[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16355-16389]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2922. A bill to create a Pension Reform and Simplification 
Commission to evaluate and suggest ways to enhance access to the 
private pension plan system; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


          the pension reform and simplification commission act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce legislation 
calling for the establishment of a Pension Reform and Simplification 
Commission. The legislation derives directly from conversations I have 
had with constituents and experts on three key issues.
  First, there is the problem related to the current cost and 
complexity of private pension plans. In my view current regulations 
place an unnecessary burden on small and medium business as they 
attempt to adopt pension plans. Indeed, even the most simple plans are 
often so complicated in form and function as to be incomprehensive to 
an everyday businessperson.
  Second, there is the problem involved in coverage. Although over-all 
pension coverage may be consistent over the last decade and the assets 
of private plans have been on the increase, my concern is with those 
individuals of low to moderate income who are being left out of the 
private pension plan equation. As companies move toward cheaper plans--
401(k)s being a salient example--and feel less obligated to offer 
defined benefit-type plans, individuals who do not have the extra money 
to contribute to their pension plans are unable to benefit from a 
plan's availability. This is if a plan is available at all, and in many 
cases it is not.
  Third, there is the problem of what kind of private pension plans are 
best suited for the so-called ``New Economy''. Clearly there is 
considerable debate as of late in terms of what kind of private pension 
plans should be offered so as to increase saving, decrease mobility, 
provide opportunity, enhance entrepreneurship, and so on, all of which 
is apparent in the rise of hybrid pension plans. My foremost concern 
here is that Congress now finds itself reacting to innovative private 
pension plans rather than being pro-active in their creation.
  Mr. President, in 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act, known by most people by its acronym of ERISA, our 
intention at the time being twofold. First, we wanted to protect the 
assets held in private sector retirement plans. Second, we wanted to 
create uniform rules that govern how these plans will be implemented in 
each and every state.
  From most accounts we have accomplished these two goals. There is no 
question that ERISA has flaws that must be addressed--and I will 
discuss these in detail later--but for all these flaws ERISA was 
extremely significant in that it reaffirmed the government's commitment 
to the importance of retirement plans for all Americans. Furthermore, 
it created a comprehensive framework in this country under which the 
expansion of private retirement plans could occur. Equally important, 
the mechanisms it established for personal saving has added trillions 
of dollars in available investment capital over the last decade alone, 
fueling in a very tangible way the unprecedented economic growth that 
we are seeing right now.
  But for all the praise ERISA receives, it is also criticized widely 
and, in my opinion, correctly on a number of counts. For this reason, 
it is time to seriously re-evaluate whether it is addressing the needs 
and concerns of all Americans. It is time to examine whether it fits 
the demands of a changing, global, ``new'' economy.
  As a specific example of these problems, the adoption of piecemeal, 
narrow, and complicated statutes and regulations in the 26 years since 
ERISA's implementation has made substantial portions of our retirement 
system inefficient, expensive, and oftentimes incomprehensible to 
anyone wishing to use it. It is well-known that we continue to add 
provisions and plans with no effort at all to make them internally 
compatible. We may have a broad vision about what we want to do with 
retirement policy in this country, but we instead of revising 
retirement policy in a comprehensive and strategic manner, we simply 
add new ideas and language incrementally, hoping they will appeal to 
businesses who wish to offer them to their employees.
  Sadly, the end result is that for many businesses the cost of 
compliance with ERISA regulations--the administrative and professional 
costs of qualification--rival and even outweigh the costs of providing 
the benefits themselves. This, in turn, has led to a decision by many 
business owners that they can no longer afford to offer retirement 
plans to their employees, this in spite of their desire to do so. For 
these people, the current rules burden the system beyond the benefits 
they provide. This has to change.
  But the cost and complexity I have just mentioned has had a corollary 
effect, that being a lack of access to pension plans on the part of 
low- and middle-income workers, women and minorities in particular. 
Rightly or wrongly, one of the foremost criticisms directed toward 
ERISA is that it has accelerated the demise of traditional defined 
benefit pensions and increased

[[Page 16356]]

conversions to new forms of plans, specifically defined contribution 
plans like 401(k)s. Employers oftentimes no longer feel it is their 
role to provide retirement income to their employees as they once did 
under defined benefit plans. Instead they make defined contribution 
plans available and then educate employees as to how to save for 
themselves.
  The problem is that the retirement security of a great many workers 
now lies in their ability to contribute individually to these plans, 
and this is not always possible. Indeed, data suggests that if these 
individuals are able to save adequately at all, they do so late in 
their careers--this after paying for their homes, their childrens' 
education, and other important spending priorities. Only then do they 
have the opportunity to accumulate the money needed to supplement 
Social Security and carry them through retirement. But these are the 
lucky ones. The fact is a large portion of Americans simply no longer 
have the capacity to save, this in spite of living in a time of 
economic prosperity. This too needs to be changed.
  There is a third reason to re-evaluate ERISA, and that is that the 
dynamics of the New Economy demand a discussion of what retirement 
policies best serve the economic interests of the United States. For a 
good part of this century, private pension plans were seen by employers 
as a way to keep their workforce intact, their employees' morale high, 
and devotion to the company constant. Employees stayed with companies 
because they identified with the company and were treated by employers 
as family. Continuity and connection were the primary motivations for 
individuals as they considered a job.
  Recently, however, this rationale has changed, and has done so 
significantly. According to most analysts, the main determinant for 
most employees as they choose a job is personal development and 
professional growth, the feeling being that economic security is best 
attained by mobility--moving from one job to another, increasing 
education, pay, and retirement savings as you go. Staying at one firm 
is still an ideal for some but it is not essential for many. Perhaps 
more importantly, given the dynamics of the New Economy, it may no 
longer be practical to assume that you can find retirement security at 
a single firm.
  The bottom line, much as the recent debates over cash balance plans 
suggest, is that some very basic issues concerning pension policy are 
coming to the fore at this time, examples being the essence of the 
employer-employee relationship, the ability of companies to attract and 
maintain a skilled workforce, the benefits provided to short- and long-
term employees, the advisability of worker mobility seen in the context 
of technological innovation and globalization, and so on. Here, we must 
confront the reality of political economic change, and do so quickly 
and coherently.
  But Congress is not doing that. As I stated previously, we are 
reacting to changes rather than planning for the future in a coherent 
and strategic manner. In my view, this is an extremely serious problem 
as it limits our ability to create the conditions necessary for 
national economic growth and individual economic welfare.
  As many of my colleagues know, the notion of a Pension Commission has 
been discussed and debated for a number of years, but we have never 
placed it high enough on our list of priorities to address it with 
purpose. I would argue that we can no longer afford the luxury of 
contemplation, and the time to act is now. Failure to adjust our 
existing policies to meet the challenges we face both now and in the 
future will result in several specific outcomes.
  First, it will mean that many workers will see their retirement 
expectations fade or disappear. Second, it will likely mean that these 
individuals will be forced to rely on government sponsored programs 
that are themselves financially overextended. Finally, it will mean 
that the capacity of U.S. firms to compete in the global marketplace 
will be diminished. In my view, none of these outcomes are acceptable. 
We simply must become more thoughtful and pro-active.
  The bill I introduce today has a number of purposes, but foremost 
among them is to establish an affordable, accessible, equitable, 
efficient, cost-effective, and easy to understand private pension plan 
system in the United States. It is designed to conduct a complete top-
to-bottom evaluation of the current system and provide concrete 
recommendations as to how we can reform it to serve the interests of 
employers, employees, and the entire nation as a whole.
  This Commission will be composed of fifteen members, all with 
significant experience in areas related to retirement income policy. It 
is mandated that the activities of the Commission will be concluded in 
a little over two years, with specific language to be provided to 
Congress so that we can act on their recommendations immediately. To 
ensure that the activities of the Commission are not redundant or 
otherwise wasteful, it will be allowed to secure data from any 
government agency or department dealing with retirement policy, and 
furthermore, may request detailees from these agencies and departments 
on a non-reimburseable basis. The Commission will also be allowed to 
hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence as appropriate from 
individuals who are able to contribute to this reform effort.
  This bill has been created after detailed discussions with a number 
of individuals and organizations interested in retirement policy, from 
the Employee Benefits Research Institute, to the Center for Budget and 
Policy Priorities, to the Association of Private Pension and Welfare 
Plans. Although all of the organizations involved have their own 
perspective on how retirement policy issues should be addressed in the 
United States, I have made a concerted effort to make their concerns 
compatible in this legislation. Significantly, all endorse the goals of 
the bill, as does the American Academy of Actuaries, the Executive 
Committee of the New York State Bar Association, and the Chairman of 
the Special Commission on Pension Simplification of the New York State 
Bar Association, Mr. Alvin D. Lurie.
  Mr. President, although there is much to recommend concerning our 
current pension system, it is common knowledge that this system is, in 
many instances, too complicated for participants to understand, too 
difficult for businesses to use, and too inaccessible for individuals 
to join. We have added layer upon layer of legislation, to the point 
that the system is not only unwieldy, but often of questionable 
purpose. We have reached the point that its complexity and 
inaccessibility is having a tangible impact on individuals and 
businesses alike.
  In my view, the status quo is no longer viable or acceptable. It is 
time to meet the challenge that faces us in a direct and strategic 
fashion. It is time to reform and simplify the system so that we have a 
effective mechanism that serves employers and employees alike and 
provides the means to guarantee all Americans income security in their 
retirement years.
  Mr. President, the time to act is now. I ask my colleagues to 
recognize the importance of this legislation, and lend their support 
for its passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. I also ask 
that the letters of support from the American Academy of Actuaries and 
the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans be included in the 
Record immediately following my floor statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2922

       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 ``Pension Reform and 
     Simplification Commission Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The creation and implementation of an affordable, 
     accessible, equitable, efficient, cost-effective, and easy to 
     understand system is essential to the continuity and 
     viability of the current private pension plan system in the 
     United States.

[[Page 16357]]

       (2) There is a near universal recognition in the United 
     States that the laws that regulate our pension system have 
     become unwieldy, complex, and burdensome, a condition that 
     hinders the achievement of increased saving and economic 
     growth and cannot be fixed by ad hoc improvements to ERISA 
     and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (3) Significant and effective improvement of laws can only 
     be accomplished through a coordinated, comprehensive, and 
     sustained effort to revise and simplify current laws by a 
     high-level body of pension experts, whose recommendations are 
     then transmitted to Congress.
       (4) In recent years, the adoption of narrowly focused and 
     increasingly complex statutes through amendment of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (in this Act 
     referred to as ``ERISA'') and the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 has impeded the efforts of employers and employees to 
     save for their retirement and imposed significant challenges 
     for businesses which consider establishing pension plans for 
     their workforce.
       (5) A high national savings rate can contribute 
     significantly to the economic security of the Nation as it 
     adds to available investment capital, fuels economic growth, 
     and enhances productivity, competitiveness, and prosperity.
       (6) The Federal Government can potentially increase the 
     national savings rate through the implementation of policies 
     that create an effective framework for the spread of 
     voluntary retirement plans and the protection of the private 
     assets held in those plans.
       (7) Private pension plans have been, and remain, the single 
     largest repository of private capital in the world and 
     potentially act as a significant inducement for personal 
     saving and investment.
       (8) Pensions represent the only hope that most working 
     Americans have an adequate supplement to social security 
     benefits, and while the private pension system has been 
     greatly improved since the establishment of ERISA, many 
     inequities remain, and many workers are still not covered by 
     the system.
       (9) It is essential that all Americans, no matter what 
     their income security level, have the opportunity to achieve 
     income security in their retirement years. Currently, many 
     tax and retirement incentives for private pension plans, 
     while benefiting higher income employees who can often save 
     adequately for their retirement, do not serve sufficiently 
     the needs of low and moderate income workers.
       (10) The current pensions rules have tended to produce 
     disparate coverage rates for low and moderate income workers.
       (11) The failure of the Government to modify current 
     pension policies will mean that many workers will be deprived 
     of the options needed to save for their retirement and will, 
     consequently, have their retirement expectations minimized or 
     eliminated.
       (12) The failure of the Government to redress the burdens 
     imposed by over-regulation and complexity on employer-
     sponsored pension plans will harm employees and their 
     families.
       (13) The failure of the Government to redress the problems 
     related to private pension plans may erode the ability of 
     United States companies to compete effectively in the 
     international market and result in a decrease in the economic 
     health of the Nation.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       There is established a commission to be known as the 
     Pension Reform and Simplification Commission (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 4. DUTIES.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall--
       (1) study the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges 
     involved in the regulation of the current private pension 
     system;
       (2) review and assess Federal statutes relating to the 
     regulation of the current private pension system; and
       (3) recommend changes in the law regarding the regulation 
     of the current private pension system to mitigate the 
     problems identified under subsection (b), with the goal of 
     making the system more affordable, accessible, efficient, 
     less costly, less complex, and, in general, to expand pension 
     coverage.
       (b) Issues To Be Studied.--The Commission shall include in 
     the study under subsection (a) a consideration of--
       (1) the manner in which the current rules impact private 
     pension coverage, how such coverage has changed over the last 
     25 years (since the enactment of ERISA), and reasons for such 
     change;
       (2) the primary burdens placed on small and medium business 
     in the United States regarding administration of pension 
     plans, especially how such burdens affect the tenuous 
     position occupied by these organizations in the competitive 
     market;
       (3) the simplification of existing pension rules in order 
     to eliminate undue costs on employers while providing 
     retirement security protection to employees;
       (4) the primary obstacles to employees in gaining optimum 
     advantages from the current pension system, with particular 
     attention to the small and medium business sector and low and 
     moderate income employees, including minorities and women;
       (5) the feasibility of providing innovative design options 
     to enable small and medium businesses to be relieved of 
     complex and costly legislative and regulatory burdens in 
     matters of adoption, operation, administration, and reporting 
     of pension plans, in order to increase affordable and 
     effective coverage in that sector, for low and moderate 
     income employees, with emphasis on minorities and women;
       (6) the means of leveling distribution of private pension 
     plan coverage between high wage earners and low and moderate 
     income workers;
       (7) the feasibility of forward-looking reforms that 
     anticipate the needs of small and medium businesses in the 
     United States given the obstacles and opportunities of the 
     new global economy, in particular issues related to the 
     mobility and retention of skilled workers;
       (8) how pension plan benefits can be made more portable;
       (9) the means of achieving the expansion and adoption of 
     pension plans by United States businesses, especially those 
     employing low and moderate income workers who currently lack 
     access to such plans;
       (10) the impact of expanding individual retirement account 
     contribution limits and income limits on private pension plan 
     coverage;
       (11) the provision of innovative incentives that encourage 
     more employers to use existing private pension plans;
       (12) the impact of qualified plan contribution and benefit 
     limits on coverage; and
       (13) any proposals for major simplification of Federal 
     legislation and regulation regarding qualified pension plans, 
     in order to address and mitigate problem areas identified 
     under this subsection, with the goal of--
       (A) strengthening the private pension system;
       (B) expanding the availability, adoption, and retention of 
     tax-favored savings plans by all Americans;
       (C) eliminating rules that burden the pension system beyond 
     the benefits they provide, for low and moderate income 
     workers, including minorities and women, with specific 
     emphasis on--
       (i) eligibility and coverage;
       (ii) contributions and benefits;
       (iii) minimum distributions, withdrawals, and loans;
       (iv) spousal and beneficiary benefits;
       (v) portability between plans;
       (vi) asset recapture;
       (vii) plan compliance and termination;
       (viii) income and excise taxation; and
       (ix) reporting, disclosure, and penalties; and
       (D) identification of the trade-offs involved in 
     simplification under subparagraph (C).
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the 
     designation of the chairperson under section 5(d), the 
     Commission shall transmit to the President and Congress a 
     report containing--
       (A) the issues studied under subsection (b);
       (B) the results of such study;
       (C) draft legislation and commentary under paragraph (2); 
     and
       (D) any other recommendations based on such study.
       (2) Legislative recommendations.--The Commission shall 
     develop draft legislation and associated explanations and 
     commentary to achieve major simplification of Federal 
     legislation regarding regulation of pension plans (including 
     ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to implement any 
     findings or recommendations of the study conducted under 
     subsection (b).
       (3) Recommendations.--Any official findings or 
     recommendations of the Commission shall be adopted by \2/3\ 
     of the members of the Commission.
       (4) Minority views.--All findings and recommendations of 
     the Commission formally proposed by any member of the 
     Commission and not adopted under paragraph (3) shall also be 
     included in the report.

     SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION; RULES; POWERS.

       (a) Composition.--
       (1) Number.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members, appointed not later than 45 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Appointments.--The membership of the Commission shall 
     be as follows:
       (A) 3 individuals appointed by the President, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, or their respective designees.
       (B) 3 individuals appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (C) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (D) 3 individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (E) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Qualifications of Members.--
       (1) In general.--Individuals appointed under subsection 
     (a)(2) shall be individuals who--
       (A) have experience in actuarial disciplines, law, 
     economics, public policy, human relations, business, 
     manufacturing, labor, multiemployer pension plan 
     administration, single employer pension plan administration, 
     or academia, or have other distinctive and pertinent 
     qualifications or experience in retirement policy;

[[Page 16358]]

       (B) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
       (C) are selected without regard to political affiliation or 
     past partisan activity.
       (2) Other considerations.--In the appointment of members 
     under subsection (a), every effort shall be made to ensure 
     that the individuals, as a group--
       (A) are representatives of a broad cross-section of 
     perspectives on private pension plans within the United 
     States;
       (B) have the capacity to provide significant analytical 
     insight into existing obstacles and opportunities of private 
     pension plans; and
       (C) represent all of the areas of experience under 
     paragraph (1)(A).
       (c) Terms; Vacancies.--
       (1) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of 
     the Commission.
       (2) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers and shall be filled in the same manner as 
     the appointment of the member causing the vacancy.
       (d) Chairperson; Vice chairperson.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     designate a chairperson and vice chairperson of the 
     Commission from the individuals appointed under subsection 
     (a)(2).
       (e) Compensation.--
       (1) Prohibition of pay.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B), members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
       (2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission may 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or 
     regular place of business in the performance of services for 
     the Commission.
       (f) Rules of the Commission.--
       (1) Quorum.--Eight members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum for conducting the business of the 
     Commission, except 5 members of the Commission may hold 
     hearings, take testimony, or receive evidence.
       (2) Notice.--Any meetings held by the Commission shall be 
     duly noticed in the Federal Register at least 14 days prior 
     to such meeting and shall be open to the public.
       (3) Opportunities to testify.--The Commission shall provide 
     opportunities for representatives of the general public, 
     taxpayer groups, consumer groups, think tanks, and State and 
     local government officials to testify.
       (4) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson of the Commission.
       (5) Other rules.--The Commission shall adopt such other 
     rules as necessary.
       (g) Powers of the Commission.--
       (1) Information from federal agencies.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from 
     any Federal department or agency such materials, resources, 
     data, and other information as the Commission considers 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. Upon 
     request of the chairperson of the Commission, the head of 
     such department or agency shall furnish such materials, 
     resources, data, and other information to the Commission.
       (B) Coordination of research information.--The Commission 
     shall ensure effective use of such materials, resources, 
     data, and other information and avoid duplicative research by 
     coordinating and consulting with the head of the appropriate 
     research department of--
       (i) the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration of the 
     Department of Labor;
       (ii) the Department of the Treasury;
       (iii) the Social Security Administration;
       (iv) the Small Business Administration;
       (v) the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;
       (vi) the National Institute on Aging; and
       (vii) private organizations which have conducted research 
     in the pension area.
       (2) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as any other 
     Federal agency.
       (3) Acceptance of services; gifts; and grants.--The 
     Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or grants of 
     services or property, both real and personal, for purposes of 
     aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts or 
     grants not used at the expiration of the Commission shall be 
     returned to the donor or grantor.
       (4) Contract and procurement authority.--The Commission may 
     make purchases, and may contract with and compensate 
     government and private agencies or persons for property or 
     services, without regard to--
       (A) section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5); and
       (B) title III of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.).
       (5) Volunteer services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Commission may accept and 
     use voluntary and uncompensated services as the Commission 
     determines necessary.

     SEC. 6. STAFF AND SUPPORT SERVICES.

       (a) Executive Director; Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to civil service laws and regulations and 
     after consultation with the Commission, appoint an executive 
     director of the Commission and such other additional 
     personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to 
     perform its duties.
       (2) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     such title.
       (b) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request by the 
     chairperson of the Commission, the head of any Federal 
     department or agency may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, 
     any of the personnel of the department or agency to the 
     Commission to assist the Commission to carry out its duties 
     under this Act and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (c) Administrative Support Services.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any administrative support services that 
     are necessary to enable the Commission to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate not later than 26 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
                                  ____



                                American Academy of Actuaries,

                                                    July 13, 2000.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: The American Academy of Actuaries 
     would like to express its strong support for your idea of 
     establishing a national commission on pension reform and 
     simplification. The Academy has long advocated a 
     comprehensive and coordinated approach to retirement policy. 
     We believe the establishment of a bipartisan commission of 
     experts to analyze obstacles that weaken our private pension 
     system and recommend solutions is a positive first step. The 
     Academy also believes that slight modifications to your 
     proposal would make the commission more effective.
       The Academy commends you for recognizing that, because the 
     laws that regulate our private pension system have become too 
     complex, they discourage employers from helping their workers 
     save for an adequate retirement. We strongly support the 
     concept of a bipartisan commission of experts that will 
     recommend specific ways to simplify the rules governing 
     private plans, thereby encouraging employers to expand 
     coverage to more workers.
       The Academy believes that the commission called for in your 
     proposal could be made more effective if Congress was 
     required to have an up-or-down vote on its recommendations. 
     Furthermore, we believe that, given the expertise available 
     to the commission, it should be possible to formulate a 
     result in 12-18 months, rather than the 24 months specified 
     in your legislation. Finally, we would encourage the 
     commission to examine pension changes in the context of a 
     national retirement income policy, including Social Security, 
     since major changes to the private pension system undoubtedly 
     will affect Social Security.
       The Academy believes that creation of a national commission 
     will be a positive first step toward our mutual goal of 
     increasing pension coverage for Americans. We appreciate your 
     recognition of the unique role that actuaries should play in 
     such a commission and look forward to providing any 
     assistance that may be of benefit to you and your staff.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James E. Turpin,
     Vice President, Pensions.
                                  ____

                                     APPWP, Association of Private


                                    Pension and Welfare Plans,

                                                    July 18, 2000.
     Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act
     Senator Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the Association of 
     Private Pension and Welfare Plans (APPWP--The Benefits 
     Association), I want to express our appreciation for your 
     interest in, and support for, our nation's voluntary, 
     employer-sponsored retirement system as evidenced by the 
     Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act that you 
     will soon introduce. APPWP is a public policy organization 
     representing principally Fortune 500 companies and other 
     organizations that assist companies of all sizes in providing 
     benefits to employees. Collectively, APPWP's members either 
     sponsor directly or provide services to retirement and health 
     plans that cover more than 100 million Americans. We 
     appreciate your past and continuing efforts to expand the 
     private, voluntary retirement system that currently enables 
     millions of working Americans to achieve financial security 
     in retirement.

[[Page 16359]]

       As you know, the employer-based retirement system provides 
     an important source of income security for many Americans in 
     retirement, and, in many respects, has been successful in 
     meeting the challenges of an aging population. However, we 
     recognize that public policy can build and expand on this 
     success. Many employers, particularly small companies, find 
     it difficult to establish retirement plans because of cost 
     and administrative complexity. As a result, many workers do 
     not have access to private pensions and cannot save 
     adequately for retirement. Moreover, our pension laws have 
     not kept pace with the rapid developments in the business 
     world. New technologies, international competition, and many 
     types of corporate transactions pose unique pension 
     challenges that should be better accommodated by our nation's 
     retirement policy. APPWP has consistently campaigned for 
     expansion and reform of the nation's pension laws with the 
     express goals of expanding coverage, increasing portability, 
     reducing complexity, and reflecting business realities. We 
     are therefore pleased that you have made these goals the 
     central objective of the commission you propose.
       In particular, APPWP commends you for putting the focus of 
     pension reform on expanding coverage. You correctly note that 
     our retirement system has become overly burdened with 
     unwieldy and complex rules that have impeded expanded 
     coverage and increased retirement security for all Americans. 
     Your advocacy on behalf of the goals of coverage and 
     simplification is an important step towards realizing a more 
     secure retirement for all Americans.
       We look forward to working with you on these important 
     issues. If we can be of further assistance, please do not 
     hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James A. Klein,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Moynihan, Mr. L. Chafee, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Baucus, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
        Robb, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Schumer, and 
        Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2923. A bill to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act 
to provide for FamilyCare coverage for parents of enrolled children, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                      the family care act of 2000

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the introduction 
of the Family Care Act of 2000, which takes the next logical step in 
assuring access by as many citizens as possible to affordable health 
insurance. I commend Congressman John Dingell and the rest of our 
colleagues for their fine work in crafting this legislation.
  The number of uninsured Americans is now more than 44 million, and 
the figure is rising by an average of one million a year. America is 
the only industrial country in the world, except South Africa, that 
fails to guarantee health care for all it citizens.
  It is a national scandal that lack of insurance coverage is the 
seventh leading--and most preventable--cause of death in America today.
  Three years ago, we worked together to create CHIP, the federal-state 
Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage to 
children in families with incomes too high for Medicaid and too low to 
afford private health insurance.
  More than two million children have been enrolled in that program, 
and millions more have signed up for Medicaid as a result of outreach 
activities. Soon, more than three-quarters of all uninsured children in 
the nation will be eligible for assistance through either CHIP or 
Medicaid.
  But, despite this progress, the parents of these children, and too 
many others, have been left behind. The time has come to take the next 
step.
  The overwhelming majority of uninsured low-wage parents are 
struggling to support their families. I will ask unanimous consent to 
insert a statement in the Record from Patricia Quezada, a parent of 
three lovely girls, who would benefit from this legislation.
  Parents who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should be 
eligible for assistance to buy the health insurance they need in order 
to protect their families. Our message to them today is that help is on 
the way.
  Often, they work for companies which don't offer insurance, or they 
aren't eligible for insurance that is offered. Fewer than a quarter of 
the jobs taken by those who have been forced off the welfare rolls by 
welfare reform offer insurance as a benefit--and even when it is 
offered too few companies make it available for dependents. The time 
has come to take the next step.
  The Family Care Act of 2000 will provide with the resources, 
incentives and authority to extend Medicaid and CHIP to the parents of 
children covered under those programs.
  Coverage for parents also means better coverage for children. Parents 
are much more likely to enroll their children in health insurance, if 
the parents themselves can have coverage, too.
  This step alone will give to six and a half million Americans the 
coverage they need and deserve.
  The Family Care Act will also improve the outreach and enrollment for 
CHIP and Medicaid, and encourage states to extend coverage to other 
vulnerable population, such as pregnant women, legal immigrants, and 
children ages 19 and 20.
  This program is affordable under current and projected budget 
surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost will 
be $11 billion over the next five years.
  Last Monday, a majority of the Senate voted in favor of this proposal 
as an amendment to the marriage penalty bill. We needed 60 votes, so it 
was not successful then, but we clearly have a bipartisan majority of 
the Senate.
  The bottom line is that we have the resources to take this needed 
step, and end the suffering and uncertainty that accompanies being 
uninsured.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements and letters of 
support for this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


              statement of patricia quezada, july 21, 2000

       Good morning. I am Patricia Quezada. I am a mother of three 
     girls (ages 9, 8 and 5). I work as a part-time parent liaison 
     at Weyanoke Elementary School in Fairfax, Virginia. My 
     husband is a self-employed general contractor. Because my 
     husband is self-employed and I work part-time, our family 
     does not have access to health insurance through our jobs.
       In the past, we were able to purchase private insurance 
     that covered our family. But, in recent times, our family has 
     been unable to afford the high rates because it came down to 
     either paying for our home, transportation and other 
     necessities--including food--or purchasing this costly 
     insurance. On two occasions, the coverage was cancelled 
     because we were unable to meet the payments, which were 
     required in advance.
       It was such a relief that my children are now able to 
     receive coverage through Medicaid and CMSIP, Virginia's SCHIP 
     Program. (As a parent-liaison, part of my job has been to 
     help other families sign up their children for health 
     insurance.) I feel extremely fortunate that my children are 
     now covered in case of an illness or accident, however I 
     continue to fear what could happen if my husband or I fall 
     sick or have an injury. While we both do our best to take 
     care of our health, we know how important it is to have 
     health insurance coverage if we should need it.
       Thank you.
                                  ____



                                      Children's Defense Fund,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: We are taking this opportunity to 
     thank you for introducing the FamilyCare Act of 2000 and to 
     express the strong support of the Children's Defense Fund for 
     this bipartisan initiative to provide and strengthen health 
     care coverage for uninsured children and their parents. 
     Building on the successes of Medicaid and the Children's 
     Health Insurance Program (CHIP), this legislation will 
     increase coverage for uninsured children, provide funding for 
     health insurance coverage for the uninsured parents of 
     Medicaid and CHIP-eligible children, and simplify the 
     enrollment process for Medicaid and CHIP to make the programs 
     more family friendly.
       We want to extent our appreciation to Senators Chafee, 
     Collins, Daschle, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, and Snowe for co-
     sponsoring this legislation in the Senate and to 
     Representatives Dingell, Stark,  and Waxman for taking the 
     lead on this proposal in the House. We look forward to 
     working with you for passage of the FamilyCare Act of 2000.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Gregg Haifley,
                                  Deputy Director Health Division.

