[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 83 (Thursday, June 20, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5852-S5859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 2650. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 
student loan borrowers with a choice of lender for loan consolidation; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce to my 
colleagues, the Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act of 2002, a 
bill of great importance to the hundreds and thousands of students 
working to make the dream of a college education a reality. According 
to a recent report published by the National Center for Higher 
Education, the cost of attending two- and four-year public and private 
colleges has grown more repidly than inflation, and faster than family 
income. Poor families spent as much as 25 percent of their annual 
income to send their children to a public, four-year colleges in 2000, 
compared with 13 percent in 1980. What's worse, the Federal Pell Grant 
program, designed to help alleviate the financial burden on low income 
families, covered only 57 percent of the cost of tuition at public 
four-year colleges in 1999, compared with 98 percent in 1986.
  The most widespread response to the increasing costs, according to 
the report, involves debt, more students are borrowing more money than 
ever before. Since 1980, Federal financial assistance has been 
transformed from a system characterized mainly by need based grants to 
one dominated by loans. In 2000, loans represented 58 percent of 
Federal student financial aid, and grants represented 41 percent. 
Studies show that a major factor influencing a student's choice of 
college and degree program is the amount of debt connected with the 
type of institution or profession. Make no mistake, these choices not 
only affect the lives of the students themselves but also impact 
society as a whole. Efforts to attract college graduates into needed, 
but not necessarily high paying careers, such as teaching, may be 
undermined by substantial debt burdens.
  School loans are an important and legitimate aspect of attending 
college for many students, but it also raises several policy concerns. 
One area of growing concern surrounds what is called the single lender 
rule. The single lender rule is a provision in the Higher Education Act 
that affects the ability of college graduates to consolidate multiple 
student loans into a single new loan for the purpose of getting a lower 
rate. Specifically, it provides that borrowers having all of their 
loans held by a single lender have to consolidate with that lender, so 
long as it offers consolidation loans. Therefore those borrowers with 
all of their loans in one place can't go to other lenders offering 
better rates or benefits, they have to stay where they are.
  I would like to submit for the Record some numbers which demonstrate 
how damaging the single lender rule is for students. Last year, 143,504 
students were denied the benefits of loan consolidation because of the 
single lender rule. In my home State of Louisiana, 3,329 students were 
prevented from obtaining a lower-rate or more generous benefits because 
of this rule. Many of these students are studying to be doctors, 
nurses, teachers, and lawyers. These are conservative numbers, 
collected from student loan providers, the reality is even more 
staggering.
  This restriction makes no sense and while it may benefit those 
offering student loans, it sure isn't designed to provide students with 
the power that choice and competition can bring. A few months ago we 
acted to pass a package designed to stimulate the economy and secure 
long term economic stability in America. I would be hard pressed to 
think of a better way to ease the burden on our States and to secure a 
brighter future for the U.S. economy than to make a college degree

[[Page S5853]]

