[Pages S2390-S2414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 538. A bill to provide for infant crib safety, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation
designed to eliminate injuries and deaths that result from crib
accidents.
While there are strict guidelines on the manufacture and sale of new
cribs, there are still 25 to 30 million unsafe cribs sold throughout
the U.S. in ``secondary markets,'' such as thrift stores and resale
furniture stores. These cribs should be taken off the market, and
either made safe, or destroyed.
There are a number of reasons why unsafe cribs should be taken off
the market.
Each year, at least 50 children ages two and under die from injuries
sustained in cribs. That is almost one child a week.
The number of deaths from crib incidents exceeds deaths from all
other nursery products combined.
Over 12,000 children are hospitalized each year as a result of
injuries sustained in cribs.
To illustrate the need for this legislation, I want to share with you
the story of Danny Lineweaver.
At the age of 23 months, Danny was injured during an attempt to climb
out of his crib. Danny caught his shirt on a decorative knob on the
cornerpost of his crib and hanged himself.
Though his mother was able to perform CPR the moment she found him,
Danny lived in a semi-comatose state for nine years and died in 1993.
This injury and subsequent death could have been prevented.
Since Danny's accident, we have passed laws mandating safety
standards for the manufacture of new cribs. But this is not enough.
There are nearly four million infants born in this country each year,
but only one million new cribs sold. As many as half of all infants are
placed in secondhand, hand-me-down, or heirloom cribs, cribs that are
sold in thrift stores or resale furniture stores. These cribs may be
unsafe, and may in fact threaten the life of the infants placed in
them.
This legislation requires thrift stores and retail furniture stores
to remove decorative knobs on the cornerposts of cribs before selling
those cribs.
Additionally, the bill prohibits hotels and motels from providing
unsafe cribs to guests, or risk being fined up to $1,000.
The Infant Crib Safety Act makes the sale of used, unsafe cribs
illegal. I hope my colleagues will join me in putting a stop to
preventable injuries and deaths resulting from unsafe cribs.
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Helms, Mr. Miller, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr.
Cleland, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr.
Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr.
Thurmond, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Lott).
S. 540. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow as
a deduction in determining adjusted gross income the deduction for
expenses in connection with services as a member of a reserve component
of the Armed Forces of the United States, to allow employers a credit
against income tax with respect to employees who participate in the
military reserve components, and to allow a comparable credit for
participating reserve component self-employed individuals, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished
colleagues, including Senators Warner, Levin, McCain, Lieberman, Helms,
Miller, Hutchinson from Arkansas, Cleland, Inhofe, and Landrieu, to
introduce the ``Reserve Component Tax Assistance Act of 2001.''
We are introducing this bill today because it represents one way we
can help retain the brave men and women who serve in our military's
Guard and reserve components. Our bill would offer much-needed support
for them and their families by restoring a tax deduction to our
reservists for travel expenses incurred getting to and from duty
assignments. The bill also would provide a tax credit to employers who
support employees serving in the reserve component.
As my colleagues are well aware, the security of our nation hinges on
all the men and women who serve in uniform, both active duty and
reserves. That became very clear a decade ago, when members of our
active duty and reserve forces came together to drive Saddam Hussein
and the Iraqi Republican Guard out of Kuwait. Operation Desert Storm
was one of the largest and most successful military operations since
the inception of the all-volunteer force of the early 1970's. Its
success was due in large part to the efforts of reserve component
personnel. Since then, our reservists and Guardsmen and women have
contributed in every U.S. military and humanitarian operation.
This increased reliance on our reserve personnel came at a time when
U.S. military forces were downsizing in response to the ``peace
dividend'' linked to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of
the Berlin Wall. Despite the end of the Cold War, the tempo of our
military's operations remains at a steady beat. In fact, the military's
dependence on our reservists and Guardsmen and women has remained at
near Gulf War levels. The military has placed greater training and
participation demands on our reservists, taking them away from family
and civilian employment.
This increased demand does not occur without cost, particularly
financial costs to our reserve military components and their full time
employers. The bill we are introducing today is an attempt to provide
some additional compensation for these dedicated men and women. It is a
small step, but one that is necessary. I urge my colleagues to support
our bill and demonstrate our commitment to supporting the proud and
dedicated reservists, Guardsmen and women, and employers who play such
a pivotal role in our national defense. I am pleased that this
legislation already has the support of the Reserve Officers
Association, the National Guard Association, the Military Coalition,
and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 540

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 ``Reserve Component Tax
Assistance Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF THE
RESERVE COMPONENT.

(a) Deduction Allowed.--Section 162 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to certain trade or business expenses)
is amended by redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q)
and inserting after subsection (o) the following new
subsection:
``(p) Treatment of Expenses of Members of Reserve Component
of Armed Forces of the United States.--For purposes of
subsection (a), in the case of an individual who performs
services as a member of a reserve component of the Armed
Forces of the United States at any time during the taxable
year, such individual shall be deemed to be away from home in
the pursuit of a trade or

[[Page S2391]]

business during any period for which such individual is away
from home in connection with such service.''.
(b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Elects To
Itemize.--Section 62(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to certain trade and business deductions of
employees) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) Certain expenses of members of reserve components of
the armed forces of the united states.--The deductions
allowed by section 162 which consist of expenses paid or
incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the performance
of services by such taxpayer as a member of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces of the United States.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2001.

SEC. 3. CREDIT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL.

(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business-related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``SEC. 45E. RESERVE COMPONENT EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.