[[Page 16360]]

     
                                  ____
                                           National Association of


                                         Children's Hospitals,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 21, 2000.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Children's Hospital (N.A.C.H.), which represents over 100 
     children's hospitals nationwide, I want to express our strong 
     support for your introduction of the ``FamilyCare Act of 
     2000.''
       As providers of care to all children, regardless of their 
     economic status, children's hospitals devote nearly half of 
     their patient care to children who rely on Medicaid or are 
     uninsured, and more than three-fourths of their patient-care 
     to children with chronic and congenital conditions. These 
     hospitals have extensive experience in assisting families to 
     enroll eligible children in Medicaid and SCHIP. They are 
     keenly aware of the importance of addressing the challenges 
     that states face in enrolling this often hard to reach 
     population of eligible children.
       In particular, N.A.C.H. appreciates and strongly supports 
     your efforts to simplify and coordinate the application 
     process for SCHIP and Medicaid, as well as to provide new 
     tools for states to use in identifying and enrolling 
     families. In addition, N.A.C.H. applauds your provisions that 
     set a higher bar for covering children by: (1) requiring 
     states to first cover children up to 200% of poverty and 
     eliminating waiting lists in the SCHIP program before 
     covering parents; and (2) requiring every child who loses 
     coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP to be automatically screened 
     for other avenues of eligibility and if found eligible, 
     enrolled immediately in that program.
       N.A.C.H. also supports your legislation's provision to give 
     states additional flexibility under SCHIP and Medicaid to 
     cover legal immigrant children. In states with high 
     proportions of uninsured children, such as California, Texas 
     and Florida, the federal government's bar on coverage of 
     legal immigrant children helps contribute to the fact that 
     Hispanic children represent the highest rate of uninsured 
     children of all major racial and ethnic minority groups. Your 
     provision to ensure coverage of legal immigrant children 
     would be extremely useful in improving this situation.
       N.A.C.H. greatly appreciates all that you have done 
     throughout your years of service, and continue to do, to 
     provide all children with the best possible chance at 
     starting out and staying healthy. We welcome and look forward 
     to working with you to pass the ``FamilyCare Act of 2000.''
           Sincerely,
     Lawrence A. McAndrews.
                                  ____

                                                   March of Dimes,


                                     Birth Defects Foundation,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of more than 3 million 
     volunteers and 1600 staff members of the March of Dimes, I 
     want to commend you for introducing the ``FamilyCare Act of 
     2000.'' The March of Dimes is committed to increasing access 
     to appropriate and affordable health care for women, infants 
     and children and supports the targeted approach to expanding 
     the State Children's Health Insurance Program contained in 
     the FamilyCare proposal.
       The ``FamilyCare Act of 2000'' contains a number of 
     beneficial provisions that would expand and improve SCHIP. 
     The March of Dimes strongly supports giving states the option 
     to cover low-income pregnant women in Medicaid and SCHIP 
     programs with an enhanced matching rate. We understand that 
     FamilyCare would allow states to cover uninsured parents of 
     children enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP as well as uninsured 
     first-time pregnant women. SCHIP is the only major federally-
     funded program that denies coverage to pregnant women while 
     providing coverage to their infants and children. We know 
     prenatal care improves birth outcomes. Expanding health 
     insurance coverage for low-income pregnant women has 
     bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.
       The March of Dimes also supports FamilyCare provisions to 
     require automatic enrollment of children born to SCHIP 
     parents; automatic screening of every child who loses 
     coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP to determine eligibility for 
     other health programs; and distribution of information on the 
     availability of Medicaid and SCHIP through the school lunch 
     program. The March of Dimes also supports giving states the 
     option to provide Medicaid and SCHIP benefits to children and 
     pregnant women who arrived legally to the United States after 
     August 23, 1996, and to people ages 19 and 20.
       We thank you for your leadership in introducing the 
     ``FamilyCare Act of 2000'' and are eager to work with you to 
     achieve approval of this much needed legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Anna Eleanor Roosevelt,
       Vice Chair, Board of Trustees; Chair, Public Affairs 
     Committee.
     Dr. Jennifer L. Howse,
       Presdient.
                                  ____

                                       Association of Maternal and


                                        Child Health Programs,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2000.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the Association of 
     Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP), I am writing to 
     express our support of the FamilyCare Act of 2000. We are 
     particularly supportive of the provisions that allow states 
     to include pregnant women in their SCHIP and Medicaid 
     programs.
       We are also pleased with the provisions giving states the 
     flexibility to expand outreach activities as well as moving 
     towards greater equity in program payments.
       AMCHP represents state officials in 59 states and 
     territories who administer public health programs aimed at 
     improving the health of all women, children, and adolescents. 
     In 1997, over 22 million women, children, adolescents and 
     children with special health care needs received services, 
     which were supported by the Maternal and Child Health Block 
     Grant.
       We look forward to working with you and your staff on this 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Deborah Dietrich,
     Director of Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                   American Dental


                                        Hygienist Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Hon. Jay Rockefeller,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller: on behalf of the 
     American Dental Hygienists' Association (ADHA), I write to 
     express ADHA's support for the principles espoused in the 
     Family Care Act of 2000. This legislation is an important 
     step toward the goal of meaningful health insurance coverage, 
     including oral health insurance coverage, for all children 
     and their parents.
       Regretfully, there is room for much improvement in our 
     children's oral health, a fundamental part of total health. 
     Studies show that oral disease currently afflicts the 
     majority of children in our country. Dental caries (tooth 
     decay), gingivitis, and periodontitis (gum and bone 
     disorders) are the most common oral diseases. The Public 
     Health Service reports that 50% of all children in the United 
     States experience dental caries in their permanent teeth and 
     two-thirds experience gingivitis.
       The percentages of children with dental disease are likely 
     far higher for the traditionally underserved Medicaid-
     eligible population and for those eligible for the State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). For example, one 
     of the most severe forms of gum disease--localized juvenile 
     periodontitis--disproportionately affects teenage African-
     American males and can result in the loss of all teeth before 
     adulthood. If untreated, gum disease causes pain, bleeding, 
     loss of function, diminished appearance, possible systemic 
     infections, bone deterioration and eventual loss of teeth. 
     Yet, each of the three most common oral health disorders--
     dental caries, gingivitis, and periodontitis--can be 
     prevented through the type of regular preventive care 
     provided by dental hygienists.
       Despite the known benefits of preventive oral health 
     services and the inclusion of oral health benefits in 
     Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and 
     Treatment (EPSDT) program, only one in 5 (4.2 million out of 
     21.2 million) Medicaid-eligible children actually received 
     preventive oral health services in 1993 according to a 1996 
     U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report entitled 
     Children's Dental Services Under Medicaid: Access and 
     Utilization.
       The nation simply must improve access to oral health 
     services and your legislation is an important building block 
     for all who care about our children's oral health, a 
     fundamental part of general health and well-being.
       We in the dental hygiene community look forward to working 
     together toward our shared goal of health insurance coverage 
     for all of our nation's families. Please feel free to call 
     upon me or ADHA's Washington Counsel, Karen Sealander of 
     McDermott, Will & Emery (202-756-8024), at any time.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Stanley B. Peck,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                 Premier Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of Premier Inc., I am 
     writing to applaud your introduction of the ``FamilyCare Act 
     of 2000'' and express our strong support. Premier is a 
     strategic alliance of leading not-for-profit hospitals and 
     health systems across the nation. Premier provides group 
     purchasing and other services for more than 1,800 hospitals 
     and healthcare facilities.
       As reported by the Urban Institute in the July/August issue 
     of Health Affairs, the population of non-elderly uninsured 
     grew by 4.2 million between 1994 and 1998. This hike in the 
     rate of uninsured occurred among children and adults. In the 
     same period, Medicaid coverage fell from 10 to 8.4 percent, 
     or

[[Page 16361]]

     about 3.1 million persons (1.9 million children and 1.2 
     million adults). Your legislation confronts and seeks to 
     address these disturbing trends head on.
       The FamilyCare Act of 2000 not only expands coverage to 
     children--it also enables states to provide health insurance 
     to parents of children enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid. The 
     bill creates new opportunities for states to cover immigrant 
     children and pregnant women, and provides for the automatic 
     coverage of children born to CHIP-enrolled parents, thereby 
     enhancing presumptive eligibility.
       This legislation provides for the mutual reinforcement of 
     the Medicaid and CHIP programs by integrating eligibility 
     determination and outreach efforts. A standard application 
     form and simple enrollment process for both programs will 
     raise the participation rate for both programs. Finally, the 
     bill provides grants to support broader outreach activities 
     and employer subsidies to offer health insurance packages, 
     thereby encouraging joint public/private market innovations 
     to reduce the population of uninsured.
       Stifling the growth in the rate of uninsured and reversing 
     the trend remain a top priority for the hospital community. 
     Securing the appropriate preventative care for these 
     individuals will improve the quality and cost-effectiveness 
     of further care, as the uninsured are more likely to be 
     hospitalized for medical conditions that, initially, could 
     have been managed with physician care and/or medication.
       Thank you for taking the lead in addressing the problem of 
     America's uninsured. We look forward to working with you 
     toward enactment of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Kerb Kuhn,
     Vice President, Advocacy.
                                  ____



                                                 Families USA,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: We congratulate you on the 
     introduction of your bill, the Family Care Act of 2000, which 
     gives states the option to provide parents of children 
     enrolled in the Medicaid and CHIP programs with health 
     insurance. We believe that your bill is a crucial next step 
     in addressing the problem of our nation's uninsured, and we 
     offer our unequivocal support.
       By covering parents through CHIP, the Family Care Act could 
     provide health insurance to over four million previously 
     uninsured Americans. We believe this is a cost-effective and 
     efficient way to provide quality healthcare to low- and 
     moderate-income working families. Children of CHIP-enrolled 
     parents will be automatically enrolled at birth, but, equally 
     importantly, research has shown that children are more likely 
     to have health coverage when their parents are insured. This 
     means that the Family Care Act could, in effect, cover many 
     more Americans than the estimated four million. Additionally, 
     the expansion of coverage to legal immigrant children and 
     pregnant women addresses the needs of two particularly 
     vulnerable groups.
       Again, we applaud your ongoing leadership in tackling the 
     problem of the uninsured, and we support this important 
     legislation. Please let us know how we can help you to enact 
     this bill into law.
           Sincerely,
                                                Ronald F. Pollack,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                American Hospital Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
         Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The American Hospital Association 
     (AHA), which represents, 5,000 hospitals, health care 
     systems, networks, and other providers of care, is pleased to 
     support the FamilyCare Act of 2000. The AHA shares your goal 
     of expanding access to health care coverage for the 44 
     million uninsured Americans. We believe the federal budget 
     surplus offers a unique opportunity to fund solutions to the 
     health care problems of the uninsured.
       Recent Medicaid expansions and the creation of the State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) have greatly 
     improved access to health care coverage for millions of 
     children living in low-income families. But more needs to be 
     done. AHA strongly supports the objective of your legislation 
     that embraces, as one option to address the problems of the 
     uninsured, building on existing public programs to expand 
     coverage to the parents of the children covered by S-CHIP.
       Furthermore, your provisions that include coverage for 
     legal immigrants, improve Medicaid coverage for those 
     transitioning from welfare-to-work, and create state grant 
     programs to encourage market innovation in health care 
     insurance are to be applauded. AHA believes these are good 
     first steps toward lowering the numbers of the uninsured.
       In addition to expanding public programs, AHA supports 
     measures that make health care insurance more affordable for 
     low-income working families. Toward that end, AHA also 
     support H.R. 4113, bipartisan legislation establishing 
     refundable tax credits to assist low-income families in the 
     purchase of health care insurance.
       Our nation's hospitals see every day that the absence of 
     health coverage is a significant barrier to care, reducing 
     the likelihood that people will get appropriate preventive, 
     diagnostic and chronic care. With the uninsured growing in 
     numbers, AHA supports your effort to build on current public 
     programs as an important option to make it possible for more 
     low-income families to get needed health care coverage. We 
     thank you for your leadership and we look forward to working 
     with you on advancing the FamilyCare Act of 2000.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rick Pollack,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                                      Network,

                                        Washington, DC, July 2000.

     From NETWORK--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
     Re: The Family Care Act of 2000.

       Hon. Senator Ted Kennedy: Since 1975, NETWORK: A National 
     Catholic Social Justice Lobby has worked for universal access 
     to affordable, quality health care. NETWORK considers the 
     constant increase in the number of uninsured persons a 
     national disgrace and a serious moral and ethical issue. 
     Sadly, the political will to reform the nation's fragmented 
     non-system of health care is seriously lacking in the current 
     climate of commercialization and profit-making. Therefore, 
     millions of American citizens are denied their human right to 
     medical care.
       Given that as the context, NETWORK supports the efforts of 
     those legislators who recognize that the anticipated federal 
     surplus should be utilized in part to rectify the serious 
     flaws inherent in the present situation. The Family Care Act 
     of 2000 is one of those efforts. NETWORK urges Congress to 
     pass the proposal.
       The goal of the bill is to build on existing legislation in 
     order to enroll more uninsured children and their working 
     parents in Medicaid or CHIP. The bill requires that states 
     first cover children up to 200% of poverty before they enroll 
     parents. This will serve to increase coverage of previously 
     eligible but uninsured children by eliminating the CHIP 
     waiting lists. It is estimated that over 4 million previously 
     uninsured children will be enrolled.
       The proposal targets $50 billion in new money to enable the 
     states to enroll the parents of children already covered by 
     Medicaid and CHIP. This would reduce the number of uninsured 
     parents by an estimated 6.5 million, one out of seven of the 
     nation's uninsured. Most of these uninsured families have at 
     least one member who works.
       In addition, the bill proposes another $100 million per 
     year for five years to encourage the states to develop 
     innovative approaches to expanding coverage, tailoring their 
     solutions to market needs. Much needed is the proposed 
     extension of The Transitional Medicaid Assistance program. 
     Some of the requirements which jeopardize access to health 
     care by persons moving from welfare to low-wage, non-benefit 
     jobs will be removed. First time pregnant women will receive 
     prenatal care under the CHIP program and grants will enable 
     states to develop innovative coverage mechanisms.
       All in all, the Family Care Act of 2000 as drafted seeks to 
     rectify to a marked degree the serious problem of lack of 
     health care coverage for the most vulnerable in our society, 
     low-wage working families and their children.
     Kathy Thornton RSM,
       National Coordinator.
     Catherine Pinkerton,
       CSJ Lobbyist.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, over the last several years health 
care reform has dropped off our national and Congressional agenda. We 
talk about it primarily to posture politically, not because we are 
determined to actually succeed in extending coverage. Too often, the 
goal seems to be to simply create a campaign issue and make voters 
believe we are working to solve the problem, when in reality no 
progress is being made.
  This year, we have seen a lot of talking on health care, but it's 
clear that Congress' priorities lie elsewhere. Just this past week we 
passed a tax break that will affect only 1.7 percent of Americans, yet 
will cost us $50 billion a year when fully phased in. In the meantime, 
40 million people, mostly of modest incomes, continue to live their 
lives with little hope of getting the health coverage they need.
  The question that Congress needs to answer: will we continue to sit 
back and simply watch as the problem of the uninsured grows worse?
  Along with Senator Kennedy, and Congressmen Dingell, Stark and 
Waxman, I obviously have very clear answers to this question. And today 
we are offering a commonsense, bipartisan step that Congress can take 
this year

[[Page 16362]]

to improve the plight of working, uninsured families.
  We know that the majority of those without health insurance are 
concentrated in lower-income, working families. The Medicaid and CHIP 
Family Care Improvement Act would target our efforts to these families 
by allowing states to extend Medicaid and CHIP to the parents of 
eligible children. This is a sensible, affordable expansion that will 
make a real and immediate difference for many American families.
  In addition, FamilyCare would provide assistance to increase coverage 
for workers in small businesses by providing grant money for states to 
pursue new and innovative approaches to expand health insurance 
coverage through small business.
  Our plan also gives states a number of new tools to help improve 
outreach and enrollment in Medicaid and the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program.
  FamilyCare would provide health insurance coverage to millions of 
low-income working families for a fraction of the cost of the recently-
passed tax breaks that affect only a small number of people.
  Eight years ago, the fight for universal health care had a surge of 
energy and there was a common purpose among political leaders and the 
American people. Unfortunately, little progress has been made since 
then. While the number of uninsured has grown from 36 million in 1993 
to 44 million in 1999, we have stood by as a nation and simply watched. 
Over the next 3 years, about 30 percent of the population, 81 million 
Americans, can expect a gap in their health insurance coverage lasting 
at least one month. It is practically inconceivable--and morally 
wrong--that we are allowing this to happen in such a strong economy, 
with an extremely competitive labor market.
  It is time to end the failed experiment of trying to let the disease 
cure itself. We need to accomplish the goal of comprehensive reform in 
any way we can--even if it means continuing to work on incremental 
changes, as long as we always keep our target squarely set on universal 
coverage.
  Today, we are giving Congress the opportunity to take a major step 
forward in accomplishing this goal. With FamilyCare, we are simply 
taking a program that is already working to reduce the number of 
uninsured, and expanding it to cover more people who we know need the 
help.
  This approach makes so much sense that even the conservative Health 
Insurance Association of America--the organization that helped to 
defeat universal coverage--has offered its support. In addition, our 
bill has four Republicans as original cosponsors. With this bipartisan 
bill we have a real opportunity to stop talking about expanding health 
coverage, and start acting.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Durbin, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2924. A bill to strengthen the enforcement of Federal statutes 
relating to false identification, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


        the internet false identification prevention act of 2000

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague from 
Illinois, Senator Durbin, and my colleague from California, Senator 
Feinstein, I am introducing legislation to stem the proliferation of 
web sites that distribute counterfeit identification documents and 
credentials over the Internet.
  In May, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I 
chair, held hearings on a disturbing new trend--the use of the Internet 
to manufacture and market counterfeit identification documents and 
credentials. Our investigation revealed the widespread availability on 
the Internet of a variety of fake ID documents or computer templates 
that allow individuals to manufacture authentic looking IDs in the 
seclusion of their own homes.
  The Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000 will 
strengthen current law to prevent the distribution of false 
identification documents over the Internet and make it easier for 
Federal officials to prosecute this criminal activity.
  The high quality of the counterfeit identification documents that can 
be obtained via the Internet is simply astounding. With very little 
difficulty, my staff was able to use Internet materials to manufacture 
convincing IDs that would allow me to pass as a member of our Armed 
Forces, as a reporter, as a student at Boston University, or as a 
licensed driver in Florida, Michigan, and Wyoming--to name just a few 
of the identities that I could assume, using these phony IDs. We found 
it was very easy to manufacture IDs that were indistinguishable from 
the real documents.
  For example, using the Internet, my staff created this counterfeit 
Connecticut driver's license, which is virtually identical to an 
authentic license issued by the Connecticut Department of Motor 
Vehicles. Just like the real Connecticut license, this fake with my 
picture on it, includes a signature written over the picture--which is 
supposed to be a security feature. It includes an adjacent ``shadow 
picture,'' and it includes the bar code and the State seal for the 
State of Connecticut.
  Each of these sophisticated features was added to the license by the 
State of Connecticut in order to make it more difficult to counterfeit. 
Yet the Internet scam artists have been able to keep up with the 
technology, and every time a State adds another security feature it has 
been easily duplicated.
  Unfortunately, some web sites sell fake IDs complete with State 
seals, holograms, and bar codes to replicate a license virtually 
indistinguishable from the real thing. Thus, technology now allows web 
site operators to copy authentic IDs with an extraordinary level of 
sophistication and then distribute and mass produce these fraudulent 
documents for their customers.
  The web sites investigated by my subcommittee offered a vast and 
varied product line, ranging from the driver's licenses that I already 
showed to military identification cards to Federal agency credentials, 
including those of the FBI and the CIA.
  Other sites offered to produce Social Security cards, birth 
certificates, diplomas, and press credentials. In short, one can find 
almost any kind of identification document that one wants on the 
Internet.
  Testimony before my Subcommittee demonstrated that the availability 
of false identification documents from the Internet is a growing 
problem. Special Agent David Myers, Identification Fraud Coordinator of 
the State of Florida's Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 
testified that two years ago only one percent of false identification 
documents came from the Internet, last year a little less than five 
percent came from the Internet, and he estimates that about 30 percent 
of the false identification documents now seized comes from the 
Internet. He predicts that by next year his unit will find at least 60 
to 70 percent of the false identification documents they seize will 
come from the Internet.
  The General Accounting Office and the FBI have both confirmed the 
findings of the subcommittee's investigation of this dangerous new 
trend. The GAO used counterfeit credentials and badges readily 
available for purchase via the Internet to breach the security at 19 
Federal buildings and two commercial airports. GAO's success in doing 
so demonstrates that the Internet and computer technology allow nearly 
anyone to create convincing identification cards and credentials.
  The FBI has also focused on the potential of misuse of official 
identification, and just last month executive search warrants at the 
homes of several individuals who had been selling Federal law 
enforcement badges over the Internet.
  Obviously, this is very serious. It allows someone to use a law 
enforcement badge to gain access to secure areas and perhaps to commit 
harm. For example, the FBI is investigating a very disturbing incident 
where someone allegedly displayed phony FBI credentials to gain access 
to an individual's hotel room and then allegedly later kidnaped and 
murdered that individual.