an affordable option for all who seek to obtain one.
  The Census Bureau has released new figures on the earnings gap 
between people with a high school education and those with bachelor's 
degrees. It's wide and growing. The bureau said that college graduates 
made an average of $40,500 last year, while the average high school 
graduate earned $22,900. People with bachelor's degrees now earn an 
average of 76 percent more than high school graduates. In 1975, the gap 
was 57 percent. One does not have to have a Ph.D. in math to understand 
the impact that closing this gap would mean for the economy, more 
people with college degrees means higher consumer spending and lower 
unemployment.
  Some of my colleagues may be asking, why now? Why not wait until next 
year when we will be re-addressing the Higher Education Act? Here are 
some of the reasons why I believe this is not a good idea for us to 
wait until next year or the year after. To delay repealing the rule 
until the H.E.A. Reauthorization would unnecessarily victimize hundreds 
of thousands of student loan borrowers, depriving them of the ability 
to manage their debt in an optimal way. Today's graduates are entering 
a workplace where jobs are hard to get and salaries for starting 
positions are lower than they have ever been before. In this 
environment, we need to be building up opportunities for them to reduce 
their debt not increase it.
  This bill is an important first step to making college more 
affordable for all American families. I hope my colleagues will join me 
in making the dream of a college education a reality for all.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 2652. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or 
exchange certain land in the State of Florida, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, when the Spanish explorers surveyed 
Florida in the early 16th century, this is what they saw: Massive 
pines, measuring two to three feet in diameter that climbed into the 
skies over 100 feet.
  This was the landscape of the Apalachicola National Forest.
  You could walk through the forest, especially early in the day as the 
morning fog was rising, look up and see these silent giants create a 
dense canopy overhead.
  Some likened the forest's natural beauty to a cathedral of trees.
  The sheer enormity of these tall stately trees was magnified by the 
close cut landscape of wiregrass on the forest floor.
  This pattern of tall stately trees and lawn like underbrush, as the 
first Spanish explorers described this impressive habitat, was common 
throughout the southeast of North America--over 90 million acres of 
pines and wiregrass.
  Today, all but a fraction of these acres of the longleaf pine 
ecosystem have been destroyed or altered.
  The forest character has been transformed by thick palmetto and other 
growth from that which was encountered by Florida's earliest settlers.
  Why? Because of fires, or more precisely--the absence or containment 
of fires to protect businesses and their property.
  Natural fires created by thunderstorms are part of nature's cycle. 
The longleaf pines and wiregrass have natural qualities which allowed 
them to survive the fires while other plant life perished.
  The result is dramatically depicted in this painting by Jacksonville, 
FL artist Jim Draper who captures the landscape as it once looked and 
how it looks in limited areas today.
  I bring to the intention of my colleagues the landscape painting by 
Mr. Draper of the area to be affected by the adoption of the 
legislation by allowing us to bring into public ownership outholdings 
which represent a potential threat through the possibility that they 
might cause resistance to the necessary controlled fires which are 
necessary in order to maintain this small piece of what had been 90 
million acres of the southeastern United States.
  It is an important part of our Nation's natural history, which we 
have the opportunity to take a step to protect for future generations 
during this session of Congress.
  The painting is of one of those areas in the Apalachicola National 
Forest in the eastern section of the Florida Panhandle. It is known as 
Post Office Bay and retains the heritage of the American southeast of 
the pre-Columbian era.
  Like its predecessors, this special part of the Apalachicola is 
preserved due to fires, now both natural and prescribed.
  But those fires are now threatened by man. Private inholdings 
adjacent to Post Office Bay are being considered for sale as small 
acreage second homes and vacation sites. Should this occur, managed 
fires would likely encounter serious resistance from the new owners and 
the fires required to sustain this vestige of America's natural history 
would be ended.
  The 564,000 acre Apalachicola National Forest has a unique 
opportunity to acquire the remainder of a 2,560 acre inholding within 
the forest.
  As of last month, 1,180 acres of this property has been acquired 
through a land swap.
  Now we need to finish the job, to permanently protect Post Office 
Bay.
  The Florida National Forest Lands Management Act of 2002 will do just 
that.
  The United States Forest Service has been left with several 
noncontiguous parcels of land in Okaloosa County, further west in 
Florida's Panhandle--that it must manage because former portions of the 
Choctowahatchee National Forest were returned to the Forest Service by 
the Department of Defense.
  These parcels are high in value, some have potential buyers, and 
several are encumbered with urban structures, such baseball fields and 
the county fairgrounds.
  Our legislation will allow the Forest Service to sell these parcels 
and purchase the remainder of the Apalachicola inholdings and other 
sensitive lands with the proceeds.
  The land sale would have several benefits.
  This legislation will make it easier for nature and man to continue 
its cleansing process by fire without endangering private land or its 
occupants.
  By connecting the lands of the longleaf pine ecosystem, the regular 
course of natural fires can resume safely, optimizing Mother Nature's 
method of keeping this area beautiful.
  Also, by allowing the regular cycle of fire to resume freely, the 
regeneration process will continue.
  Ultimately, the forest would be more easily and effectively managed.
  The Florida National Forest Lands Management Act of 2002 is a 
sensible way for the Apalachicola National Forest to acquire these vast 
and important inholdings and preserve a natural treasure.
  It will aid in expanding the 3 million acres of longleaf pine that 
now cover the Southeastern United States.
  This measure has the support of the Forest Service, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it was well.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Miller):
  S. 2653. A bill to reduce the amount of paperwork for special 
education teachers, to make mediation mandatory for all legal disputes 
related to individualized education programs, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to announce the 
introduction, along with my colleague Senator Miller, of the bipartisan 
Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002. During the 107th Congress, we 
have been successful in legislating sweeping reforms in education with 
the passage last year of the No Child Left Behind Act. We also hope to 
complete reauthorization of another important Federal education 
initiative, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA, this year. As we consider this legislation, our 
greatest responsibility is to improve the quality of the education that 
students with special needs receive.
  One of the problems fostered by the current system, which stands in 
direct contrast to our purpose, is the excessive paperwork burden 
imposed on our special education teachers. This burden takes valuable 
time away from classroom instruction and is a source of ongoing 
frustration for the special education teachers working on the