``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the
reserve component employment credit determined under this
section is an amount equal to the sum of--
``(1) the employment credit with respect to all qualified
employees of the taxpayer, plus
``(2) the self-employment credit of a qualified self-
employed taxpayer.
``(b) Employment Credit.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The employment credit with respect to a
qualified employee of the taxpayer for any taxable year is
equal to 50 percent of the amount of qualified compensation
that would have been paid to the employee with respect to all
periods during which the employee participates in qualified
reserve component duty to the exclusion of normal employment
duties, including time spent in a travel status had the
employee not been participating in qualified reserve
component duty. The employment credit, with respect to all
qualified employees, is equal to the sum of the employment
credits for each qualified employee under this subsection.
``(2) Qualified compensation.--When used with respect to
the compensation paid or that would have been paid to a
qualified employee for any period during which the employee
participates in qualified reserve component duty, the term
`qualified compensation' means compensation--
``(A) which is normally contingent on the employee's
presence for work and which would be deductible from the
taxpayer's gross income under section 162(a)(1) if the
employee were present and receiving such compensation, and
``(B) which is not characterized by the taxpayer as
vacation or holiday pay, or as sick leave or pay, or as any
other form of pay for a nonspecific leave of absence, and
with respect to which the number of days the employee
participates in qualified reserve component duty does not
result in any reduction in the amount of vacation time, sick
leave, or other nonspecific leave previously credited to or
earned by the employee.
``(3) Qualified employee.--The term `qualified employee'
means a person who--
``(A) has been an employee of the taxpayer for the 21-day
period immediately preceding the period during which the
employee participates in qualified reserve component duty,
and
``(B) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve
component of an Armed Force of the United States as defined
in sections 10142 and 10101 of title 10, United States Code.
``(c) Self-Employment Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The self-employment credit of a
qualified self-employed taxpayer for any taxable year is
equal to 50 percent of the excess, if any, of--
``(A) the self-employed taxpayer's average daily self-
employment income for the taxable year over
``(B) the average daily military pay and allowances
received by the taxpayer during the taxable year, while
participating in qualified reserve component duty to the
exclusion of the taxpayer's normal self-employment duties for
the number of days the taxpayer participates in qualified
reserve component duty during the taxable year, including
time spent in a travel status.
``(2) Average daily self-employment income and average
daily military pay and allowances.--As used with respect to a
self-employed taxpayer--
``(A) the term `average daily self-employment income' means
the self-employment income (as defined in section 1402) of
the taxpayer for the taxable year divided by the difference
between--
``(i) 365, and
``(ii) the number of days the taxpayer participates in
qualified reserve component duty during the taxable year,
including time spent in a travel status, and
``(B) the term `average daily military pay and allowances'
means--
``(i) the amount paid to the taxpayer during the taxable
year as military pay and allowances on account of the
taxpayer's participation in qualified reserve component duty,
divided by
``(ii) the total number of days the taxpayer participates
in qualified reserve component duty, including time spent in
travel status.
``(3) Qualified self-employed taxpayer.--The term
`qualified self-employed taxpayer' means a taxpayer who--
``(A) has net earnings from self-employment (as defined in
section 1402) for the taxable year, and
``(B) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve
component of an Armed Force of the United States.
``(d) Credit In Addition to Deduction.--The employment
credit provided in this section is in addition to any
deduction otherwise allowable with respect to compensation
actually paid to a qualified employee during any period the
employee participates in qualified reserve component duty to
the exclusion of normal employment duties.
``(e) Limitations.--
``(1) Maximum credit.--
``(A) In general.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) for
the taxable year--
``(i) shall not exceed $7,500 in the aggregate, and
``(ii) shall not exceed $2,000 with respect to each
qualified employee.
``(B) Controlled groups.--For purposes of applying the
limitations in subparagraph (A)--
``(i) all members of a controlled group shall be treated as
one taxpayer, and
``(ii) such limitations shall be allocated among the
members of such group in such manner as the Secretary may
prescribe.
For purposes of this subparagraph, all persons treated as a
single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 or
subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 shall be treated as
members of a controlled group.
``(2) Disallowance for failure to comply with employment or
reemployment rights of members of the reserve components of
the armed forces of the united states.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) to a taxpayer for--
``(A) any taxable year in which the taxpayer is under a
final order, judgment, or other process issued or required by
a district court of the United States under section 4323 of
title 38 of the United States Code with respect to a
violation of chapter 43 of such title, and
``(B) the two succeeding taxable years.
``(3) Disallowance with respect to persons ordered to
active duty for training.--No credit shall be allowed under
subsection (a) to a taxpayer with respect to any period for
which the person on whose behalf the credit would otherwise
be allowable is called or ordered to active duty for any of
the following types of duty:
``(A) active duty for training under any provision of title
10, United States Code,
``(B) training at encampments, maneuvers, outdoor target
practice, or other exercises under chapter 5 of title 32,
United States Code, or
``(C) full-time National Guard duty, as defined in section
101(d)(5) of title 10, United States Code.
``(f) General Definitions and Special Rules.--
``(1) Military pay and allowances.--The term `military pay'
means pay as that term is defined in section 101(21) of title
37, United States Code, and the term `allowances' means the
allowances payable to a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States under chapter 7 of that title.
``(2) Qualified reserve component duty.--The term
`qualified reserve component duty' includes only active duty
performed, as designated in the reservist's military orders,
in support of a contingency operation as defined in section
101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.
``(3) Normal employment and self-employment duties.--A
person shall be deemed to be participating in qualified
reserve component duty to the exclusion of normal employment
or self-employment duties if the person does not engage in or
undertake any substantial activity related to the person's
normal employment or self-employment duties while
participating in qualified reserve component duty unless in
an authorized leave status or other authorized absence from
military duties. If a person engages in or undertakes any
substantial activity related to the person's normal
employment or self-employment duties at any time while
participating in a period of qualified reserve component
duty, unless during a period of authorized leave or other
authorized absence from military duties, the person shall be
deemed to have engaged in or undertaken such activity for the
entire period of qualified reserve component duty.
``(4) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall apply
for purposes of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 38(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general business credit) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (12),
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (13) and
inserting ``, plus'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(14) the reserve component employment credit determined
under section 45E(a).''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 45D the following new item:

``Sec. 45E. Reserve component employment credit.''.

[[Page S2392]]

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
______

By Mr. COCHRAN:
S. 541. A bill to improve foreign language instruction; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing The Foreign
Language Acquisition and Proficiency Improvement Act of 2001. It is a
bill which makes changes in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
that encourage and make possible the teaching of a second language to
students in elementary and secondary schools, in particular, those
schools heavily impacted by the unique problems of educating a high
population of disadvantaged students.
My bill also provides schools an incentive to initiate foreign
language programs, promotes technology, distance learning, and other
innovative activities in the effective instruction of a foreign
language.
According to the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C.,
the early study of a second language offers many benefits for students:
academic achievement, positive attitudes toward diversity; flexibility
in thinking; sensitivity to language; and a better ear for listening
and pronunciation. Foreign language study also improves children's
understanding of their native language, increases creativity, helps
students get better SAT scores, and increases their job opportunities.
The evidence shows that children who learn foreign languages score
higher in all academic subjects than those who speak only English. Most
developed countries recognize this and, according to the National
Foreign Language Center, the United States is alone in not teaching
foreign languages routinely before the age of twelve.
In 1999, the Center for Applied Linguistics released the results of a
U.S. Department of Education funded survey of foreign language teaching
in preschool through twelfth grade in the United States. The results
show a rising awareness and increase in the teaching of foreign
languages, but in the 31 percent of elementary schools that offered
foreign language instruction, only 21 percent had proficiency as the
goal of the program. Among the most frequently cited problems facing
foreign language programs were inadequate funding, inadequate in-
service teacher training, teacher shortages and a lack of sequencing
from elementary to secondary school.
This survey is a good snapshot of the state of the teaching of
foreign languages K-12 in our country. It can be read as encouraging:
that we know we should be teaching languages earlier; that more schools
are attempting to teach foreign languages; and, that more languages are
being taught. It also clearly shows where we need improvement: that we
need to show accomplishment in teaching our students foreign languages;
that more schools need to have the resources to offer the necessary
course work for attaining this skill; and, that foreign languages
should be a priority.
The picture hasn't changed dramatically in the last two years.
Last year, I chaired hearings of the Governmental Affairs
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal
Services which examined the relationship between foreign language
preparedness and national security.
These are some of the things we learned about foreign language
learning at those hearings:
The most attainable skill students can acquire for likely college
admission is foreign language proficiency;
The best predictor of foreign language proficiency in college is
previous foreign language training, even if in another language;
There are not enough foreign language teachers. For example, Fairfax
County, Virginia schools have an agreement with the Education Ministry
in Spain, which provided at least five Spanish language teachers last
year. In Mississippi, it is not unusual to be taught French or German
by distance learning, using live video transmission in classrooms
around the state.
The earlier one begins to learn any language, the quicker he or she
will become proficient and sound like a native speaker.
And, as to how foreign language acquisition relates to national
security, it was clear from the testimony of representatives from the
CIA, FBI, Department of Defense, and the State Department, that:

There is a continuing need for highly proficient speakers of many
languages for surveillance, reconnaissance, negotiations and other
defense and intelligence gathering activities;
The federal government spends up to $70,000 to train one person in a
language as common as Spanish;
Recruiting for language specialists includes attracting current
teachers;
Language learning, especially in sensitive government positions, best
includes experience in the mother tongue country. This enhances
cultural understanding, colloquialisms and other language usage that
cannot be approximated in a classroom.
Another fact is that America's businesses need foreign language
speakers. According to a USA TODAY survey, top executives cited foreign
language skills twice as great as any other skill in demand.
The National Foreign Language Center published a 1999 report titled,
Language and National Security for the 21st Century: The Federal Role
in Supporting National Language Capacity. This report is very
compelling in its review of the need for military and civilian
personnel with foreign language capability. It explains that the
language training business is estimated to be $20 billion
internationally. That is money spent by our government, our businesses
and individuals to teach adults a skill essential in the global
relationships of industry, diplomacy, defense, and higher education.
The evidence of need is great, and yet there is a lack of sufficient
foreign language training at the K-12 level. We have one program in the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act aimed at providing incentives
and giving grants to schools for this purpose.
I am happy that we've been successful in raising the funding for this
program from $5 million in 1998 to $14 million in FY 2001. However, the
section of this law providing grants to schools that already offer
foreign language instruction programs has never been funded. A
frustrating aspect of this good program is that the schools in the most
need of the assistance can't afford the ante. My amendments establish a
50 percent set-aside for schools serving the most disadvantaged
students, and eliminates the matching share requirement for those
schools. This bill also increases the annual authorization for the
program from $55,000,000 to $75,000,000.
I hope that we will give greater attention to this program when we
make funding decisions, so that schools without the advantages of
plentiful resources can provide their students with a high quality and
competitive education.
The Foreign Language Acquisition and Proficiency Improvement Act will
provide new opportunities and encouragement to our school children,
teachers, and parents, so we can better meet our global business
challenges and national security needs.
______