[[Page 16363]]

  The Internet is a revolutionary tool of commerce and communications 
that benefits us all, but many of the Internet's greatest attributes 
also further its use for criminal purposes. While the manufacture of 
false IDs by criminals is certainly nothing new, the Internet allows 
those specializing in the sale of counterfeit IDs to reach a far 
broader market of potential buyers than they ever could by standing on 
the street corner in a shady part of town. They can sell their products 
with virtual anonymity through the use of e-mail services and free web 
hosting services and by providing false information when registering 
their domain names. Similarly, the Internet allows criminals to obtain 
fake IDs in the privacy of their own homes, substantially diminishing 
the risk of apprehension that attends purchasing counterfeit documents 
on the street.
  Because this is a relatively new phenomenon, there are no good data 
on the size of the false ID industry or the growth it has experienced 
as a result of the Internet, but the testimony at our hearing indicates 
that the Internet is increasingly becoming the source of choice for 
criminals to obtain false IDs.
  The subcommittee's investigation found that some web site operators 
apparently have made hundreds of thousands of dollars through the sale 
of phony identification documents. One web site operator told a State 
law enforcement official that he sold approximately 1,000 fake IDs each 
month and generated about $600,000 in annual sales.
  Identify theft is a growing problem that these Internet sites 
facilitate. Fake IDs, however, also facilitate a broad array of 
criminal conduct. We found that some Internet sites were used to obtain 
counterfeit identification documents for the purpose of committing 
other crimes, ranging from very serious offenses, such as identify 
theft and bank fraud, ranging to the more common problem of teenagers 
using phony IDs to buy alcohol.
  The legislation which Senators Durbin, Feinstein, and I are 
introducing today is designed to address the problem of counterfeit IDs 
in several ways. The central features of our legislation are provisions 
that modernize existing law to address the widespread availability of 
false identification documents on the Internet.
  First, the legislation supplements current Federal law against false 
identification to modernize it for the Internet age. The primary law 
prohibiting the use and distribution of false identification documents 
was enacted in 1982. Advances in computer technology and the use of the 
Internet have rendered that law inadequate. This bill will clarify that 
the current law prohibits the sale or distribution of false 
identification documents through computer files and templates which our 
investigation found are the vehicles of choice for manufacturing false 
IDs in the Internet age.
  Second, the legislation will make it easier to prosecute those 
criminals who manufacture, distribute, or sell counterfeit 
identification documents by ending the practices of easily removable 
disclaimers as part of an attempt to shield the illegal conduct from 
prosecution through a bogus claim of novelty.
  What we found is that a lot of these web sites have these 
disclaimers, in an attempt to get around the law, saying that these can 
only be used for entertainment or novelty purposes. No longer will it 
be acceptable to provide computer templates of government-issued 
identification cards containing an easily removable layer saying it is 
not a government document.
  I will give an example. This is a driver's license from Oklahoma. It 
is a fake ID which my staff obtained via the Internet. It is enclosed 
in a plastic pouch that says ``Not a Government Document'' in red print 
across it, but it was very easily removed. All one had to do, with a 
snip of the scissors, was cut the pouch, and then the ID is easily 
removed and the disclaimer is gone. That is the kind of technique that 
a lot of times these web site operators use to get around the letter of 
the law. Under my bill, it will no longer be acceptable to sell a false 
identification document in this fashion.
  Finally, my legislation seeks to encourage more aggressive law 
enforcement by dedicating investigative and prosecutorial resources to 
this emerging problem. The bill establishes a multiagency task force 
that will concentrate the investigative and prosecutorial resources of 
several agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws that 
criminalize the manufacture, sale, and distribution of counterfeit 
identification documents.
  Our investigation established that Federal law enforcement officials 
have not devoted the necessary resources and attention to this serious 
problem. by prosecuting the purveyors of false identification 
materials, I believe that ultimately we can reduce end-use crime that 
often depends on the availability of counterfeit identification. For 
example, the convicted felon who testified at our hearings said that he 
would not have been able to commit bank fraud had he not been able to 
easily and quickly obtain high-quality fraudulent identification 
documents via the Internet. I am confident that if Federal law 
enforcement officials prosecute the most blatant violation of the law, 
the false ID industry on the Internet will wither in short order.
  By strengthening the law and by focusing our prosecutorial efforts, I 
believe we can curb the widespread availability of false IDs that the 
Internet facilitates. The Director of the U.S. Secret Service testified 
at our hearing that the use of such fraudulent documents and 
credentials almost always accompanies the serious financial crimes they 
investigate. Thus, my hope is that the legislation we are introducing 
today will produce a stronger law that will help deter and prevent 
criminal activity, not only in the manufacture of false IDs but in 
other areas as well.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 2925. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish 
an Office of Men's Health; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


                        MEN'S HEALTH ACT OF 2000

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce 
the Men's Health Act of 2000. This legislation will establish an Office 
of Men's Health within the Department of Health and Human Services to 
monitor, coordinate, and improve men's health in America.
  Mr. President, there is an ongoing, increasing and predominantly 
silent crisis in the health and well-being of men. Due to a lack of 
awareness, poor health education, and culturally induced behavior 
patterns in their work and personal lives, men's health and well-being 
are deteriorating steadily. Heart disease, stroke, and various cancers 
continue to be major areas of concern as we look to enhance the quality 
and duration of men's lives. Improved education and preventive 
screening are imperative to meet this objective.
  Mr. President, as a lifelong advocate of regular medical exams, daily 
exercise and a balanced diet, I feel strongly that an Office of Men's 
Health should be established to help improve the overall health of 
America's male population.
  This legislation is identical to a bill introduced earlier this year 
in the House of Representatives. I invite my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this measure. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the 
bill appear in the Congressional Record immediately following my 
remarks.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2925

       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 ``Men's Health Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) There is a silent health crisis affecting the health 
     and well-being of America's men.
       (2) This health crisis is of particular concern to men, but 
     is also a concern for women, and especially to those who have 
     fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers.
       (3) Men's health is likewise a concern for employers who 
     lose productive employees as

[[Page 16364]]

     well as pay the costs of medical care, and is a concern to 
     State government and society which absorb the enormous costs 
     of premature death and disability, including the costs of 
     caring for dependents left behind.
       (4) The life expectancy gap between men and women has 
     steadily increased from 1 year in 1920 to 7 years in 1990.
       (5) Almost twice as many men than women die from heart 
     disease, and 28.5 percent of all men die as a result of 
     stroke.
       (6) In 1995, blood pressure of black males was 356 percent 
     higher than that of white males, and the death rate for 
     stroke was 97 percent higher for black males than for white 
     males.
       (7) The incidence of stroke among men is 19 percent higher 
     than for women.
       (8) Significantly more men than women are diagnosed with 
     AIDS each year.
       (9) Fifty percent more men than women die of cancer.
       (10) Although the incidence of depression is higher in 
     women, the rate of life-threatening depression is higher in 
     men, with men representing 80 percent of all suicide cases, 
     and with men 43 times more likely to be admitted to 
     psychiatric hospitals than women.
       (11) Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed 
     cancer in the United States among men, accounting for 36 
     percent of all cancer cases.
       (12) An estimated 180,000 men will be newly diagnosed with 
     prostate cancer this year alone, of which 37,000 will die.
       (13) Prostate cancer rates increase sharply with age, and 
     more than 75 percent of such cases are diagnosed in men age 
     65 and older.
       (14) The incidence of prostate cancer and the resulting 
     mortality rate in African American men is twice that in white 
     men.
       (15) Studies show that men are at least 25 percent less 
     likely than women to visit a doctor, and are significantly 
     less likely to have regular physician check-ups and obtain 
     preventive screening tests for serious diseases.
       (16) Appropriate use of tests such as prostate specific 
     antigen (PSA) exams and blood pressure, blood sugar, and 
     cholesterol screens, in conjunction with clinical exams and 
     self-testing, can result in the early detection of many 
     problems and in increased survival rates.
       (17) Educating men, their families, and health care 
     providers about the importance of early detection of male 
     health problems can result in reducing rates of mortality for 
     male-specific diseases, as well as improve the health of 
     America's men and its overall economic well-being.
       (18) Recent scientific studies have shown that regular 
     medical exams, preventive screenings, regular exercise, and 
     healthy eating habits can help save lives.
       (19) Establishing an Office of Men's Health is needed to 
     investigate these findings and take such further actions as 
     may be needed to promote men's health.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE MEN'S HEALTH.

       Title XVII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     section:


                        ``office of men's health

       ``Sec. 1711. The Secretary shall establish within the 
     Department of Health and Human Services an office to be known 
     as the Office of Men's Health, which shall be headed by a 
     director appointed by the Secretary. The Secretary, acting 
     through the Director of the Office, shall coordinate and 
     promote the status of men's health in the United States.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2926. A bill a amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
provide that an individual's entitlement to any benefit thereunder 
shall continue through the month of his or her death (without affecting 
any other person's entitlement to benefits for that month) and that 
such individuals' benefit shall be payable for such month only to the 
extent proportionate to the number of days in such month preceding the 
date of such individual's death; to the Committee on Finance.


                 The Social Security Family Relief Act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Social 
Security Family Relief Act, which is legislation designed to both 
revise current Social Security law and assist families living in New 
Mexico and across the United States.
  For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with this issue, at 
present the Social Security Administration pays benefits in advance, 
and, thus, a check an individual receives from Social Security 
Administration during the month is calculated and paid in anticipation 
that the individual will be alive the entire month in which a payment 
was received.
  However, if a person dies during that month, the payment must be 
reimbursed in full to the Social Security Administration. If a person 
dies on the 5th of the month, or the 15th of the month, or the 25th of 
the month, none of this matters. If they die, they are no longer 
entitled to any benefits for that month, period. Furthermore, if a 
surviving spouse or family member uses a check received from the Social 
Security Administration for that month in which a family member had 
died, they must send it back--in full--to the Social Security 
Administration.
  Let me make this clear that this is not just a problem in the 
abstract. Indeed, the introduction of this bill is prompted by a very 
real experience faced by a family living in New Mexico. In this case, a 
constituent had a close relative pass away on December 31, 1999. The 
last day of the month. Not knowing it ran contrary to Social Security 
law, the family used the relative's last Social Security check to pay 
her final expenses. Only after these activities had occurred did they 
receive a letter from the Social Security Administration stating that 
they would have to return the check. Not just partial payment, but in 
full. No recognition on the part of the Social Security Administration 
that this person was alive for the entire month. No recognition on the 
part of the Social Security Administration that this person had 
expenses that had to be paid for after they had died. No recognition on 
the part of the Social Security Administration that the surviving 
relatives had their own bills to pay, and that this additional expense 
imposed a burden on them that was difficult to manage.
  My constituents found this to absurd. Why, they asked, should they 
have to return a check for a relative that was alive, was accumulating 
expenses while she was alive, and deserved the money that was provided 
to her? Why, they asked, should they be required to pay for the 
relative's expenses when money should be available? Why should their 
emotional suffering be made all the more distressful by the addition of 
financial obligations not of their own making?
  I think these are good questions, and it is logical that Congress 
address them directly and in a manner that solves the problem at hand. 
From what I can see, they are right. Individuals that have worked over 
the years and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund all that 
time, these folks have earned Social Security benefits and should 
receive them in full for the period that they are alive. As such, 
Social Security law should be written in such a way that allows the 
surviving spouse or family member to use the final check to take care 
of the remaining expenses, whether they be utilities, or mortgages, or 
car payments, or health care, or whatever needs to be taken care of.
  But although my constituents are sometimes critical of the Social 
Security Administration on this issue, in fairness that agency did not 
create this problem, Congress did. We wrote the law, and the Social 
Security Administration merely implements it. Any responsibility for 
what is happening belongs to us. We need to fix the law so the Social 
Security Administration can do its job better.
  It is my understanding that this issue has been discussed in the past 
by a number of Senators, but the revisions have gone nowhere because 
some felt it would impose an administrative burden on the Social 
Security Administration. I find this argument to be unconvincing as we 
clearly find a way to calculate complex equations that ultimately 
benefit that agency. There are those that now argue that tracking down 
appropriate beneficiaries would be difficult. But I find this to be 
quite unconvincing as well--after all, we do it already when someone 
dies. Surely there is a way to make the changes necessary. Surely the 
technology and expertise already exists. Surely it is time to stop 
making excuses and do what is right for Americans and their families.
  The legislation I am introducing today is easy to understand. The 
legislation says, quite simply, that an individual's entitlement to 
Social Security benefits shall continue through the month of his or her 
death, and after that individual's death, the entitlement shall be 
calculated in a manner proportionate to the days he or she was still 
alive. In other words, we are using a method of pro-rating to calculate

[[Page 16365]]

what portion of the entitlement that individual will receive for the 
last month. Then, instead of being asked to return that final check, 
the surviving spouse or appropriate surviving family members will 
receive a check, which can then be used to settle the decedent's 
remaining expenses. I think this is a perfectly fair and reasonable 
approach to solving the problem at hand. And I think it is long 
overdue.
  It is my understanding that another bill addressing this problem has 
been introduced in the Senate by my colleague Senator Mikulski. 
Furthermore, she has introduced this legislation for several years in a 
row. I commend her for her awareness of this problem and her ongoing 
efforts to fix it.
  That said, it is also my understanding that her bill as written 
calculates these entitlement benefits on a half-month basis. In other 
words, if you die before the 15th, you get benefits for a half a month. 
If you die after the 15th, you are entitled to benefits for the entire 
month. To be honest, I see no obvious rationale for addressing the 
problem in this way, and I find a pro-rate strategy to be far more 
compelling. But this said, I look forward to working with her and her 
co-sponsors to repair the problem. We clearly have the same concerns.
  Mr. President, let me state in conclusion that this legislation 
represents only a partial fix of the current Social Security system. 
There is no doubt in my mind that much more needs to be done. We have 
talked about the issues far too long, and it is time to make a serious 
effort to make the Social Security solvent and effective. If had my 
way, this effort would begin tomorrow. But since it is not, this 
legislation can be considered one small but very important step on the 
path to reform.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation 
be included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2926

       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 ``Social Security Family 
     Relief Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONTINUATION OF BENEFITS THROUGH MONTH OF 
                   BENEFICIARY'S DEATH.

       (a) Old-Age Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``the month preceding'' in the matter following subparagraph 
     (B).
       (b) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 202(b)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(b)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and ending with the month'' in the matter 
     immediately following clause (ii) and inserting ``and ending 
     with the month in which she dies or (if earlier) with the 
     month'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (E); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (J).
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 202(b)(5)(B) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(5)(B)) is amended by striking ``(E), 
     (F), (H), or (J)'' and inserting ``(E), (G), or (I)''.
       (c) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 202(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(c)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and ending with the month'' in the matter 
     immediately following clause (ii) and inserting ``and ending 
     with the month in which he dies or (if earlier) with the 
     month'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (E); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (J), respectively.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 202(c)(5)(B) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(5)(B)) is amended by striking ``(E), 
     (F), (H), or (J)'' and inserting ``(E), (G), or (I)'', 
     respectively.
       (d) Child's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(d)(1) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and ending with the month'' in the matter 
     immediately preceding subparagraph (D) and inserting ``and 
     ending with the month in which such child dies or (if 
     earlier) with the month''; and
       (2) by striking ``dies, or'' in subparagraph (D).
       (e) Widow's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(e)(1) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(1)) is amended by striking ``ending 
     with the month preceding the first month in which any of the 
     following occurs: she remarries, dies,'' in the matter 
     following subparagraph (F) and inserting ``ending with the 
     month in which she dies or (if earlier) with the month 
     preceding the first month in which she remarries or''.
       (f) Widower's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(f)(1) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``ending with the month preceding the first month in which 
     any of the following occurs: he remarries, dies,'' in the 
     matter following subparagraph (F) and inserting ``ending with 
     the month in which he dies or (if earlier) with the month 
     preceding the first month in which he remarries''.
       (g) Mother's and Father's Insurance Benefits.--Section 
     202(g)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(g)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``with the month in which he or she dies 
     or (if earlier)'' after ``and ending'' in the matter 
     following subparagraph (F); and
       (2) by striking ``he or she remarries, or he or she dies'' 
     and inserting ``or he or she remarries''.
       (h) Parent's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(h)(1) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(h)(1)) is amended by striking ``ending 
     with the month preceding the first month in which any of the 
     following occurs: such parent dies, marries,'' in the matter 
     following subparagraph (E) and inserting ``ending with the 
     month in which such parent dies or (if earlier) with the 
     month preceding the first month in which such parent marries, 
     or such parent''.
       (i) Disability Insurance Benefits.--Section 223(a)(1) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(a)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``ending with the month preceding whichever of the following 
     months is the earliest: the month in which he dies,'' in the 
     matter following subparagraph (D) and inserting the 
     following: ``ending with the month in which he dies or (if 
     earlier) with the month preceding the earlier of'' and by 
     striking the comma after ``216(l))''.
       (j) Benefits at Age 72 for Certain Uninsured Individuals.--
     Section 228(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 428(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``the month preceding'' in the matter following 
     paragraph (4).

     SEC. 3. COMPUTATION AND PAYMENT OF LAST MONTHLY PAYMENT.

       (a) Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Benefits.--Section 202 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ``Last Payment of Monthly Insurance Benefit Terminated by Death

       ``(y) The amount of any individual's monthly insurance 
     benefit under this section paid for the month in which the 
     individual dies shall be an amount equal to--
       ``(1) the amount of such benefit (as determined without 
     regard to this subsection), multiplied by
       ``(2) a fraction--
       ``(A) the numerator of which is the number of days in such 
     month preceding the date of such individual's death, and
       ``(B) the denominator of which is the number of days in 
     such month,
     rounded, if not a multiple of $1, to the next lower multiple 
     of $1. This subsection shall apply with respect to such 
     benefit after all other adjustments with respect to such 
     benefit provided by this title have been made. Payment of 
     such benefit for such month shall be made as provided in 
     section 204(d).''.
       (b) Disability Insurance Benefits.--Section 223 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 423) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:

             ``Last Payment of Benefit Terminated by Death

       ``(j) The amount of any individual's monthly benefit under 
     this section paid for the month in which the individual dies 
     shall be an amount equal to--
       ``(1) the amount of such benefit (as determined without 
     regard to this subsection), multiplied by
       ``(2) a fraction--
       ``(A) the numerator of which is the number of days in such 
     month preceding the date of such individual's death, and
       ``(B) the denominator of which is the number of days in 
     such month,
     rounded, if not a multiple of $1, to the next lower multiple 
     of $1. This subsection shall apply with respect to such 
     benefit after all other adjustments with respect to such 
     benefit provided by this title have been made. Payment of 
     such benefit for such month shall be made as provided in 
     section 204(d).''.
       (c) Benefits at Age 72 for Certain Uninsured Individuals.--
     Section 228 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 428) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:

             ``Last Payment of Benefit Terminated by Death

       ``(i) The amount of any individual's monthly benefit under 
     this section paid for the month in which the individual dies 
     shall be an amount equal to--
       ``(1) the amount of such benefit (as determined without 
     regard to this subsection), multiplied by
       ``(2) a fraction--
       ``(A) the numerator of which is the number of days in such 
     month preceding the date of such individual's death, and
       ``(B) the denominator of which is the number of days in 
     such month,

[[Page 16366]]

     rounded, if not a multiple of $1, to the next lower multiple 
     of $1. This subsection shall apply with respect to such 
     benefit after all other adjustments with respect to such 
     benefit provided by this title have been made. Payment of 
     such benefit for such month shall be made as provided in 
     section 204(d).''.

     SEC. 4. DISREGARD OF BENEFIT FOR MONTH OF DEATH UNDER FAMILY 
                   MAXIMUM PROVISIONS.

       Section 203(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     403(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(10) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in 
     applying the preceding provisions of this subsection (and 
     determining maximum family benefits under column V of the 
     table in or deemed to be in section 215(a) as in effect in 
     December 1978) with respect to the month in which the insured 
     individual's death occurs, the benefit payable to such 
     individual for that month shall be disregarded.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     deaths occurring after the month in which this Act is 
     enacted.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 2927. A bill to ensure that the incarceration of inmates is not 
provided by private contractors or vendors and that persons charged or 
convicted of an offense against the United States shall be housed in 
facilities managed and maintained by Federal, State, or local 
governments; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                         THE PUBLIC SAFETY ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, sending inmates to prisons built and run 
by prviate companies has become a popular way to deal with overcrowded 
prisons, but in recent years this practice has been appropriately 
criticized. As reports of escapes, riots, prisoner violence, and abuse 
by staff in private prisons increase, many have questioned the wisdom 
and propriety of private companies carrying out this essential state 
function. After considering safety, cost, and accountability issues, it 
is clear that private companies should not be doing this public work. 
Government and only government, whether it's federal, state, or local, 
should operate prisons. That is why I rise today to introduce a bill 
that will restore responsibility for housing prisoners to the state and 
federal government, where it belongs. An identical bill was introduced 
in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ted Strickland, where it 
has received broad bi-partisan support and currently has 141 
cosponsors.
  Private prison companies, and proponents of their use, claim that 
they save taxpayers money. They claim private companies can do the 
government's business more efficiently, but this has never been 
confirmed. In fact, two government studies show that it is far from 
clear whether private prisons save taxpayer money. One study, completed 
by the GAO, stated that it could not conclude whether or not 
privatization saved money. The second study, completed by the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons in 1998, concluded that there is no strong evidence 
to show states save money by using private prisons.
  More importantly, private prison companies are motivated by one goal: 
making a profit. Decisions by these companies are driven by the desire 
to make a profit and, in turn, please officers and shareholders. This 
profit motive in the context of housing criminals is wrong. It is at 
cross-purposes with the government's goal of punishing and 
rehabilitating criminals.
  So what happens when a private company runs a prison? The prisons 
have promised to save taxpayers money, so they cut costs. This 
invariably results in unqualified, low paid employees, poor facilities 
and living conditions, and an inadequate number of educational and 
rehabilitative programs. Recent episodes of escape, violence, and 
prisoner abuse demonstrate what happens when corners are cut.
  At the Northeast Ohio Correctional facility, a private prison in 
Youngstown, Ohio, 20 inmates were stabbed, two of them fatally, within 
a 10-month period. After management claimed they had addressed the 
problems, six inmates, four convicted of homicide, escaped by cutting 
through two razor wire fences in the middle of the afternoon.
  At a private prison in Whiteville, Tennessee, which houses many 
inmates from my home state of Wisconsin, there has been a hostage 
situation, an assault of a guard, and a coverup to hide physical abuse 
of inmates by prison guards. A security report at the same Tennessee 
prison found unsecured razors, inmates obstructing views into their 
cells by covering up windows, and an inmate using a computer lab 
strictly labeled, ``staff only'' without any supervision.
  At a private prison in Sayre, Oklahoma, a dangerous inmate uprising 
jeopardized the security and control of the facility. As a result, the 
state of Oklahoma removed all its inmates from the facility and 
questioned its safety. Because the prison gets paid based on the number 
of inmates, however, the prison continued to request, and other states 
sent, hundreds of inmates to be housed there.
  Earlier this year the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the 
Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, the second largest private prison 
company in the United States, charging that in one of its juvenile 
prisons, conditions were ``dangerous and life threatening.'' A group of 
experts who toured the prison reported that many of the juveniles were 
short of food, had lost weight, and did not have shoes or blankets. The 
Department of Justice lawsuit also alleges that inmates did not receive 
adequate mental health care or educational programming. In addition to 
the poor conditions and lack of training, the guards physically abused 
the boys and threw gas grenades into their barracks. Some juvenile 
inmates even tried to commit suicide or deliberately injure themselves 
so they would be sent to the infirmary to avoid abuse by the guards.
  Mr. President, the profit motive clearly has a dangerous and harmful 
effect on the security of private prisons, but the profit motive also 
shortchanges inmates of the rehabilitation, education, and training 
that they need. Private prisons get paid based on the number of inmates 
they house. This means the more inmates they accept and the fewer 
services they provide, the more money they make. A high crime rate 
means more business and eliminates any motivation to provide job 
training, education, and other rehabilitative programs. These 
allegations of abuse and the negative effects of the profit motive are 
especially troubling because they have a disparate impact on the 
minority community, which has been incarcerated disproportionately in 
recent years particularly with the rise of mandatory minimum sentences 
for drug offenses.
  Another issue of concern is accountability for dispensing one of the 
strongest punishments our society can impose. Incarceration requires a 
government to exercise its coercive police powers over individuals, 
including the authority to take away a person's freedom and to use 
force. This authority to use force should not be delegated to a private 
company that is not accountable to the people. This premise was 
reinforced by the Supreme Court in Richardson v. McKnight, which held 
that private prison personnel are not covered by the qualified immunity 
that shields state and local correctional officers. This means that a 
state or local government could be held liable for the actions of a 
private corporation.
  Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today, the Public Safety 
Act, addresses these concerns. It restores control and management of 
prisons to the government. It makes federal grants under Title II of 
the Crime Control Act of 1994 contingent upon states agreeing not to 
contract with any private companies to provide core correctional 
services related to transportation or incarceration of inmates. The 
legislation was carefully crafted to apply only to core correctional 
services meaning that private companies can still provide auxiliary 
services such as food or clothing.
  Mr. President, let us restore safety and security to the many 
Americans who work in prisons. Let us protect the communities that 
support prisons. And let us ensure rehabilitation and safety for the 
individuals, including young boys and girls, who are housed there. This 
bill returns to the government the function of being the sole 
administrator of incarceration as punishment

[[Page 16367]]

in our society. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of the 
Public Safety Act.
  I ask that the text of the bill be placed in the Record following 
this statement.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2927

       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 ``Public Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The issues of safety, liability, accountability, and 
     cost are the paramount issues in running corrections 
     facilities.
       (2) In recent years, the privatization of facilities for 
     persons previously incarcerated by governmental entities has 
     resulted in frequent escapes by violent criminals, riots 
     resulting in extensive damage, prisoner violence, and 
     incidents of prisoner abuse by staff.
       (3) In some instances, the courts have prohibited the 
     transfer of additional convicts to private prisons because of 
     the danger to prisoners and the community.
       (4) Frequent escapes and riots at private facilities result 
     in expensive law enforcement costs for State and local 
     governments.
       (5) The need to make profits creates incentives for private 
     contractors to underfund mechanisms that provide for the 
     security of the facility and the safety of the inmates, 
     corrections staff, and neighboring community.
       (6) The 1997 Supreme Court ruling in Richardson v. McKnight 
     that the qualified immunity that shields State and local 
     correctional officers does not apply to private prison 
     personnel, and therefore exposes State and local governments 
     to liability for the actions of private corporations.
       (7) Additional liability issues arise when inmates are 
     transferred outside the jurisdiction of the contracting 
     State.
       (8) Studies on private correctional facilities have been 
     unable to demonstrate any significant cost savings in the 
     privatization of corrections facilities.
       (9) The imposition of punishment on errant citizens through 
     incarceration requires State and local governments to 
     exercise their coercive police powers over individuals. These 
     powers, including the authority to use force over a private 
     citizen, should not be delegated to another private party.

     SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subtitle A of title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994, an applicant shall provide 
     assurances to the Attorney General that if selected to 
     receive funds under such subtitle the applicant shall not 
     contract with a private contractor or vendor to provide core 
     correctional services related to the transportation or the 
     incarceration of an inmate.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply to grant 
     funds received after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Effect on Existing Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to a contract in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act between a grantee and a 
     private contractor or vendor to provide core correctional 
     services related to correctional facilities or the 
     incarceration of inmates.
       (2) Renewals and extensions.--Subsection (a) shall apply to 
     renewals or extensions of an existing contract entered into 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``core correctional service'' means the safeguarding, 
     protecting, and disciplining of persons charged or convicted 
     of an offense.

     SEC. 4. ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY IN THE DUTIES OF 
                   THE BUREAU OF PRISONS.