[[Page S5854]]

frontlines. As a result, this undermines the goal of providing the best 
quality education possible to all children. The Teacher Paperwork 
Reduction Act addresses this problem and seeks to offer solutions that 
will benefit special education teachers and most importantly the 
children they instruct.
  This bipartisan legislation includes four main provisions to correct 
the problem of burdensome paperwork. First, the Department of 
Education, in cooperation with state and local educational agencies, 
would be required to reduce the amount of paperwork by 50 percent 
within 18 months of enactment of the legislation and would be 
encouraged to make additional reductions. Second, the General 
Accounting Office GAO, would conduct a study to determine how much of 
the paperwork burden is caused by Federal regulations compared to State 
and local regulations; the number of mediations that have been 
conducted since mediations were required to be made available under the 
1997 IDEA amendments; the use of technology in reducing the paperwork 
burden; and GAO would make recommendations on steps that Congress, the 
U.S. Department of Education, and the states and local districts can 
take to reduce this burden within six months of the passage of this 
legislation.
  Third, mediation would be mandatory for all legal disputes related to 
Individual Education Programs IEPs to better empower parents and 
schools to focus resources on a quality education for children rather 
than unnecessary litigation within one year of enactment of this 
legislation. Fourth, the Department of Education is directed to conduct 
research to determine best practices for successful mediation, 
including training practices, that can help contribute to the effort to 
reduce paperwork, improve student outcomes, and free up teacher 
resources for teaching. The Department would also provide mediation 
training support services to support state and local efforts. The 
resources to fund these requirements would come from money appropriated 
through Part D of IDEA.

  The Council for Exceptional Children, CEC, states, ``No barrier is so 
irksome to special educators as the paperwork that keeps them from 
teaching.'' According to a CEC report, concerns about paperwork ranked 
third among special education teachers, out of a list of 10 issues. The 
CEC also reports that special education teachers are leaving the 
profession at almost twice the rate of general educators. Statistics 
concerning the amount of time special education teachers spend 
completing paperwork are telling. 53 percent of special education 
teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their 
job to a great extent. They spend an average of five hours per week on 
paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average 
of two hours per week. More than 60 percent of special education 
teachers spend a half to one and a half days a week completing 
paperwork. One of the biggest sources of paperwork, the individualized 
education program, IEP, averages between 8 and 16 pages long, and 83 
percent of special education teachers report spending from a half to 
one and a half days each week in IEP-related meetings.
  There are three primary factors associated with burdensome paperwork. 
The first factor is federal regulations. The 1997 IDEA regulations set 
forth the necessary components of the IEP and require teachers to 
complete an array of paperwork in addition to the IEP. According to the 
National School Boards Association, NSBA, ``These requirements result 
in consuming substantial hours per child and cumulatively are having a 
negative impact on special educators and their function.'' Second, 
there are misconceptions at the state and local levels regarding 
federal regulations that result in additional requirements imposed by 
the states and local school districts. The U.S. Department of Education 
compiled a sample IEP with all the necessary components, and it is five 
pages long. However, most IEPs are much longer. The third factor is 
litigation and the threat of litigation. In order to be prepared for 
due process hearings and court proceedings, school district officials 
often require extensive documentation so that they are able to prove 
that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) was provided to the 
special education student.
  A key provision of the bill makes mediation mandatory for all legal 
disputes related to IEPs. There are several benefits to using mediation 
as an alternative to due process hearings and court proceedings. 
According to the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in 
Special Education, CADRE, mediation is a constructive option for 
children, parents, and teachers and allows families to maintain a 
positive relationship with teachers and service providers. Parents have 
the benefit of working together with educators and service providers as 
partners instead of as adversaries. If an agreement cannot be reached 
as a result of mediation, parties to the dispute would retain existing 
due process and legal options.
  Mediation is also a much less costly, less time consuming alternative 
for all parties concerned. Parents do not have to pay for mediation 
sessions, because under the 1997 IDEA amendments, states are required 
to bear the cost for mediation. States and local districts save a lot 
of money as well. According to the Michigan Special Education Mediation 
Program, MSEMP, the average hearing cost to the state is $40,000; it 
pays approximately $700 per mediation session. The NSBA reports that 
attorney fees for school districts average between $10,000 to $25,000. 
In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Education says that it pays 
mediators $250 per session. The cost effectiveness of mediation is 
apparent. Not only does mediation save money, it saves time as well. 
According to the Washington State Department of Education, a mediation 
session may generally be scheduled within 14 days of a parental 
request, whereas it may take up to a year to secure a court date.
  Most importantly, mediation is a successful alternative to due 
process hearings. At least some form of agreement is reached in 80 
percent of sessions nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 85 percent of 
voluntary special education mediations end in agreement in which both 
parties are satisfied. According to the New York State Dispute 
Resolution Association, mediation ending in resolution of the conflict 
occurs for 75 percent of referrals, and in Wisconsin, approximately 84 
percent of those who chose mediation would use it again.
  The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act is meant to alleviate a serious 
problem that causes frustration and discouragement among dedicated 
special education teachers who expend energy and countless hours in 
order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to learn. 
It is only fair and right to find ways to reduce paperwork in order to 
give teachers more time to spend educating our students and changing 
their lives, and less time wading through inanimate stacks of paper. I 
would invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation 
to help teachers, schools, and parents provide a better education for 
all students so that no child is left behind.
                                  ____

