[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24263-24269]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 3232. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain projects in California 
for the use or reuse of reclaimed water and for the design and 
construction of demonstration and permanent facilities for that 
purpose, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


          california reclaimed water act for the 21st century

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the 
California Reclaimed Water Act for the 21st century. As California 
takes its first steps into the 21st century, it is undeniable that the 
quality of water, the quantity of water, and the availability of water 
are among the most formidable challenges to our 34 million citizens and 
the many diverse regions of our fast growing state. Our farmers, urban 
dwellers, sport and commercial fishing interests, tribes, mountain 
communities and environmentalists all seek a more reliable and a more 
certain water future. Recycled water plays an important part in meeting 
California's water needs today and will play an even more important 
role in the next several decades.
  California is making significant progress in its effort to put its 
water house in order. Between March and June of this year, two major 
water policy initiatives occurred in California. On March 7, 2000, 
California voters overwhelmingly approved a $2 billion water bond. 
Further, on August 28, 2000, Governor Gray Davis and Interior Secretary 
Bruce Babbitt signed the landmark CALFED water agreement which broadly 
sets a course for California's water future. Water recycling and reuse 
is a major element of both these new actions and policies.
  The existing federal program to support water recycling is found in 
title XVI, Public Law 102-575 and was enacted in 1992. The law 
authorized recycling projects and studies throughout California, 
including in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. The 
law also authorized projects in Colorado and Arizona. The 1992 law also 
called for a special Southern California Comprehensive Water 
Reclamation and Reuse study to investigate how the use of recycled 
water could relieve water supply pressure in California. That study is 
being prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State of California's 
Department of Water Resources, Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California, Central Basin and West Basin Municipal Water Districts, 
City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, San Diego Water Authority, 
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority and the South Orange County 
Reclamation Authority. It should soon be completed.
  Expressing continued support for the title XVI program, in 1996 
Congress authorized a second group of water recycling projects in 
California, from Watsonville to Ventura County, and from Pasadena to 
Orange County, plus individual projects in Utah, New Mexico, Texas and 
Nevada. The legislation I introduce today builds upon these 
congressional efforts, voter ballot initiatives and agency studies. The 
bill authorizes a series of title XVI water recycling projects and 
directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with various water 
districts throughout the State including: Castaic Lake Water Agency 
Reclaimed Water Project Lake County, Clear Lake Basin Water Reuse 
Project East Bay Municipal Utility District and the San Ramon Serves 
District Recycled Water Project Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Inland 
Empire Regional Water Recycling Project in San Bernardino County San 
Pablo Baylands Water Reuse Project in Sonoma, Napa, Marin and Solano 
Counties State of California Water Recycling Program Regional Brine 
Lines (salt removal) in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay and 
the Santa Clara Valley areas Chino Basin Watermaster, Inland Empire 
Utilities Agency, Western Municipal Water District and the Santa Ana 
Watershed Project Authority for the Lower Chino Dairy Area Desalination 
Demonstration and Reclamation Project.
  Additional research, in cooperation with the WateReuse Foundation, is 
mandated and two previously authorized projects, one in Los Angeles and 
the other in the San Gabriel Basin, are modified. Finally, my bill 
mandates that the proposed projects be coordinated with the CALFED 
Program. Taken together, these projects will have the capacity to 
produce hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water. The Inland Empire 
Regional Water Recycling Project, for example, is designed to yield up 
to 66,000 acre feet of recycled water annually. Each acre foot of 
recycled water reduces the demand for imported water from the Bay-Delta 
and the Colorado River. Inland proposed to ``drought proof'' its region 
with these and related investments.
  Beneficiaries of these projects and these investments include the 
immediate service areas, downstream neighbors, and towns and 
communities throughout California. Water recycling projects in 
California also reduce the demand for imported water, be it from the 
San Francisco Bay-Delta or the Colorado River. Recycling and reuse 
investments in Southern California have the effect of helping the Bay-
Delta by reducing demand for additional imported Bay-Delta water. These 
same investments benefit California's neighboring states up and down 
the Colorado River. As more water is developed locally, pressure is 
reduced for imports.
  Presently, negotiations are underway between California and the other 
six states of the Colorado River Basin. California is being asked to 
reduce the amount of water it takes from the Colorado River. In fact, 
as a result of these talks, California faces a reduction of some 
800,000 acre feet. The water recycling projects proposed in this 
legislation can help California meet this challenge. As a result, Utah, 
Colorado, Nevada and Arizona also benefit from these programs. Unlike 
traditional Bureau of Reclamation water projects, these water recycling 
projects require a majority of funds to be locally provided. Consistent 
with title XVI limitations on recycling projects as authorized in 1992 
and 1996, the projects proposed in my bill require 75 percent local 
funding. Federal cost sharing is limited to 25 percent. Moreover, this 
bill specifies that none of the funds can be used for annual operation 
and maintenance costs. Those annual expenses are the responsibility of 
the