       Section 4042(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) provide that any penal or correctional facility or 
     institution except for nonprofit community correctional 
     confinement, such as halfway houses, confining any person 
     convicted of offenses against the United States, shall be 
     under the direction of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 
     and shall be managed and maintained by employees of Federal, 
     State, or local governments;
       ``(6) provide that the transportation, housing, 
     safeguarding, protection, and disciplining of any person 
     charged with or convicted of any offense against the United 
     States, except such persons in community correctional 
     confinement such as halfway houses, will be conducted and 
     carried out by individuals who are employees of Federal, 
     State, or local governments; and''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Abraham, and Mrs. 
        Boxer):
  S. 2928. A bill to protect the privacy of consumers who use the 
Internet; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


             the consumer internet privacy enhancement act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from 
Massachusetts, Michigan, and California to introduce the Consumer 
Internet Privacy Enhancement Act. The purpose of this legislation is 
simple. We want to ensure that commercial websites inform consumers 
about how their personal information is treated, and give consumers 
meaningful choices about the use of that information. While the purpose 
of this legislation is simple, the task my colleagues and I are seeking 
to accomplish is complex and difficult.
  The Internet is a tremendous medium spurring the world's economy and 
allowing people to communicate in ways that were unimaginable a few 
short years ago. The Internet revolution is transforming our lives and 
our economy at an incredible pace. Like any other technological 
revolution it promises great opportunities and, it presents new 
concerns and fears.
  Chief among those concerns is the ability of the Internet to further 
erode individual privacy. Since the beginning of commerce, business has 
sought to learn more about consumers. The ability of the internet to 
aid business in the collection, storage, transfer, and analysis of 
information about a consumer's habits is unprecedented. While this 
technology can allow business to better target goods and services, it 
also has increased consumer fears about the collection and use of 
personally identifiable information.
  Since 1998, the Federal Trade Commission has examined this issue in a 
series of reports to Congress. The FTC and privacy organizations formed 
by industry identified ``four fair information practices'' which should 
be utilized by websites that collect personally identifiable 
information. In simple terms, these practices are notice of what 
information is collected and how it is used; choice as to how that 
information is used; access by the user to information collected about 
them; and appropriate measures to ensure the security of the 
information.
  Over the last three years industry has worked diligently to develop 
and implement privacy policies utilizing the four fair information 
practices. While industry has made progress in providing consumers with 
some form of notice of their information practices, there is much work 
to be done to improve the depth and clarity of privacy policies.
  The legislation we introduce today should not be viewed as a failure 
on the part of industry to address privacy. Instead industry's efforts 
over the past few years have driven the development of standards which 
serve as the model for this legislation. Our objective is to provide 
for enforceable standards to ensure that all websites provide consumers 
with clear and conspicuous notice and meaningful choices about how 
their information is used.
  Currently, some websites have privacy policies that are confusing and 
make it difficult for consumers to restrict the use of information. 
During a recent hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, the 
Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission--a former dean of Georgetown 
Law School--expressed his own difficulties in understanding some 
privacy policies.
  Privacy is harmed not enhanced when consumers are lost in a fog of 
legalese. Some current privacy policies confuse and contradict rather 
than provide clear and conspicuous notice of a consumer's rights.
  The bill my colleagues and I introduce today attempts to end some of 
this confusion by providing for enforceable standards that will both 
protect consumers and allow for the continued growth of e-commerce. 
Specifically, the bill would require websites to provide clear and 
conspicuous notice of their information practices. It also requires 
websites to provide consumers with an easy method to limit the use and 
disclosure of information.
  The provisions of the bill are enforceable by the FTC. States 
Attorneys

[[Page 16368]]

General could also bring suits in federal court under the Act using a 
mechanism similar to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. We also propose a 
civil penalty of $22,000 per violation with a maximum fine of $500,000. 
Currently, the FTC can only seek civil penalties if an individual or 
business is under an order for past behavior.
  The legislation also preempts state law to ensure that the law 
governing the collection of personally identifiable information is 
uniform. Finally, the bill would direct the National Academy of 
Sciences to conduct a study of privacy to examine the collection of 
personal information in the offline-world as well as methods to provide 
consumers with access to information collected by them.
  Despite our best efforts I recognize this bill does not address all 
of the issues affecting online privacy. As I said earlier, this is a 
complex and difficult issue. Other related concerns that should be 
addressed will continue to arise as we consider this measure. For 
example, the sale of data during bankruptcy, the use of software also 
known as spyware that can transfer personal information while online 
without the user's consent or knowledge, and the government's use and 
dissemination of personally identifiable information online.
  Additionally, other new ways to help resolve the issue of online 
privacy will also arise as we consider this measure. These include the 
deployment of technology that will enable consumers to protect their 
privacy is one issue we should expect to address. Another issue is the 
use of verifiable assessment procedures to ensure that websites are 
following their posted privacy policies.
  The discovery of new issues and new solutions as we move through this 
process will serve to highlight the difficulty and complexity of 
dealing with this issue. It is not my intention to rush to judgment on 
these matters. Instead, I firmly believe the best way to protect 
consumers and provide for the continued growth of e-commerce is to give 
privacy careful and thoughtful deliberation before we act.
  Mr. President, it is clear that businesses should inform consumers in 
a clear and conspicuous manner about how they treat personal 
information and give consumers meaningful choices as to how that 
information is used. While some of us may disagree on the manner in 
which we meet this goal, we all agree that it must be done. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues and addressing their concerns as 
we move through the legislative process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the full text of the 
bill in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2928

       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 ``Consumer Internet Privacy 
     Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--It is unlawful for a commercial website 
     operator to collect personally identifiable information 
     online from a user of that website unless the operator 
     provides--
       (1) notice to the user on the website in accordance with 
     the requirements of subsection (b); and
       (2) an opportunity to that user to limit the use for 
     marketing purposes, or disclosure to third parties of 
     personally identifiable information collected that is--
       (A) not related to provision of the products or services 
     provided by the website; or
       (B) not required to be disclosed by law.
       (b) Notice.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), notice 
     consists of a statement that informs a user of a website of 
     the following:
       (A) The identity of the operator of the website and of any 
     third party the operator knowingly permits to collect 
     personally identifiable information from users through the 
     website, including the provision of an electronic means of 
     going to a website operated by any such third party.
       (B) A list of the types of personally identifiable 
     information that may be collected online by the operator and 
     the categories of information the operator may collect in 
     connection with the user's visit to the website.
       (C) A description of how the operator uses such 
     information, including a statement as to whether the 
     information may be sold, distributed, disclosed, or otherwise 
     made available to third parties for marketing purposes.
       (D) A description of the categories of potential recipients 
     of any such personally identifiable information.
       (E) Whether the user is required to provide personally 
     identifiable information in order to use the website and any 
     other consequences of failure to provide that information.
       (F) A general description of what steps the operator takes 
     to protect the security of personally identifiable 
     information collected online by that operator.
       (G) A description of the means by which a user may elect 
     not to have the user's personally identifiable information 
     used by the operator for marketing purposes or sold, 
     distributed, disclosed, or otherwise made available to a 
     third party, except for--
       (i) information related to the provision of the product or 
     service provided by the website; or
       (ii) information required to be disclosed by law.
       (H) The address or telephone number at which the user may 
     contact the website operator about its information practices 
     and also an electronic means of contacting the operator.
       (2) Form of notice.--The notice required by subsection (a) 
     shall be clear, conspicuous, and easily understood.
       (3) Opportunity to limit disclosure.--The opportunity 
     provided to users to limit use and disclosure of personally 
     identifiable information shall be easy to use, easily 
     accessible, and shall be available online.
       (c) Inconsistent State Law.--No State or local government 
     may impose any liability for commercial activities or actions 
     by a commercial website operator in interstate or foreign 
     commerce in connection with an activity or action described 
     in this Act that is inconsistent with, or more restrictive 
     than, the treatment of that activity or action under this 
     section.
       (d) Safe Harbor.--A commercial website operator may not be 
     held to have violated any provision of this Act if it 
     complies with self-regulatory guidelines that--
       (1) are issued by seal programs or representatives of the 
     marketing or online industries or by any other person; and
       (2) are approved by the Commission as containing all the 
     requirements set forth in subsection (b).

     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The violation of section 2(a) or (b) shall 
     be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or 
     deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce proscribed 
     by section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 57(a)(1)(B)).
       (b) Enforcement by Certain Other Agencies.-- Compliance 
     with section 2(a) or (b) shall be enforced under--
       (1) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1818), in the case of--
       (A) national banks, and Federal branches and Federal 
     agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the Comptroller 
     of the Currency;
       (B) member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than 
     national banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks 
     (other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured 
     State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending 
     companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and 
     organizations operating under section 25 or 25(a) of the 
     Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601 et seq. and 611 et seq.), 
     by the Board; and
       (C) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation (other than members of the Federal Reserve 
     System) and insured State branches of foreign banks, by the 
     Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation;
       (2) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1818), by the Director of the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, in the case of a savings association the 
     deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation;
       (3) the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) 
     by the National Credit Union Administration Board with 
     respect to any Federal credit union;
       (4) part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to any air 
     carrier or foreign air carrier subject to that part;
       (5) the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et 
     seq.) (except as provided in section 406 of that Act (7 
     U.S.C. 226, 227)), by the Secretary of Agriculture with 
     respect to any activities subject to that Act; and
       (6) the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) by 
     the Farm Credit Administration with respect to any Federal 
     land bank, Federal land bank association, Federal 
     intermediate credit bank, or production credit association.
       (c) Exercise of Certain Powers.--For the purpose of the 
     exercise by any agency referred to in subsection (b) of its 
     powers under any Act referred to in that subsection, a 
     violation of section 2(a) or (b) is deemed to be a violation 
     of a requirement imposed under that Act. In addition to its 
     powers under any provision of law specifically referred to in 
     subsection (b), each of the agencies referred to in that 
     subsection may exercise, for the purpose of enforcing 
     compliance with any requirement imposed under section 2(a) or 
     (b), any other authority conferred on it by law.

[[Page 16369]]

       (d) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall 
     prevent any person from violating section 2(a) or (b) in the 
     same manner, by the same means, and with the same 
     jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable 
     terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of 
     this Act. Any entity that violates any provision of that 
     title is subject to the penalties and entitled to the 
     privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act in the same manner, by the same means, and 
     with the same jurisdiction, power, and duties as though all 
     applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of that 
     title.
       (e) Relationship to Other Laws.--
       (1) Commission authority.--Nothing contained in this Act 
     shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission 
     under any other provision of law.
       (2) Communications act.--Nothing in section 2(a) or (b) 
     requires an operator of a website to take any action that is 
     inconsistent with the requirements of section 222 or 631 of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222 or 551, 
     respectively).
       (3) Other acts.--Nothing in this Act is intended to affect 
     any provision of, or any amendment made by--
       (A) the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998;
       (B) the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; or
       (C) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 
     of 1996.
       (f) Civil Penalty.--In addition to any other penalty 
     applicable to a violation of section 2(a), there is hereby 
     imposed a civil penalty of $22,000 for each such violation. 
     In the event of a continuing violation, each day on which the 
     violation continues shall be considered as a separate 
     violation for purposes of this subsection. The maximum 
     penalty under this subsection for a related series of 
     violations is $500,000. For purposes of this subsection, the 
     violation of an order issued by the Commission under this Act 
     shall not be considered to be a violation of section 2(a) of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 4. ACTIONS BY STATES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney 
     general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of 
     the residents of that State has been or is threatened or 
     adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a 
     practice that violates section 2(a) or (b), the State, as 
     parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the 
     residents of the State in a district court of the United 
     States of appropriate jurisdiction to--
       (A) enjoin that practice;
       (B) obtain damage, restitution, or other compensation on 
     behalf of residents of the State; or
       (C) obtain such other relief as the court may consider to 
     be appropriate.
       (2) Notice.--
       (A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph 
     (1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide 
     to the Commission--
       (i) written notice of that action; and
       (ii) a copy of the complaint for that action.
       (B) Exemption.--
       (i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with 
     respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of 
     a State under this subsection, if the attorney general 
     determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice 
     described in that subparagraph before the filing of the 
     action.
       (ii) Notification.--In an action described in clause (i), 
     the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a 
     copy of the complaint to the Commission at the same time as 
     the attorney general files the action.
       (b) Intervention.--
       (1) In general.--On receiving notice under subsection 
     (a)(2), the Commission shall have the right to intervene in 
     the action that is the subject of the notice.
       (2) Effect of intervention.--If the Commission intervenes 
     in an action under subsection (a), it shall have the right--
       (A) to be heard with respect to any matter that arises in 
     that action; and
       (B) to file a petition for appeal.
       (3) Amicus curiae.--Upon application to the court, a person 
     whose self-regulatory guidelines have been approved by the 
     Commission and are relied upon as a defense by any defendant 
     to a proceeding under this section may file amicus curiae in 
     that proceeding.
       (c) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil 
     action under subsection (a), nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from 
     exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by 
     the laws of that State to--
       (1) conduct investigations;
       (2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
       (3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
     documentary and other evidence.
       (d) Actions by the Commission.--In any case in which an 
     action is instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for 
     violation of section 2(a) or (b) no State may, during the 
     pendency of that action, institute an action under subsection 
     (a) against any defendant named in the complaint in that 
     action for violation of that rule.
       (e) Venue; Service of Process.--
       (1) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be 
     brought in the district court of the United States that meets 
     applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 
     of title 28, United States Code.
       (2) Service of process.--In an action brought under 
     subsection (a), process may be served in any district in 
     which the defendant--
       (A) is an inhabitant; or
       (B) may be found.

     SEC. 5. STUDY OF ONLINE PRIVACY.

       (a) In General.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Commission shall execute a contract with the 
     National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences 
     for a study of privacy that will examine causes for concern 
     about privacy in the information age and tools and strategies 
     for responding to those concerns.
       (b) Scope.--The study required by subsection (a) shall--
       (1) survey the risks to, and benefits associated with the 
     use of, personal information associated with information 
     technology, including actual and potential issues related to 
     trends in technology;
       (2) examine the costs and benefits involved in the 
     collection and use of personal information;
       (3) examine the differences, if any, between the collection 
     and use of personal information by the online industry and 
     the collection and use of personal information by other 
     businesses;
       (4) examine the costs, risks, and benefits of providing 
     consumer access to information collected online, and examine 
     approaches to providing such access;
       (5) examine the security of personal information collected 
     online;
       (6) examine such other matters relating to the collection, 
     use, and protection of personal information online as the 
     Council and the Commission consider appropriate; and
       (7) examine efforts being made by industry to provide 
     notice, choice, access, and security.
       (c) Recommendations.--Within 12 months after the 
     Commission's request under subsection (a), the Council shall 
     complete the study and submit a report to the Congress, 
     including recommendations for private and public sector 
     actions including self-regulation, laws, regulations, or 
     special agreements.
       (d) Agency Cooperation.--The head of each Federal 
     department or agency shall, at the request of the Commission 
     or the Council, cooperate as fully as possible with the 
     Council in its activities in carrying out the study.
       (e) Funding.--The Commission is authorized to be obligate 
     not more than $1,000,000 to carry out this section from funds 
     appropriated to the Commission.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (2) Commercial website operator.--The term ``operator of a 
     commercial website''--
       (A) means any person who operates a website located on the 
     Internet or an online service and who collects or maintains 
     personal information from or about the users of or visitors 
     to such website or online service, or on whose behalf such 
     information is collected or maintained, where such website or 
     online service is operated for commercial purposes, including 
     any person offering products or services for sale through 
     that website or online service, involving commerce--
       (i) among the several States or with 1 or more foreign 
     nations;
       (ii) in any territory of the United States or in the 
     District of Columbia, or between any such territory and--

       (I) another such territory; or
       (II) any State or foreign nation; or

       (iii) between the District of Columbia and any State, 
     territory, or foreign nation; but
       (B) does not include any nonprofit entity that would 
     otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the 
     Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (3) Collect.--The term ``collect'' means the gathering of 
     personally identifiable information about a user of an 
     Internet service, online service, or commercial website by or 
     on behalf of the provider or operator of that service or 
     website by any means, direct or indirect, active or passive, 
     including--
       (A) an online request for such information by the provider 
     or operator, regardless of how the information is transmitted 
     to the provider or operator;
       (B) the use of an online service to gather the information; 
     or
       (C) tracking or use of any identifying code linked to a 
     user of such a service or website, including the use of 
     cookies.
       (4) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' means collectively the 
     myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, 
     including equipment and operating software, which comprise 
     the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ 
     the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any 
     predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to 
     communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
       (5) Personally identifiable information.--The term 
     ``personally identifiable information'' means individually 
     identifiable

[[Page 16370]]

     information about an individual collected online, including--
       (A) a first and last name, whether given at birth or 
     adoption, assumed, or legally changed;
       (B) a home or other physical address including street name 
     and name of a city or town;
       (C) an e-mail address;
       (D) a telephone number;
       (E) a Social Security number; or
       (F) unique identifying information that an Internet service 
     provider or operator of a commercial website collects and 
     combines with any information described in the preceding 
     subparagraphs of this paragraph.
       (6) Online.--The term ``online'' refers to any activity 
     regulated by this Act or by section 2710 of title 18, United 
     States Code, that is effected by active or passive use of an 
     Internet connection, regardless of the medium by or through 
     which that connection is established.
       (7) Third party.--The term ``third party'', when used in 
     reference to a commercial website operator, means any person 
     other than the operator.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators McCain, Boxer 
and Abraham in announcing that today we will be introducing a bill that 
takes a positive, balanced approach to the issue of Internet privacy. 
There can be no doubt that consumers have a legitimate expectation of 
privacy on the Internet. Our bill protects that interest. At the same 
time, consumers want an Internet that is free. For that to happen, the 
Internet, like television, must be supported by advertising. Our bill 
will allow companies to continue to advertise, ensuring that we don't 
have a subscription-based Internet, which would limit everyone's online 
activities and contribute to a digital divide.
  If we recognize that the economy of the Internet calls for 
advertising, we must also recognize that it won't attract consumers if 
they believe their privacy is being violated. Finding this fine balance 
of permitting enough free flow of information to allow ads to work and 
protecting consumers' privacy is going to be critical if the Internet 
is going to reach its full potential. And I believe this bill strikes 
the right balance.
  I think all of the bill's cosponsors were hopeful that self-
regulation of Internet privacy would work. And I think self-regulation 
still has an important role to play. But it seems that now it is up to 
Congress to establish a floor for Internet privacy. I have no doubt 
that many innovative high tech companies and advertisers will go beyond 
the regulations for notice and choice we provide here. A number of 
companies in my home state of Massachusetts already do, providing 
consumers with anonymity when they go online. I applaud and encourage 
those efforts and am certain that if Congress enacts this bill, they 
will continue.
  But technology and innovation won't address all the concerns people 
have about Internet privacy. Congress has the responsibility to ensure 
that core privacy principles are the norm throughout the online world. 
We need to respond to the consumers who don't shop on the Internet 
because they are concerned about their privacy. This is necessary not 
only for the sake of the consumers, but for every online business that 
wants to grow and attract customers.
  The bill that we are introducing today will encourage those skeptical 
consumers to go online. This legislation will require Web sites to 
clearly and conspicuously disclose their privacy policies. People 
deserve to know what information may be collected and how it may be 
used so that they can make an informed decision before they navigate 
around or shop on a particular Web site. They shouldn't have to click 
five times and need to translate legalese before they know what a site 
will do with their personal information. Requiring disclosure has the 
added benefit of providing the FTC with an enforcement mechanism. If a 
Web site fails to comply with its posted disclosure policy, the FTC can 
bring an action against it for unfair or deceptive acts. This is the 
bare minimum of what I believe consumers deserve and expect, and I 
don't think this would have any unintended or negative consequences on 
e-commerce.
  In addition, this bill addresses the core principle of choice by 
requiring Web sites to offer consumers an easy to use method to prevent 
Web sites from using personally identifiable information for marketing 
purposes and to prevent them from selling that information to third 
parties. This bill empowers consumers and lets them make informed 
decisions that are right for them.
  By ensuring consumers have the right to full disclosure and the right 
to not have their personally identifiable information sold or 
disclosed, this bill addresses the most fundamental concerns many 
people have about online privacy. But I believe there are still a 
number of important questions that we need to answer. The first is 
whether there is a difference between privacy in the offline and online 
worlds.
  Most of us hardly think about it when we go to the supermarket, but 
when Safeway or Giant scans my discount card or my credit card, it has 
a record of exactly who I am and what I bought. Should my preferences 
at the supermarket be any more or less protected than the choices I 
make online?
  Likewise, catalog companies compile and use offline information to 
make marketing decisions. These companies rent lists compiled by list 
brokers. The list brokers obtain marketing data and names from the 
public domain and governments, credit bureaus, financial institutions, 
credit card companies, retail establishments, and other catalogers and 
mass mailers.
  On the other hand, when I go to the shopping mall and look at five 
different sweaters but don't buy any of them, no one has a record of 
that. If I do the same thing online, technology can record how long I 
linger over an item, even if I don't buy it. Likewise, I can pick up 
any book in a book store and pay in cash and no one will ever know my 
reading preferences. That type of anonymity can be completely lost 
online.
  This bill requires the National Research Council to study the issue 
of online versus offline privacy, and make a recommendation if there is 
a need for additional legislation in either area.
  Likewise, this bill requires the Council to study the issue of 
access. While there is general agreement that consumers should have 
access to information they provided to a Web site, we still don't know 
whether it's necessary or proper for consumers to have access to all of 
the information gathered about an individual. Should consumers have 
access to click-stream data or so-called derived data by which a 
company uses compiled information to make a marketing decision about 
the consumer? And if we decide consumers need some access to this type 
of information, is it technology feasible? Will there be unforeseen or 
unintended consequences such as an increased risk of security breaches? 
Will there be less, rather than more privacy due to the necessary 
coupling of names and data? I don't we are ready to regulate until we 
have some consensus on this issue.
  Finally, it is important to add that this bill in no way limits what 
Congress has done or hopefully will do with respect to a person's 
health or financial information. When sensitive information is 
collected, it is even more important that stringent privacy protections 
are in place. I have supported a number of legislative efforts that 
would go far to protect this type of information.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to join with the Senator 
from Arizona, the Senator from Massachusetts, and the Senator from 
California in introducing the Consumer Privacy Enhancement Act. This 
legislation will provide Americans with some basic--but critically 
important--protections for their personal information when they are 
online.
  Privacy has always been a very serious issue to American citizens. It 
is a concept enshrined in our Bill of Rights. As persons from all walks 
of life become increasingly reliant on computers and the Internet to 
perform everyday tasks, it is incumbent upon policymakers to ensure 
that adequate privacy protections exist for consumers. We must ensure 
that our laws evolve along with technology and continue to provide 
effective privacy protection for consumers surfing the World Wide Web 
and using the Internet for commercial activities.

[[Page 16371]]

  The American people are letting it be known that they have mounting 
concerns about their vulnerability in this digital age. They are very 
concerned about the advent of this new high-tech era we've entered and 
the new threats it potentially poses to our personal privacy. And I 
believe there is a consensus building in Congress to begin to tackle 
the question of ensuring adequate privacy protections for individuals 
using the Internet.
  Whether we can find a similar consensus on a particular legislative 
proposal remains to be seen. However, I think it is imperative that we 
begin to address this topic now and not simply wait until Congress 
reconvenes next year before we take the issue up. So I have joined my 
colleagues here in introducing legislation that I think accomplishes 
several important objectives.
  The most important provision, I believe, is its most elemental 
concept: We require that before consumers are asked to provide personal 
information about themselves, they must be given an opportunity to 
review the website's privacy policy in order to learn how their 
information will be utilized. While many websites have privacy 
policies, including the vast majority of those websites receiving the 
most traffic, there are still many websites out there that do not offer 
privacy policies or adequate protections for consumers.
  In addition, many of the privacy policies that do exist are very 
lengthy and often quite confusing to consumers. There are pages and 
pages of ambiguous legalese and often seemingly contradictory claims 
about how protected your information truly is. So our bill also calls 
on the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that privacy policies are 
``clear, conspicuous, and easily understood,'' and that any consent 
mechanisms shall be ``easy to use, easily accessible, and shall be 
available online.''
  Finally, this legislation recognizes the importance of allowing the 
Internet industry to continue to promote greater self-regulation and to 
develop new technology means for to continue to evolve and to help us 
address legitimate consumer privacy concerns. There have been several 
initiatives undertaken by industry leaders to get websites to develop 
and post privacy policies and to give consumers the option of when to 
provide information and for what uses. This legislation is designed to 
allow such efforts to continue and to provide for technological 
advances in the area of privacy to benefit consumers. For instance, 
Ford and other companies have been participating in the Privacy 
Leadership Initiative whereby companies engaged online are working to 
establish industry guidelines and protocols for protecting consumers 
privacy. Nothing we do here today should inhibit such industry efforts.
  So with those critical features addressed, I believe the legislation 
we introduce today will be an important stepping stone along the path 
of ensuring that Americans can be confident of having their personal 
information will be protected when they go online.
  I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and to support our 
efforts to protect consumers against unwarranted intrusions into their 
personal privacy when they are using their computers and surfing the 
Internet.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2929. A bill to establish a demonstration project to increase 
teacher salaries and employee benefits for teachers who enter into 
contracts with local educational agencies to serve as master teachers; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                       master teacher legislation

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Hollings, Inouye, and I 
are introducing a bill to create a demonstration grant program to help 
school districts create master teacher positions.
  Our bill authorizes $50 million for a five-year demonstration program 
under which the Secretary of Education would award competitive grants 
to school districts to create master teacher positions. Federal funds 
would be equally matched by states and local governments so that $100 
million total would be available. Under the bill, 5,000 master teacher 
positions could be created, or 100 per State, if each master teacher 
were paid $20,000 on top of the current average teacher's salary.
  As defined in this amendment, a master teacher is one who is 
credentialed; has a least five years of teaching experience; is judged 
to be an excellent teacher by administrators and teachers who are 
knowledgeable about the individual's performance; and is currently 
teaching; and enters into a contract and agrees to serve at least five 
more years.
  The master teacher would help other teachers to improve instruction, 
strengthen other teachers' skills, mentor lesser experienced teachers, 
develop curriculum, and provide other professional development.
  The intent of this bill is for districts to pay each master teacher 
up to $20,000 on top of his or her regular salary. Nationally, the 
average teacher salary is $40,582. In California, it is $44,585. 
Elementary school principals receive $64,653 on average nationally and 
$72,385 in California. The thrust of the master teacher concept in this 
bill is to pay teachers a salary closer to that of an administrator to 
keep good teachers in teaching.
  The bill requires State and/or local districts to match federal funds 
dollar for dollar. It requires the U.S. Department of Education to give 
priority to school districts with a high proportion of economically 
disadvantaged students and to ensure that grants are awarded to a wide 
range of districts in terms of the size and location of the school 
district, the ethnic and economic composition of students, and the 
experience of the districts' teachers.
  There are several reasons we need this bill.


                       new teachers need support

  First, new teachers face overwhelming responsibilities and challenges 
in their first year, but in the real world, they get little guidance. 
When first-year teachers enter the classroom, there is typically little 
help available to them, in a year that will have a profound impact on 
the rest of their professional career. They are ``out there alone,'' 
virtually isolated in their classroom, thrown into an unfamiliar school 
and classroom with a room full of new faces. By the current sink-or-
swim method, new teachers often find themselves ill equipped to deal 
with the educational and disciplinary tasks of their first year.
  In California, 23 percent of teachers in kindergarten through the 
third grade are novices. Furthermore, we have 30,000 inexperienced 
teachers on emergency credentials in California, over ten percent of 
our teaching workforce.
  A new teacher can get experienced guidance from a master teacher who 
is paired with the new teacher. The master teacher can help plan 
lessons, improve instructional methods, and deal with discipline 
problems. ``If you're [a master teacher] teaching a class, then you can 
say, `last week I handled a discipline problem this way.' It's much 
more credible.'' said Carl O'Connell, a New York mentor teacher.


                   enhancing the teaching profession

  Second, master teacher programs can bring more prestige to teaching 
as a profession, by increasing the teacher's salary, by rewarding 
experience, and by giving teachers opportunities to supervise others. A 
master teacher designation is a way to recognize outstanding ability 
and performance. A master teacher position can give teachers a 
professional goal, a higher level to pursue. A 1996 report by the 
National Commission for Teaching and America's Future said that 
creating new career paths for teachers is one of the best ways to give 
educators the respect they deserve and to ensure that proven teaching 
methods spread quickly and broadly.
  In one survey of teachers which asked which factors make teachers 
stay in teaching, 79 percent of teachers said that respect for the 
teaching profession is needed in order to retain qualified teachers. 
Eighty percent said that formal mentoring programs for beginning 
teachers is key (Scholastic/

[[Page 16372]]

Chief State School Officers' Teacher Voices Survey, 2000). Over 70 
percent of teachers said that more planning time with peers is needed 
to keep teachers in the classroom. This amendment should help.


                 improving retention, reducing turnover

  Because of the higher pay and enhanced prestige, a master teacher 
program can help to recruit and retain teachers. Mentor systems provide 
new teachers with a support network, someone to turn to. Studies 
indicate higher retention rates among new teachers who participate in 
mentoring programs. According to Yvonne Gold of California State 
University-Long Beach, 25 percent of beginning teachers do not teach 
more than two years and nearly 40 percent leave in the first five 
years. In the Rochester, New York, system, the teacher retention rate 
was nearly double the national average five years after establishing a 
mentoring program.
  As Jay Matthews wrote in the May 16 Washington Post, programs like 
this ``can provide a large boost to the profession's image for a 
relatively small amount of money.'' These programs can keep good 
teachers in the classroom, instead of losing them to school 
administration or industry. Larkspur, California, School Superintendent 
Barbara Wilson says she is ``witnessing a steady exodus to dotcom and 
other, more lucrative industries.'' (San Francisco Chronicle, March 26, 
2000).
  Higher salaries and prestige for master teachers could deter the 
drain from the classrooms.


                      holding teachers accountable

  Another reason for this amendment is that teacher mentoring programs 
can make teacher performance more accountable. A master teacher can 
help novice teachers improve their teaching and get better student 
achievement. ``Teachers cannot be held accountable for knowledge based, 
client-oriented decisions if they do not have access to knowledge, as 
well as opportunities for consultation and evaluation of their work,'' 
said Adam Urbanski, President of the Rochester, New York, Teachers 
Association. He went on: ``Unsatisfactory teacher performance often 
stems from inadequate and incompetent supervision. Administrators often 
lack the training and the resources to supervise teachers and improve 
the performance of those who are in serious trouble.''
  Good teachers are key to learning. Lower math test scores have been 
correlated with the percentage of math teachers on emergency permits 
and higher math test scores were linked both to the teachers' 
qualifications and to their years of teaching experience, according to 
``Professional Development for Teachers, 2000.''