      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Cleland, Ms. Snowe, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Hagel, Mr. 
        Conrad, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 2654. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from gross income loan payments received under the National Health 
Service Corps Loan Repayment Program established in the Public Health 
Service Act; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas 
to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made 
through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am 
pleased that Senators Cleland, Snowe, Johnson, Gordon Smith, Landrieu, 
Hagel, Conrad, Roberts, Durbin, Torricelli, Rockefeller, and Wyden are 
also cosponsoring this important legislation.
  There have been many developments in the area of health care in the 
last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical 
research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new 
technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In 
fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new 
scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great

[[Page S5855]]

strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the 
access to health care for so many.
  The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans 
without health insurance coverage, 9.2 million of whom are children. In 
Washington, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacks 
health insurance. Many of the 42.6 million uninsured Americans are 
lower-income workers who do not have employer-sponsored coverage for 
themselves, but earn too much to be eligible for public programs like 
Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost 
importance, we know that at the very least, health insurance means the 
difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between 
life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the 
insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six 
times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care.
  But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers. 
Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing 
an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is 
increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work 
with underserved communities, especially in rural areas. In addition to 
economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues 
involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated, 
and trained in an urban setting.
  The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator 
Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from 
Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in 
rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this 
program to fill that need.
  Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in 
rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt 
that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In 
fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of 
providers continued to provide services to underserved communities 
after their Corps obligation was fulfilled, 80 percent of these health 
care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally 
been placed.
  Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides 
scholarships, loan-repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to 
serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health 
care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the 
program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate 
detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out 
of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001. 
And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income 
to the IRS, the loan-repayments and stipends are.

  By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax 
assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount, 
which is to be used by the recipient offset his or her tax liability 
resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40 
percent of the federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the 
loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these federal payments were not 
taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students 
could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed 
in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both 
urban and rural areas.
  This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the 
National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent 
to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not 
want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300 
applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not 
fully fund the loan repayment program.
  The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service 
Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the 
Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby 
bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are 
excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have 
greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan 
repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in 
underserved areas.
  There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service 
Corps is a ``win-win'' situation. Corps scholarships help finance 
education for future primary care providers interested in serving the 
underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the 
need for primary health care is greatest.
  This bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including 
the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of 
Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, 
and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased 
that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill. 
I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the 
Record after my statement.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join me in expanding 
this vitally important and imminently successful program.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act Endorsements

       American Academy of Nurse Practitioners.
       American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.
       American Academy of Physician Assistants.
       American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.
       American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.
       American Association for Dental Research.
       American College of Nurse-Midwives.
       American College of Nurse Practitioners.
       American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians.
       American Counseling Association.
       American Dental Association.
       American Dental Education Association.
       American Medical Student Association.
       American Optometric Association.
       American Organization of Nurse Executives.
       American Osteopathic Association.
       American Psychological Association.
       American Student Dental Association.
       Association of Academic Health Centers.
       Association of American Medical Colleges.
       Association of Clinicians for the Underserved.
       Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry.
       National Association of Community Health Centers.
       National Association of Graduate-Professional Students.
       National Rural Health Association.
       Washington State Medical Association.

  Mr. THOMAS. I am pleased to rise today to introduce the National 
Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 with my colleague from 
Washington, Ms. Cantwell. Specifically, this legislation will exclude 
loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) 
program from taxable income. Enactment of the National Health Service 
Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 would increase the amount of federal 
dollars available so more students could participate in the NHSC 
program.
  Under current law, the NHSC provides scholarships, loan-repayments, 
and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in national designated 
underserved urban and rural communities. The tax law changes in 1986 
resulted in the IRS ruling that all NHSC payments were taxable. 
Congress eliminated the tax on the scholarship in 2001, but the loan-
repayments and stipends continue to be taxed.
  To assist loan repayment recipients with their tax burden, the NHSC 
loan program includes an additional payment equal to 39 percent of the 
loan repayment amount so the loan repayment recipient can pay his or 
her taxes. Close to 40 percent of the NHSC Federal loan repayment 
budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income.'' The current 
situation should not be allowed to continue. Given the fiscal 
restraints we are facing, we must ensure that federal dollars are spent 
efficiently and effectively. It is obvious that today's NHSC loan 
repayment structure does not meet that goal. Our legislation resolves 
this issue.
  For over 30 years, the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) program 
has literally been a lifeline for many underserved communities across 
the country that otherwise would not have a health care provider. I 
know this program is critically important to my

