute and administered by the federal government. As such, any 
changes in Railroad Retirement can be made only through legislative 
action. Historically, such legislation has reflected negotiated 
agreement by management and labor followed by Congressional 
consideration and enactment of necessary statutory changes. This 
legislation continues this practice and embodies reform principles 
agreed to by rail management and a majority of rail labor.
  I am pleased we have a significant bipartisan group of Senators 
joining us as original cosponsors, an indication of the broad support 
this legislation has earned. I also note that many of the original 
cosponsors are also members of the Senate Finance Committee, the 
committee that will receive the bill after its introduction today. I 
hope the committee will be able to take action on the bill soon.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of the bipartisan Railroad Retirement and Survivors' 
Improvement Act 2001, and I hope to work closely with Senators Hatch 
and Baucus and the bipartisan coalition to get this legislation enacted 
into law this year.
  In West Virginia, we have over 11,000 retirees and their families 
depending on railroad retirement. Almost 3,500 West Virginians are 
working for the railroads and will need their railroad retirement at 
some point in the future. Nationwide, there are about 673,000 railroad 
retirees and families, and about 245,000 active rail workers. They 
deserve a better retirement program, and I want to work with them to 
promote this historic package supported by both rail labor and rail 
management.
  There can be no doubt that improving retirement benefits for railroad 
workers, retirees, and their families must be one of our top 
priorities, and I am fully supportive of that effort. Right now, it 
takes ten years of service before a railroad worker becomes vested in 
the retirement plan, while private companies covered by Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, vest their employees in just 
five to seven years. The need to dramatically improve benefits for 
widows and widowers is obvious and has gone unaddressed for too long. 
It is tragic to slash the benefits of the widow of a railroad retiree 
upon the death of her spouse, as the current policy does. I understand 
the importance of these and other changes in retirement benefits for 
workers.
  Today, experts predict that the Railroad Trust Funds are solvent for 
the next twenty-five years, and existing policy guarantees benefits to 
railroad retirees and their families. Under the new plan, the railroads 
would pay a lower sum of taxes into the Railroad Retirement Trust 
Funds, but the fund would create an investment board to invest its 
reserves in private equities so the increased rate of returns would 
cover the expanded benefits. Under the plan, there is a provision to 
increase railroad taxes in the future, when necessary, to fully fund 
the railroad retirement benefits.
  As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I want to enact 
legislation that will improve benefits for railroad retirees and their 
families, and I will be working with my colleagues to achieve that 
goal.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of 
this important legislation to modernize the investment policies of the 
Railroad Retirement System. This legislation reflects an historic 
agreement reached between rail labor and rail management. it is good 
for workers, good for retirees, good for widows and widowers, good for 
rail employers, and good for the rail industry as a whole.
  This reform legislation is the product of two and a half years of 
negotiations and has had the grassroots support of nearly one million 
employees and beneficiaries who will benefit from its provisions. We 
came very close to enacting this measure into law at the end of the 
last Congress. I hope my colleagues will join me in moving the bill as 
expeditiously as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Reid):
  S. 698. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to designate 
chromium-6 as a contaminant, to establish a maximum contaminant level 
for chromium-6, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Ms. BOXER. Mr. President, today Senator Harry Reid and I are 
introducing a bill for the first time ever will require the Environment 
Protection Agency, EPA, to set a federal standard for chromium 6 in 
drinking water.
  The recent movie, ``Erin Brockovich'' made front page news of the 
substance hexavalent chromium, otherwise known as chromium 6, that 
until last year had only received attention from the scientific 
community. But Hinkley, California, the town depicted in the movie, is 
not the only place where chromium 6 has been found in the drinking 
water supply.
  For example, last September, PG&E National Energy Group agreed to 
close down five unlined wastewater basins and two landfills at its 
power plants in Massachusetts because they were being sued for dumping 
waste contaminated with chromium 6 into these basins and landfills, 
endangering the safety of the groundwater.
  Over one year ago in Painesville Township, Ohio, large amounts of 
chromium 6 were removed from a construction site. Workers at the site 
were replacing 2,000 feet of pipe in the sewer main when they 
encountered the contaminated water, which was described as 
``phosphorescent yellow-green liquid.''
  Chromium 6 is a chemical that is used by a variety of industries 
throughout the country. When improperly disposed of, chromium 6 can 
contaminate ground water, which is the