[[Page 24264]]

local water districts or management agency.
  The water recycling projects authorized by my bill are part of a 
long-term solution to some of California's most difficult challenges. 
Water recycling is not the only solution. But, water recycling and 
water reuse can play a significant part as these projects can be 
designed, built, and placed on line within a short time. This bill 
helps communities throughout California. This bill helps communities in 
Southern California, reducing pressure on the Bay-Delta water supplies. 
And, this bill respects our neighboring states up and down the Colorado 
River. I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3232

       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 ``California Reclaimed Water 
     Act for the 21st Century''.

     SEC. 2. COORDINATION OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.

       Section 1602 of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
     Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Coordination With CALFED Bay-Delta Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall coordinate projects 
     under this title with projects and programs under the CALFED 
     Bay-Delta Program referred to in the California Bay-Delta 
     Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act (division E 
     of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-748).
       ``(2) Federal expenditures.--The Secretary shall take into 
     account Federal expenditures under this title in making 
     determinations under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program relating to 
     the equitable implementation of ecosystem restoration and 
     water management.
       ``(f) Compliance With National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969.--Each project under this title shall be carried out in 
     compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS.

       The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after section 1601 the following:

                   ``Subtitle A--Specific Projects'';

       (2) by redesignating sections 1631, 1632, 1633, and 1634 
     (43 U.S.C. 390h-13, 390h-14, 390h-15, 390h-16) as sections 
     1640, 1671, 1672, and 1631, respectively;
       (3) by moving section 1631 (as redesignated by paragraph 
     (2)) to follow section 1630;
       (4) by inserting before section 1671 (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2)) the following:

                 ``Subtitle B--Studies and Research'';

       (5) by inserting after section 1631 (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2)) the following:

     ``SEC. 1632. CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY RECLAIMED WATER 
                   PROJECT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Castaic Lake Water Agency, California, may participate in the 
     design, planning, and construction of the Castaic Lake Water 
     Agency reclaimed water project, California, to reclaim and 
     reuse wastewater within and outside the service area of the 
     Castaic Lake Water Agency for ecosystem restoration, 
     irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other public 
     purposes.
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation or maintenance of the project 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

     ``SEC. 1633. CLEAR LAKE BASIN WATER REUSE PROJECT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with Lake 
     County, California, may participate in the design, planning, 
     and construction of the Clear Lake Basin water reuse project 
     to obtain, store, and use reclaimed wastewater in Lake County 
     for ecosystem restoration, irrigation, recreational, 
     industrial, and other public purposes.
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation or maintenance of the project 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $9,000,000.

     ``SEC. 1634. SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER PROJECT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide design and 
     construction assistance for the East Bay Municipal Utility 
     District/Dublin San Ramon Services District advanced 
     wastewater reuse treatment project, California, for use for 
     ecosystem restoration, irrigation, recreational, industrial, 
     and other public purposes.
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation or maintenance of the project 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

     ``SEC. 1635. INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Inland Empire Utilities Agency, may participate in the 
     design, planning, and construction of the Inland Empire 
     regional project described in the report submitted under 
     section 1606 to recycle water for ecosystem restoration, 
     irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other public 
     purposes.
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation or maintenance of the project 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

     ``SEC. 1636. SAN PABLO BAYLANDS WATER REUSE PROJECTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     Sonoma, Napa, Marin, and Solano Counties, California, may 
     participate in the design, planning, and construction of 
     water reuse projects, to be known collectively as the `San 
     Pablo Baylands water reuse projects', to obtain, store, and 
     use reclaimed wastewater for ecosystem restoration, 
     irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other public 
     purposes.
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation or maintenance of any project 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

     ``SEC. 1637. CALIFORNIA WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide assistance to 
     the State of California in carrying out projects that receive 
     funding under chapter 7, article 4, of the Safe Drinking 
     Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood 
     Protection Act of the State of California to recycle water 
     for ecosystem restoration, irrigation, recreational, 
     industrial, and other public purposes.
       ``(b) Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into such 
     agreements as are necessary to carry out this section.
       ``(c) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(d) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation or maintenance of any project 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Upon approval of 
     the Act referred to in subsection (a), there is authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000.