[[Page S5856]]

state of Wyoming and to many other rural states that has difficulties 
recruiting and retaining primary health care clinicians.
  There are 2,800 Health Professional Shortage Areas, 740 Mental Health 
Shortage Areas and 1,200 Dental Health Shortage Areas now designated 
across the country. However, the NHSC program is meeting less than 13 
percent of the current need for primary care providers and less than 
six percent of need for mental health and dental services. The National 
Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 would increase the 
number of students in the program and allow more provides to be placed 
in these shortage areas.
  The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 is 
crucial to the future well being of many of our rural communities. I 
strongly urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2655. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act to improve access to long-term care services under the Medicare and 
Medicaid Programs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce ``A First 
Step to Long-Term Care Act of 2002.'' This is a targeted long-term care 
package--a first step in the direction of long-term care reform. This 
legislation is about protecting assets, expanding home care, and 
modestly expanding Medicare to address the need for adult day health 
care.
  Government coverage for nursing home care operates primarily, and 
most substantially, through the Medicaid program the safety net for the 
poor. Despite what many Americans believe or hope, Medicare is not 
designed or financed to cover long-term care needs. Medicare is, in 
fact, the universal health care program for the elderly, which covers 
all health care needs, save prescription drugs and long-term care.
  Just this morning, I testified before the Senate Special Committee on 
Aging about the need to find real solutions to attack the issue of 
long-term care coverage. This legislation is a step in that direction.
  Today, the home care benefit under Medicare offers skilled care and 
possibly home health aides on a part-time or intermittent basis. 
Beneficiaries also must be confined to the home, despite the fact that 
many could leave the home with assistance. ``A First Step to Long-Term 
Care Reform'' retains the requirement that leaving the home requires a 
considerable and taxing effort, but it obviates the difficult choice 
that patients face: either be imprisoned in their home or risk losing 
Medicare coverage.
  We also need to begin to provide options to nursing home care under 
the Medicare benefit, such as the payment for adult day health care. 
This is something Senator Santorum has been working on as well. Doing 
so would provide a measure of respite and will reduce the bias towards 
institutionalizing those who can, with the right circumstances--stay at 
home.
  Giving states relief from the mandate that they must pursue and sell-
off the estates of Medicaid beneficiaries is another first step. In the 
short-term, we can provide states with the option of whether or not to 
do so. West Virginia is one State, in particular, which is seeking 
relief from this harsh and unnecessary mandate. I recognize Congressman 
Nick Rahall, my good friend and colleague from West Virginia, for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. President, there are few issues that are as challenging as 
providing a solution for the long-term care problem, but we simply must 
have the courage to find solutions. 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. 2655

       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 ``A First Step to Long-Term 
     Care Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. MAKING MEDICAID ESTATE RECOVERY OPTIONAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 1917(b)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``shall 
     seek'' each place it appears and inserting ``may seek''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. A 
     State (as defined for purposes of title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act) may apply such amendments to estates and sales 
     occurring at such earlier date as the State may specify.

     SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF SUBSTITUTE ADULT DAY CARE SERVICES UNDER 
                   THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Substitute Adult Day Care Services Benefit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1861(m) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``or (8)'' after ``paragraph (7)'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (7), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (7), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) substitute adult day care services (as defined in 
     subsection (ww));''.
       (2) Substitute adult day care services defined.--Section 
     1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:

     ``Substitute Adult Day Care Services; Adult Day Care Facility

       ``(ww)(1)(A) The term `substitute adult day care services' 
     means the items and services described in subparagraph (B) 
     that are furnished to an individual by an adult day care 
     facility as a part of a plan under subsection (m) that 
     substitutes such services for a portion of the items and 
     services described in subparagraph (B)(i) furnished by a home 
     health agency under the plan, as determined by the physician 
     establishing the plan.
       ``(B) The items and services described in this subparagraph 
     are the following items and services:
       ``(i) Items and services described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (7) of subsection (m).
       ``(ii) Meals.
       ``(iii) A program of supervised activities designed to 
     promote physical and mental health and furnished to the 
     individual by the adult day care facility in a group 
     setting for a period of not fewer than 4 and not greater 
     than 12 hours per day.
       ``(iv) A medication management program (as defined in 
     subparagraph (C)).
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B)(iv), the term 
     `medication management program' means a program of services, 
     including medicine screening and patient and health care 
     provider education programs, that provides services to 
     minimize--
       ``(i) unnecessary or inappropriate use of prescription 
     drugs; and
       ``(ii) adverse events due to unintended prescription drug-
     to-drug interactions.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     the term `adult day care facility' means a public agency or 
     private organization, or a subdivision of such an agency or 
     organization, that--
       ``(i) is engaged in providing skilled nursing services and 
     other therapeutic services directly or under arrangement with 
     a home health agency;
       ``(ii) meets such standards established by the Secretary to 
     ensure quality of care and such other requirements as the 
     Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and 
     safety of individuals who are furnished services in the 
     facility;
       ``(iii) provides the items and services described in 
     paragraph (1)(B); and
       ``(iv) meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) through (8) 
     of subsection (o).
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term `adult day 
     care facility' shall include a home health agency in which 
     the items and services described in clauses (ii) through (iv) 
     of paragraph (1)(B) are provided--
       ``(i) by an adult day-care program that is licensed or 
     certified by a State, or accredited, to furnish such items 
     and services in the State; and
       ``(ii) under arrangements with that program made by such 
     agency.
       ``(C) The Secretary may waive the requirement of a surety 
     bond under paragraph (7) of subsection (o) in the case of an 
     agency or organization that provides a comparable surety bond 
     under State law.
       ``(D) For purposes of payment for home health services 
     consisting of substitute adult day care services furnished 
     under this title, any reference to a home health agency is 
     deemed to be a reference to an adult day care facility.''.
       (b) Payment for Substitute Adult Day Care Services.--
     Section 1895 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Payment Rate for Substitute Adult Day Care 
     Services.--In the case of home health services consisting of 
     substitute adult day care services (as defined in section 
     1861(ww)), the following rules apply:
       ``(1) The Secretary shall estimate the amount that would 
     otherwise be payable under this section for all home health 
     services under that plan of care other than substitute adult 
     day care services for a period specified by the Secretary.
       ``(2) The total amount payable for home health services 
     consisting of substitute adult day care services under such 
     plan may not exceed 95 percent of the amount estimated to be 
     payable under paragraph (1) furnished under the plan by a 
     home health agency.''.
       (c) Adjustment in Case of Overutilization of Substitute 
     Adult Day Care Services.--