[[Page S3451]]

very same water that many communities use to supply their drinking 
water.
  We now know for a fact that chromium 6 causes a host of serious 
health problems, including cancer, liver damage, kidney damage, immune 
system suppression, respiratory illness, skin rashes, nose bleeds and 
neurological damage. What we do not know is the level at which chromium 
6 in drinking water causes these problems.
  That is why I am introducing this bill today with my colleague 
Senator Harry Reid. Our bill will require the National Academy of 
Sciences to study the health effects of chromium 6 in drinking water 
and to make recommendations to the EPA on an appropriate maximum 
contaminant level goal. The EPA, based on these recommendations, will 
then list chromium 6 as a regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act and set a federal standard for the levels of chromium 6 that 
can safely be found in drinking water.
  This bill will also ensure that communities are able to get 
information about the chromium 6 levels in their drinking water from 
their local water supplies by applying existing right-to-know laws and 
will provide funding to state and local water authorities to help 
defray the cost of cleaning up chromium 6.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure passage of 
this vitally important health safety measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 698

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

     SECTION 1. MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL FOR CHROMIUM-6.

       (a) In General.--Section 1412(b)(12) of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(12)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(C) Chromium-6.--
       ``(i) Declaration of chromium-6 as contaminant.--Congress 
     declares that chromium-6 is a contaminant subject to 
     regulation under this title.
       ``(ii) Study.--

       ``(I) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph, the Administrator shall enter 
     into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences under 
     which the National Academy of Sciences, not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, shall 
     complete a study to determine, and shall recommend to the 
     Administrator, an appropriate maximum contaminant level goal 
     for chromium-6.
       ``(II) Establishment of mcl.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date on which the Administrator receives the 
     recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences under 
     subclause (I), the Administrator shall establish a maximum 
     contaminant level for chromium-6 at a level consistent with 
     that recommendation.
       ``(III) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which the Administrator receives the recommendation of the 
     National Academy of Sciences under subclause (I), the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that 
     describes the results of the study.