                        california would benefit

  This bill could be very helpful in California where one-fifth of our 
teachers will leave the profession in three years, according to an 
article in the February 9, 2000, Los Angeles Times.
  California will need 300,000 new teachers by 2010. ``More students to 
teach, smaller classes, teachers leaving or retiring means that 
California school districts are now having to hire a record 26,000 new 
teachers each year,'' says the report, ``Teaching and California's 
Future, 2000.'' California's enrollment is growing at three times the 
national rate. With these kinds of demands, understaffing often leads 
to under qualified and new teachers entering the classroom. We have to 
do all we can to attract and retain good teachers.


                  examples of master teacher programs

  California has instituted several programs along these lines. 
California has a program to help beginning teachers. It has grown from 
$5 million (supporting 1,100 new teachers in 1992) to nearly $72 
million (serving 23,000 new teachers in 1999-2000). But even with this 
increase, the program still does not serve all new teachers,'' 
according to the report, Teaching and California's Future, 2000.
  The Rochester City, New York, school system has a Peer Assistance and 
Review Program, begun by the schools and the Rochester Teacher 
Association. The Rochester program is working. ``The evaluation is 
absolutely spectacular. The program has been a terrific success. It has 
been deemed a success by mentors, by the panel, by the district, by the 
union, and, most importantly, by the interns themselves,'' reported the 
newspaper, New York Teacher.
  Delaware provides mentors for beginning teachers. ``Not only are 
beginning teachers receiving the support they need, but the mentoring 
program is also developing networks among teachers within districts and 
across the state, and the mentors have `a new enthusiasm' for 
teaching,'' as reported in ``Promising Practices'' in 1998.
  Columbus, Ohio, schools instituted a Peer Assessment and Review 
program similar to Rochester's. It has two components: the intern 
program for all newly hired teachers and the intervention program for 
teachers who are having difficulties in the classroom teaching. 
According to the State Education Agency, ``the district has a lower 
rate of attrition than similar districts because of PAR.'' (Promising 
Practices, 1998).
  The funds provided in this bill can supplement and expand existing 
State programs and help other States start new programs.


                        students are the winners

  The true beneficiaries of master teacher programs are the students 
and that is, or course, our fundamental goal. As stated in Rochester's 
teaching manual, the goal is ``to improve student outcomes by 
developing and maintaining the highest quality of teaching, providing 
teachers with career options that do not require them to leave teaching 
to assume additional responsibilities and leadership roles.''
  I believe this bill can begin to provide teachers the real 
professional support they need, can attract and retain teachers and can 
bring to the profession the prestige it deserves.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 2931. A bill to make improvements to the Arctic Research and 
Policy Act of 1984; to the Committee on Government Affairs.


       improvements to the arctic research and policy act of 1984

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 
to improve the operation of the Arctic Research and Policy Act. We have 
about 15 years of experience with this Act, and the time has come to 
make some modifications to reflect the experience we have gained over 
that time.
  The most important feature of this bill is contained in Section 4. 
This section authorizes the Arctic Research Commission, a Presidential 
Commission, to make grants for scientific research. Currently, the 
Commission can make recommendations and set priorities, but it cannot 
make grants. Our experience with the Act and the Commission has shown 
us that research needs that do not fit neatly in a single agency do not 
get funded, even if they are compelling priorities.
  One example is a proposed Arctic contamination initiative that was 
developed a few years ago after we discovered that pollutants from the 
Former Soviet Union--including radionuclides, heavy metals and 
persistent organic pollutants--were working their way into the Arctic 
environment. It became clear that the job of monitoring and evaluating 
the threat was too big for any single agency. The Interior Department, 
given its vast land management responsibilities in Alaska, was 
interested. The Commerce Department, given the jurisdiction over 
fisheries issues, was interested. The Department of Health and Human 
Services, given its concern about the health of Alaska's indigenous 
peoples, was interested. The only agency that didn't seem interested in 
the problem, strangely enough, was the EPA, which at the time was in 
the process of dismantling its Arctic Contaminants program.
  Unfortunately, because the job was too big for any single agency, it 
was difficult to get the level of interagency cooperation necessary for 
a coordinated program. Moreover, agencies were unwilling to make a 
significant budgetary commitment to a program that wasn't under their 
exclusive control. If the Arctic Research Commission, which recognized 
the need, had

[[Page 16373]]

some funding of its own to leverage agency participation and help to 
coordinate the effort, we would know far more about the Arctic 
contaminants problem than we do today.
  Another example is the compelling need to understand the Bering Sea 
ecosystem. Over the past 20 years we have seen significant shifts in 
some of the populations comprising this ecosystem. King crab 
populations have declined sharply. Pollock populations have increased 
sharply. Steller sea lion populations have declined as have many types 
of sea birds. Scientists cannot tell us whether these population shifts 
are due to abiotic factors such as climate change, biotic factors such 
as predator-prey relationships, or some combination of both. Because 
the nation depends on this area for a significant portion of all its 
seafood, this is not an issue without stakeholders. Despite the chorus 
of interests and federal agencies that have said research is needed, a 
coordinated effort has not yet occurred. If the Arctic Research 
Commission, which recognized this need early on, had some funding of 
its own to leverage agency participation and help to coordinate the 
effort, we would know far more about the Bering Sea ecosystem than we 
do today.
  This bill also makes a number of other minor changes in the Act:
  Section 2 allows the Chairperson of the Commission to receive 
compensation for up to 120 days per year rather than the 90 days per 
year currently allowed by the Act. The Chairperson has a major role to 
play in interacting with the Legislative and Executive branches of the 
government, representing the Commission to non-governmental 
organizations, in interacting with the State of Alaska, and serving in 
international fora. In the past, chairpersons have been unable to fully 
discharge their responsibilities in the 90 day limit specified in the 
Act.
  Section 3 authorizes the Commission to award an annual award not to 
exceed $1,000 to recognize either outstanding research or outstanding 
efforts in support of research in the Arctic. The ability to give 
modest awards will bring recognition to outstanding efforts in Arctic 
Research which, in turn, will help to stimulate research in the Arctic 
region. This section also specifies that a current or former Commission 
member is not eligible to receive the award.
  Section 5 authorizes official representative and reception 
activities. Because the Commission is not authorized to use fund for 
these kinds of activities, the Commission has experienced embarrassment 
when they were unable to reciprocate after their foreign counterparts 
hosted a reception or lunch on their behalf. Under this provision, the 
Commission may spend not more than two tenths of one percent of its 
budget for representation and reception activities in each fiscal year.
  Mr. President, the Arctic Research and Policy Act and the Arctic 
Research Commission has worked well over the past 15 years. It can work 
even better with these modest changes. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to enact this bill as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES:
  S. 2933. A bill to amend provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
relating to remedial action of uranium and thorium processing sites; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          to amend provisions of the energy policy act of 1992

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend 
provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 relating to remedial action 
of active uranium and thorium processing sites. On October 24, 1992, 
President Bush signed the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) 
into law. Title X of EPACT authorized the Department of Energy to 
reimburse uranium and thorium processing licensees for the portion of 
the costs incurred in the remediation of mill tailings, groundwater and 
other by-product material generated as a result of sales to the federal 
government pursuant to the Atomic Energy Commission's procurement 
program.
  The Title X reimbursement program has worked very well. The licensees 
have completed much of the surface reclamation at the Title X sites. 
However, increasingly stringent remediation standards and groundwater 
decontamination programs have significantly increased the cost and time 
necessary to complete remediation at many sites. Under current law, in 
order for a licensee to be eligible to recover the federal share of 
remediation costs incurred subsequent to December 31, 2002, the 
licensee must describe and quantify all costs expected to be incurred 
throughout the remainder of the site's cleanup in a plan for subsequent 
remedial action. This plan must be submitted to the Department of 
Energy before December 31, 2001 and approved prior to December 31, 
2002.
  This bill would amend Title X to extend the date, from 2002 to 2007, 
through which licensees can submit claims for reimbursement under the 
procedures now in place and extend the date until December 31, 2007 
that licensees must submit their plans for subsequent remedial action 
to the Department of Energy. This legislation does not seek any 
increase in the existing authorization. It merely provides the time 
necessary to prepare the plans on a more informed basis and avoid the 
unintended hardship which would likely result from the 2002 deadline.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2933

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

     SECTION 1. REMEDIAL ACTION AT ACTIVE URANIUM AND THORIUM 
                   PROCESSING SITES.

       Section 1001(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     2296a(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``placed in escrow not 
     later than December 31, 2002,'' and inserting ``incurred by a 
     licensee after December 31, 2007,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(E)(i), by striking ``July 31, 2005'' 
     and inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 2934. A bill to provide for the assessment of an increased civil 
penalty in a case in which a person or entity that is the subject of a 
civil environmental enforcement action has previously violated an 
environmental law or in a case in which a violation of an environmental 
law results in a catastrophic event; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


          the zero tolerance for repeat polluters act of 2000

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to the 
increased number of environmental enforcement actions brought against 
repeat violators in the United States.
  In 1970, many of America's rivers and lakes were dying, our city 
skylines were disappearing behind a shroud of smog, and toxic waste 
threatened countless communities. Today, after a generation of 
environmental safeguards, our rivers and lakes are becoming safe for 
fishing and swimming again. Millions more Americans enjoy clean air and 
safe drinking water, and many of our worst toxic dumps have been 
cleaned. Yet more remains to be done before we can truly say our 
environment is a healthy environment.
  Indeed, in 1997 alone, over 11,000 environmental enforcement actions 
had to be taken at the State and Federal levels. Sadly, it is also 
becoming much more common for the defendants in these actions to be 
repeat violators. For instance, in 1994, a chemical company in New 
Jersey was fined $6,000 for environmental violations. Just four years 
later, the same chemical company was again cited for an environmental 
crime--releasing cresol into the air. Unfortunately, this time 53 
children and 5 adults had to be hospitalized and the EPA had to 
evacuate the local community.
  Incidents such as this are becoming all too common. Under current 
law, the penalties for repeat environmental violators, or parties 
responsible for environmental catastrophes resulting in serious injury, 
are too low. Indeed, paltry fines are insufficient deterrents for

[[Page 16374]]

large corporations or parties that repeatedly commit environmental 
crimes. Between 1994 and 1998, New Jersey had 774 repeat violators--
more than any other State in the nation. This lack of deterrence has 
serious repercussions for the environment and public health.
  To provide a real safeguard against these repeat violators, today I 
will introduce the ``Zero Tolerance for Repeat Polluters Act of 2000.'' 
This legislation will create stiffer penalties for repeat violators of 
environmental safeguards and provides penalties that will more 
accurately reflect the costs to public health and the environment of 
catastrophic events. The bill also gives the EPA emergency order and 
civil action authority to address imminent and substantial 
endangerments of health and environment and creates a new EPA trust 
fund into which recovered funds can be used to address other 
significant threats.
  Repeat environmental polluters that negligently endanger the public 
with their actions or inaction will not be tolerated. No individual or 
business should be able to endanger the public's health and safety with 
only the threat of a slap on the wrist hanging over them. The ``Zero 
Tolerance for Repeat Polluters Act of 2000'' goes a long way towards 
ensuring that public health and the environment are truly protected for 
future generations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bayh, 
        Mr. Breaux, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 2935. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the Public Health 
Service Act to increase Americans' access to long term health care, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 the omnibus long-term care act of 2000

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise 
today to introduce the Omnibus Long-term Care Act of 2000 with my 
colleagues Senators Grassley, Mikulski, Bayh, Breaux, Collins, and 
Akaka.
  Americans in need of long-term care now face a fragmented and 
inadequate system of state and federal programs. This is no longer 
acceptable. Millions are struggling today to meet their long-term care 
needs, and these numbers will grow dramatically as the country ages. 
While Medicare reform is important, we will have accomplished little if 
we address seniors' acute care needs, but then leave them to suffer in 
poverty when they require long-term care.
  I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation that demonstrates 
the Senate's commitment to addressing this issue in a comprehensive 
way. The Omnibus Long-term Care Act of 2000 will help millions of 
seniors and their caregivers who are struggling in our communities, 
while also encouraging all Americans to better plan for their own 
retirements.
  Many seniors move to Florida with plans of a comfortable retirement, 
but all too often, these hopes are never realized. A stroke or 
Alzheimer's Disease strikes and a family is quickly overwhelmed by 
their long-term care costs and responsibilities. To complicate matters, 
many spouses of disabled seniors are frail themselves, and so find it 
increasingly difficult to meet the needs of their loved ones.
  Caregiving is also a huge concern for the millions of Americans in 
the sandwich generation, those who are caring both for their children 
and their parents, while also balancing work obligations. Almost one-
third of all caregivers is juggling employment and caregiver 
responsibilities, and of this group, two-thirds have conflicts that 
require them to quit work, cut hours, or turn down promotions.
  It is clear that too many Americans are now being forced to sacrifice 
their health and their careers to care for their loved ones. To help, 
this bill: provides the disabled or their caregivers with a $3,000 
long-term care tax credit; implements the National Family Caregiver 
Support Program, which will provide caregivers with information and 
services to help them meet their responsibilities; increases Social 
Services Block Grant funding for community-based long-term care 
services; and ensures that seniors can return to their nursing home 
after hospitalization.
  This bill can also avert the long-term care crisis that will result 
if we do nothing to prepare for the aging of the Baby Boomers. Millions 
who are struggling to care for their parents today will soon need long-
term care themselves. Baby Boomers had a higher divorce rate and fewer 
children than today's seniors, so they will not have the same support 
network that today's retirees enjoy.
  With more seniors needing more paid help in the future, costs will 
skyrocket. According to the Congressional Budget Office, individual 
out-of-pocket costs for long-term care could nearly double from $43 
billion today to $82 billion in 2020, and government's costs could 
increase from $73 billion to $125 billion in the same period. It is 
clear that future retirees and the government cannot afford business as 
usual.
  We must ask all Americans to take more responsibility for their own 
long-term care needs. To help bring this about, this bill: offers a tax 
deduction for the premiums of long-term care insurance policies; 
provides long-term care insurance to federal employees; authorizes a 
national public information campaign to educate employers and employees 
about the benefits of long-term care coverage; mandates a federal 
survey to determine whether cities and counties are ``elder-ready;'' 
calls for studies to determine how best to meet Americans' future long-
term care needs; and includes a Sense of the Senate affirming the 
body's commitment to ensuring seniors' physical, emotional, and 
financial well-being in the new century.
  The long-term care crisis we face demonstrates that we have neglected 
this issue for far too long. But we must act now. The large number of 
seniors and their caregivers who are suffering in our communities today 
and the future needs of the Baby Boomers require it. A big problem 
requires a big solution, and this bill helps protect seniors today and 
in the future.
  All of the cosponsors of this legislation have championed the need to 
meet seniors' long-term care needs. The fact that we have all come 
together in a bipartisan manner demonstrates that the Senate is 
committed to addressing this issue in a meaningful way. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues and the many organizations that support 
this bill to make comprehensive long-term care reform a reality.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President I rise as a proud original cosponsor of 
the Omnibus Long-Term Care Act of 2000. I am very pleased to join 
Senators Graham, Grassley, Bayh, Collins, Breaux, and Akaka to 
introduce this bipartisan legislation that provides a comprehensive 
approach to the long-term care of our nation's citizens. I am committed 
to finding long-term solutions to the long-term care problem in our 
country.
  I like this bill because it meets the day-to-day needs of Marylanders 
and the long-range needs of our country. At least 5.8 million Americans 
aged 65 and older currently need long-term care. While this legislation 
has many important provisions, I would like to highlight three of its 
features: the National Family Caregiver Support Program, long-term car 
insurance for federal employees, and the ``return to home'' provision.
  First, this bill would establish the National Family Caregiver 
Support Program. I am proud to have sponsored and cosponsored this 
legislation previously in this Congress. This program will provide 
respite care, training, counseling, support services, information and 
assistance to some of the millions of Americans who care for older 
individuals and adult children with disabilities. In fact, eighty 
percent of all long-term care services are provided by family and 
friends. This program has strong bipartisan support, will get behind 
our nation's families, and give help to those who practice self-help.
  As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Aging, I am pleased to 
report that last week the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee unanimously approved a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the 
Older Americans Act

[[Page 16375]]

(OAA). This bill included the caregiver support program which is 
strongly supported by the entire aging community. As I work with 
Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, and DeWine and our colleagues in the House 
to pass the OAA reauthorization in September, I want to strongly urge 
fellow appropriators in the House and Senate to fund these vital 
caregiver support services as close as possible to the full funding 
level of $125 million. Millions of Americans are waiting for Congress 
to act.
  Second, I think it is important that this bill includes the Long-Term 
Care Security Act. This bill would enable federal and military workers, 
retirees, and their families to purchase long-term care insurance at 
group rates (projected to be 15-20 percent below the private market). 
It would create a model that private employers can use to establish 
their own long-term care insurance programs. As our nation's largest 
employer, the federal government can be a model for employers around 
the country whose workforce will be facing the same long-term care 
needs. Starting with the nation's largest employer also raises 
awareness and education about long-term care options.
  Yesterday, the Senate passed the Long-Term Care Security Act (H.R. 
4040). I am proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor of the Senate 
companion to this bill, S. 2420, because it gives people choices, 
flexibility, and security. Families will have an additional option 
available to them as they look at their long-term care choices. This 
provision would also help reduce reliance on federal programs, like 
Medicaid, so the American taxpayer benefits.
  This legislation also provides people with flexibility because it 
allows them to receive care in different types of settings. They may 
choose to be cared for in the home by a family caregiver--or they may 
need a higher level of care that nursing homes and home health care 
services provide. Different plan reimbursement options will ensure 
maximum flexibility that meet the unique health care needs of the 
beneficiary.
  Long-term care insurance also provides families with some security. 
Family members will not be burdened by trying to figure out how to 
finance health care needs--and beneficiaries will be able to make 
informed decisions about their future.
  Finally, I am pleased that the bill we have introduced includes 
bipartisan legislation that I have previously sponsored, the Seniors' 
Access to Continuing Care Act (S. 1142). This legislation protects 
seniors' access to treatment in the setting of their choice and ensures 
that seniors who reside in continuing care communities, and nursing and 
other facilities have the right to return to that facility after a 
hospitalization, even if the insurer does not have a contract with the 
resident's facility.
  Across the country seniors in managed care plans have discovered too 
late that after a hospital stay, they may be forced to return to a 
facility in the plan's provider network and not to the continuing care 
retirement community or skilled nursing facility where they live. No 
senior should have to face this problem. In Maryland alone, there are 
over 12,000 residents in 40 continuing care retirement communities and 
24,000 residents in over 200 licensed nursing facilities. I have 
visited many of these facilities and heard from residents and operators 
about this serious and unexpected problem.
  Residents choose and pay for facilities like continuing care 
retirement communities (CCRC's) for the continuum of care, safety, 
security, and peace of mind. Hospitalization is traumatic. Friends, 
family, and familiar staff and faces are crucial to a speedy recovery. 
Where you return after a hospital stay should be based on humanity and 
choice, not the managed care company's bottom line.
  Specifically, the Seniors' Access to Continuing Care Act protects 
residents of CCRC's and nursing facilities by: enabling them to return 
to their facility after a hospitalization; and requiring the resident's 
insurer or managed care organization (MCO) to cover the cost of the 
care, even if the insurer does not have a contract with the resident's 
facility. Certain conditions must be met.
  This legislation also requires an insurer or MCO to pay for a service 
to one of its beneficiaries, without a prior hospital stay, if the 
service is necessary to prevent a hospitalization of the beneficiary 
and the service is provided as an additional benefit. Lastly, the bill 
requires an insurer or MCO to provide coverage to a beneficiary for 
services provided at a facility in which the beneficiary's spouse 
already resides, even if the facility is not under contract with the 
MCO. Certain requirements must be met. These provisions are an 
important part of our safety net for seniors.
  I want to salute the strong leadership of the other cosponsors of 
this legislation who have authored various provisions of this 
comprehensive bill that we have joined together to introduce today. I 
know that all the cosponsors are sincerely committed, as I am, to 
addressing the challenges facing our aging population. I look forward 
to working with all of them to enact this important legislation.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor 
the Omnibus Long-term Care Act of 2000, introduced by Senator Graham. 
The cosponsors of this legislation are well-known for their commitment 
to encouraging all Americans to prepare for their own long-term needs.
  Many Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare and their regular 
health insurance programs will pay for long-term care. They do not. 
Although Medicare provides some long-term care support, an individual 
generally must ``spend-down'' his or her income and assets to qualify 
for coverage.
  More and more Americans are requiring long-term care. About 6.4 
million Americans, aged 65 or older, require some long-term care due to 
illness or disability. Over five million children and adults under the 
age of 65 also require long-term care because of health conditions from 
birth or a chronic illness developed later in life. Only 12 percent 
receive care in nursing homes or other institutional settings.
  The need for long-term care is great. In 20 years, one in six 
Americans will be age 65 or older. By the year 2040, the number of 
Americans age 85 years or older will more than triple to over 12 
million. The cost of nursing home care now exceeds $40,000 per a year 
in most parts of the country, and home care visits for nursing or 
physical therapy runs about $100 per visit. In 1996, over $107 billion 
was spent on nursing homes and home health care. However, this figure 
does not take into account that over 80 percent of all long-term care 
services are provided by family and friends.
  In my own state of Hawaii, 13.2 percent of the population is 65 years 
and older. Although Hawaii enjoys one of the highest life 
expectancies--79 years, compared to a national average of 75 years--the 
state's rapidly aging population will greatly impact available 
resources for long-term care, both institutional and from non-
institutional sources. Hawaii's long-term care facilities are operating 
at full capacity. According to the Hawaii State Department of Health, 
the average occupancy rate peaked at 97.8 percent in 1994. But 
occupancy remains high. By 1997, the average occupancy dropped to 90 
percent.
  These statistics point to the overriding need to help American 
families provide dignified and appropriate care to their parents and 
relatives. We know that the demand for long-term care will increase 
with each passing year, and that federal, state, and local resources 
cannot cover the expected costs. Nursing home costs are expected to 
reach $97,000 by the year 2030.
  What Congress can do, however, it make long-term care insurance 
available to a broad segment of the population. As the ranking minority 
member of the Subcommittee on Federal Services, I co-chaired a hearing 
on long-term care insurance on May 16, 2000. We heard testimony on S. 
2420, legislation to authorize the Office of Personnel Management to 
contract with one or more insurance carriers for long-term care 
insurance for federal and military personnel and their families. As a 
cosponsor of that bill, I am pleased that just last night, the Senate