[[Page S5857]]

       (1) Monitoring expenditures.--Beginning with fiscal year 
     2004, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     monitor the expenditures made under the Medicare Program 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.) for home health services (as defined in section 
     1861(m) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m))) for the fiscal 
     year, including substitute adult day care services under 
     paragraph (8) of such section (as added by subsection (a)), 
     and shall compare such expenditures to expenditures that the 
     Secretary estimates would have been made for home health 
     services for that fiscal year if subsection (a) had not been 
     enacted.
       (2) Required reduction in payment rate.--If the Secretary 
     determines, after making the comparison under paragraph (1) 
     and making such adjustments for changes in demographics and 
     age of the Medicare beneficiary population as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate, that expenditures for home health 
     services under the Medicare Program, including such 
     substitute adult day care services, exceed expenditures that 
     would have been made under such program for home health 
     services for a year if subsection (a) had not been enacted, 
     then the Secretary shall adjust the rate of payment to adult 
     day care facilities so that total expenditures for home 
     health services under such program in a fiscal year does not 
     exceed the Secretary's estimate of such expenditures if 
     subsection (a) had not been enacted.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2003.

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF HOMEBOUND FOR 
                   PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR HOME 
                   HEALTH SERVICES UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Clarification.--Sections 1814(a) and 1835(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a); 1395n(a)) are each 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding 
     the preceding sentences, in the case of an individual that 
     requires technological assistance or the assistance of 
     another individual to leave the home, the Secretary may not 
     disqualify such individual from being considered to be 
     `confined to his home' based on the frequency or duration of 
     the absences from the home.''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--(1) Sections 1814(a) and 1835(a) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a); 1395n(a)) are 
     each amended in the sixth sentence by striking ``leave 
     home,'' and inserting ``leave home and''.
       (2) Section 1814(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395f(a)), as amended by subsection (a), is amended by moving 
     the seventh sentence, as added by section 322(a)(1) of the 
     Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and 
     Protection Act of 2000 (appendix F, 114 Stat. 2763A-501), as 
     enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, to 
     the end of that section.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 2656. A bill to require the Secretary of Transportation to develop 
and implement plan to provide security for cargo entering the United 
States or being transported in intrastate or interstate commerce; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed 
at closing the dangerous cargo security loophole in our Nation's 
aviation security network.
  Last year, with the passage of the Aviation and Security Act of 2001, 
we reinvented aviation security. We overturned the status quo, and I am 
proud of the work we did. We put the Federal Government in charge of 
security and we have made significant strides toward restoring the 
confidence of the American people that it is safe to fly.
  We no longer have a system in which the financial ``bottom line'' 
interferes with protecting the flying public. We also addressed the 
gamut of critical issues, including baggage screening, additional air 
marshals, cockpit security, and numerous other issues.
  But there is more work to be done. We must not lose focus. If we are 
to fully confront the aviation security challenges we face in the 
aftermath of September 11, we must remain aggressive. We need a ``must-
do'' attitude, not excuses about what ``can't be done'', because we are 
only as safe as the weakest link in our aviation security system.
  I believe one of the most troubling shortcomings, which persists to 
this day, is the lax cargo security infrastructure. The Department of 
Transportation Inspector General will warn in a soon-to-be-released 
report that the existing system is ``easily circumvented.'' This must 
not be allowed to stand.
  Moreover, according to a June 10 Washington Post report, internal 
Transportation Security Administration documents warn of an increased 
risk of an attack designed to exploit this vulnerability because TSA 
has been focused primarily on meeting its new mandates to screen 
passengers and luggage.
  This is clear evidence that cargo security needs to be bolstered. And 
time is not on our side. We must act now. The legislation I am 
introducing today is designed to tackle this issue by directing the 
Transportation Security Administration to submit a detailed cargo 
security plan to Congress that will address the shortcomings in the 
current system.
  And while the TSA is designing and implementing this plan, my bill 
would require interim security measures to be put in place immediately. 
The interim security plan would include random screening of at least 5 
percent of all cargo, an authentication policy designed to ensure that 
terrorists are not able to impersonate legitimate shippers, audits of 
each phase of the shipping process in order to police compliance, 
training and background checks for cargo handlers. and funding for 
screening and detection equipment.
  On September 11, terrorists exposed the vulnerability of our 
commercial aviation network in the most horrific fashion. The Aviation 
and Transportation Security Act of 2001 was a major step in the right 
direction, but we must always stay one step ahead of those who would 
commit vicious acts of violence on our soil aimed at innocent men, 
women, and children.
  This bill is designed to build on the foundation we set last year. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this critical matter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 2659. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding 
non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion; 
to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2659