     ``SEC. 1638. REGIONAL BRINE LINES.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Southern california.--The Secretary, in cooperation 
     with units of local government, may carry out a program under 
     the Federal reclamation laws to assist agencies in projects 
     to construct regional brine lines to export the salinity 
     imported from the Colorado River to the Pacific Ocean as 
     identified in--
       ``(A) the Salinity Management Study prepared by the Bureau 
     of Reclamation; and
       ``(B) the Southern California Comprehensive Water 
     Reclamation and Reuse Study prepared by the Bureau of 
     Reclamation.
       ``(2) San francisco bay and santa clara valley.--The 
     Secretary may carry out a study of, and a program under the 
     Federal reclamation laws to assist water agencies in, 
     projects to construct regional brine lines in the San 
     Francisco Bay area and the Santa Clara Valley area, 
     California.
       ``(b) Agreements and Regulations.--The Secretary may enter 
     into such agreements and promulgate such regulations as are 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       ``(c) Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) Projects.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
     to construct regional brine lines described in subsection (a) 
     shall not exceed--
       ``(A) 25 percent of the total cost of the project; or
       ``(B) $50,000,000.
       ``(2) Study.--The Federal share of the cost of the study 
     described in subsection (a)(2) shall be 50 percent.
       ``(d) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation or

[[Page 24265]]

     maintenance of any project described in subsection (a).
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section.

     ``SEC. 1639. LOWER CHINO DAIRY AREA DESALINATION 
                   DEMONSTRATION AND RECLAMATION PROJECT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Chino Basin Watermaster, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 
     the Western Municipal Water District, and the Santa Ana 
     Watershed Project Authority and acting under the Federal 
     reclamation laws, shall participate in the design, planning, 
     and construction of the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination 
     demonstration and reclamation project.
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed--
       ``(1) 25 percent of the total cost of the project; or
       ``(2) $50,000,000.
       ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation or maintenance of the project 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section.''; and
       (6) by inserting after section 1672 (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2)) the following:

     ``SEC. 1673. RESEARCH CONCERNING WATER REUSE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     WateReuse Foundation, shall develop and carry out a program 
     to conduct research concerning water reuse in relation to--
       ``(1) public health;
       ``(2) water quality;
       ``(3) new technology and techniques;
       ``(4) salt management;
       ``(5) economics;
       ``(6) ecosystem restoration; and
       ``(7) other important matters.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005, to remain available 
     until expended.''.

     SEC. 4. WEST BASIN COMPREHENSIVE DESALINATION DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 1605 of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
     Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-3) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) West Basin Comprehensive Desalination Demonstration 
     Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     West Basin Municipal Water District, shall participate in the 
     planning, design, and construction of the components of the 
     West Basin Comprehensive Desalination Demonstration Program 
     in Los Angeles County, California.
       ``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project described in paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50 
     percent of the total.
       ``(3) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds 
     for the operation or maintenance of the components described 
     in paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Los Angeles Area.--Section 1613 of the Reclamation 
     Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 
     U.S.C. 390h-11) is amended by striking subsection (b) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) Water Recycling Project.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in the 
     design, planning, and construction of a water recycling 
     project, to be known as the `City of Los Angeles Water 
     Recycling Program', to reclaim and reuse wastewater within 
     the city of Los Angeles and surrounding area for ecosystem 
     restoration, irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other 
     public purposes.
       ``(2) Components.--The water recycling project shall 
     consist of--
       ``(A) the central city project, a multiphase project that 
     may provide up to 4,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water 
     for ecosystem restoration and for industrial, commercial, and 
     irrigation customers near downtown Los Angeles; and
       ``(B) the harbor water recycling project, a multiphase 
     project that may provide up to 25,000 acre-feet per year of 
     recycled water to the Los Angeles Harbor area.
       ``(c) Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     projects described in subsections (a) and (b) shall not 
     exceed 25 percent of the total cost of the projects.
       ``(2) Maximum federal share.--The Federal share with 
     respect to the water recycling project described in 
     subsection (b) shall not exceed $12,000,000.
       ``(d) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation or maintenance of any project 
     described in subsection (a) or (b).''.
       (b) San Gabriel Basin.--Section 1640(d) of the Reclamation 
     Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 
     U.S.C. 390h-13(d)) (as redesignated by section 3(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(other than section 
     1614)'' after ``this title''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) San gabriel basin.--In the case of the project 
     authorized by section 1614, the Federal share of the cost of 
     the project shall not exceed $50,500,000.''.