By Mr. DODD.
S. 542. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States to provide separate subheadings for hair clippers used for
animals; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would
make a simple correction to our Harmonized Tariff Schedule creating a
separate subheading for hair clippers used for animals.
The United States has been engaged in an on-going dispute with the
European Union, EU, over the EU's refusal to import hormone-treated
beef from the U.S. In reaction to the EU's failure to comply with a WTO
ruling that found that this ban on treated beef has been harmful to the
U.S. economy, the United States Trade Representative issued a list of
products on which retaliatory duties of 100 percent would be levied.
Pursuant to Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, the
products designated for retaliatory duties must be related to the
industries that are affected by the EU's non-compliance with the WTO
decision.
One of the many products included on the Trade Representative's list
is hair clippers. However, no distinction

[[Page S2393]]

is made between those clippers used for animals and those used for
humans, specifically, beard trimmers. Since both types of clippers are
grouped within the same subheading under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule, human beard trimmers could potentially be subject to 100
percent duties. Yet, the personal care industry and beard trimmers have
no relationship to the current beef-hormone dispute as is required by
Section 407.
In an effort to prevent this inadvertent application of duties on
beard trimmers, the bill I am introducing would provide a separate
subheading for clippers used by animals. I believe that this simple
clarification will ensure the fair application of our trade laws and
provide safeguards to U.S. companies and consumers from the unintended
consequences resulting from these types of trade disputes. I hope my
colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Specter, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid,
Mr. Warner, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 543. A bill to provide for equal coverage of mental health
benefits with respect to health insurance coverage unless comparable
limitations are imposed on medical and surgical benefits; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure and
excitement to introduce the ``Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of
2001.'' I would also like to thank Senator Wellstone for once again
joining me to cosponsor this important piece of legislation.
The human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other
organs of our body, it is subject to illness.
And just as we must treat illnesses to our other organs, we must also
treat illnesses of the brain.
Building upon that, I would ask the following question: what if
thirty years ago our nation had decided to exclude heart disease from
health insurance coverage?
Think about some of the wonderful things we would not be doing today
like angioplasty, bypasses, and valve replacements and the millions of
people helped because insurance covers these procedures.
I would submit these medical advances have occurred because insurance
dollars have followed the patient through the health care system. The
presence of insurance dollars has provided an enticing incentive to
treat those individuals suffering from heart disease.
But sadly, those suffering from a mental illness do not enjoy those
same benefits of treatment and medical advances because all too often
insurance discriminates against illnesses of the brain.
Individuals suffering from a mental illness face this discrimination
even though medical science is in an era where we can accurately
diagnose mental illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be
productive.
I simply do not understand, why with this evidence would we not cover
these individuals and treat their illnesses like any other disease?
There simply should not be a difference in the coverage provided by
insurance companies for mental health benefits and medical benefits,
merely because an individual suffers from a mental illness.
The introduction of our Bill marks a historic opportunity for us to
take the next step towards mental health parity. The timing of our Bill
is even more important because the landmark Mental Health Parity Act of
1996 will sunset on September 30 of this year.
As my colleagues know, this is an issue I have a long involvement
with and I would like to begin with a few observations.
I believe that we have made great strides in providing parity for the
coverage of mental illness. However, mental illness continues to exact
a heavy toll on many, many lives.
Even though we know so much more about mental illness, it can still
bring devastating consequences to those it touches; their families,
their friends, and their loved ones. These individuals and families not
only deal with the societal prejudices and suspicions hanging on from
the past, but they also must contend with unequal insurance coverage.
I would submit the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 is a good first
start, but the Act is also not working. While there may adherence to
the letter of the law, there are certainly violations of the spirit of
the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing
limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits.
That is why I believe it is time for a change.
Some will immediately say we cannot afford it or that inclusion of
this treatment will cost too much. But, I would first direct them to
the results of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. That law contains
a provision allowing companies to no longer comply if their costs
increase by more than one percent.

And do you know how many companies have opted out because their costs
have increased by more than one percent? Less than ten companies
throughout our entire country.
With that in mind I would like to share a couple of facts about
mental illness with my colleagues:
Within the developed world, including the United States, 4 of the 10
leading causes of disability for individuals over the age of five are
mental disorders.
In the order of prevalence the disorders are major depression,
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder.
Disability always has a cost and the direct cost to the United States
per year for respiratory disease is $99 billion, cardiovascular disease
is $160 billion, and finally $148 billion for mental illness.
One in every five people, more than 40 million adults, in this Nation
will be afflicted by some type of mental illness.
Nearly 7.5 million children and adolescents, or 12 percent, suffer
from one or more mental disorders.
Schizophrenia alone is 50 times more common than cystic fibrosis, 60
times more common than muscular dystrophy and will strike between 2 and
3 million Americans.
Let us also look at the efficacy of treatment for individuals
suffering from certain mental illnesses, especially when compared with
the success rates of treatments for other physical ailments. For a long
time, many who are in this field, especially on the insurance side,
have behaved as if you get far better results for angioplasty than you
do for treatments for bipolar illness.
Treatment for bipolar disorders, that is, those disorders
characterized by extreme lows and extreme highs, have an 80 percent
success rate if you get treatment, both medicine and care.
Schizophrenia, the most dreaded of mental illnesses, has a 60-percent
success rate in the United States today if treated properly. Major
depression has a 65 percent success rate.
Lets compare those success rates to several important surgical
procedures that everybody thinks we ought to be doing:
Angioplasty has a 41-percent success rate.
Atherectomy has a 52-percent success rate.

I would now like to take a minute to discuss the Mental Health
Equitable Treatment Act of 2001. The Bill seeks a very simple goal:
provide the same mental health benefits already enjoyed by Federal
employees.
The Bill is modeled after the mental health benefits provided through
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, and expands the
Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 to prohibit a group health plan from
imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the
coverage of mental health benefits unless comparable limitations are
imposed on medical and surgical benefits.
Our Bill provides full parity for all categories of mental health
conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition, DSM IV, with coverage being contingent on
the mental health condition being included in an authorized treatment
plan, the treatment plan is in accordance with standard protocols, and
the treatment plan meets medical necessity determination criteria.
Like the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the Bill does not require
a health

[[Page S2394]]

plan to provide coverage for alcohol and substance abuse benefits.
Moreover, the Bill does not mandate the coverage of mental health
benefits, rather the Bill only applies if the plan already provides
coverage for mental health benefits.
In conclusion, the Bill provides mental heath benefits on par with
those already enjoyed by Federal employees and I would urge my
colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 543

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 ``Mental Health Equitable
Treatment Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY
ACT OF 1974.

(a) In General.--Section 712 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1185a) is amended to
read as follows:

``SEC. 712. MENTAL HEALTH PARITY.