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

     SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF BURDEN OF PROOF FOR ISSUANCE OF 
                   ORDERS ON NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS UNDER 
                   FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

       (a) Orders of Electronic Surveillance.--Section 105 of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1805) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph (3):
       ``(3) on the basis of facts submitted by the applicant--
       ``(A) in the case of a target of electronic surveillance 
     that is a United States person, there is probable cause to 
     believe that--
       ``(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a 
     foreign power, provided that no United States person may be 
     considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power 
     solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
       ``(ii) each of the facilities or places at which the 
     electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is 
     about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign 
     power; or
       ``(B) in the case of a target of electronic surveillance 
     that is a non-United States person, there is reasonable 
     suspicion to believe that--
       ``(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a 
     foreign power; and
       ``(ii) each of the facilities or places at which the 
     electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is 
     about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign 
     power;'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or reasonable 
     suspicion'' after ``probable cause''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)(2), by inserting ``, or reasonable 
     suspicion in the case of a non-United States person,'' after 
     ``probable cause''.
       (b) Physical Searches.--Section 304 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1824) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph (3):
       ``(3) on the basis of facts submitted by the applicant--
       ``(A) in the case of a target of a physical search that is 
     a United States person, there is probable cause to believe 
     that--
       ``(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a 
     foreign power, except that no United States person may be 
     considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power 
     solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
       ``(ii) the premises or property to be searched is owned, 
     used, possessed by, or is

[[Page S5858]]

     in transit to or from an agent of a foreign power or foreign 
     power; or
       ``(B) in the case of a target of a physical search that is 
     a non-United States person, there is reasonable suspicion to 
     believe that--
       ``(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a 
     foreign power; and
       ``(ii) the premises or property to be searched is owned, 
     used, possessed by, or is in transit to or from an agent of a 
     foreign power or foreign power;'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or reasonable 
     suspicion'' after ``probable cause''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``, or reasonable 
     suspicion in the case of a non-United States person,'' after 
     ``probable cause''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 2660. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
Act to increase the number of children participating in the summer food 
service program; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act that will 
streamline, nationwide, management of the Summer Food Service Program. 
The proposed administrative changes are expected to increase the number 
of local organizations stepping forward to sponsor a summer feeding 
program in their communities and, thus, serve many more children in 
poor neighborhoods.
  Children in low-income communities are eligible to receive free or 
reduced price meals during the school year through the National School 
Lunch and Breakfast Programs. During the 2000-2001 school year, 15.3 
million children received such assistance. But, unless children attend 
school during the summer, access to meals through these programs ends.
  The Summer Food Service Program, which is administered at the federal 
level by USDA, helps to fill the resulting hunger gap and helps 
children get the nutrition they need to learn, play and grow throughout 
the summer months. This is an entitlement program which funds the meal 
and snack service provided by the sponsors of diverse, summer activity 
programs.
  Although the Summer Food Service Program is the largest Federal 
resource used to feed children during the summer months, we know that 
there is substantial unmet need. Among the more than 15 million 
children getting free and reduced-price meals during the school year, 
only about 20 percent of these three million children received free 
meals during the summer months.
  State administering agencies report that a major obstacle to serving 
more low-income children is the relatively small and static number of 
local organizations serving as program sponsors or meal providers. 
During the last several years, the total number of Summer Food Service 
Program sponsors across the country ranged between 28,000 and a little 
over 31,000.
  Two important factors contribute to this situation. Many schools and 
summer recreation programs remain unaware that federal funding is 
available to provide free meals and snacks to needy children. Others 
find the requirements for budget and cost reporting, which are 
different from those used in the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, 
to be unusually complex and burdensome.
  The administrative obstacles are both familiar to the Congress and 
one we have taken an initial step to address. In early fiscal year 
2001, I authored a provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
that authorizes a pilot to try out simpler accounting and reimbursement 
procedures. The pilot replaces a sponsor's usual obligation to provide 
detailed and separate documentation of actual administrative and 
operating costs up to specified limits. In practice, this documentation 
has little effect, since a large majority of sponsors qualify for the 
maximum reimbursement. In the pilot states, sponsors report the number 
of meals and are reimbursed at a flat rate of $2.50 per meal. This 
allows sponsors in the 13 pilot States to combine both cost categories 
and follow procedure used in the school meals programs for 
reimbursement.
  Although the pilot test is not over, the initial results are 
positive. The Food Research Acton Center released findings today in 
their annual summer nutrition status report, Hunger Does Not Take a 
Vacation. The number of sponsors increased by eight percent in the 
pilot areas compared to one percent across all other states. Most 
important, children's participation in the Summer Food Service Program 
increase by 8.9 percent across the pilot States. This contrasts with a 
3.3 percent decline for the rest of the nation.
  USDA's Secretary Veneman and Under Secretary Bost used their 
authority to facilitate sponsorship and announced, last March, that all 
states may seek waivers to adopt more streamlined administrative 
procedures.
  I think it is now time for Congress to step up and take action to 
further improve the capacity of the Summer Food Service Program. I am 
introducing a new bill, along with Senator Harkin, the Chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee. Our proposed legislation makes the procedural 
simplifications in the pilot a part of the Program's regular operating 
rules. This eliminates the need for waiver requests and waiver 
approval.
  If we are truly committed to the principle that no child will be left 
behind, this is a small step that can make a large difference in 
encouraging local organizations to sponsor a summer feeding program and 
in meeting the nutrition needs of low-income children.
  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. 2660