     SEC. 6. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act is amended--
       (1) in section 1640 (43 U.S.C. 390h-13) (as redesignated by 
     section 3(a)(2))--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``1630'' and inserting 
     ``1632''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``(other than 
     sections 1634, 1636, 1637, 1638, and 1639)'' after 
     ``authorized by this title'';
       (2) in section 1671(c) (43 U.S.C. 390h-14(c)) (as 
     redesignated by section 3(a)(2)), by striking ``section 
     1633'' and inserting ``section 1672''; and
       (3) in section 1672 (43 U.S.C. 390h-15) (as redesignated by 
     section 3(a)(2))--
       (A) in the section heading, by inserting ``FOR GROUNDWATER 
     STUDY'' before the period; and
       (B) by striking ``section 1632'' and inserting ``section 
     1671''.
       (b) The table of contents in section 2 of the Reclamation 
     Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 
     prec. 371; Public Law 102-575) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after the item relating to section 1601 
     the following:

                   ``Subtitle A--Specific Projects'';

     and
       (2) by striking the items relating to sections 1631 through 
     1634 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 1631. Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project.
``Sec. 1632. Castaic Lake Water Agency reclaimed water project.
``Sec. 1633. Clear Lake Basin water reuse project.
``Sec. 1634. San Ramon Valley recycled water project.
``Sec. 1635. Inland Empire regional water recycling project.
``Sec. 1636. San Pablo Baylands water reuse projects.
``Sec. 1637. California water recycling program.
``Sec. 1638. Regional brine lines.
``Sec. 1639. Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and 
              reclamation project.
``Sec. 1640. Authorization of appropriations.

                   ``Subtitle B--Studies and Research

``Sec. 1671. Groundwater study.
``Sec. 1672. Authorization of appropriations for groundwater study.
``Sec. 1673. Research concerning water reuse.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. WELLSTONE.
  S. 3233. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for Medicare beneficiary copayments for outpatient mental 
health services that are the same as beneficiary copayments for other 
part B services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


            MEDICARE MENTAL HEALTH MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare 
Mental Health Modernization Act, a bill to improve the delivery of 
mental health services through the Medicare health care system. This 
improvement and modernization of mental health services in the Medicare 
system is long overdue, as it has remained virtually unchanged since it 
was enacted by Congress in 1965. In the 35 years since then, the 
scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of mental illnesses and 
the enormous improvements in medications and other effective treatments 
have dramatically changed our understanding and treatment of mental 
illness. Yet, the health care systems, both public and private, lag 
behind in its treatment of this potentially life-threatening disease, 
one that affects the young and the old. As we work to improve health 
care for all Americans, in all health care systems, the ever-growing 
population of older Americans make it all the more urgent that we bring 
the Medicare system into the 21st century, and bring mental health care 
to those in need.
  Though they are so often not recognized, mental health problems among 
the elderly are widespread and life-threatening. Americans aged 65 
years and older have the highest rate of suicide of any population in 
the United States, and suicide rates increase with age. While this age 
group accounts for only 13 percent of the U.S. population, Americans 65 
and older account for 20 percent of all suicide deaths. All too often, 
depression among the elderly is

[[Page 24266]]