       ``(iii) Applicability of other law.--Chapter 7, and 
     subchapter II of chapter 5, of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall not apply to any action of the Administrator under this 
     clause.
       ``(iv) Regulation.--On and after the date of completion of 
     the study under clause (ii), the Administrator shall regulate 
     chromium-6 as an inorganic contaminant in accordance with 
     part 141 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a 
     successor regulation).''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1452 of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12) is amended by 
     striking subsection (m) and inserting the following:
       ``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section, to remain available until 
     expended--
       ``(A) $599,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; and
       ``(B) $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 through 
     2005.
       ``(2) Subsequent authorizations.--To the extent that any 
     amount authorized to be appropriated under this subsection 
     for any fiscal year is not appropriated for the fiscal year, 
     the amount--
       ``(A) is authorized to be appropriated in any subsequent 
     fiscal year before fiscal year 2004; and
       ``(B) shall remain available until expended.
       ``(3) Chromium-6 compliance.--Of the funds made available 
     under paragraph (1)(B) for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2005, such sums as are necessary shall be made available to 
     the Administrator to provide grants in accordance with this 
     section to States and community water systems for use in 
     carrying out activities to comply with section 
     1412(b)(12)(C).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 699. A bill to provide for substantial reductions in the price of 
prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the 
Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 2001, legislation that 
addresses the critical issue facing our older Americans--the cost of 
their prescription drugs. Studies have shown that older Americans spend 
almost three times as much of their income on health care than those 
under the age of 65, and more than three-quarters of Americans aged 65 
and over are taking prescription drugs. Study after study has shown 
that seniors and others who buy their own prescription drugs, are 
forced to pay over twice as much for their drugs as are the drug 
manufactures' most favored customers, such as the federal government 
and large HMOs. Even more alarming is the fact that consumers in the 
United States pay far more for their prescription drugs than do 
citizens of other developed nations, resulting in price discrimination 
against millions of Americans. U.S. consumers are footing the bill for 
drug manufacturer's skyrocketing profit margins year in and year out. 
This is wrong and unfair.
  The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act will protect senior 
citizens and disabled individuals from drug price discrimination and 
make prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries at 
substantially reduced prices. The legislation achieves these goals by 
allowing pharmacies that serve Medicare beneficiaries to purchase 
prescription drugs at the drugs' low ``average foreign price.'' Under 
the bill, the ``average foreign price'' means the average price that 
the manufacturer realizes on drugs sold in Canada, France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Last year, the ``reimportation'' 
bill had broad bipartisan support. Estimated to reduce prescription 
drug prices for seniors by over 40 percent, this bill will help those 
seniors and disabled individuals who often times have to make 
devastating choices between buying food or medications. Choices that no 
human being should have to make.
  Research and development of new drug therapies is an important and 
necessary tool towards improving a persons quality of life. But due to 
the high price tag that often accompanies the latest drug therapies, 
seniors are often left without access to these new therapies, and 
ultimately, in far too many instances, without access to medication at 
all. This legislation is an important step towards restoring the access 
to affordable medications for all Medicare beneficiaries.
  While this may not be the magic bullet that meets all of the long 
term needs of providing Medicare prescription drug coverage, it does 
provide a mechanism for immediate relief from rising drug costs. 
Working together, reaching across the aisle, we can use this time of 
unparalleled prosperity to do the right thing by our seniors. We should 
do it this year for their sake, and for the sake of the future of 
Medicare.
  I look forward to working on this important issue in the months to 
come and hope that Congress will work swiftly in a bipartisan manner to 
enact this legislation that will benefit millions of senior citizens 
and disabled individuals across our nation.
  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. 699

       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 ``Prescription Drug Fairness 
     for Seniors Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Manufacturers of prescription drugs engage in price 
     discrimination practices that compel many older Americans to 
     pay substantially more for prescription drugs than consumers 
     in foreign nations and the drug manufacturers' most favored 
     customers in the United States, such as health insurers, 
     health maintenance organizations, and the Federal Government.
       (2) Older Americans who buy their own prescription drugs 
     often pay twice as much for

[[Page S3452]]

     prescription drugs as consumers in foreign nations and the 
     drug manufacturers' most favored customers in the United 
     States. In some cases, older Americans pay 10 times more for 
     prescription drugs than such customers.
       (3) The discriminatory pricing by major drug manufacturers 
     sustains their high profits (for example, $27,300,000,000 in 
     1999), but causes financial hardship and impairs the health 
     and well-being of millions of older Americans. Many older 
     Americans are forced to choose between buying their food and 
     buying their medicines.
       (4) Foreign nations and federally funded health care 
     programs in the United States use purchasing power to obtain 
     prescription drugs at low prices. Medicare beneficiaries are 
     denied this benefit and cannot obtain their prescription 
     drugs at the lower prices available to such nations and 
     programs.
       (5) Implementation of the policy set forth in this Act is 
     estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for many 
     medicare beneficiaries by an average of 40 percent.
       (6) In addition to substantially lowering the costs of 
     prescription drugs for older Americans, implementation of the 
     policy set forth in this Act will significantly improve the 
     health and well-being of older Americans and lower the costs 
     to the Federal taxpayer of the medicare program.
       (7) Older Americans who are terminally ill and receiving 
     hospice care services represent some of the most vulnerable 
     individuals in our Nation. Making prescription drugs 
     available to medicare beneficiaries under the care of 
     medicare-certified hospices will assist in extending the 
     benefits of lower prescription drug prices to those most 
     vulnerable and in need.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to protect 
     medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug 
     manufacturers and to make prescription drugs available to 
     medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices.