[[Page 16376]]

passed our measure after substituting the text of S. 2420 under H.R. 
4040, the House long-term care bill for the federal family. The bill, 
as amended, also includes provisions of S. 1232, the Federal Erroneous 
Retirement Coverage Corrections Act, which I cosponsored with Senator 
Cochran last year. These provisions will provide relief to the 
estimated 20,000 federal employees who, through no fault of their own, 
found themselves in the wrong retirement system. H.R. 4040, as amended, 
offer a model for the private sector. I am delighted that similar 
legislation providing long-term care insurance for federal employees 
and military personnel is included in Senator Graham's bill, and I 
welcome the opportunity to join with him in helping Americans meet 
their long-term care needs in a dignified manner.
  The bill introduced today provides a comprehensive effort to address 
our citizens' long-term care needs. Among its provisions are the 
authorization of a phased-in tax deduction for the premiums of 
qualified long-term care insurance, implementation of the National 
Family Caregiver Support Program, restoration of $2.38 billion 
authorization for the Social Services Block Grant, and creation of a 
national public information campaign.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original sponsor of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Breaux, 
        Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. 
        Bayh):
  S. 2936. A bill to provide incentives for new markets and community 
development, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


        creating new markets and empowering america act of 2000

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Creating New 
Markets and Empowering America Act of 2000, which is designed to 
strengthen and revitalize low and moderate income communities across 
America.
  Because we made some tough choices to balance our budget, we have the 
first federal surplus since Lyndon Johnson was President. And now is 
the time to give some back, particularly to those who have missed out 
on so much of our economic prosperity. This legislation would pump new 
capital into our nation's inner cities and isolated rural communities--
areas that have had a difficult time building up from within.
  The legislation contains three ``New Markets'' initiatives designed 
to attract and expand new capital into low to moderate income areas. 
First, a New Markets Tax Credit would infuse $15 billion in investments 
over the next 7 years through a 30 percent tax credit for businesses 
who provide capital to lower income communities. Secondly, the bill 
authorizes the designation of America's Private Investment Companies 
(APIC's) which would receive federal matching funds for private 
investments made in lower income areas. This provision would allow $1 
billion in federal low-cost loans to match $500 million in private 
investment. Thirdly, the bill would create a new class of venture 
capital funds to assist with the operation and administration of 
ongoing businesses in lower income areas, who have growth potential, so 
they can continue to expand.
  The bill also requires mandatory funding for Round II Empowerment 
Zones (EZ's) and Enterprise Communities (EC's) and creates a new set of 
Round III EZ's.
  Mr. President, the mandatory funding of Round II Empowerment Zones is 
critically important to the citizens of Norfolk and Portsmouth, 
Virginia. The Federal Government made a commitment to these two 
communities--they need and deserve the funding--and I am determined to 
get the check in the mail to them. With this legislation, the Norfolk-
Portsmouth Empowerment Zone would be guaranteed the remaining $94 
million it was promised when it competed for the Empowerment Zone 
designation.
  The legislation I'm introducing today also creates 40 Renewal 
Communities--which reflect the agreement between President Clinton and 
Speaker Hastert--along with a host of tax provisions to expand and 
revitalize housing.
  Very important to my home state of Virginia, this bill contains 
legislation I introduced earlier this year (S. 2445) to assist 
communities affected by job loss due to trade. The Assistance in 
Development for Communities Act (AID for Communities Act) both assists 
communities in developing a plan to retool their economies and offers 
financial assistance and tax incentives to help communities implement 
those plans.
  Mr. President, the AID for Communities Act is immensely important to 
the people of Martinsville, Virginia--who have suffered economic 
devastation from the recent closing of a Tultex plant. This bill would 
give the citizens of Martinsville the urgent assistance they need to 
strengthen their economy and create a more vibrant future for all who 
live there.
  Finally, Mr. President, this legislation includes two new initiatives 
to help religious and other community organizations better participate 
in federal grant programs. Specifically, it requires the Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to provide assistance 
in a manner similar to HUD's Office of Community and Faith-Based 
Organizations to assist faith-based and community organizations in 
applying for federal grant funds to provide substance abuse treatment. 
It would also require the IRS to provide guidance and make information 
available to assist religious and community organizations in 
establishing tax-exempt entities that can be used to operate social 
services.
  Many of these organizations are unfamiliar with the process necessary 
to set up a tax-exempt organization and are, therefore, unable to 
participate in federal grant programs. This provision would provide 
them with the necessary information and assistance.
  Mr. President, the ``Creating New Markets and Empowering America Act 
of 2000'' will spur economic growth in low to moderate income 
communities across our nation. As such, it will improve the lives of 
countless Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Creating New 
Markets and Empowering America Act of 2000. We are living in a time of 
unprecedented prosperity. However this prosperity has not reached every 
American equally. The boom on Wall Street has not reached Main Street 
in many regions of our nation. The problem is quite simple. Many of our 
lower income communities are unable to attract the investment capital 
that is allowing more affluent areas to flourish. As the United States 
economy continues to grow it has become more and more apparent that 
attracting capital to these communities is one of the largest 
challenges facing the private sector and all levels of government.
  It is important to keep in mind that this is not just an urban 
problem. Many rural communities, especially those that rely on 
agriculture, are watching their jobs disappear with nothing on the 
horizon in the form of new business or industry to offer much hope. My 
home state of Montana is facing this economic turmoil right now. A 
state that was built on agriculture, mining, and timber has watched 
these industries diminish to the point that Montana is now 50th in per-
capita income relative to other states--dead last.
  We often hear the phrase ``digital divide.'' Well, Montana is 
standing on the edge of an economic divide, but we are not quitters. 
Montana has much to offer. We have an unparalleled quality of life, a 
highly-educated work force, a burgeoning high-tech sector, and top-
notch schools. In many respects, we are right on the cusp of an 
economic upswing. However, we are having an extremely difficult time 
attracting the investment capital that we need to become a partner in 
the Internet mainstream, create good paying jobs, and truly turn the 
economic corner.
  This past June over the course of two days, I convened a Montana 
Economic Development Summit that brought together not only our state's 
leaders and

[[Page 16377]]

decision makers, but also outside experts in various disciplines in an 
effort to build a road map for improving Montana's economy. We covered 
many issues, but primarily focused on high-tech, business development, 
and marketing and trade. We tackled tough questions such as how we 
retain and support our current businesses and also attract new 
businesses that truly fit with Montanans and their values. Three points 
came up time and again. First, the need for and inability to get the 
necessary investment capital. We simply do not have the population or 
resources available that larger states enjoy. Second, our window of 
opportunity is closing. Time moves faster than it used to and if we 
don't act quickly the world will move right past us. Third, and most 
importantly, any action or strategy that we take must come from begin 
locally. Economic development initiatives must be bottom-up and not 
top-down or they just will not work.
  It is for these three reasons that I am cosponsoring this 
legislation. The New Markets proposals are a quick and efficient way to 
leverage the necessary investment in lower-income communities through 
private/public partnerships. And it will give these communities the 
tools they need to map their own economic destiny and create the better 
paying jobs that are so desperately needed.
  Two portions illustrate the private/public partnership. On the public 
side, the Trade Adjustment Assistance provision will enhance the 
ability of each community to be proactive in crafting a long-term 
strategy for economic development. This is crucial for communities and 
regions in rural areas that are natural resource dependent and have 
suffered severe employment losses in the past decade. For the private 
sector, the New Markets tax credit will create opportunity by providing 
a tangible incentive for companies to take a serious look at areas of 
the country that are currently being ignored.
  In closing, this legislation will provide the necessary ingredients 
for revitalizing America's less fortunate rural areas. It will help 
target investment to these communities and it will allow them the 
flexibility to build their economies on their terms and their ability. 
I commend my colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb, for introducing 
such proactive legislation that addresses several of the most urgent 
issues facing economically troubled areas. Finally, I urge my 
colleagues to work together and pass this legislation so that states 
like Montana can begin their long climb back up to economic stability 
and prosperity.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join Senator Robb and 16 other 
colleagues to introduce comprehensive legislation aimed at spurring 
economic development and person empowerment in our inner cities and 
isolated rural areas. Our economy is booming, and has been for most of 
the 90s, yet there are still individuals and families who are 
struggling.
  What we've tried to do is develop economic incentives that will 
encourage business development and remove barriers that make it hard 
for entrepreneurs, community organizations and individuals to build 
healthy communities.
  Among the many important initiatives in this bill is my new markets 
legislation that I introduced last September, S. 1594, the Community 
Development and Venture Capital Act, which passed the Senate Committee 
on Small Business today, and as part of the Clinton/Hastert package in 
the House yesterday. It also includes full funding for Round II of 
Empowerment Zones.
  The Community Development and Venture Capital Act has three parts: a 
venture capital program to funnel investment money into distressed 
communities; Senator Wellstone's program to expand the number of 
venture capital firms and professionals who are devoted to investing in 
such communities; and a mentoring program to link established, 
successful businesses with small businesses owners in stagnant or 
deteriorating communities in order to facilitate the learning curve.
  The venture capital program is modeled after the Small Business 
Administration's successful Small Business Investment Company program. 
As SBA Administrator Alvarez pointed out just last week in a Small 
Business Committee hearing, the SBIC program has been so successful 
that it has generated more than $19 billion in investments in more than 
13,000 businesses since 1992. And, in the past five years, the SBIC 
participating securities program has returned $224 million in profits, 
virtually paying for itself for the past nine years.
  As successful as that program is, it does not sufficiently reach 
areas of our country that need economic development the most. One, out 
of the total $4.2 billion that SBICs invested last year, only 1.6 
percent were deals of less than $1 million dollars in LMI areas. Two, 
only $1.1 million of that $4.2 billion went to LMI investments in rural 
areas. Three, in 1999, 85 percent of SBIC deals were $10 million and 
more.
  In broader terms, the economy is booming. Since 1993, almost 21 
million jobs have been created. Since 1992, unemployment has shrunk 
from 7.5 percent to 4 percent. In the past two years, we've paid down 
the debt $140 billion, and CBO currently projects a surplus of $176 
billion. Some estimates even say more than $2 trillion. In spite of 
these impressive numbers, one out of five children grows up in poverty 
and there are pockets of America where unemployment is as high as 14 
percent.
  We can make a difference by investing in a new industry of community 
development venture capital funds that target investment capital and 
business expertise into low- and moderate-income areas to develop and 
expand local businesses that create jobs and alleviate economic 
distress. The existing 25 or 30 community development venture capital 
funds have set out to demonstrate that the same model of business 
development that has driven economic expansion in Silicon Valley and 
Route 128 Massachusetts can also make a powerful difference in areas 
like the inner-city areas of Boston's Roxbury or New York's East 
Harlem, or the rural desolation of Kentucky's Appalachia or 
Mississippi's Delta region.
  Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan says ``Credit alone is 
not the answer. Businesses must have equity capital before they are 
considered viable candidates for debt financing.'' He emphasizes that 
this is particularly important in lower-income communities.
  What I'm trying to do as Ranking Member of the Small Business 
Committee, and have been working with the SBA to achieve, is expand 
investment in our neediest communities by building on the economic 
activity created by loans. I think one of the most effective ways to do 
that is to spur venture capital investment in our neediest communities. 
I am very glad that Senator Robb and my other colleagues agreed to 
include this powerful economic development plan in this legislation.
  Switching to another provision in this bill, this legislation builds 
on the President's and Speaker's agreement by securing full, mandatory 
funding for Massachusett's Empowerment Zone. As I said earlier, this 
passed the full House yesterday by a vote of 394 to 27. Full, mandatory 
funding is important because, so far, the money has dribbled in--only 
$6.6 million of the $100 million authorized over ten years--and made it 
impossible for the city to implement a plan for economic self-
sufficiency. Some 80 public and private entities, from universities to 
technology companies to banks to local government, showed incredible 
community spirit and committed to matching the EZ money, eight to one. 
Let me say it another way--these groups agreed to match the $100 
million in Federal Empowerment Zone money with $800 million. Yet, 
regrettably, in spite of this incredible alliance, the city of Boston 
has not been able to tap into that leveraged money and implement the 
strategic plan because Congress hasn't held up its part of the bargain. 
I am extremely pleased that we were able to work together and find a 
way to provide full, steady funding to these zones. That money means 
education, daycare, transportation and basic health care in areas--in 
Massachusetts that includes

[[Page 16378]]

57,000 residents who live in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattipan--where 
almost 50 percent of the children are living in poverty and nearly half 
the residents over 25 don't even have a high school diploma.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their work on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to give my support to the 
Creating New Markets and Empowering America Act of 2000. In a time of 
unprecedented economic prosperity, there are too many communities in 
this nation that are beleaguered by crumbling infrastructures and 
stagnant economies. This legislation will help attract capital, produce 
much-needed housing, and encourage private investment to communities 
most in need.
  I am proud to join in cosponsoring this legislation and would like to 
thank Senator Robb for all his hard work in crafting this bill. Of 
particular importance to my home state of Vermont are increases in the 
Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Private Activity Bond cap.
  Vermont is currently in the middle of an affordable housing crisis. 
Production has stalled and demand has risen. In Chittenden County, one 
of Vermont's most populated areas, residents face a rental vacancy rate 
of less than one percent. Housing costs are so expensive, middle income 
families are being forced into hotels, college dorms, homeless 
shelters, or left out on the street. Sadly, this is a situation that is 
being repeated nationwide.
  As funding for other federal housing assistance programs has 
diminished, states depend more and more on the LIHTC and private 
activity bonds to finance affordable housing projects. The LIHTC has 
been extremely successful since its enactment as part of the Tax Reform 
Act of 1986. Today, the LIHTC is one of the primary tools that states 
have to attract private investment in affordable rental housing. In 
Vermont, the LIHTC has made possible the production, rehabilitation, 
and preservation of over 2,600 affordable apartments since 1987. 
Unfortunately this credit has not been increased since its creation 
nearly fourteen years ago. Today, the demand for tax credits far 
exceeds their availability. This year in Vermont, over $2.5 million in 
credits were requested but only $718,000 were available.
  I am pleased that this bill raises the annual per capita allocation 
of tax credits from $1.25 to $1.75 and indexes the credit to inflation. 
In addition to the increased per capita allocation, I hope to work a 
small state minimum. Such a floor would help to ensure that small 
states like Vermont have access to the resources they need to provide 
affordable housing for every resident in need.
  Private activity bonds also play an important role in providing 
affordable housing for Vermonters. In 1986 the Federal Tax Reform Act 
limited the amount of tax-exempt bonds that each state could issue to 
no more than $50 per capita. There has not been an inflation adjustment 
to the cap since its inception. The Vermont Housing Finance Agency 
(VHFA) has issued over $1.25 billion in private activity bonds since 
1974, bonds which have helped make the dream of home ownership a 
reality for over 20,425 Vermont households. I am pleased that this bill 
includes a cap increase from $50 to $75 per capita which will help 
Vermont's finance agencies continue this success.
  Again, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill which will offer 
many households, businesses and communities new opportunities as we 
enter the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of 
this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. 
        Kerrey):
  S. 2937. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve access to Medicare+Choice plans through an increase in the 
annual Medicare+Choice capitation rates and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


            the medicare geographic fair payment act of 2000

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with some very 
distinguished colleagues from both sides of the aisle--Senator Wyden, 
who is here, and Senator Grassley, who is not here--who are cosponsors 
of this measure, along with Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska.
  Mr. President, let me suggest for Senators' staff who are looking at 
this to look alphabetically. You will find how much is being reimbursed 
in your cities for the Medicare+Choice reimbursement. Look at it, and 
you will see how the HMOs are reimbursed to provide this rather good, 
fair, and competitive coverage to the senior citizens. You will be 
astounded. Many people think New York is covered. They are getting a 
very high rate of reimbursement because they started high. But look at 
some of the cities in New York. You will find that New York has a 
number of cities that are under $450. We reimburse them on the high 
level--as high as $800.
  The bill we are introducing today we are going to call the Medicare 
Geographic Fair Payment Act. Week after week, the Federal Government 
deducts a portion of everyone's paycheck to support the Medicare 
program. After our seniors have retired and begin to take advantage of 
the program they have supported for so many years, I think it is fair 
that they continue to have a choice.
  Right now they have a choice. But the choice is really not for all 
seniors because we made a decision when we put in the Medicare+Choice 
Program, which was really an alternative that seniors could choose. We 
made a decision as to how we would reimburse the provider. That 
decision was made based upon, as I understand from my good friend, 
Senator Wyden--allegedly based on what they needed to get the job done 
to get the program going.
  I don't intend to be critical, but in many instances those who had 
not been frugal, had not been careful about costs, got high 
reimbursements. But if you lived in Senator Wyden's State or New 
Mexico, where they were being extremely frugal in what they charged for 
the services, they got a very low rate.
  It is unfortunate, but for Staten Island the rates of reimbursement 
are $814; $794 for Dade County--I am not complaining; I am stating a 
dollar amount--$702 for New Orleans; and $661 for Los Angeles.
  Senator Wyden, perhaps, could intervene and tell me what it is in 
Portland.
  Mr. WYDEN. $445.
  Mr. DOMENICI. $445; Albuquerque is $430, $15 under Oregon. That is 
all the government will give as reimbursement if you decide to get into 
the HMO business with hospitals and everybody else joining together, if 
you are going to furnish this service. Remember, there are some places 
getting $800-plus.
  I am not here to take away anything from anyone. That is how our 
amendment is different. We are not trying to take the pie, leave it the 
same size, and say those who are getting more money have to cut back. 
Rural areas are even lower and are expected to provide the same level 
of benefits or nearly half the reimbursement.
  There were seniors who had a marvelous Medicare+Choice Program. Why 
was it good? It was good because for a reasonable cost they were 
getting prescription drugs, which you don't get under Medicare, and the 
whole package was new benefits. Some of them got dental insurance, 
which they don't get. Some of them got a number of different things 
they don't get under Medicare, for a premium they could afford.
  These programs are being closed down every day we delay. Thousands of 
seniors are getting notices. They had a good program, but they won't 
have it in January. I want everybody to know if there are going to be 
any entitlement bills getting out of here on anything that is even 
close to Medicare, this is an amendment that will be on there--or 
something better. This amendment says by January 1st of this year, the 
rates are raised. They are these low rates we are talking about. Very 
simply, under this bill, we will change the rates.
  It is pretty easy for everybody to understand. This is not a 
complicated bill. What we are doing is saying for those metropolitan 
areas which are

[[Page 16379]]

250,000 or more, the minimum reimbursement will be $525. If we can't 
get that through here to preserve some of these plans where seniors are 
just falling off the log, desperately getting their notices, and 
raising it to $525, then I don't know what is fair around here anymore. 
For all the rural counties, we have raised the minimum to $475.
  My friend, Senator Wyden, can talk about his State and about his 
observations. Clearly, he has been asking everybody around here, 
including the Budget Committee, to have hearings on this great 
disparity which he calls penalizing efficiency.
  The truth of the matter is in my home city and in my State of New 
Mexico, what is happening, the HMO companies can no longer stay in 
business. Seniors are getting notified. In fact, we don't have a lot of 
people under this program--15,000 are going to get knocked off the 
program right now, very soon. If you think they are not going to 
meetings, they met with Heather Wilson, one of our representatives, and 
400 people showed up because they read in the newspaper she was holding 
a meeting and they already got their notices: Come January, find a new 
plan. They are asking: Why? The plan is good. It is very good for me. I 
have been paying all my life. Why are you taking this away?
  I ask Senators to take a look. In my case, we will get $34 million in 
additional reimbursements during the first year and $170 out of this 
bill. Incidentally, this bill will cost $700 million the first year. I 
say to the thousands of seniors who may be able to keep their insurance 
and be under this kind of program, that is a pretty good bargain. Over 
5 years, it will cost $3.7 billion.
  It also includes a third provision which I ask Senators to look at. 
It is the product of some very wise thinking by Senator Grassley. It 
should have been separately called the Grassley bill, but it is 
packaged in this as our third title. It says essentially hospitals will 
hereinafter be reimbursed on labor costs--on what the actual cost is, 
not on what the stated cost is. That makes the payment to hospitals go 
up substantially. My small State will go up about $6.5 million over the 
year. I don't know what it would be in a State such as Ohio, but it 
would be rather substantial.
  I have extensive research, with cities alphabetically listed. Just 
look for your city and see what the reimbursement rate is. If it is 
under $525, we will take it to $525. If there are rural counties that 
are not in these lists, call home and ask what some of the counties are 
getting reimbursed. Raising it to $475 will help an awful lot of 
people. Is it enough? I don't know. I want to get something done. My 
friend wants to get something done, as do my two cosponsors. I assume 
in a couple of days or a week we will have a lot more Senators, 
bipartisan, asking to be on this.
  I remind everyone, the total cost of doing a bit of fairness to 
seniors and ending discrimination by region is going to be $700 million 
in the first year and $3.7 over 5. We have been talking about 
astronomical numbers for Medicare reform, prescription drugs. I don't 
know where we will end up. I hope in the heat of this political 6 weeks 
we don't do anything major, because it will be wrong, but clearly we 
have to do something.
  Come January 1, if we don't put money into this reimbursement 
program, I think my friend, who has followed this carefully, will say 
hundreds of thousands of seniors will be denied the option to buy 
coverage which they think is rather good in many cases, including 
prescription drugs, for which they only have to pay $50 extra. They 
can't get that anywhere else. They got extensive coverage of items in 
their health care needs that are not covered anywhere.
  I very much thank the Senators who are cosponsoring, Senators Wyden, 
Grassley, and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. We will have more.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional 
material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2937

       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 ``Medicare Geographic Fair 
     Payment Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. IMPROVED ACCESS TO MEDICARE+CHOICE PLANS THROUGH AN 
                   INCREASE IN THE ANNUAL MEDICARE+CHOICE 
                   CAPITATION RATES.

       Section 1853(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-23(c)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(ii) For a succeeding year'' and 
     inserting ``(ii)(I) Subject to subclause (II), for a 
     succeeding year''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
       ``(II) For 2001 for any area in any Metropolitan 
     Statistical Area with a population of more than 250,000, $525 
     (and for any area outside such an area, $475).''.

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT THAT THE ACTUAL PROPORTION OF A 
                   HOSPITAL'S COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO WAGES AND 
                   WAGE-RELATED COSTS BE WAGE ADJUSTED.

       (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 
     1886(d)(3)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(d)(3)(E)) is amended by striking ``, (as estimated by 
     the Secretary from time to time) of hospitals' costs'' and 
     inserting ``of each hospital's costs (based on the most 
     recent data available to the Secretary with respect to the 
     hospital)''.
       (b) Special Rule for Hospitals Located in Puerto Rico.--
     Section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(d)(3)(E)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``In the case of a hospital located 
     in Puerto Rico, the first sentence of this subparagraph shall 
     be applied as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the Geographic Adjustment Fairness Act of 
     2000.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to discharges occurring on or after 
     January 1, 2001.
                                  ____


   TABLE 1.--AVERAGE MEDICARE+CHOICE PAYMENT RATES PER AGED BENEFICIARY, PER MONTH, PER COUNTY IN METROPOLITAN
                      STATISTICAL AREAS AND PRIMARY METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS, FY 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         2000
  Population         Metropolitan statistical area                  State and county name               payment
     \1\                                                                                                 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           2   Akron, OH PMSA..........................  OH Summit..................................     $569.96
                                                         OH Portage.................................      517.50
           2   Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA.........  NY Rensselaer..............................      451.95
                                                         NY Albany..................................      426.70
                                                         NY Saratoga................................      426.15
                                                         NY Montgomery..............................      415.97
                                                         NY Schenectady.............................      414.50
                                                         NY Schoharie...............................      408.51
           2   Albuquerque, NM MSA.....................  NM Bernalillo..............................      430.44
                                                         NM Sandoval................................      402.64
                                                         NM Valencia................................      401.61
           2   Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA MSA......  PA Northampton.............................      550.07
                                                         PA Carbon..................................      530.57
                                                         PA Lehigh..................................      520.68
           2   Ann Arbor, MI PMSA......................  MI Washtenaw...............................      557.62
                                                         MI Livingston..............................      535.35
                                                         MI Lenawee.................................      492.06
           2   Appleton-Oshkosh-Neehan, WI MSA.........  WI Calumet.................................      401.61
                                                         WI Outagamie...............................      401.61
                                                         WI Winnebago...............................      401.61
           1   Atlanta, GA MSA.........................  GA Clayton.................................      639.17
                                                         GA Douglas.................................      631.97
                                                         GA Coweta..................................      612.58
                                                         GA Henry...................................      578.76

[[Page 16380]]