untreated or inappropriately treated, and this disease and other 
illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, late-life 
schizophrenia, can lead to severe impairment or death.
  Major depression is strikingly prevalent among older people, with 
between 8 and 20 percent of older people in community studies showing 
symptoms of depression. Studies of patients in primary care settings 
show that up to 37 percent are experiencing such symptoms, although 
they often go untreated. Depression is not a normal part of aging, but 
a serious debilitating disease. Almost 20 percent of the population of 
individuals age 55 and older experience a serious mental disorder. What 
is most alarming is that most elderly suicide victims--70 percent--have 
visited their primary care doctor in the month prior to their completed 
suicide. It is critical that the mental health expertise that is needed 
be provided within the Medicare system, and that screening, diagnosis, 
and treatment be provided in a timely manner.
  Medicare coverage for mental health services is markedly different 
from other outpatient services. In order to receive mental health care, 
seniors must pay, out of their own pockets, half the cost of a visit to 
their mental health specialist, an extremely unfair burden to place on 
the elderly, who are so often facing other health or life difficulties 
as well.
  We know too that substance abuse, particularly of alcohol and 
prescription drugs, among adults 65 and older is one of the fastest 
growing health problems in the United States, with 17 percent of this 
age group suffering from addiction or substance abuse. While addiction 
often goes undetected and untreated among older adults, aging and 
disability only makes the body more vulnerable to the effects of these 
drugs, further exacerbating underlying health problems, and creating a 
serious need for treatment that recognizes these vulnerabilities.
  Medicare also provides health care coverage for non-elderly 
individuals who are disabled, through Social Security Disability 
Insurance, SSDI. According to the Health Care Financing Agency, HCFA, 
Medicare is the primary health care coverage for the 5 million non-
elderly, disabled people on SSDI. Up to 40 percent of these individuals 
have a diagnosis of mental illness and/or addiction, and also face 
severe discrimination in their mental health coverage.
  What will my bill do? The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act 
has several important components. First, the bill reduces this 
discriminatory 50 percent copayment for mental health care to 20 
percent, which is equal to the level that applies to every other 
outpatient service in Medicare. This is straightforward, fair, and the 
right thing to do. By doing so, this provision will increase access to 
mental health care overall, especially for those who currently forego 
seeking treatment, and instead, find themselves suffering from 
worsening mental health conditions. Secondly, the bill adds intensive 
residential services to the Medicare mental health benefit package. 
This provision will give people suffering from mental illnesses such as 
Alzheimer's disease or late-life schizophrenia an alternative to going 
to nursing homes. Instead, they will be able to be cared for in their 
homes or in more appropriate residential settings. I also ask the 
Secretary for Health and Human Services to conduct a study of the 
current Medicare coverage criteria to determine the extent to which 
people with these forms of illnesses are receiving the appropriate care 
that is needed.
  Finally, my bill expands the number of mental health professionals 
eligible to provide services through Medicare to include clinical 
social workers and licensed professional mental health counselors. 
Provision of adequate mental health services provided through Medicare 
requires more trained and experienced providers for the aging and 
growing population and should include those who are appropriately 
licensed and qualified to deliver such care.
  These changes are needed now. The mental health groups most concerned 
with medicare improvement are strongly supportive of this bill, 
including, among others, the American Counseling Association, the 
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Mental Health 
Association, the American Psychological Association, the Bazelon Center 
for Mental Health Law, and the National Association of State Mental 
Health Program Directors. The U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher 
recognized the urgency in his recent reports on mental health: ``Mental 
Health: A Report of the Surgeon General'' and ``The Surgeon General's 
Call to Action to Prevent Suicide''. Dr. Satcher stated, ``Disability 
due to mental illness in individuals over 65 years old will become a 
major public health problem in the near future because of demographic 
changes. In particular, dementia, depression, and schizophrenia, among 
other conditions, will all present special problems for this age 
group.''
  For too long we have continued to neglect those with mental illness 
in our society, and the Medicare system is no exception. I urge your 
cosponsorship of this bill as we begin our work in this new century. It 
is time to treat the elderly in our society, particularly those with 
serious, debilitating diseases, with the care, respect, and fairness 
they deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 3234. A bill to protect the public's ability to fish for sport, 
and for other purposes, to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                        the freedom to fish act

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to send to the desk a bill 
that is called the Freedom to Fish Act. The legislation cosponsored by 
Senator Hutchison addresses an unsettling situation arising over access 
to our nation's public coastal resources. I understand that it is very 
late in the session to be introducing new legislation, but I believe 
this matter is significantly important to require immediate 
recognition. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment 
of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public 
access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine 
protected areas. Many in the environmental community are lauding the 
creation of these undersea national parks as the silver bullet solution 
to our over-exploited fisheries and degraded habitat. The bill I am 
introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize 
our nation's approximately ten million marine recreational anglers. For 
while I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, I disagree 
strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access 
to public waters.
  I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to 
protecting and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. However, 
I believe that restricting public access to those waters is not the 
appropriate vehicle for accomplishing that goal in most cases. The 
notion of a marine park is certainly not new, having its origins in 
successful land management practices. The establishment of wildlife 
refuges, national parks and forests has shown clear benefits to the 
natural species living on those lands and fresh waters. However, in the 
transfer from the land to the marine waters one very important aspect 
of the protected area has been neglected. While sport fishing is nearly 
universally accepted throughout this nation's terrestrial parks, and 
wilderness areas, those advocating the use of marine parks take pains 
to specifically restrict the access of recreational anglers. This seems 
ironic to me, as an increasing number of recreational anglers practice 
catch and release fishing and all contribute money to their state's 
fish and game departments through the payment of license fees and 
taxes. I believe these anglers to be among this nation's first 
conservationists and their contributions to the resource need to be 
recognized.
  In response to criticism and attacks against our Nation's sportsmen 
and women, I introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. The act establishes 
guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy 
these resources is preserved in all but the most serious cases. It 
provides assurances that the angling public will have a