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

     SECTION 1. SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN.

       (a) Food Service.--Section 13(b)(1) of the Richard B. 
     Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(1)) is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Private nonprofit organizations.--Subject to 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), payments to a private nonprofit 
     organization described in subsection (a)(7) shall be equal to 
     the full cost of food service operations (which cost shall 
     include the costs of obtaining, preparing, and serving food, 
     but shall not include administrative costs).
       ``(ii) Service institutions.--Payments to a service 
     institution shall be equal to the maximum amounts for food 
     service under subparagraphs (B) and (C).''.
       (b) Administrative Costs.--Section 13(b) of the Richard B. 
     Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(b)) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Administrative costs.--
       ``(A) Private nonprofit institutions.--
       ``(i) Budget.--A private nonprofit organization described 
     in subsection (a)(7), when applying for participation in the 
     program, shall submit a complete budget for administrative 
     costs related to the program, which shall be subject to 
     approval by the State.
       ``(ii) Amount.--Payment to a private nonprofit organization 
     described in subsection (a)(7) for administrative costs shall 
     be equal to the full amount of State-approved administrative 
     costs incurred, except that the payment to the service 
     institution may not exceed the maximum allowable levels 
     determined by the Secretary under the study required under 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(B) Service institutions.--Payment to a service 
     institution for administrative costs shall be equal to the 
     maximum allowable levels determined by the Secretary under 
     the study required under paragraph (4).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 13(a)(7)(A) of the Richard B. Russell National 
     School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(a)(7)(A)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Private'' and inserting ``Subject to 
     paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (b), private''; and
       (B) by striking ``other service institutions'' and 
     inserting ``service institutions''.
       (2) Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) is amended by striking subsection 
     (f).
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section take effect on October 1, 
     2003.
       (2) Summer food pilot projects.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (c)(2) takes effect on May 1, 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 2661. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
video voyeurism in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of 
the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S5859]]

                                S. 2661

       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 ``Video Voyeurism Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF VIDEO VOYEURISM.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 87 the following new chapter:

                         ``CHAPTER 88--PRIVACY

``Sec.
``1801. Video voyeurism.

     ``Sec. 1801. Video voyeurism

       ``(a) Whoever, except as provided in subsection (b), in the 
     special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United 
     States, videotapes, photographs, films, or records by any 
     electronic means, any nonconsenting person, in circumstances 
     in which that person has a reasonable expectation of 
     privacy--
       ``(1) if that person is totally nude, clad in 
     undergarments, or in a state of undress that exposes the 
     genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast; or
       ``(2) under that person's clothing so as to expose the 
     genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast;

     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 
     one year, or both.
       ``(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to conduct--
       ``(1) of law enforcement officers pursuant to a criminal 
     investigation which is otherwise lawful; or
       ``(2) of correctional officials for security purposes or 
     for investigations of alleged misconduct involving a person 
     committed to their custody.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 87 
     the following new item:

``88. Privacy...............................................1801''.....

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Warner, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. 
        Allen):
  S. 2662. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
increase the above-the-line deduction for teacher classroom supplies 
and to expand such deduction to include qualified professional 
development expenses; to the Committee on Finance.

                          ____________________