``(a) In General.--In the case of a group health plan (or
health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a
plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and
mental health benefits, such plan or coverage shall not
impose any treatment limitations or financial requirements
with respect to the coverage of benefits for mental illnesses
unless comparable treatment limitations or financial
requirements are imposed on medical and surgical benefits.
``(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as requiring a group health plan (or health
insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) to
provide any mental health benefits.
``(c) Small Employer Exemption.--
``(1) In general.--This section shall not apply to any
group health plan (and group health insurance coverage
offered in connection with a group health plan) for any plan
year of any employer who employed an average of at least 2
but not more than 25 employees on business days during the
preceding calendar year.
``(2) Application of certain rules in determination of
employer size.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Application of aggregation rule for employers.--Rules
similar to the rules under subsections (b), (c), (m), and (o)
of section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall
apply for purposes of treating persons as a single employer.
``(B) Employers not in existence in preceding year.--In the
case of an employer which was not in existence throughout the
preceding calendar year, the determination of whether such
employer is a small employer shall be based on the average
number of employees that it is reasonably expected such
employer will employ on business days in the current calendar
year.
``(C) Predecessors.--Any reference in this paragraph to an
employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such
employer.
``(d) Separate Application to Each Option Offered.--In the
case of a group health plan that offers a participant or
beneficiary two or more benefit package options under the
plan, the requirements of this section shall be applied
separately with respect to each such option.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Financial requirements.--The term `financial
requirements' includes deductibles, coinsurance, co-payments,
other cost sharing, and limitations on the total amount that
may be paid with respect to benefits under the plan or health
insurance coverage with respect to an individual or other
coverage unit (including annual and lifetime limits).
``(2) Medical or surgical benefits.--The term `medical or
surgical benefits' means benefits with respect to medical or
surgical services, as defined under the terms of the plan or
coverage (as the case may be), but does not include mental
health benefits.
``(3) Mental health benefits.--The term `mental health
benefits' means benefits with respect to services for all
categories of mental health conditions listed in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth
Edition (DSM IV-TR), or the most recent edition if different
than the Fourth Edition, as defined under the terms of the
plan or coverage (as the case may be), if such services are
included as part of an authorized treatment plan that is in
accordance with standard protocols and such services meet
applicable medical necessity criteria, but does not include
benefits with respect to the treatment of substance abuse or
chemical dependency.
``(4) Treatment limitations.--The term `treatment
limitations' means limitations on the frequency of treatment,
number of visits or days of coverage, or other limits on the
duration or scope of treatment under the plan or coverage.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after
January 1, 2002.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT RELATING
TO THE GROUP MARKET.

(a) In General.--Section 2705 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-5) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 2705. MENTAL HEALTH PARITY.

``(a) In General.--In the case of a group health plan (or
health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a
plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and
mental health benefits, such plan or coverage shall not
impose any treatment limitations or financial requirements
with respect to the coverage of benefits for mental illnesses
unless comparable treatment limitations or financial
requirements are imposed on medical and surgical benefits.
``(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as requiring a group health plan (or health
insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) to
provide any mental health benefits.
``(c) Small Employer Exemption.--
``(1) In general.--This section shall not apply to any
group health plan (and group health insurance coverage
offered in connection with a group health plan) for any plan
year of any employer who employed an average of at least 2
but not more than 25 employees on business days during the
preceding calendar year.
``(2) Application of certain rules in determination of
employer size.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Application of aggregation rule for employers.--Rules
similar to the rules under subsections (b), (c), (m), and (o)
of section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall
apply for purposes of treating persons as a single employer.
``(B) Employers not in existence in preceding year.--In the
case of an employer which was not in existence throughout the
preceding calendar year, the determination of whether such
employer is a small employer shall be based on the average
number of employees that it is reasonably expected such
employer will employ on business days in the current calendar
year.
``(C) Predecessors.--Any reference in this paragraph to an
employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such
employer.
``(d) Separate Application to Each Option Offered.--In the
case of a group health plan that offers a participant or
beneficiary two or more benefit package options under the
plan, the requirements of this section shall be applied
separately with respect to each such option.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Financial requirements.--The term `financial
requirements' includes deductibles, coinsurance, co-payments,
other cost sharing, and limitations on the total amount that
may be paid with respect to benefits under the plan or health
insurance coverage with respect to an individual or other
coverage unit (including annual and lifetime limits).
``(2) Medical or surgical benefits.--The term `medical or
surgical benefits' means benefits with respect to medical or
surgical services, as defined under the terms of the plan or
coverage (as the case may be), but does not include mental
health benefits.
``(3) Mental health benefits.--The term `mental health
benefits' means benefits with respect to services for all
categories of mental health conditions listed in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth
Edition (DSM IV), or the most recent edition if different
than the Fourth Edition, as defined under the terms of the
plan or coverage (as the case may be), if such services are
included as part of an authorized treatment plan that is in
accordance with standard protocols and such services meet
applicable medical necessity criteria, but does not include
benefits with respect to the treatment of substance abuse or
chemical dependency.
``(4) Treatment limitations.--The term `treatment
limitations' means limitations on the frequency of treatment,
number of visits or days of coverage, or other limits on the
duration or scope of treatment under the plan or coverage.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after
January 1, 2002.

SEC. 4. PREEMPTION.

Nothing in the amendments made by this Act shall be
construed to preempt any provision of State law that provides
protections to enrollees that are greater than the
protections provided under such amendments.

SEC. 5. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY.

(a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
that evaluates the effect of the implementation of the
amendments made by this Act on the cost of health insurance
coverage, access to health insurance coverage (including the
availability of in-network providers), the quality of health
care, and other issues as determined appropriate by the
Comptroller General.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare
and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
containing the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a).

[[Page S2395]]

____
Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001--Summary

The Bill seeks to ensure greater parity in the coverage of
mental health benefits by prohibiting a group health plan
from treating mental health benefits differently from the
coverage of medical and surgical benefits.
The Bill only applies to group health plans already
providing mental health benefits and is modeled after the
mental health benefits provided through the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

Full Parity for All Mental Illnesses

Expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA) to
prohibit a group health plan from imposing treatment
limitations or financial requirements on the coverage of
mental health benefits unless comparable limitations are
imposed on medical and surgical benefits.
Provides full parity for all categories of mental health
conditions listed in the ``Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders,'' 4th Edition (DSM IV-TR).
Coverage is also contingent on the mental health condition
being included in an authorized treatment plan, the treatment
plan is in accordance with standard protocols, and the
treatment plan meets medical necessity determination
criteria.
Defines ``treatment limitations'' as limits on the
frequency of treatment, the number of visits, the number of
covered hospital days, or other limits on the scope and
duration of treatment and defines ``financial requirements''
to include deductibles, coinsurance, co-payments, and
catastrophic maximums.