[[Page 24267]]

place at the table when decisions are made regarding their use of the 
resource. Second, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that recreational 
anglers will be prohibited from an area only when they have been shown 
to be causing significant adverse effects on that fishery resource. 
Further, should prohibitions be justified, this bill prevents areas 
larger than scientifically necessary from being closed. In those cases, 
criteria will be established so that once certain goals have been 
reached, the area will reopen to the public immediately. Restricting 
public admission to our coastal waters should not be our first course 
of action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the 
single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend 
public access against those that would try to restrict it under the 
cloak of marine resource protection. With that, I submit the Freedom to 
Fish Act for your review and discussion.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
  S. 3235. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for a deferral of tax on gain from the sale of telecommunications 
businesses in specific circumstances or a tax credit and other 
incentives to promote diversity of ownership in telecommunications 
businesses; to the Committee on Finance.


           Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2000

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce revised 
legislation that will make sure that new entrants and small businesses 
will have the chance to enter and grow in today's megacorporation-
dominated telecommunications marketplace. Together with my good friend 
and colleague, Communications Subcommittee Chairman Conrad Burns, I am 
pleased to bring forward for the Senate's consideration The 
Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2000.
  Mr. President, no one needs to be told that any small business faces 
significant barriers in trying to enter the telecommunications 
industry. These barriers are even more formidable when the entrepreneur 
happens to be a woman or a member of a minority group, due to their 
historically more difficult job of obtaining needed financing. 
Therefore, in this current telecom industry mixer, small businesses, 
especially those owned by minorities or women, are often left without 
partners, watching as bigger, more established companies, get to dance.
  That's not right, but there is an answer. The answer isn't to forbid 
mergers out-of-hand, or to retain hopelessly outdated FCC ownership 
restrictions, or to pursue constitutionally or economically doomed set-
aside programs. The answer is to give established industry players 
economic incentives to deal with new entrants and small businesses that 
counterbalance the incentives they have to deal with larger companies.
  And that's what this bill does. The Telecommunications Ownership 
Diversity Act of 2000 will promote entry into the telecommunications 
industry during this period of unprecedented restructuring by providing 
carefully-limited changes to the tax law. These changes to the tax law 
are an indispensable component of the solution. Under current law, 
smaller companies typically must purchase properties for cash, and cash 
transactions are fully taxable to the seller. So naturally sellers of 
telecommunications businesses prefer to sell for stock, which is tax-
deferred, and which large companies have to offer.
  The Act will level the playing field for new entrants and small 
businesses by giving telecommunications business sellers a tax deferral 
when the property is bought for cash by a small business 
telecommunications company. The Act will also encourage the entry of 
new players and the growth of existing small businesses by enabling the 
seller of a telecommunications business to claim the tax deferral on 
capital gains if it invests the proceeds of any sale of its business in 
purchasing an interest in an eligible small business.
  In recognition of the convergence of telecommunications services and 
the growing importance of wireless and other services as an essential 
component of the telecommunications market, the telecommunications 
businesses eligible for this capital gains tax deferral are broadly 
defined to include not only broadcast and cable TV-type businesses, but 
also wireline and wireless telephone service providers and resellers. 
To eliminate the potential for abuse, the Act would require the 
eligible purchaser to hold any property acquired for three years, 
during which time it could only be sold to an unrelated eligible 
purchaser. The General Accounting Office is required to thoroughly 
audit and report on the administration and effect of the Act every two 
years.
  Mr. President, this legislation represents a significant step toward 
helping to ensure that small companies share a portion of the 
investment benefits our tax laws give to major telecommunications 
companies. Over the next several months, we look forward to working 
with interested organizations to further refine this legislation. 
Specifically, we would welcome comments on how to further refine the 
concepts of qualified telecommunications business and eligible 
purchaser so as to ensure that this legislation meets its goals in the 
most fair and effective manner. Moreover, we note that this legislation 
contains a ``control'' test that is intended to ensure that this 
legislation is not subject to abuse--and actually benefits those that 
it is intended to help. We recognize, however, that this control test 
may also need to be refined as we go forward.
  Mr. President, hallmark developments in the telecommunications 
industry have been made by gifted individuals with small companies and 
unlimited vision. In this sense the telecommunications industry is a 
true microcosm of the American free-market system, in which the 
benefits produced by its entrepreneurs generate benefits that extend to 
all of us. It is therefore critically important that new entrants and 
small businesses have a chance to participate across the broad spectrum 
of industries that will make up the telecommunications industry in the 
Information Age. The Act will help them do that, and Senator Burns and 
I are proud to sponsor it and to work for its enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 3237. A bill to provide for an international scientific commission 
to assess changes in global climate patterns, to conduct scientific 
studies and analyses on behalf of nations, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