 
                                                         GA Newton..................................      572.05
                                                         GA Fulton..................................      569.09
                                                         GA Walton..................................      562.39
                                                         GA Gwinnett................................      560.30
                                                         GA Forsyth.................................      560.28
                                                         GA Paulding................................      552.37
                                                         GA Cobb....................................      552.00
                                                         GA Barrow..................................      549.34
                                                         GA De Kalb.................................      549.32
                                                         GA Carroll.................................      538.55
                                                         GA Cherokee................................      536.79
                                                         GA Pickens.................................      532.62
                                                         GA Fayette.................................      531.71
                                                         GA Rockdale................................      528.77
                                                         GA Spalding................................      491.23
                                                         GA Bartow..................................      457.53
           2   Atlantic-Cape May, NJ PMSA..............  NJ Cape May................................      575.01
                                                         NJ Atlantic................................      564.89
           2   Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSA................  GA McDuffie................................      506.13
                                                         GA Columbia................................      480.21
                                                         GA Richmond................................      474.28
                                                         SC Aiken...................................      472.78
                                                         SC Edgefield...............................      401.61
           2   Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA...............  TX Travis..................................      457.95
                                                         TX Caldwell................................      449.43
                                                         TX Bastrop.................................      437.16
                                                         TX Hays....................................      429.58
                                                         TX Williamson..............................      411.43
           2   Bakersfield, CA MSA.....................  CA Kern....................................      549.94
           1   Baltimore, MD PMSA......................  MD Baltimore City..........................      671.43
                                                         MD Anne Arundel............................      596.99
                                                         MD Howard..................................      575.83
                                                         MD Baltimore...............................      573.77
                                                         MD Harford.................................      567.54
                                                         MD Carroll.................................      519.96
                                                         MD Queen Annes.............................      468.85
           2   Baton Rouge, LA MSA.....................  LA Ascension...............................      701.89
                                                         LA Livingston..............................      669.57
                                                         LA E. Baton Rouge..........................      574.48
                                                         LA W. Baton Rouge..........................      569.45
           2   Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA............  TX Jefferson...............................      635.70
                                                         TX Orange..................................      628.21
                                                         TX Hardin..................................      580.77
           1   Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA.................  NJ Bergen..................................      559.77
                                                         NJ Passaic.................................      537.18
           2   Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS MSA......  MS Jackson.................................      630.08
                                                         MS Hancock.................................      612.91
                                                         MS Harrison................................      596.61
           2   Binghamton, NY MSA......................  NY Broome..................................      415.83
                                                         NY Tioga...................................      403.34
           2   Birmingham, AL MSA......................  AL Shelby..................................      686.53
                                                         AL Blount..................................      575.59
                                                         AL St. Clair...............................      570.54
                                                         AL Jefferson...............................      557.62
           2   Boise City, ID MSA......................  ID Ada.....................................      401.61
                                                         ID Canyon..................................      401.61
           1   Boston, MA-NH PMSA......................  MA Suffolk.................................      676.30
                                                         MA Norfolk.................................      628.81
                                                         MA Middlesex...............................      604.17
                                                         MA Plymouth................................      566.16
                                                         MA Essex...................................      542.07
                                                         NH Rockingham..............................      479.31
           2   Bridgeport, CT PMSA.....................  CT Fairfield...............................      546.20
           2   Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX MSA  TX Cameron.................................      439.76
           1   Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA...........  NY Niagara.................................      458.37
                                                         NY Erie....................................      444.70
           2   Canton-Massillon, OH MSA................  OH Stark...................................      439.09
                                                         OH Carroll.................................      425.34
           2   Charleston, WV MSA......................  WV Kanawha.................................      485.94
                                                         WV Putnam..................................      459.31
           2   Charleston-North Charleston, SC MSA.....  SC Charleston..............................      480.38
                                                         SC Berkeley................................      455.71
                                                         SC Dorchester..............................      429.44
           1   Charlotte-Gastnia-Rockhill, NC-SC MSA...  NC Cabarrus................................      459.94
                                                         NC Gaston..................................      456.16
                                                         NC Mecklenburg.............................      433.27
                                                         NC Union...................................      433.15
                                                         NC Lincoln.................................      431.34
                                                         SC York....................................      430.89
                                                         NC Rowan...................................      429.39
           2   Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA..................  TN Marion..................................      689.49
                                                         GA Walker..................................      533.01
                                                         TN Hamilton................................      526.68
                                                         GA Catoosa.................................      503.89
                                                         GA Dade....................................      497.19
           1   Chicago, IL PMSA........................  IL Cook....................................      593.51
                                                         IL Will....................................      523.73
                                                         IL Grundy..................................      519.32
                                                         IL Du Page.................................      509.42
                                                         IL Lake....................................      507.05
                                                         IL Kane....................................      482.60
                                                         IL Mc Henry................................      466.26
                                                         IL Kendall.................................      444.33
                                                         IL De Kalb.................................      415.25
           1   Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA...............  OH Hamilton................................      505.97
                                                         OH Clermont................................      505.91
                                                         KY Boone...................................      502.28
                                                         KY Kenton..................................      483.13
                                                         KY Campbell................................      479.25
                                                         OH Brown...................................      473.04
                                                         IN Ohio....................................      471.63
                                                         IN Dearborn................................      469.59
                                                         KY Grant...................................      469.13
                                                         OH Warren..................................      468.11
                                                         KY Gallatin................................      457.05

[[Page 16381]]

 
                                                         KY Pendleton...............................      422.65
           1   Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA........  OH Cuyahoga................................      575.59
                                                         OH Lorain..................................      522.63
                                                         OH Medina..................................      511.38
                                                         OH Lake....................................      506.72
                                                         OH Ashtabula...............................      503.62
                                                         OH Geauga..................................      484.81
           2   Colorado Spring, CO MSA.................  CO El Paso.................................      472.16
           2   Columbia, SC MSA........................  SC Lexington...............................      429.22
                                                         SC Richland................................      406.65
           2   Columbus, GA-AL MSA.....................  GA Chattahoochee...........................      486.30
                                                         AL Russell.................................      450.62
                                                         GA Muscogee................................      430.84
                                                         GA Harris..................................      401.61
           1   Columbus, OH MSA........................  OH Madison.................................      511.41
                                                         OH Franklin................................      496.33
                                                         OH Fairfield...............................      461.07
                                                         OH Pickaway................................      453.38
                                                         OH Delaware................................      450.01
                                                         OH Licking.................................      434.03
           2   Corpus Christi, TX MSA..................  TX Nueces..................................      515.88
                                                         TX San Patricio............................      501.62
           1   Dallas, TX PMSA.........................  TX Denton..................................      557.79
                                                         TX Collin..................................      547.45
                                                         TX Dallas..................................      545.56
                                                         TX Rockwall................................      511.05
                                                         TX Kaufman.................................      510.50
                                                         TX Henderson...............................      507.26
                                                         TX Ellis...................................      489.89
                                                         TX Hunt....................................      484.39
           2   Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-AL MSA.  IA Scott...................................      420.23
                                                         IL Rock Island.............................      416.48
                                                         IL Henry...................................      401.72
           2   Daytona Beach, FL MSA...................  FL Volusia.................................      481.63
                                                         FL Flagler.................................      432.48
           2   Dayton-Springfield, OH MSA..............  OH Montgomery..............................      497.25
                                                         OH Clark...................................      487.66
                                                         OH Miami...................................      461.54
                                                         OH Greene..................................      438.27
           1   Denver, CO PMSA.........................  CO Denver..................................      534.62
                                                         CO Adams...................................      513.59
                                                         CO Arapahoe................................      484.26
                                                         CO Jefferson...............................      475.87
                                                         CO Douglas.................................      452.51
           2   Des Moines, IA MSA......................  IA Polk....................................      443.74
                                                         IA Warren..................................      405.72
                                                         IA Dallas..................................      401.61
           1   Detroit, MI PMSA........................  MI Wayne...................................      677.77
                                                         MI Oakland.................................      639.26
                                                         MI Macomb..................................      628.03
                                                         MI Monroe..................................      567.21
                                                         MI Lapeer..................................      541.44
                                                         MI St. Clair...............................      513.96
           2   Dutchess County, NY PMSA................  NY Dutchess................................      485.41
           2   El Paso, TX MSA.........................  TX El Paso.................................      481.85
           2   Erie, PA MSA............................  PA Erie....................................      461.47
           2   Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA..............  OR Lane....................................      424.21
           2   Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY MSA.........  KY Henderson...............................      487.38
                                                         IN Posey...................................      455.23
                                                         IN Warrick.................................      441.91
                                                         IN Vanderburgh.............................      439.14
           2   Fayetteville, NC MSA....................  NC Cumberland..............................      420.50
           2   Flint, MI PMSA..........................  MI Genesee.................................      654.33
           1   Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA................  FL Broward.................................      690.17
           2   Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL MSA...........  FL Lee.....................................      516.74
           2   Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, FL MSA......  FL St. Lucie...............................      582.27
                                                         MI FL Martin...............................      536.70
           2   Fort Wayne, IN MSA......................  IN Adams...................................      405.10
                                                         IN Allen...................................      403.97
                                                         IN Whitley.................................      403.29
                                                         IN De Kalb.................................      401.61
                                                         IN Huntington..............................      401.61
                                                         IN Wells...................................      401.61
           1   Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA...........  TX Tarrant.................................      529.17
                                                         TX Johnson.................................      502.06
                                                         TX Hood....................................      492.86
                                                         TX Parker..................................      488.76
           2   Fresno, CA MSA..........................  CA Madera..................................      473.12
                                                         CA Fresno..................................      438.04
           2   Gary, IN PMSA...........................  IN Lake....................................      564.82
                                                         IN Porter..................................      514.53
           2   Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI MSA...  MI Allegan.................................      445.34
                                                         MI Muskegon................................      443.96
                                                         MI Kent....................................      423.54
                                                         MI Ottawa..................................      401.61
           1   Grnsboro-Winston-Salem-HI PT, NC MSA....  NC Davie...................................      461.90
                                                         NC Davidson................................      436.36
                                                         NC Guilford................................      434.67
                                                         NC Forsyth.................................      434.28
                                                         NC Stokes..................................      417.35
                                                         NC Yadkin..................................      415.82
                                                         NC Alamance................................      415.23
                                                         NC Randolph................................      414.23
           2   Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA.  SC Cherokee................................      466.06
                                                         SC Anderson................................      409.97
                                                         SC Greenville..............................      405.47
                                                         SC Pickens.................................      401.61
                                                         SC Spartanburg.............................      401.61
           2   Hamilton-Middletown, OH PMSA............  OH Butler..................................      480.01
           2   Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA MSA.....  PA Dauphin.................................      511.84
                                                         PA Perry...................................      508.55
                                                         PA Cumberland..............................      454.13
                                                         PA Lebanon.................................      420.60
           1   Hartford, CT MSA........................  CT Tolland.................................      541.27
                                                         CT Hartford................................      525.95

[[Page 16382]]

 
                                                         CT Litchfield..............................      511.80
                                                         CT Windham.................................      505.42
                                                         CT Middlesex...............................      482.64
           2   Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC MSA........  NC Alexander...............................      451.10
                                                         NC Burke...................................      437.35
                                                         NC Caldwell................................      429.74
                                                         NC Catawba.................................      408.16
           2   Honolulu, HI MSA........................  HI Honolulu................................      451.71
           1   Houston, TX PMSA........................  TX Liberty.................................      719.28
                                                         TX Chambers................................      719.23
                                                         TX Montgomery..............................      706.08
                                                         TX Harris..................................      631.59
                                                         TX Waller..................................      527.01
                                                         TX Fort Bend...............................      521.77
           2   Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH MSA........  KY Boyd....................................      499.45
                                                         KY Greenup.................................      487.07
                                                         OH Lawrence................................      483.34
                                                         KY Carter..................................      434.54
                                                         WV Wayne...................................      428.33
                                                         WV Cabell..................................      427.27
           2   Huntsville, AL MSA......................  AL Limestone...............................      464.15
                                                         AL Madison.................................      454.59
           1   Indianapolis, IN MSA....................  IN Marion..................................      506.06
                                                         IN Madison.................................      492.95
                                                         IN Hendricks...............................      487.01
                                                         IN Hamilton................................      478.86
                                                         IN Shelby..................................      477.17
                                                         IN Morgan..................................      470.63
                                                         IN Hancock.................................      469.54
                                                         IN Boone...................................      462.42
                                                         IN Johnson.................................      442.74
           2   Jackson, MS MSA.........................  MS Madison.................................      446.48
                                                         MS Rankin..................................      445.23
                                                         MS Hinds...................................      442.96
           2   Jacksonville, FL MSA....................  FL Duval...................................      558.61
                                                         FL Nassau..................................      534.03
                                                         FL St. Johns...............................      503.27
                                                         FL Clay....................................      494.78
           2   Jersey City, NJ PMSA....................  NJ Hudson..................................      572.80
           2   Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA     TN Unicol..................................      486.65
                MSA.
                                                         TN Hawkins.................................      475.81
                                                         VA Scott...................................      475.48
                                                         TN Washington..............................      460.53
                                                         TN Sullivan................................      451.21
                                                         VA Bristol City............................      445.38
                                                         TN Carter..................................      419.53
                                                         VA Washington..............................      401.61
           2   Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, MI MSA..........  MI Calhoun.................................      497.87
                                                         MI Van Buren...............................      468.21
                                                         MI Kalamazoo...............................      457.00
           1   Kansas City, MO-KS MSA..................  KS Wyandotte...............................      539.21
                                                         MO Jackson.................................      535.72
                                                         MO Ray.....................................      521.98
                                                         MO Clay....................................      519.84
                                                         KS Johnson.................................      506.41
                                                         KS Leavenworth.............................      503.12
                                                         KS Miami...................................      494.24
                                                         MO Platte..................................      493.90
                                                         MO Lafayette...............................      486.11
                                                         MO Cass....................................      479.90
                                                         MO Clinton.................................      428.27
           2   Killeen-Temple, TX MSA..................  TX Coryell.................................      415.61
                                                         TX Bell....................................      407.33
           2   Knoxville, TN MSA.......................  TN Loudon..................................      506.47
                                                         TN Knox....................................      484.18
                                                         TN Anderson................................      460.95
                                                         TN Union...................................      453.63
                                                         TN Blount..................................      446.59
                                                         TN Sevier..................................      439.09
           2   Lafayette, LA MSA.......................  LA Lafayette...............................      512.01
                                                         LA St. Landry..............................      492.02
                                                         LA Acadia..................................      463.22
                                                         LA St. Martin..............................      460.29
           2   Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA...........  FL Polk....................................      437.74
           2   Lancaster, PA MSA.......................  PA Lancaster...............................      416.00
           2   Lansing-East Lansing, MI MSA............  MI Ingham..................................      519.79
                                                         MI Eaton...................................      495.86
                                                         MI Clinton.................................      473.56
                                                         ...........................................  ..........
           2   Las Vegas, NV-AZ MSA....................  NV Clark...................................      554.90
                                                         AZ Mohave..................................      522.27
                                                         NV Nye.....................................      513.76
           2   Lexington, KY MSA.......................  KY Madison.................................      459.32
                                                         KY Bourdon.................................      445.13
                                                         KY Scott...................................      417.38
                                                         KY Fayette.................................      413.37
                                                         KY Clark...................................      413.34
                                                         KY Jessamine...............................      407.65
                                                         KY Woodford................................      401.61
           2   Little Rock-N. Little Rock, AR MSA......  AR Pulaski.................................      498.44
                                                         AR Saline..................................      488.13
                                                         AR Lonoke..................................      472.87
                                                         AR Faulkner................................      462.94
           1   Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA.........  CA Los Angeles.............................      660.65
           2   Louisville, KY-IN MSA...................  KY Bullitt.................................      546.27
                                                         KY Oldham..................................      509.91
                                                         IN Clark...................................      506.02
                                                         KY Jefferson...............................      499.44
                                                         IN Floyd...................................      495.70
                                                         IN Scott...................................      476.68
                                                         IN Harrison................................      454.42
           2   Macon, GA MSA...........................  GA Houston.................................      548.86
                                                         GA Bibb....................................      518.70
                                                         GA Jones...................................      488.31
                                                         GA Peach...................................      470.78

[[Page 16383]]

 
                                                         GA Twiggs..................................      461.55
           2   Madison, WI MSA.........................  WI Dane....................................      421.05
           2   McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA........  TX Hidalgo.................................      437.02
           2   Melbourne-Titusvlle-Palm Bay, FL MSA....  FL Brevard.................................      527.54
           1   Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA...................  TN Shelby..................................      491.67
                                                         MS De Soto.................................      490.50
                                                         TN Tipton..................................      479.39
                                                         TN Fayette.................................      476.86
                                                         AR Crittenden..............................      472.60
           1   Miami, FL PMSA..........................  FL Dade....................................      794.02
           1   Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ PMSA...  NJ Middlesex...............................      558.12
                                                         NJ Hunterdon...............................      516.24
                                                         NJ Somerset................................      491.08
           1   Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA.............  WI Milwaukee...............................      470.57
                                                         WI Waukesha................................      435.85
                                                         WI Ozaukee.................................      424.93
                                                         WI Washington..............................      411.74
           1   Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA.........  MN Ramsey..................................      470.65
                                                         MN Hennepin................................      457.66
                                                         MN Anoka...................................      453.31
                                                         MN Chisago.................................      443.66
                                                         MN Dakota..................................      438.75
                                                         MN Washington..............................      427.94
                                                         MN Carver..................................      420.00
                                                         MN Isanti..................................      416.79
                                                         MN Wright..................................      405.57
                                                         MN Scott...................................      401.61
                                                         MN Sherburne...............................      401.61
                                                         WI Pierce..................................      401.61
                                                         WI St. Croix...............................      401.61
           2   Mobile, AL MSA..........................  AL Mobile..................................      561.50
                                                         AL Baldwin.................................      485.76
           2   Modesto, CA MSA.........................  CA Stanislaus..............................      509.26
           2   Monmouth-Ocean, NJ PMSA.................  NJ Monmouth................................      542.02
                                                         NJ Ocean...................................      534.05
           2   Montgomery, AL MSA......................  AL Montgomery..............................      483.38
                                                         AL Autauga.................................      481.43
                                                         AL Elmore..................................      480.94
           2   Nashville, TN MSA.......................  TN Wilson..................................      630.43
                                                         TN Davidson................................      547.87
                                                         TN Williamson..............................      538.17
                                                         TN Cheatham................................      537.65
                                                         TN Sumner..................................      529.86
                                                         TN Robertson...............................      527.44
                                                         TN Rutherford..............................      494.76
                                                         TN Dickson.................................      491.06
           1   Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA.................  NY Nassau..................................      622.51
                                                         NY Suffolk.................................      592.30
           2   New Haven-Meriden, CT PMSA..............  CT New Haven...............................      528.19
           2   New London-Norwich, CT-RI MSA...........  CT New London..............................      492.51
           1   New Orleans, LA MSA.....................  LA Plaquemines.............................      772.26
                                                         LA St. Bernard.............................      763.90
                                                         LA St. Charles.............................      675.95
                                                         LA Jefferson...............................      674.13
                                                         LA St. Tammany.............................      669.91
                                                         LA St. John Baptist........................      668.62
                                                         LA Orleans.................................      651.27
                                                         LA St. James...............................      589.96
           1   New York, NY PMSA.......................  NY Richmond................................      814.32
                                                         NY Bronx...................................      772.81
                                                         NY New York................................      756.77
                                                         NY Kings...................................      748.55
                                                         NY Queens..................................      699.17
                                                         NY Rockland................................      630.25
                                                         NY Putnam..................................      628.30
                                                         NY Westchester.............................      608.47
           1   Newark, NJ PMSA.........................  NJ Essex...................................      578.68
                                                         NJ Warren..................................      568.99
                                                         NJ Union...................................      545.04
                                                         NJ Morris..................................      525.78
                                                         NJ Sussex..................................      511.04
           2   Newburgh, NY-PA PMSA....................  NY Orange..................................      524.02
                                                         PA Pike....................................      500.29
           1   Norfolk-Va Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA  VA Chesapeake City.........................      484.88
                                                         VA Williamsburg City.......................      479.54
                                                         VA Suffolk City............................      476.74
                                                         VA Norfolk City............................      470.52
                                                         VA Portsmouth City.........................      470.52
                                                         VA Virginia Beach City.....................      463.75
                                                         VA Isle Of Wight...........................      461.15
                                                         VA Poquoson................................      458.58
                                                         NC Currituck...............................      455.80
                                                         VA James City..............................      446.91
                                                         VA Hampton City............................      443.76
                                                         VA York....................................      430.15
                                                         VA Newport News City.......................      423.90
                                                         VA Gloucester..............................      414.28
                                                         VA Mathews.................................      405.39
           1   Oakland, CA PMSA........................  CA Contra Costa............................      629.07
                                                         CA Alameda.................................      617.69
           2   Oklahoma City, OK MSA...................  OK Oklahoma................................      472.85
                                                         OK Cleveland...............................      469.40
                                                         OK Canadian................................      461.36
                                                         OK Mcclain.................................      453.93
                                                         OK Logan...................................      431.02
                                                         OK Pottawatomie............................      401.61
           2   Omaha, NE-IA MSA........................  NE Douglas.................................      471.42
                                                         IA Pottawattamie...........................      458.62
                                                         NE Sarpy...................................      428.48
                                                         NE Cass....................................      420.07
                                                         NE Washington..............................      411.08
           1   Orange County, CA PMSA..................  CA Orange..................................      609.63
           1   Orlando, FL MSA.........................  FL Osceola.................................      595.95
                                                         FL Orange..................................      553.31
                                                         FL Seminole................................      536.05

[[Page 16384]]

 
                                                         FL Lake....................................      489.82
           2   Pensacola, FL MSA.......................  FL Santa Rosa..............................      503.69
                                                         FL Escambia................................      502.10
           2   Peoria-Pekin, IL MSA....................  IL Tazewell................................      421.61
                                                         IL Peoria..................................      414.60
                                                         IL Woodford................................      401.61
           1   Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA................  PA Philadelphia............................      747.35
                                                         PA Delaware................................      626.24
                                                         PA Bucks...................................      610.87
                                                         NJ Camden..................................      593.47
                                                         NJ Gloucester..............................      591.58
                                                         NJ Salem...................................      584.62
                                                         PA Chester.................................      553.66
                                                         NJ Burlington..............................      552.60
                                                         PA Montgomery..............................      548.59
           1   Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA....................  AZ Pinal...................................      551.74
                                                         AZ Maricopa................................      524.36
           1   Pittsburgh, PA MSA......................  PA Allegheny...............................      632.02
                                                         PA Fayette.................................      619.07
                                                         PA Westmoreland............................      594.10
                                                         PA Washington..............................      590.58
                                                         PA Beaver..................................      544.52
                                                         PA Butler..................................      542.33
           1   Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA..........  OR Washington..............................      460.95
                                                         OR Columbia................................      452.07
                                                         OR Multnomah...............................      445.25
                                                         OR Clackamas...............................      438.74
                                                         WA Clark...................................      433.86
                                                         OR Yamhill.................................      425.86
           1   Providence-Fall River-Warwck, RI-MA MSA.  RI Kent....................................      519.29
                                                         RI Washington..............................      512.79
                                                         MA Bristol.................................      501.50
                                                         RI Providence..............................      498.70
                                                         RI Newport.................................      484.96
                                                         RI Bristol.................................      473.50
           2   Provo-Orem, UT MSA......................  UT Utah....................................      427.96
           2   Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA......  NC Orange..................................      480.56
                                                         NC Johnson.................................      475.66
                                                         NC Wake....................................      464.96
                                                         NC Franklin................................      452.16
                                                         NC Durham..................................      441.05
                                                         NC Chatham.................................      437.33
           2   Reading, PA MSA.........................  PA Berks...................................      452.56
           2   Reno, NV MSA............................  NV Washoe..................................      492.94
           2   Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA.............  NA New Kent................................      522.64
                                                         VA Charles City............................      508.84
                                                         VA Hanover.................................      490.45
                                                         VA Richmond City...........................      488.94
                                                         VA Prince George...........................      483.13
                                                         VA Petersburg City.........................      479.97
                                                         VA Dinwiddlie..............................      477.64
                                                         VA Hopewell City...........................      475.67
                                                         VA Powhatan................................      467.99
                                                         VA Chesterfield............................      463.81
                                                         VA Henrico.................................      463.29
                                                         VA Colonial Heights City...................      449.40
                                                         VA Goochland...............................      445.19
           1   Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA.......  CA San Bernardino..........................      565.55
                                                         CA Riverside...............................      553.64
           1   Rochester, NY MSA.......................  NY Monroe..................................      449.04
                                                         NY Genesee.................................      435.80
                                                         NY Livingston..............................      429.12
                                                         NY Orleans.................................      417.78
                                                         NY Wayne...................................      415.82
                                                         NY Ontario.................................      405.78
           2   Rockford, IL MSA........................  IL Boone...................................      406.73
                                                         IL Ogle....................................      401.61
                                                         IL Winnebago...............................      401.61
           1   Sacramento, CA PMSA.....................  CA Sacramento..............................      545.65
                                                         CA Placer..................................      527.72
                                                         CA El Dorado...............................      515.35
           2   Saginaw-Bay City-Midland, MI USA........  MI Saginaw.................................      488.38
                                                         MI Bay.....................................      488.15
                                                         MI Midland.................................      468.12
           2   Salem, OR PMSA..........................  OR Marion..................................      401.61
                                                         OR Polk....................................      401.61
           2   Salinas, CA MSA.........................  CA Monterey................................      542.83
           1   Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT MSA............  UT Salt Lake...............................      418.00
                                                         UT Davis...................................      415.88
                                                         UT Weber...................................      407.27
           1   San Antonio, TX MSA.....................  TX Bear....................................      512.11
                                                         TX Wilson..................................      432.60
                                                         TX Guadalupe...............................      417.56
                                                         TX Comal...................................      415.47
           1   San Diego, CA MSA.......................  CA San Diego...............................      563.76
           1   San Francisco, CA PMSA..................  CA San Francisco...........................      571.60
                                                         CA Marin...................................      563.18
                                                         CA San Mateo...............................      518.73
           1   San Joae, CA PMSA.......................  CA Santa Clara.............................      543.23
           2   Santa Rosa, CA PMSA.....................  CA Sonoma..................................      531.59
           2   Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA..............  FL Sarasota................................      500.10
                                                         FL Manatee.................................      476.27
           2   Savannah, GA MSA........................  GA Bryan...................................      607.83
                                                         GA Effingham...............................      551.72
                                                         GA Chatam..................................      534.76
           2   Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA MSA..  PA Lackawanna..............................      529.65
                                                         PA Luzerne.................................      511.96
                                                         PA Wyoming.................................      504.41
                                                         PA Columbia................................      463.56
           1   Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA.......  WA King....................................      482.58
                                                         WA Snohomish...............................      465.44
                                                         WA Island..................................      429.61
           2   Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA.........  LA Webster.................................      498.03
                                                         LA Bossier.................................      489.39
                                                         LA Caddo...................................      485.94

[[Page 16385]]

 
           2   Spokane, WA MSA.........................  WA Spokane.................................      467.75
           2   Springfield, MA MSA.....................  MA Hampdon.................................      479.61
                                                         MA Franklin................................      467.86
                                                         MA Hampshire...............................      462.21
           2   Springfield, MO MSA.....................  MO Greene..................................      420.15
                                                         MO Christian...............................      414.31
                                                         MO Webster.................................      410.20
           1   St. Louis, MO-IL MSA....................  MO St. Louis City..........................      575.17
                                                         MO Jefferson...............................      527.45
                                                         MO Warren..................................      527.07
                                                         MO Lincoln.................................      524.23
                                                         MO St. Charles.............................      501.12
                                                         MO St. Louis...............................      500.86
                                                         IL St. Clair...............................      500.06
                                                         IL Clinton.................................      499.07
                                                         IL Madison.................................      482.50
                                                         MO Franklin................................      440.86
                                                         MO Crawford................................      436.38
                                                         IL Jersey..................................      435.63
                                                         IL Monroe..................................      425.58
           2   Santa-Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA MSA  CA Santa Barbara...........................      455.77
           2   Stockton-Lodi, CA MSA...................  CA San Joaquin.............................      495.62
           2   Syracuse, NY MSA........................  NY Cayuga..................................      434.08
                                                         NY Oswego..................................      418.50
                                                         NY Onondaga................................     417.97]
                                                         NY Madison.................................      410.00
           2   Tacoma, WA PMSA.........................  WA Pierce..................................      456.83
           2   Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA.  FL Pasco...................................      572.46
                                                         FL Hernando................................      542.69
                                                         FL Pinellas................................      533.00
                                                         FL Hillsborough............................      521.34
           2   Toledo, OH MSA..........................  OH Lucas...................................      605.01
                                                         OH Wood....................................      498.46
                                                         OH Fulton..................................      476.56
           2   Trenton, NJ PMSA........................  NJ Mercer..................................      590.38
           2   Tucson, AZ MSA..........................  AZ Pima....................................      499.04
           2   Tulsa, OK MSA...........................  OK Wagoner.................................      518.50
                                                         OK Rogers..................................      484.50
                                                         OK Creek...................................      467.80
                                                         OK Tulsa...................................      467.54
                                                         OK Osage...................................      445.45
           2   Utica-Rome, NY MSA......................  NY Oneida..................................      405.03
                                                         NY Herkimer................................      401.61
           2   Vallejo-Fairfield-NAPA, CA PMSA.........  CA Napa....................................      596.07
                                                         CA Solano..................................      552.60
           2   Ventura, CA PMSA........................  CA Ventura.................................      545.69
           2   Visalia-Tulare-Porterville, CA MSA......  CA Tulare..................................      452.57
           1   Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA............  MD Prince Georges..........................      639.21
                                                         DC The District............................      619.89
                                                         MD Charles.................................      599.55
                                                         MD Montgomery..............................      535.62
                                                         MD Calvert.................................      517.03
                                                         VA Alexandria City.........................      501.57
                                                         VA Arlington...............................      501.02
                                                         VA Falls Church City.......................      497.85
                                                         VA Manassas Park City......................      497.04
                                                         VA Prince William..........................      493.46
                                                         VA Stafford................................      489.44
                                                         VA Fredericksburg City.....................      488.13
                                                         VA Spotsylvania............................      484.82
                                                         MD Frederick...............................      477.87
                                                         VA Fairfax City............................      473.73
                                                         VA King George.............................      471.99
                                                         VA Loudoun.................................      468.81
                                                         VA Fauquier................................      462.06
                                                         VA Fairfax.................................      460.45
                                                         VA Culpeper................................      450.19
                                                         VA Manassas City...........................      445.63
                                                         VA Warren..................................      442.67
                                                         WV Berkeley................................      438.86
                                                         WV Jefferson...............................      426.32
                                                         VA Clarke..................................      409.66
           2   West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MSA......  FL Palm Beach..............................      600.62
           2   Wichita, KS MSA.........................  KS Sedgwick................................      480.50
                                                         KS Butler..................................      427.72
                                                         KS Harvey..................................      403.67
           2   Wilmington-Newark, DE-MD PMSA...........  MD Cecil...................................      548.76
                                                         DE New Castle..............................      547.20
           2   Worcester, MA-CT PMSA...................  MA Worcester...............................      559.24
           2   York, PA MSA............................  PA York....................................      421.90
           2   Youngstown-Warren, OH MSA...............  OH Trumbull................................      565.28
                                                         OH Mahoning................................      508.37
                                                         OH Columbiana..............................      478.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1=greater than 1 million; 2=250,000 to 1 million.
 