Requirements and Exemptions

Eliminates the September 30, 2001 sunset provision in the
MHPA.
Like the MHPA the bill does not require plans to provide
coverage for benefits relating to alcohol and drug abuse.
There is a small business exemption for companies with 25
or fewer employees.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague
from New Mexico once again to introduce a bill for fairness in health
coverage for those with mental illness. The Mental Health Equitable
Treatment Act of 2001 will take the critical next steps to ensure that
private health insurance companies provide the same level of coverage
for mental illness as they do for other diseases. This bill will be a
major step toward ending the discrimination against people who suffer
from mental illness.
In 1996, I was proud to introduce the Mental Health Parity Act, a law
which broke new ground, placing mental health alongside other medical
and surgical coverage for parity in insurance coverage. Although the
1996 bill was limited to parity in annual and lifetime limits in care,
the message was clear: there is no place for discrimination against
those with mental illness. Since the Mental Health Parity Act became
law, we have seen that the costs have remained low and manageable, but,
unfortunately, we have also seen that employers and insurance companies
have taken advantage of the gaps that remain in coverage for mental
illness. Patients have faced increases in copayment and deductible
costs, more problems in gaining access to care, fewer approvals for
hospital stays and outpatient days, and refusals to cover care. The
suffering of people with mental illness has grown, and the time to end
this discrimination is now.
For too long, mental illness has been stigmatized as a character
flaw, rather than as the serious disease that it is. As a result,
people with mental illness are often ashamed and afraid to seek
treatment, for fear that they will lose their jobs or friends; for fear
that people will not recognize the suffering that they endure; for fear
that they will not be able to receive help. We have all seen portrayals
of mentally ill people as somehow different, as dangerous, or as
frightening. Such stereotypes only reinforce the biases against people
with mental illness. Can you imagine this type of portrayal of someone
who has a cardiac problem, or who happens to carry a gene that
predisposes them to diabetes? And yet, we have all known someone with a
serious mental illness, within our families or our circle of friends,
or in public life. Many people have courageously come forward to speak
about their personal experiences with their illness, to help us all
understand better the effects of this illness on a person's life, the
ways in which effective treatments have helped them, or, sadly, the
ways in which a loved one died through suicide as a result of untreated
mental illness. I commend those who speak out on this issue, for their
honesty and courage to come forward about their experiences, to help
the world to understand the reality of this disease.
The statistics concerning mental illness, and the state of health
care coverage for adults and children with this disease are startling,
and disturbing. A watershed in our understanding of the impact of
mental disorders is the 1996 Global Burden of Disease, GBD, study,
conducted for the World Bank and World Health Organization by experts
at Harvard University. The GBD defined a very useful concept, called
the Disability Adjusted Life Year, DALY, which refers to healthy years
of life lost to either disability or premature mortality. Based on this
measure of disease burden, mental disorders--which are prevalent
worldwide, often begin early in life, and frequently are characterized
by recurrent episodes, as in depression, or chronicity, as in
schizophrenia, produce a disproportionate share of DALYs, much of which
is due to the disabling nature of mental illness. According to the GBD
study, in the U.S. and throughout the developed world, depression is
the leading cause of disability, and three other mental disorders are
among the top ten causes of disability, bipolar disorder,
schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The National Institute of Mental Health, a NIH research institute
within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, describes
serious depression as an extremely critical public health problem. More
than 18 million people in the United States will suffer from a
depressive illness this year, and many will be unnecessarily
incapacitated for weeks or months, because their illness goes
untreated. The cost to the nation is in the billions of dollars. The
suffering of depressed people and their families is immeasurable.
The situation is worse for children. The 1998 Surgeon General's
Report on Mental Health estimates that between 5 and 9 percent of those
under age 18 have mental disorders so severe that they face
overwhelming difficulties in their efforts to function well with their
families, friends, and teachers. For children, mental illness carries a
double burden: both the suffering of the disorder itself, as well as
the lost period of healthy learning and social development needed to
help children live up to their potential. The recent tragic episodes of
violence in our schools remind us that inadequately treated emotional
and behavioral disorders in our children can literally have lethal
consequences in terms of suicide and murder.
Our investment in mental health research is paying off well. We know
so much more now about brain disease, behavioral and emotional
disorders, and treatment. But without access to care, such treatments
cannot help those who are suffering from mental illness. We know from
NIH-funded research that available medications and psychological
treatments, alone or in combination, can help 80 percent of those with
depression. But without adequate treatment, future episodes of
depression may continue or worsen in severity. Yet, the steady decline
in the quality and breadth of health care coverage is truly disturbing.
The inequities related to the status of mental disorders in health
insurance is indisputable. The U.S. General Accounting Office issued a
report in May, 2000, that verified that despite passage of the 1996
mental health parity law, 14 percent of employers failed to comply with
even the limited protections required by that law. Of the 86 percent
that did comply, most (87%) continued to limit their mental health
benefits, thus violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. In
other words, the majority of employers who claim to provide mental
health benefits restrict actual care through limitations on coverage or
access, or by increasing the cost to the patient. And they do this
despite the fact that costs are low. According to most reports on
parity, including the most recent analysis requested by Congress from
the National Advisory Mental Health Council, when mental health
coverage is managed appropriately, premium increases can be as low as 1
percent.

Yet inequities in coverage continue, despite the 1996 law and the
numerous state laws that have tried without success to finally put an
end to this health care discrimination. The discrimination continues
despite the fact that there is no biomedical justification for
differentiating serious mental illness

[[Page S2396]]

from other serious and potentially chronic disorders, nor for judging
mental disorders to be in any way less real or less deserving of
treatment. What does exist and continues to grow is an extensive body
of rigorous research that has demonstrated that treatment for mental
disorders is both precise and cost-effective.
Although the costs for coverage have been shown to be low, the
consequences of untreated mental illness in our society are very
serious and far-reaching--especially when one looks at how it affects
individuals, families, employers, corporations, social service systems,
and criminal justice systems. I have seen first hand in the juvenile
corrections system what happens when mental illness is criminalized,
when youth with mental illness are incarcerated for exhibiting symptoms
of their illness. To treat ill people as criminals is outrageous and
immoral. We must make treatment for this illness as available and as
routine as treatment for any other disease. The discrimination must
stop.
The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001 is modeled after
the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, and provides full parity for
all categories of mental health conditions. Group health plans would be
prohibited from imposing treatment limitations, including restricting
numbers of visits or covered hospital days, or financial requirements,
such as higher copayments, that are different from other medical/
surgical benefits. This bill is a major step forward in coverage for
mental illness by private health insurers. It does not require that
mental health benefits be part of a health benefits package, but
establishes a requirement for parity in coverage for those plans that
offer mental health benefits. This bill goes a long way toward our
bipartisan goal: that mental illness be treated like any other disease
in health care coverage.
The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001 is designed to take
a large step toward ending the suffering of those with mental illness
who have been unfairly discriminated against in their health coverage.
The time to pass this bill is now.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator
Domenici and Senator Wellstone in introducing the Mental Health
Equitable Treatment Act of 2001. This Act is an important step in the
fight to end the stigma against mental illness and ensure that those
suffering from mental illness receive the services they need. For too
long, individuals with mental disorders have faced unfair treatment
restrictions and paid more for the services they need than have
individuals requiring medical or surgical services.
The groundbreaking report on mental health that the Surgeon General
released last year reveals that disproportionate cost-sharing
requirements and treatment limitations ``reduce appropriate use, of
mental health services,'' and ``leave people to bear catastrophic costs
themselves.''
The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act aims to halt these
troubling trends by ensuring that group health plans treat mental
health benefits the same way they do medical and surgical benefits.
In 1996, we enacted the Mental Health Parity Act. While this
important legislation made progress in advancing the fair treatment of
individuals with mental illness, it did not go far enough in providing
true protection for all people suffering from mental disorders.
The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001 improves upon this
earlier legislation by providing full parity for a broad range of
mental health disorders. Under the Act, group health plans must limit
the treatment restrictions and financial requirements that they impose
for mental health benefits to the same level that they set for medical
or surgical benefits. Co-payments for office visits must be comparable,
for example, regardless of whether the office is a physician's or a
psychiatrist's. While the Act does not apply to group health plans that
do not provide any mental health benefits or that have 25 employees or
less, it is a critical step in ending the blatant discrimination that
people with mental disorders face in trying to obtain necessary and
affordable treatment.
As we have learned more about the brain and the way it works, we have
developed promising treatments that can significantly improve the
health of individuals with mental illness and help them lead productive
lives. Success rates for treating mental illnesses are now as high as
80 percent. Without strong parity legislation, however, these effective
treatments will remain elusive for the millions of individuals who need
them.
The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act will finally help these
individuals receive the care they need by eliminating one of the
biggest barriers to care, cost. I strongly encourage my colleagues to
support this groundbreaking piece of legislation.
______