          international climate change science commission act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this bill provides for the creation of an 
international scientific commission to assess changes in global climate 
patterns and to conduct scientific studies and analysis on behalf of 
the nations of the world.
  The Commerce Committee held three hearings on the subject of climate 
change this year. We heard from several witnesses on the science of 
global warming, the impacts of climate change on the United States, and 
solutions to climate change.
  One of the most salient points of the three hearings was the 
importance of good science to the policymaking process. Most 
importantly, any action the United States takes in response to claims 
of global warming must be based on the best science available and not 
on rhetoric or political expedience. We must continue to invest in our 
research capabilities to fully understand the scientific interactions 
between humans, the land, the ocean, and the atmosphere.
  Based upon testimonies received by the Commerce Committee, the 
knowledge base in some countries is far greater than in others. To 
solve this global problem of climate change, we must rely upon all the 
resources and knowledge available to us. We must ensure that the United 
States research program is providing the maximum returns on our 
investment dollars. It was both surprising and disappointing to

[[Page 24268]]

see that for a recent assessment of the United States, we had to rely 
upon two foreign computer models. We must do better.
  Mr. President, I feel it is of vital importance that we allow 
scientists the opportunity to pursue knowledge as opposed to being 
constrained by politics. In introducing this bill entitled, 
International Climate Change Science Commission Act, it is my hope and 
intention that the membership of the Commission will be filled by those 
who are scientists and fully appreciate the pursuit of truth and 
knowledge. I hope this commission will provide them with an opportunity 
to freely research, discuss, and document their scientific findings.
  Mr. President, I realize this bill will not pass this session. 
However, it is my hope that by introducing this bill a discussion will 
begin in the scientific community of how to better structure this piece 
of legislation and to ensure that the best available science is used 
for policy decisions. After discussions with the scientific community, 
I intend to re-introduce this bill or a new version of the measure next 
session and hopefully then move towards its enactment.
  I also plan to offer other pieces of legislation next year in this 
area. There are several types of actions that may be taken to address 
this situation as indicated in the Commerce Committee's hearing, 
``Solutions to Climate Change,'' held on September 21, 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 3238. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
protections for individuals who need mental health services, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


                  the mental health access act of 2000

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on 
behalf of the more than 50 million Americans each year who suffer from 
mental illness. This bill, the Mental Health Access Act, removes one of 
the many barriers to health care faced by those who have been treated 
for a mental condition.
  The Mental Health Access Act limits the ability of health plans to 
redline individuals with a preexisting mental health conditions. I 
undertook this initiative when I learned that some of my constituents 
were being turned away from health plans in the private non-group 
market due solely to a past history of treatment for mental conditions. 
Unfortunately, under the current system of care in the United States, 
individuals who are undergoing treatment or have a history of treatment 
for mental illness may find it difficult to obtain private health 
insurance, especially if they must purchase it on their own and do not 
have an employer-sponsored group plan available to them. In part this 
is because while the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act (HIPPAA) protects millions of Americans in the group health 
insurance market, it affords few protections for individuals who apply 
for private non-group insurance.
  The Mental Health Access Act closes this loophole by limiting any 
preexisting condition exclusion relating to a mental health condition 
to not more than 12 months and reducing this exclusion period by the 
total amount of previous creditable coverage. It prohibits any health 
insurer that offers health coverage in the individual insurance market 
from imposing a preexisting condition exclusion relating to a mental 
health condition unless a diagnosis, medical advice or treatment was 
recommended or received within the 6 months period to the enrollment 
date. And it prohibits health plans in the individual market from 
charging higher premiums to individuals based solely on the 
determination that the such individual has had a preexisting mental 
health condition. These provisions apply to all health plans in the 
individual market, regardless of whether a state has enacted an 
alternative mechanism (such as a risk pool) to cover individuals with 
preexisting health conditions.
  The Mental Health Access Act complements ongoing efforts to enhance 
parity between mental health services and other health benefits. This 
is because parity alone will not help individuals who do not have 
access to any affordable health insurance due to preexisting mental 
illness discrimination. The Access Act does not mandate that insurers 
provide mental health services if they are not already offering such 
coverage. It simply prohibits plans in the private non-group market 
from redlining individuals who apply for general health insurance based 
solely on a past history of treatment for a mental condition.
  Recognizing that we are nearing the close of this year's legislative 
session. I plan to reintroduced this bill when Congress returns and it 
is my hope that many of my colleagues will join me. In the meantime, I 
have asked the General Accounting Office (GAO)to examine the extent to 
which private health insurers medically underwrite for mental health 
conditions by either denying coverage or raising premiums, often to a 
level that is unaffordable for many individuals. Specifically, I have 
asked the GAO to examine: the types of mental health conditions for 
which individual health insurers typically underwrite; the degree to 
which there is an actuarial basis for these carrier practices; the 
prevalence of medical underwriting for mental health conditions that 
result in denying coverage or raising premiums; and the extent of state 
laws that prevent or constrain insurers from denying coverage or 
raising premiums due to a history of mental health conditions, 
including consumer protections such as appeals procedures and access to 
information.
  It simply does not make sense that just because a person seeks 
treatment for mental illness he or she is rendered uninsurable. I 
invite my colleagues to enlist in this important initiative to ensure 
that such individuals are not discriminated against when applying for 
health insurance coverage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Jeffords, 
        and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 3242. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act to encourage equity investment in rural cooperatives and other 
rural businesses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