     SEC. 3. PARTICIPATING MANUFACTURERS.

       (a) In General.--Each participating manufacturer of a 
     covered outpatient drug shall make available for purchase by 
     each pharmacy such covered outpatient drug in the amount 
     described in subsection (b) at the price described in 
     subsection (c).
       (b) Description of Amount of Drugs.--The amount of a 
     covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer 
     shall make available for purchase by a pharmacy is an amount 
     equal to the aggregate amount of the covered outpatient drug 
     sold or distributed by the pharmacy to medicare 
     beneficiaries.
       (c) Description of Price.--The price at which a 
     participating manufacturer shall make a covered outpatient 
     drug available for purchase by a pharmacy is a price no 
     greater than the manufacturer's average foreign price.
       (d) Enforcement.--The United States shall debar a 
     manufacturer of drugs or biologicals that does not comply 
     with the provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 4. SPECIAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO HOSPICE PROGRAMS.

       For purposes of determining the amount of a covered 
     outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make 
     available for purchase by a pharmacy under section 3, there 
     shall be included in the calculation of such amount the 
     amount of the covered outpatient drug sold or distributed by 
     a pharmacy to a hospice program. In calculating such amount, 
     only amounts of the covered outpatient drug furnished to a 
     medicare beneficiary enrolled in the hospice program shall be 
     included.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.

       The Secretary shall issue such regulations as may be 
     necessary to implement this Act.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS TO CONGRESS REGARDING EFFECTIVENESS OF ACT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall report to Congress regarding the effectiveness of this 
     Act in--
       (1) protecting medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory 
     pricing by drug manufacturers; and
       (2) making prescription drugs available to medicare 
     beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices.
       (b) Consultation.--In preparing such reports, the Secretary 
     shall consult with public health experts, affected 
     industries, organizations representing consumers and older 
     Americans, and other interested persons.
       (c) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall include in such 
     reports any recommendations the Secretary considers 
     appropriate for changes in this Act to further reduce the 
     cost of covered outpatient drugs to medicare beneficiaries.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Average foreign price.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``average foreign price'' means, 
     with respect to a covered outpatient drug, the average price 
     that the manufacturer of the drug realizes on the sale of 
     drugs with the same active ingredient or ingredients that are 
     consumed in covered foreign nations, taking into account--
       (i) any rebate, contract term or condition, or other 
     arrangement (whether with the purchaser or other persons) 
     that has the effect of reducing the amount realized by the 
     manufacturer on the sale of the drugs; and
       (ii) adjustments for any differences in dosage, 
     formulation, or other relevant characteristics of the drugs.
       (B) Exempt transactions.--The Secretary may, by regulation, 
     exempt from the calculation of the average foreign price of a 
     drug those prices realized by a manufacturer in transactions 
     that are entered into for charitable purposes, for research 
     purposes, or under other unusual circumstances, if the 
     Secretary determines that the exemption is in the public 
     interest and is consistent with the purposes of this Act.
       (2) Covered foreign nation.--The term ``covered foreign 
     nation'' means Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 
     United Kingdom.
       (3) Covered outpatient drug.--The term ``covered outpatient 
     drug'' has the meaning given that term in section 1927(k)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(2)).
       (4) Debar.--The term ``debar'' means to exclude, pursuant 
     to established administrative procedures, from Government 
     contracting and subcontracting for a specified period of time 
     commensurate with the seriousness of the failure or offense 
     or the inadequacy of performance.
       (5) Hospice program.--The term ``hospice program'' has the 
     meaning given that term under section 1861(dd)(2) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)).
       (6) Medicare beneficiary.--The term ``medicare 
     beneficiary'' means an individual entitled to benefits under 
     part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or enrolled 
     under part B of such title, or both.
       (7) Participating manufacturer.--The term ``participating 
     manufacturer'' means any manufacturer of drugs or biologicals 
     that, on or after the date of enactment of this Act, enters 
     into a contract or agreement with the United States for the 
     sale or distribution of covered outpatient drugs to the 
     United States.
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The Secretary shall implement this Act as expeditiously as 
     practicable and in a manner consistent with the obligations 
     of the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 700. A bill to establish a Federal interagency task force for the 
purpose of coordinating actions to prevent the outbreak of bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy (commonly known as ``mad cow disease'') and 
foot-and-mouth disease in the United States; read the first time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am joined by my friends and 
colleagues, Senator Kohl and Senator Hatch in introducing an expanded 
version of the Mad Cow Prevention Act of 2001, which we previously 
introduced on March 14, 2001. Our original bill would establish a 
federal Task Force to prevent the spread to and within the United 
States of Mad Cow Disease, Foot-and-Mouth Disease, and related 
livestock diseases. This new bill, entitled the Mad Cow and Related 
Diseases Prevention Act of 2001, would add the Secretary of State and 
the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Task 
Force.
  We also are invoking Rule 14 to have the bill placed directly on the 
Senate Calendar. We are taking this rare step because of the growing 
severity of this threat and testimony presented at a hearing this 
morning before the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign 
Commerce and Tourism.
  We can not take for granted that our food supply will not be tainted 
by Mad Cow Disease, which has infected over 175,000 cattle in Great 
Britain and Europe, and other livestock diseases. This is an issue that 
has a direct impact on my home state of Colorado, and the rest of the 
nation as a whole.
  We need to proceed in a prudent, cautious way to do everything we can 
to prevent Mad Cow Disease and other devastating livestock diseases 
from entering and spreading in the United States. Only then can we 
ensure continued consumer confidence in the safety of the American food 
supply.
  The bill we reintroduce today establishes a Federal Interagency Task 
Force, to be chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture, for the purpose 
of coordinating actions to prevent the outbreak of Mad Cow Disease. The 
agencies will include the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of 
Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Service, the Secretary of 
Treasury, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, the 
Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Director of the 
Centers for Disease Control, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary 
of State, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and 
any other agencies the President deems appropriate.
  No later than 60 days after the enactment of this legislation, the 
task force will submit to Congress a report which

