[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.
____________________