By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 544. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to provide
that a quality grade label issued by the Secretary of Agriculture may
not be used for imported meat food products; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor a bill on an issue
of great importance to my state and to the entire livestock industry.
The subject is that of restricting the quality USDA Grade Stamp to only
U.S. livestock products. It would prohibit foreign meat from coming
into America and unfairly receiving the USDA Grade Stamp.
This language offered today, will insure that all meat products
imported from foreign countries will not be allowed to use the USDA
Grade. For years, other countries have used the USDA Grade Stamp to
their advantage, and to the disadvantage of our own producers.
Historically, Canada and Mexico have shipped livestock into the United
States, and by doing so they have reaped the benefits of the premium
given by USDA for our labeled grades.
USDA Prime and USDA Choice grades are given a premium price in the
marketplace. By allowing foreign countries to compete using our grade
labels, American livestock producers are effectively prevented from
receiving a premium for something that should belong solely to them.
Agricultural producers from across our borders ship livestock to the
United States, and feed them for a short period of time in order to
bypass current restrictions. The animals are then slaughtered here as a
United States product. This is not only unfair, but it is a betrayal of
trust that our producers have placed in the system. It is one that
American producers should not have to tolerate. My bill provides for a
90 day feeding period to prevent this from happening, yet maintains the
profits lightweight cattle from foreign countries bring to American
feeders.
The huge influx of imports from both Canada and Mexico, that American
agricultural producers are currently faced with, has provided an added
hardship to the agricultural economy. This is one obstacle that could
easily be remedied by this legislation.
When consumers see the USDA Grade Stamp on meat, most assume that
they are buying a U.S. raised product. Even though imported carcasses
are required to have a ``foreign origin mark,'' it is trimmed off prior
to retail sales for marketing purposes. This is very misleading for our
consumers.
This bill will protect both the American producer and the American
consumer. If the Grade Stamp is reserved exclusively for U.S. products,
we eliminate the disadvantage American producers face in competing with
imported meats. We would also be ensuring that American consumers know
that the meat they purchase, is the top quality American product they
have always assumed they were buying. Producers and consumers alike
deserve to know that the USDA grade label really means what it says,
produced in the U.S.
This bill would also help assure the American consumer that the meat
they are eating is disease free, something that our friends in Europe
are truly concerned about right now.
I am proud and pleased to sponsor this bill, and I look forward to
moving it through the process so we may insure that Americans truly
have the opportunity to use what is theirs and theirs alone, the USDA
Grade.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.

[[Page S2397]]

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 544

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 ``USDA Grade Recission Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. QUALITY GRADE LABELING OF IMPORTED MEAT AND MEAT FOOD
PRODUCTS.

Section 1(n) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
601(n)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) if it is an imported carcass, part thereof, meat, or
meat food product (including any carcass, part thereof, meat,
or meat food product produced from any cattle, sheep, or
goats that have not been fed in the United States for at
least 90 days) and bears a label that indicates a quality
grade issued by the Secretary.''.
______

By Mr. FRIST:
S. 545. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the work opportunity credit to small business employees working or
living in areas of poverty; to the Committee on Finance
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 545

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Section 51(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to members of targeted groups) is
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (G), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and
inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(I) a qualified small business employee.''
(b) Qualified Small Business Employee.--Section 51(d) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating
paragraphs (10) through (12) as paragraphs (11) through (13),
respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (9) the
following:
``(10) Qualified small business employee.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified small business
employee' means any individual--
``(i) hired by a qualified small business located in a
population census tract with a poverty rate not less than 20
percent, or
``(ii) hired by a qualified small business and who is
certified by the designated local agency as residing in such
a population census tract.
``(B) Qualified small business.--The term `qualified small
business' has the meaning given the term `small employer' by
section 4980D(d)(2).
``(C) Use of census data.--The poverty rate for any
population census tract shall be determined by the most
recent decennial census data available.''.
(c) Report.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall report to
the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate on
the date which is 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act on the effect of the expansion of the work
opportunity credit under section 51 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended by this section.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Nelson
of Florida):
S. 546. A bill to expand the applicability of the increase in the
automatic maximum amount of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
scheduled to take effect on April 1, 2001, to the deaths of certain
members of the uniformed services who die before that date; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 546

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

SECTION 1. EXPANDED APPLICABILITY OF INCREASE IN AUTOMATIC
MAXIMUM COVERAGE UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP
LIFE INSURANCE.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 312(c) of the
Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-419; 114 Stat. 1854; 38 U.S.C. 1967 note) or
any other provision of law, the amount of Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance in force under subchapter III of chapter
19 of title 38, United States Code, for each individual
described in subsection (b) at the time of such individual's
death as described in that subsection shall be $250,000.
(b) Covered Individuals.--An individual described in this
subsection is any individual insured under section 1967 of
title 38, United States Code, who--
(1) during the period beginning on October 1, 2000, and
ending on March 30, 2001, dies in a manner covered by such
insurance; and
(2) at the time of death, had not made an election under
that section to be insured in an amount less than automatic
maximum amount provided for in that section.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 547. A bill to redesignate the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund as
the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Accounting Fund and the
Federal Disability Insurance Accounting Fund, respectively; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple, but
essential bill that would change the name of the Social Security Trust
Funds to the Social Security Accounting Funds. It is my honor to have
Congressman DeMint introducing an identical measure in the House of
Representatives today.
It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about the Social
Security program. When they see and hear ``Trust Fund'', it makes them
believe that their retirement money is sitting in a bank vault safe and
sound. However, the truth is precisely the opposite.
Payroll tax revenues for the Social Security program in excess of
what is needed to pay Social Security benefits, are deposited into the
government's general funds as part of the U.S. Treasury. They are
accounted for through the issuance of federal securities to the Social
Security ``trust funds''. However, the trust funds themselves do not
hold the money; they are simply accounts.
This legislation would accurately designate the Social Security
program funds as accounting funds not trust funds.
Additionally, I would like to take this opportunity to once again
remind my colleagues of the precarious financial condition of the
entire Social Security system and the urgent need for a serious,
bipartisan effort to reform and revitalize this cornerstone of many
Americans' retirement planning.
The only way to achieve real reform of the Social Security system is
to work together in a bipartisan manner. It's time to abandon the
irresponsible game of playing partisan politics with Social Security.
Democrats will have to stop using the issue to scare seniors into
voting against Republicans. Republicans will have to resist using
Social Security revenues to finance tax cuts. And both parties must
stop raiding the Trust Funds to fund more government spending. We must
face up to our responsibilities, not as Republicans or Democrats, but
as elected representatives of the American people with a common
obligation to protect the generation of today and of tomorrow.
It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about Social Security
and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the
necessary changes to strengthen and save the nation's retirement
program for the seniors of today and tomorrow.
We must work together to develop fair and effective reforms that will
preserve and protect the Social Security system for current and future
retirees, while allowing all Americans, particularly low- and middle-
income individuals, the opportunity to share in the great prosperity
that our nation enjoys today.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 547

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

The Act may be cited as the ``Straighter Talk on Social
Security Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and
the Federal Disability

[[Page S2398]]

Insurance Trust Fund are hereby redesignated as the ``Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Accounting Fund'' and the
``Federal Disability Insurance Accounting Fund'',
respectively.

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

(a) In General.--Sections 201, 202, 206, 215, 217, 221,
222, 228, 229, 703, 706, 709, 710, 1106, 1129, 1131, 1140,
1145, 1147, 1817, and 1840 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401, 402, 406, 415, 417, 421, 422, 428, 429, 903, 907,
910, 911, 1306, 1320a-8, 1320b-1, 1320b-10, 1320b-15, 1320b-
17, 1395i, and 1395s) are each amended (in the text and in
the headings) by striking ``Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund'' and ``Federal Disability Insurance
Trust Fund'' each place they appear and inserting ``Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Accounting Fund'' and
``Federal Disability Insurance Accounting Fund'',
respectively.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Sections 201, 215, 217, 221,
222, 229, 231, 234, 706, 709, 1110, and 1148 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 401, 415, 417, 421, 422, 429, 431, 434, 907, 910,
1310, and 1320b-18)) are each amended (in the text and in the
headings) by striking ``Trust Funds'' and ``trust funds''
each place they appear and inserting ``Funds''.

SEC. 4. OTHER CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) In General.--The following provisions are amended by
striking ``Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund'' and ``Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund'' each
place they appear and inserting ``Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Accounting Fund'' and ``Federal
Disability Insurance Accounting Fund'', respectively:
(1) sections 3121 and 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986;
(2) section 7 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45
U.S.C. 231f);
(3) section 8331 of title 5, United States Code; and
(4) sections 3720A and 3806 of title 31, United States
Code.
(b) Additional Amendment.--Section 405 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 655) is amended by striking
``the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Funds'' and inserting ``the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Accounting Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Accounting Fund''.

SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Whenever any reference is made in any provision of law,
regulation, rule, record, or document to the Federal Old-Age
and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund, such reference shall be considered a
reference to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Accounting
Fund or the Federal Disability Insurance Accounting Fund,
respectively.
______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Reid):
S. 548. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide enhanced reimbursement for, and expanded capacity to,
mammography services under the medicare program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on finance.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by
Senators Snowe, Mikulski, Murkowski, Murray, Schumer and Reid to
introduce the ``Assure Access to Mammography Act of 2001.'' This
important legislation will help improve access to life-saving breast
screenings for millions of women.
I lost both of my sisters to breast cancer. I strongly believe that
if they had had access to regular mammography services and today's
advanced treatments, they would still be alive today.
Over the past several years, we've made a great deal of progress
against breast cancer. In particular, we've been able to secure
significant funding increases for research to understand the causes of
and find treatments for breast cancer.
Almost a decade ago, when I looked into the issue of breast cancer
research, I discovered that barely $90 million was spent on breast
cancer research.
That's why, in 1992, I offered an amendment to dedicate $210 million
in the Defense Department Budget for breast cancer research. This
funding was in addition to the funding for breast cancer research
conducted at the National Institutes of Health. My amendment passed
and, overnight, it doubled Federal funding for breast cancer.
Since then, funding for breast cancer research has been included in
the Defense Department Budget every year.
Today, I am proud to say, between the DoD and NIH, over $600 million
is being spent on finding a cure for this disease.
But our success in building our research enterprise will be pointless
if breakthroughs in diagnosis, treatment and cures are not available
for patients.
That is why, a decade ago, as Chairman of the Senate Labor, Health
and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I worked
with Senator Mikulski to create a program, run by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, to provide breast and cervical cancer
screening for low-income, uninsured women. And last year, I pushed a
new law to provide Medicaid coverage to women diagnosed through this
program so they can get the treatment they need.
But we still have a long way to go. Breast cancer is the second-most
common form of cancer in the United States, next to skin cancers.
Approximately 3 million women are living with cancer today, 2 million
who have been diagnosed, and an estimated 1 million who do not yet now
they have the disease. If we are going to win the war against breast
cancer, we've got to be able to detect it early enough to apply the
latest treatments effectively. We can prolong and save the lives of
millions of women if the cancer is detected when it is small and has
not yet spread to other areas of the body. Although not the perfect
solution, screening mammograms are the best known way to diagnose
breast cancer and reduce mortality. For example, routine mammograms in
clinical trials resulted in a 25-30 percent decrease in breast cancer
mortality for women aged 50-70.

In 1990, Congress acted to ensure access to screening by creating a
Medicare mammography benefit and provided adequate payment for
screening mammography by setting reimbursement for the procedure at
$55, indexed to inflation. Today that amount is $69.23. Unfortunately,
this payment has not kept pace with the costs of the procedure, and
women's access to screening mammography is being curtailed.
Hundreds of facilities across the country are losing money on
screening mammography, and since September of 1999, 243 facilities have
closed their doors; close to 100 of them in the last 5 months. At the
same time, one million additional women each year need regular
mammograms.
To compound the problem, there is increasing evidence of a shortage
of practicing radiologists and radiology residents willing to conduct
mammography screening and receive the necessary specialty training.
Radiologists report that mammography is under-reimbursed and has a
comparatively higher workload, high malpractice costs and more on-the-
job stress.
In addition, this shortage of radiologic technologists appears to be
worsening at the same time as the demand for medical imaging escalates.
The number of RT trainees who take the certification exams has declined
dramatically in the past several years, from 10,330 in 1995 to 7,149 in
2000. Facilities nationwide report an inability to find and keep
qualified RTs.
As a result, women in many different parts of the country are having
to wait many weeks and months to get a mammogram. These kinds of delays
put women at risk for more advanced and less treatable forms of breast
cancer.
Some of my colleagues may have read in TIME Magazine recently about
Paula Sperling from New York. When she called her local mammography
facility, they told her she'd have to wait 5 months for her annual
mammogram, even though she has a history of breast cancer in her
family. She told TIME, ``Three or four months could mean the difference
between a tumor that's localized and one that's spread into the lymph
nodes.''
In my home state of Iowa, the situation is less dire, but our
mammography facilities are struggling because reimbursement doesn't
come anywhere near the costs of providing the service. For example,
Mercy Medical Center's Cedar Rapids mobile mammography unit serves
thousands of women in 7 rural counties in the surrounding area. Many of
these women would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to get
their mammograms in any other way. But because of low reimbursements,
this mobile unit lost $75,000 last year; losses that simply cannot be
sustained. It is a day to day struggle to keep that mobile unit going.
Congress has a responsibility to make sure our Medicare policy
ensures that women have access to timely, quality mammography services.
Our legislation would do the following:
Increase the Medicare reimbursement for screening mammograms to

[[Page S2399]]

$90 for 2002, based on currently available cost data.
Increase Medicare graduate medical education funding for added
radiology residency slots, some of whom will choose mammography as a
specialty.
Increase funding for allied health profession loan programs to
increase the supply of qualified radiologic technicians (RTs) available
to conduct mammograms.
In addition, we have included two important studies in our bill.
Recent research has suggested that the Medicare reimbursement structure
for physician work undervalues services and procedures done primarily
in women when compared to similar male-specific procedures. Our bill
requires the General Accounting Office to further evaluate this
research and make recommendations to Congress on how to make Medicare
reimbursement more equitable.
Also, there is evidence that screening services are undervalued in
the physician fee schedule relative to other procedures. Given the
importance of regular screening to prevent and catch disease in the
early stages, from breast cancer to colorectal and prostate cancer, we
include a provision in our bill requiring the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission, MedPAC, to study this issue and make recommendations to
Congress.
Our legislation has the support of the American Cancer Society,
American College of Radiologists, Society of Breast Imaging and the
American Society of Radiologic Technologists. I ask unanimous consent
that their letters of endorsement be printed in the Congressional
Record. And for the sake of women across America and their families and
friends, I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important
bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 548

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 ``Assure Access to Mammography
Act of 2001''.

TITLE I--ENHANCED REIMBURSEMENT FOR SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY UNDER THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM

SEC. 101. ENHANCED REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM
FOR SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHIES FURNISHED IN 2002.

(a) One-Year Delay of Inclusion of Payment for Screening
Mammography in Physician Fee Schedule.--Section 104(c) of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted into law by section
1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554) is amended by striking
``January 1, 2002'' and inserting ``January 1, 2003''.
(b) Change in Payment Amount.--Section 1834(c)(3)(A) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(c)(3)(A)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``$55, indexed.--'' and
inserting ``In general.--'';
(2) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``a subsequent year'' and inserting ``1992
through 2001,''; and
(B) by striking ``that subsequent year.'' and inserting
``that year, and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) for screening mammography performed in 2002, is
$90.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) BIPA amendment.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
104 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement
and Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted into law by section
1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554).
(2) Mammography in 2002.--The amendments made by subsection
(b) shall apply with respect to screening mammographies
furnished during 2002.
(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as affecting the provisions of section 104(d) of
the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted into law by section
1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554) (relating to payment for new
technologies).

TITLE II--EXPANDED CAPACITY FOR MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICES

SEC. 201. NOT COUNTING CERTAIN RADIOLOGY RESIDENTS AGAINST
GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION LIMITATIONS.

For cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1,
2001, and before October 1, 2006, in applying the limitations
regarding the total number of full-time equivalent residents
in the field of allopathic or osteopathic medicine under
subsections (d)(5)(B)(v) and (h)(4)(F) of section 1886 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) for a hospital, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not take into
account a maximum of 3 residents in the field of radiology to
the extent the hospital increases the number of radiology
residents above the number of such residents for the
hospital's most recent cost reporting period ending before
October 1, 2001.

SEC. 202. ALLIED HEALTH PROFESSIONAL FUNDING.