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service using data from the Health Care Financing
  Administration.
Note: A Metropolitan Statististical Area is a city with 50,000 or more enhabitants, or a Census Bureau-defined
  urban area of at least 50,000 inhabitants, and a total metropolitan population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in
  New England). This study specifically examines MSAs that contain 250,000 or more enhabitants. If an MSA has a
  population of over 1 million and the population can be separated into component parts, then the primary
  component part is desginated the Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA). For more information see,
  [http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html].

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I thank the 
chairman of the Budget Committee for the opportunity to be involved in 
this issue. I think the chairman has said it very well. In effect, what 
he has done is make the case for why the bill we are proposing is 
absolutely essential to modernize the Medicare program.
  If there is one principle that Medicare is going to have to stand for 
in the 21st century, it is that we must change this system which now 
literally rewards waste and penalizes frugality.
  Medicare has an HMO reimbursement system today which is, even by 
beltway standards, perverse. It sends the message if you are really 
inefficient, if you have not taken the steps that Colorado and Oregon 
and other States have taken, don't worry about it, don't go out and 
make the tough choices about introducing competition to your community. 
The Federal Government will just keep sending you big checks.
  I think it is absolutely key, especially given the fact that close to 
a

[[Page 16386]]

million seniors are going to lose their HMO coverage this year--close 
to a million seniors will lose their coverage this year--that we pass 
this bipartisan legislation. I think the chairman is right. I think by 
the end of the next couple of days, we will have many other colleagues 
from both political parties here. I see my friend, Senator Smith of 
Oregon, has come into the Chamber. He and I have worked on this issue 
since he has come to the Senate as part of our bipartisan agenda for 
Oregon. I am going to talk for a few minutes to try to elaborate on 
some of the themes Chairman Domenici has so eloquently addressed.
  As we have seen in Oregon and New Mexico and so many other States, 
the present HMO reimbursement system is literally driving HMO plans out 
of the program and leaving seniors across this country petrified about 
their future health care in their communities. What senior after senior 
asks at this point is how can it be that since they pay the same amount 
for hospitalization and outpatient services, if they live in Pendleton 
or they live in Portland, they pay the same amount for outpatient and 
hospitalization services as seniors in other parts of the country yet 
the Federal Government does not send an equal payment to folks in 
Pendleton and Portland? As Chairman Domenici has very specifically and 
eloquently described, they send dramatically different payments to 
communities across this country. So you can have communities, for 
example, on the east coast, that literally get twice the reimbursement 
of communities in Oregon and New Mexico.
  We hear about it very bluntly from our constituents. You can have a 
senior in Pendleton or Coos Bay call up their cousin in one of the 
cities back East and ask their cousin about Medicare, how it is going.
  The senior back East says: You know, it goes great. I get 
prescription drugs for only a few dollars a month. I also get dental 
coverage. I get free hearing aids. How is it going for you there in 
Coos Bay or Pendleton or Albuquerque, NM? How is Medicare going for 
you?
  That senior in Albuquerque or Pendleton or Portland wants to throw 
the telephone through the living room window because they don't get 
that prescription drug coverage, hearing aids, or dental coverage 
because the reimbursement is as low as Chairman Domenici has described.
  The Congress was supposed to have begun, several years ago, a 
bipartisan effort to change this. The system was called a blended rate. 
In effect, over the next few years, we would move to a national system, 
so instead of driving some of these high-cost areas down precipitously, 
we would move low-cost areas up over the next few years. Unfortunately, 
that system has been delayed. It has been delayed, in my view, in a 
fashion that has made for many plans saying they can no longer afford 
to stay in business; certainly no longer afford to offer some of those 
benefits such as prescription drugs, which are so important to seniors.
  That is why Chairman Domenici and I and Senator Grassley and Senator 
Kerrey and I know many of our colleagues are going to join in a 
bipartisan effort, first, to establish a minimum payment floor for 
urban counties; second, to boost the rural counties where, again, these 
programs have barely been able to survive as a result of low 
reimbursement rates; and, third, to address the concerns with respect 
to wages that Senator Grassley has so eloquently described. But I am of 
the view that if this Congress is to modernize the Medicare program, 
the essence of such a modernization effort is to create more options 
and more choices. That will not be possible if you perpetuate an HMO 
reimbursement system that day after day after day penalizes frugality 
and rewards waste.
  For those who really want to get into the details of this subject, 
the system is known as the AAPCC, the average adjusted per capita cost. 
The way it has worked, the HMOs are reimbursed by the Federal 
Government through a system that historically has looked at average 
local costs of various procedures, such as a heart bypass in Pendleton 
or cataract operation in Portland--and then you calculate a formula for 
reimbursing these HMOs, using a percentage of the fee-for-service costs 
for health care in the area.
  But at the end of the day, the message is, if you are wasteful, don't 
worry about it. If you are inefficient, the Federal Government is going 
to say maybe that is not ideal, but we will just send you a check to 
reflect the fact that you are not taking steps to hold down your costs 
and we are not going to give you any consequences as a result.
  That makes no sense to Senator Domenici and me and our cosponsors. I 
know it makes no sense to the Presiding Officer because he and I have 
talked about this innumerable times. We tried to boost reimbursement 
rates for the people of Oregon. We have to change the Medicare program 
to eliminate the discrimination against communities that control costs 
while offering good quality care.
  Our bipartisan legislation is not just a one-time infusion of money. 
We structured it so that money becomes part of a base for future 
increases, which in my view helps to jump-start what Congress intended 
several years ago by passing legislation to promote a nationwide 
blended rate.
  We all understand that at present, as we look to the last days of the 
session, with the budget surplus, it is going to be possible to use a 
portion of that surplus, after we have helped pay down the debt, after 
hopefully there is a targeted tax cut; at that point, we will have some 
dollars to take the steps to better meet the health care needs of older 
people and also jump start the modernization of the Medicare program.
  Our legislation, I hope, will be part of that effort. I think 
Chairman Domenici and Senator Grassley, among our cosponsors, are very 
likely to be in the room at the end of the day when that legislation is 
being offered. I and others are going to do our best to support those 
efforts in the Budget Committee. I know the Presiding Officer and I 
have used every opportunity to raise these issues, and we are going to 
continue to do so.
  Our State has been a pioneer in the health care reform area. We are 
proud of the fact that we are the first State in the country to have 
made tough choices about health care priorities through the Oregon 
health plan. We are proud of the fact that we have been able to 
introduce more choices and more competition to the health care system 
and, as a result, seniors in our State are able to get more for their 
health care dollar.
  It is not right for older people in Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, and in 
other States where they have done the heavy lifting and they have taken 
steps to hold down their costs, to be discriminated against by the 
Federal Government.
  This bipartisan legislation, in my view, is going to help keep HMOs 
that are currently in the program in the program, and it will begin the 
process of bringing back to Medicare some of those we have lost because 
they have been discriminated against in the past with respect to 
reimbursement and they could not keep their doors open.
  We will be talking about this legislation frequently in the last few 
days of this Congress and in the fall, and I believe passing this 
legislation, as we look at that final budget bill that is sure to be 
part of our fall debates, that this is one of the best ways we can 
target dollars that need to be spent carefully so as to maximize the 
values of what we are getting in health care for older people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I could not help but hear the words of 
Senator Wyden and Senator Domenici about the terrible situation we have 
across this country today in regard to HMOs dropping senior citizens 
off the Medicare Plus Choice Program.
  While I was Governor of the State of Ohio, we had several instances 
where people were thrown off the rolls of their HMO and forced to be 
without any kind of supplemental insurance or prescription drug 
benefits. It is a growing epidemic today in the United States of 
America. I want to go on record in support of the legislation of

[[Page 16387]]

Senator Wyden and Senator Domenici. In fact, earlier today I asked 
Senator Domenici if I could be a cosponsor of this legislation.
  It is important to point out that some of the on-budget surplus that 
we now have in the year 2000 and the projected $102 billion in 2001 is 
generated by the fact that projected Medicare costs are coming in far 
below what they anticipated because of the formula that was adopted in 
1997. It seems to me we ought to look at the situation as it really is, 
increase the reimbursement to those HMOs so individuals can stay in 
those programs, and so they don't have to buy Medigap insurance to 
cover out-of-pocket expenses and prescription drugs.
  It seems to me it should be our responsibility to make sure those who 
are now covered remain covered and not be thrown out on the street. I 
have read so often: Don't worry about those people, somebody else will 
pick them up, or they can go to fee for service. When they go to fee 
for service, they don't get their 20 percent out-of-pocket paid for, 
nor does Medicare pick up prescription drugs.
  It is time for this Congress to step in and change the system, 
increase the reimbursement, keep those individuals who are on Medicare 
Plus Choice Programs so they can maintain coverage for out-of-pocket 
expenses and maintain the prescription drug coverage they have.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to note the introduction of the 
Medicare Geographic Fair Payment Act of 2000. I'm very pleased to join 
Senators Domenici, Wyden, and Kerrey in this effort. While we share the 
problem of low payment rates, Iowa and Nebraska are in a different 
situation than New Mexico and Oregon. Those two states are concerned 
about Medicare + Choice plans leaving, but for the most part we in Iowa 
are still waiting for plans to arrive. There are a number of things 
that have to fall into place for Medicare + Choice to become a reality 
in Iowa, but one of them is increasing payment rates. I want to make 
sure that if Congress provides any relief in Medicare + Choice this 
year, that low-cost areas are not forgotten. We need to make Medicare + 
Choice a truly national program.
  There are two simple Medicare + Choice payment provisions in the 
bill. It would raise the minimum payment floor for all counties from 
the current $415 to $475 in 2001. This would primarily benefit rural 
and small urban areas, including the vast majority of Iowa. Secondly, 
it would establish a new minimum payment floor of $525 for all counties 
in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with populations exceeding 
250,000. In Iowa, this would mean a substantial incentive for plans to 
enter the Des Moines and Quad Cities areas.
  As I've said so often throughout the five-plus years that I've been 
working on this issue, people in low-cost states like Iowa pay the same 
payroll taxes as those in high-cost areas. So it's a matter of simple 
fairness and equity that all seniors have access to the choices in 
Medicare, wherever they live. The problem with Medicare + Choice has 
been that payment rates are based on fee-for-service payment rates in 
the same county; thus, cost-effective regions like ours are punished. 
This makes no sense. We took our first step toward breaking that 
unfortunate link in 1997, and I have high hopes that we will take 
another big step with this bill in 2000.
  We in low-cost regions have to keep the fight for equity going on two 
fronts: Medicare + Choice payment, and traditional Medicare payment. 
The latter is harder for Congress to change, because we have to 
identify inequities in the various Medicare payment policies and fix 
them one by one. I thank my colleagues for including in this bill my 
earlier bill on the hospital wage index, which is one of those flaws in 
fee-for-service Medicare that cries out to be fixed.
  I look forward to the Finance Committee's Medicare discussions this 
fall; this is the kind of legislation that merits serious consideration 
there.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Jeffords, and 
        Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 2939. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a credit against tax for energy efficient appliances; to the Committee 
on Finance.


             the resource efficient appliance incentive act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President I rise today to introduce an extremely 
timely piece of legislation in light of the current energy crisis 
facing our nation. This legislation, entitled ``The Resource Efficient 
Appliance Incentive Act,'' will provide a valuable incentive to 
accelerate and expand the production and market penetration of ultra 
energy-efficient appliances. Senator Rockefeller is joining me in this 
bipartisan effort, along with Senators Jeffords and Lincoln.
  Earlier this year, the appliance industry, the Department of Energy, 
and the nation's leading energy-efficiency and environmental 
organizations came together and agreed upon significantly higher energy 
efficiency standards for clothes washers to accompany the new energy 
efficiency standards for refrigerators that go into effect in July 
2001, as well as the new criteria for achieving the voluntary ``Energy 
Star'' designation. This agreement is significant considering the fact 
that clothes washers and dryers, together with refrigerators, account 
for approximately 15 percent of all household energy consumed in the 
United States.
  This legislation will provide a tax credit to assist in the 
development of super energy-efficient washing machines and 
refrigerators, and creates the incentives necessary to increase the 
production and sale of these appliances in the short term. 
Manufacturers would be eligible to claim a credit of either $50 or 
$100, depending on efficiency level, for each super energy-efficient 
washing machine produced between 2001 and 2006. Likewise, manufacturers 
would be eligible to claim a credit of $50 or $100, depending on 
efficiency level, for each super energy-efficient refrigerator produced 
between 2001 and 2006. It is estimated that this tax credit will 
increase the production and purchase of super energy-efficient washers 
by almost 200 percent, and the purchase of super energy-efficient 
refrigerators by over 285 percent.
  Equally important is the long-term environmental benefits of the 
expanded use of these appliances. Over the life of the appliances, over 
200 trillion Btus of energy will be saved. This is the equivalent of 
taking 2.3 million cars off the road or closing 6 coal-fired power 
plants for a year. In addition, the clothes washers will reduce the 
amount of water necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, an 
amount equal to the needs of every household in the city the size of 
Phoenix, Arizona for two years. Most importantly, the benefits to 
consumers over the life of the washers and refrigerators from 
operational savings is estimated at nearly $1 billion.
  In my home state of Iowa, this legislation would result in the 
production of 1.5 million supper energy-efficient washers and 
refrigerators over the next six years, requiring over 100 new 
production jobs. I also expect Iowans to save $11 million in 
operational costs over the life span of the appliances, and 9 billion 
gallons of water--enough to supply drinking water for the entire state 
for 30 years.
  Lastly, I believe the total revenue loss of this credit compares 
extremely favorably to the estimated benefits of almost $1 billion to 
consumers over the life of the super energy-efficient clothes washers 
and refrigerators from operational savings.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
Senators Grassley, Jeffords, and Lincoln, in the introduction of 
legislation to establish a tax credit incentive program for the 
production of super energy-efficient appliances. This creative proposal 
will result in substantial environmental benefits for the nation at a 
very small cost to the government.
  Our bill would provide for either a $50 or $100 tax credit for the 
production and sale of energy efficient washing machines and 
refrigerators. Today, these two appliances account for approximately 15 
percent of the energy consumed in a typical home, which amounts to 
about $21 billion in energy expenditures annually. Although most

[[Page 16388]]

Americans may not realize it, home appliances offer the potential for 
major energy savings across the nation.
  Recently, several energy efficiency and environmental organizations 
joined with the appliance industry in endorsing considerably tougher 
energy-efficiency standards for washing machines. These proposed 
standards are now under active consideration by the Department of 
Energy for incorporation in new regulations. The new standards will 
result in tremendous energy-efficiency improvements that will have very 
positive environmental consequences over time. But there is a cost to 
these new minimum standards and, as we often find, reluctance on the 
part of industry and the public to incur the additional costs necessary 
to achieve higher energy efficiencies. Home appliances can be made more 
efficient but it would mean greater costs to consumers. I believe there 
is a necessary balance between the objective of obtaining higher energy 
efficiencies that reduce air emissions and the higher product costs 
that result. This is as true with respect to the purchase of appliances 
as it is with respect to the automobile, electric power, and other 
markets. I also recognize that there are understandable limits to the 
costs that society is willing to bear through regulation to obtain 
higher energy savings that result in environmental benefits.
  However, that is not necessarily the limit at which point energy 
savings can be achieved. While many consumers may not be willing to pay 
extra for more energy-efficient appliances, I believe they can be 
encouraged to do so through incentive programs. The legislation we are 
proposing today would do just that by giving manufacturers either a $50 
or $100 tax credit for every super energy-efficient appliance produced 
prior to 2007. The idea is to give manufacturers the means by which to 
create the most appropriate incentives to get consumers to purchase 
washing machines and refrigerators that are the most energy-efficient. 
Through these tax credits we will accelerate the production and market 
penetration of leading-edge appliance technologies that create 
significant environmental benefits.
  The expanded use of super energy-efficient appliances will have 
significant long-term environmental benefits. It is estimated that as a 
result of this legislation over 200 trillion Btus of energy will be 
saved over the life of the appliances manufactured with these credits. 
This is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road or 
closing down six coal-fired power plants for a year. Energy savings of 
this magnitude pay significant environmental dividends. For example, it 
is projected that with these energy savings carbon emissions, the 
critical element in greenhouse gas emissions, will be reduced by over 
3.1 million metric tons. In addition, the super energy-efficient 
washing machines will reduce the amount of water necessary to wash 
clothes by 870 billion gallons, or approximately the amount of water 
necessary to meet the needs of every household in a state the size of 
West Virginia for nearly 2 years.
  Vice President Gore recently recommended a similar program of tax 
incentives for the purchase of home appliances as part of his energy 
savings initiatives--and I congratulate him for his leadership in this 
regard. I am very glad the Vice President is considering ways to 
balance how we produce energy savings and believe it is important that 
we discuss this balance of interests as part of our national dialogue 
to improve our energy efficiency. I am also extremely pleased this 
legislation is strongly supported by leading environmental 
organizations including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 
Alliance to Save Energy, and the American Council for an Energy 
Efficient Economy.
  The use of energy-efficient appliances is an important milestone on 
the road to a cleaner, lower-cost energy future. This common-sense 
initiative follows on the heels of other important bipartisan 
legislation that I am proud to have sponsored or cosponsored during 
this Congress to improve our nation's energy independence and the 
environment. During the first session of the 106th Congress, I was 
joined by Senators Hatch, Crapo, and Bryan in introducing the 
Alternative Fuel Promotion Act in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions and lower our consumption of imported oil. Earlier this year 
I joined Senators Jeffords and Hatch on the Alternative Fuels Tax 
Incentives Act, which would accomplish many of the same goals.
  I am especially proud to have joined with Senator Bingaman and six of 
my Democratic colleagues on the Energy Security Tax and Policy Act, a 
comprehensive energy policy bill that looks to improve our nation's 
energy independence while protecting the environment. Finally, it was 
my pleasure last week to join with Environment and Public Works 
Chairman Bob Smith and the Ranking Democratic Member Senator Baucus on 
the Energy Efficient Building Incentives Act, which promotes the 
construction of buildings 30-50 percent more efficient than today's 
standard. As building energy use accounts for 35 percent of the air 
pollution emissions nationwide and $250 billion per year in energy 
bills, this legislation could produce a dramatic benefit for our 
environment, and this country's long-term energy needs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 2940. A bill to authorize additional assistance for international 
malaria control, and to provide for coordination and consultation in 
providing assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 with 
respect to malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis; read the first time.


            global aids and tuberculosis relief act of 2000

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier today, we approved the Helms 
substitute to H.R. 3519, ``Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 
2000.'' I was pleased to support this legislation, recognizing the need 
for our country to support an enhanced effort to prevent and treat AIDS 
and tuberculosis abroad.
  I was pleased to work with Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, Senator 
Frist, Senator Smith of Oregon, and other members of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee as this legislation was finalized, and, indeed, I 
want to work closely with them on our continuing efforts to address the 
problems of infectious diseases in the developing world.
  For the reasons I will lay out today, I believe the aid we make 
possible in H.R. 3519 should be expanded to embrace not only HIV/AIDS 
and TB, but also malaria as well. In fact, I think it essential to make 
sure our foreign assistance program in Africa and the developing world 
coordinates its activities closely among these three diseases.
  With the support of Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, and Senator Frist 
in the Senate, and Chairman Leach in the House of Representatives, I 
have drafted companion legislation to H.R. 3519 which make certain that 
U.S. efforts for all three diseases are well-coordinated.
  Accordingly, I rise today to introduce S. 2940, the ``International 
Malaria Control Act of 2000''.
  The World Health Organization estimates that there are 300 million to 
500 million cases of malaria each year. According to the World Health 
Organization, more than 1 million persons are estimated to die due to 
malaria each year.
  The problems related to malaria are often linked to the devastation 
of two other terrible diseases--Acquired Immunodeficiency Disease, that 
is AIDS, and tuberculosis. One of the unfortunate commonalities of 
these diseases is that they all ravage sub-Saharan Africa and other 
parts of the underdeveloped world.
  In addition to the one million malaria related deaths per year, about 
2.5 million persons die from AIDS and another 1.5 million people per 
year die from tuberculosis.
  The measure I introduce today centers on malaria control and calls 
for close cooperation among federal agencies that are charged with 
fighting malaria, AIDS, and TB worldwide.
  According to the National Institutes of Health, about 40 percent of 
the world's population is at risk of becoming infected. About half of 
those who

[[Page 16389]]

die each year from malaria are children under nine years of age. 
Malaria kills one child each 30 seconds.
  Although malaria is a public health problem in more than 90 
countries, more than 90 percent of all malaria cases are in sub-Saharan 
Africa. In addition to Africa, large areas of Central and South 
America, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the Indian subcontinent, 
Southeast Asia, and the Middle East are high risk malaria areas.
  These high risk areas represent many of the world's poorest nations 
which complicates the battle against malaria as well as AIDS and TB.
  Malaria is particularly dangerous during pregnancy. The disease 
causes severe anemia and is a major factor contributing to maternal 
deaths in malaria endemic regions. Research has found that pregnant 
mothers who are HIV-positive and have malaria are more likely to pass 
on HIV to their children.
  ``Airport malaria,'' the importing of malaria by international 
aircraft and other conveyances is becoming more common as is the 
importation of the disease by international travelers themselves; the 
United Kingdom reported 2,364 cases of malaria in 1997, all of them 
imported by travelers.
  In the United States, of the 1,400 cases of malaria reported to the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1998, the vast majority 
were imported. Between 1970 and 1997, the malaria infection rate in the 
United States increased by about 40 percent.
  In Africa, the projected economic impact of malaria in 2000 exceeds 
$3.6 billion. Malaria accounts for 20 to 40 percent of outpatient 
physician visits and 10 to 15 percent of hospital visits in Africa.
  Malaria is caused by a single-cell parasite that is spread to humans 
by mosquitoes. No vaccine is available and treatment is hampered by 
development of drug-resistant parasites and insecticide-resistant 
mosquitoes.
  Our nation must play a leadership role in the development of a 
vaccine for malaria as well as vaccines for TB and for the causal agent 
of AIDS, the human immunodeficiency virus--HIV. In this regard I must 
commend the President for his leadership in directing, back on March 
2nd, that a renewed effort be made to form new partnerships to develop 
and deliver vaccines to developing countries. I must also commend the 
Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for pledging a substantial $750 
million in financial support for this new vaccine initiative.
  The private sector appears to be prepared to help meet this challenge 
as the four largest vaccine manufacturers, Merck, American Home 
Products, Glaxo SmithKline Beecham, and Aventis Pharma, have all 
stepped to the plate in the quest for vaccines for HIV/AIDS, TB and 
malaria. We must all recognize that the private sector pharmaceutical 
industry, in close partnership with academic and government scientists, 
will play a key role in the development of any vaccines for these 
diseases.
  Among the promising developments in recent months has been Secretary 
Shalala directing the National Institutes of Health to convene a 
meeting of experts from government, academia, and the private sector to 
address impediments to vaccine development in the private sector. 
Another goal of this first in a series of conferences on Vaccines for 
HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis, held on May 22nd and 23rd, was to 
foster public-private partnerships.
  These ongoing NIH Conferences on Vaccines for HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and 
Tuberculosis will address three basic questions: what are the 
scientific barriers to developing vaccines for malaria, TB and HIV/
AIDS? What administrative, logistical and legal barriers stand in the 
way of malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS vaccines? And, finally, if vaccines are 
developed how can they best be produced and distributed around the 
world?
  Each of these questions will be difficult to answer. Developing 
vaccines for malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS will be a difficult task. While 
each vaccine will be different, there are commonalities such as the 
fact that the legal impediments and distributional issues may be very 
similar. Also, there is an unfortunate geographical overlap with 
respects to the epidemics of malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS. Ground zero is 
sub-Saharan Africa.
  So while the ultimate goal is to end up with three vaccines, we must 
be mindful that there is a close societal and scientific linkage 
between the tasks of developing and delivering vaccines and therapeutic 
treatments for those at risk of malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS worldwide.
  While the greatest immediate need is clearly in Africa and in other 
parts of the developing world, citizens of the United States and my 
constituents in Utah stand to benefit from progress in the area of 
vaccine development.

                          ____________________