[[Page S3453]]

will describe the actions the agencies are taking and plan to take to 
prevent the spread of Mad Cow and other livestock diseases and make 
recommendations for the future prevention of the spread of this disease 
to the United States. The Task Force should also consider and report on 
foot-and-mouth disease, chronic wasting disease and other diseases 
associated with our meat industries. I urge my colleagues to support 
its speedy passage.
  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. 700

       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 ``Mad Cow and Related Diseases 
     Prevention Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.

       (a) In General.--There is established a Federal interagency 
     task force, to be chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     for the purpose of coordinating actions to prevent the 
     outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (commonly known 
     as ``mad cow disease''), foot-and mouth disease and related 
     diseases in the United States.
       (b) Membership.--The membership of the task force shall be 
     composed of--
       (1) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (2) the Secretary of Commerce;
       (3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
       (4) the Secretary of the Treasury;
       (5) the Commissioner of Food and Drug;
       (6) the Director of the National Institutes of Health;
       (7) the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention;
       (8) the Commissioner of Customs;
       (9) the Secretary of State;
       (10) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency; and
       (11) the heads of such other Federal departments and 
     agencies as the President considers appropriate.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit to 
     Congress a report that--
       (1) describes actions that are being taken, and will be 
     taken, to prevent the outbreak of bovine spongiform 
     encephalopathy, foot-and-mouth disease and related diseases 
     in the United States; and
       (2) contains any recommendations for legislative and 
     regulatory actions that should be taken to prevent the 
     outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, foot-and-mouth 
     disease and related diseases in the United States.

                          ____________________