        national rural cooperative and business equity fund act

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Craig and I are introducing 
the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act to create a 
new public/private partnership designed to attract equity investment in 
cooperatives and other businesses in rural America. Senators Daschle, 
Jeffords, and Johnson are cosponsoring this bipartisan measure.
  The Iowa 2010 Strategic Planning Council was commissioned by Governor 
Vilsack to identify barriers to Iowa's economic development progress 
over the next ten years. The council found that two very significant 
hurdles were lack of venture funding and access to capital.
  The situation is no different in many other rural areas. Many new 
rural businesses, particularly cooperatives and farmer-owned 
businesses, have tremendous difficulty acquiring equity capital--
especially those involving value-added agricultural processing.
  In Iowa alone, I have seen many cases where equity capital would have 
made a big difference in the future of a rural business. And every time 
we lose an opportunity to help a business, it means fewer jobs, fewer 
well-paying jobs, and less income for rural and small town America.
  In fact, just recently, in eastern Iowa, a group of turkey producers 
joined together to purchase the soon-to-be-closed West Liberty packing 
plant from Louis Rich. Ultimately--with the assistance of a USDA loan 
guarantee and state and private support--the co-op successfully 
purchased the plant. However, they almost went under because of limited 
equity. Only by the skin of our teeth are those jobs still in Iowa and 
those farmers still enjoying the benefits of cooperative ownership of 
that plant. In too many other cases, good ideas have been shattered 
because of a lack of equity.
  My state has made some progress through the Iowa Department of 
Economic Development's ``Community

[[Page 24269]]

Economic Betterment Account'' or CEBA, which recently set aside some 
funding for venture capital. But far more resources are needed in Iowa 
and across Rural America.
  That's why this legislation is so important. If we pass the National 
Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act, we will help quality 
rural cooperatives and businesses succeed and expand, and we will 
create jobs and raise the incomes of employees and farmers.
  We're opening this bill up to discussion today with the hope of 
passing it in the next Congress. I believe this legislation has a 
strong start in the support of Senators Craig, Daschle, Jeffords, and 
Johnson. We also have the support of a number of national organizations 
that are key players in rural economic development including: Agribank, 
the American Bankers Association, CoBank, the Farm Credit Council, the 
Independent Community Bankers Association, the National Cooperative 
Business Association, the National Cooperative Bank, National Farmers 
Union, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the 
National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Cooperation.
  The equity fund created by this legislation will have a 12-person 
Board of Directors that would decide which proposals to fund. This 
board would include the Secretary of Agriculture and two of his or her 
appointees, and the remainder of the Board would be made up of private 
investors in the fund. The first $150 million in private sector 
investments will be matched dollar for dollar by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture over a three year period. As a compensation for the lower 
rate of return in the equity fund relative to other investments, the 
Department of Agriculture will guarantee up to 50 percent of an 
investment. Debentures, which would be guaranteed, could also be 
issued.
  Businesses applying for equity from the fund must be sponsored by a 
local entity, such as a bank, a regional or local development council, 
or a cooperative or economic development group. The businesses must be 
based in rural areas, and they cannot be primarily retail businesses. 
Cooperatives and other businesses receiving an equity investment from 
the fund will be required to invest a substantial amount of their own 
capital.
  The Fund is intended to support projects that will provide off-farm 
income, additional markets for agricultural products, and new business 
opportunities in rural communities. A diverse range of viable projects, 
representing a variety of business structures, operating in rural 
communities of various sizes would be encouraged.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues and those concerned about rural 
economic development to examine this measure between Congresses and at 
the beginning of the coming Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able 
to make the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund a 
reality.

                          ____________________