Section 757 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
294g) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this part--
``(1) $55,600,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 1999 through 2001;
``(3) $70,600,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
``(4) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2003
and each subsequent fiscal year.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``, 754, and 755.''
and inserting ``and 754; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) not less than $15,000,000 for awards of grants and
contracts under section 755.''.

TITLE III--STUDIES AND REPORTS ON MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR GENDER-
SPECIFIC AND SCREENING SERVICES

SEC. 301. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR
GENDER-SPECIFIC SERVICES.

(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the relative value units established
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the
medicare physician fee schedule under section 1848 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) for physicians'
services that are gender-specific.
(b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the
study conducted under subsection (a), together with such
recommendations regarding the appropriateness of adjusting
the relative value units for physicians' services that are
gender-specific as the Comptroller General determines
appropriate.

SEC. 302. MEDPAC STUDY AND REPORT ON MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT
FOR SCREENING SERVICES.

(a) Study.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission shall
conduct a study of the relative value units established by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the medicare
physician fee schedule under section 1848 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) for screening services that
are reimbursed under such fee schedule.
(b) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2002, the Commission
shall submit to Congress a report on the study conducted
under subsection (a), together with such recommendations
regarding the appropriateness of adjusting the relative value
units for screening services that are reimbursed under the
physician fee schedule as the Comptroller General determines
appropriate.
____

American Cancer Society,

Washington, DC, March 13, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Tom: On behalf of the American Cancer Society and its
more than 28 million supporters, I am writing to thank you
for recognizing the importance of assuring that American
women have adequate access to mammography and for drafting
legislation aimed at addressing this complex issue. We are
most grateful for your leadership and commitment.
As you know, there have been increasing indicators that
suggest an erosion in the current capacity to meet the breast
imaging needs of American women. We have been troubled by
recent reports of problems related to economic pressures,
personnel shortages, and a growing disinterest in mammography
on the part of practicing radiologists and recent residency
program graduates. Unfortunately, we do not yet have much
concrete data to illuminate the extent of the problem.
The Society is currently working in collaboration with the
Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) and the American College of
Radiology (ACR) to gather data to better understanding the
underlying systemic problems that are reflected in a growing
number of anecdotal reports about problems with mammography.
We are also in the process of convening a series of meetings
with other breast cancer advocacy groups to try to answer the
questions raised by the recent news reports.
The Society strongly believes that continued access to
quality mammography must be assured and that this issue must
be addressed in a timely fashion. Increasing women's access
to high quality breast cancer screening is a goal that has
long had strong bi-partisan Congressional support, as
evidenced by the enactment of legislation in 1990 to provide
a Medicare breast cancer screening benefit and the passage of
the ``Mammography Quality Standards Act'' in 1992. Congress
has also taken steps to increase access to mammography and
breast cancer treatment for the medically underserved by
establishing the Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Program and enacting the Breast & Cervical Cancer Treatment
Act. In addition, thanks to successful

[[Page S2400]]

public-private partnerships, many women have gotten the
message about the importance of regular mammograms. Your
support on these issues has been greatly appreciated.
Now that women are getting the message and seeking out
screening services, the country needs to ensure that the
capacity to provide mammography services meets the demand.
Approximately 40,600 Americans will die this year from breast
cancer. We knew that early detection is key to saving lives
from breast cancer, and it increases a women's treatment
options. Mammography is the only scientifically proven tool
currently available to detect breast cancer before the onset
of symptoms. The aging of the baby boomer population means
that the number of American women requiring regular screening
is increasing dramatically at an estimated rate of over one
million per year.
Your legislation, the ``Assure Access to Mammography Act,''
is an important step in addressing these issues. We know that
increasing the reimbursement rate and raising the number of
radiology residents--measures addressed in your legislation--
are important components of the mammography capacity issue.
We also believe the MedPAC study called for in the bill will
lay the groundwork for shoring up future capacity by
evaluating whether or not screening services are undervalued
in the physician fee schedule.
Once again, we commend you for your leadership on this
critical issue. As our data collection and analysis efforts
progress, we look forward to sharing this information with
you and working together to ensure that women across the
country continue to have access to high quality mammography
services. If you or your staff have any additional questions,
please contact Megan Gordon, Manager of Federal Government
Relations (202-661-5716).
Sincerely,
Daniel E. Smith,
National Vice President, Federal and State Government
Relations.
____

American College of Radiology,

Reston, VA, March 12, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the American College of
Radiology (ACR), I would like to commend you on your efforts
to improve women's health by introducing the ``Assure Access
to Mammography Act of 2001'' and offer the College's full
support for the enactment of this legislation.
As you know, the College has been working closely with you
and your staff to address the growing access problem to
timely mammography screening. For over a decade, the Congress
and the College have recognized screening mammography as an
essential element in women's health and have been committed
to providing this valuable service. With the enactment of
this legislation, that commitment to women's health will
continue.
Raising reimbursement for screening mammography, and
maintaining that level of reimbursement, will allow
radiologists to continue providing this lifesaving service in
a timely fashion and help avoid the delays that have been
widely reported in the media. The College also fully supports
the provisions in your legislation regarding the need for
additional radiologists and associated allied health
personnel. In addition, your provisions requesting the study
of Medicare reimbursement of gender-specific services and
Medicare reimbursement for screening services in general are
solely needed.
Since the College and you share the common goal of
continuing to provide timely access to screening mammography,
ACR looks forward to continuing our work together to pass
this vital legislation.
Sincerely,
Harvey L. Neiman, M.D.,
Chair, Board of Chancellors.
____

Society of Breast Imaging,

Reston, VA, March 12, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: Mammography can have a significant
impact on women's lives. When screening mammography detects
breast cancer at an early stage, women have a better chance
of survival and an improved quality of life. Early detection
may also spare many women from mastectomy. The American
Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, and many
other medical organizations now recommend that women begin
annual screening mammography at age 40 years.
The number of screening mammograms performed each year in
our country has doubled over the past decade. There are now
56 million American women age 40 or older. About 30 million
women have had a mammogram during the past 2 years.
The need for mammography is expected to increase even
further in the future. Each year, a greater percentage of
women in the breast cancer age group follow the mammography
screening guidelines. Also, the population of women age 40
and older will grow by 1 million each year over the next five
years.
Today, our medical care system is unable to keep up with
this increasing demand for mammography by providing this
examination in a timely manner. Waiting time for a
mammography appointment has increased. Many facilities now
report waits of weeks or even months. The underlying reason
for these excessively long waits is inadequate reimbursement
rates. At current reimbursement rates, mammography usually
loses money. The more mammograms performed, the greater the
loss. The current Medicare reimbursement rate of $68.00 for a
screening mammogram is less than the cost of performing the
examination. Reimbursement rates for other health care plans
are based upon the Medicare fee schedule. At current
reimbursement rates, many hospitals and clinics have been
unable to purchase enough mammography equipment, hire enough
radiologists and technologists, and pay for enough office
space for breast imaging.
Long waits for a mammography appointment lead to
unnecessary anxiety. Some women feel discouraged. Others may
even be deterred from having a mammogram. Extremely long
waiting times may result in delay in diagnosis and treatment
of breast cancer. This can shorten a woman's life.
If the trend in financial loses from the performance of
mammography continues, the availability of this study will be
further curtailed. Some hospitals and medical facilities may
even be forced to stop performing this examination. And, most
facilities cannot afford to expand despite the projected
increasing need for mammograms.
The Society of Breast Imaging supports your proposed
legislation. By bringing reimbursement rates in line with the
cost of performing mammography, your bill will ensure that
American women will have access to this lifesaving procedure.
Sincerely,
Stephen A. Feig, MD, FACR,
President.
____

American Society of Radiologic Technologists,
March 9, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the American Society of
Radiologic Technologists (ASRT), a nationwide organization
representing more than 87,000 medical imaging and radiation
therapy professionals, we would like to express our strong
support for the ``Fairness in Mammography Reimbursement Act
of 2001.''
ASRT supports your call for increases in both mammography
reimbursement and federal support for allied health
professions educational program grants. ASRT recognizes that
current reimbursements do not cover costs for performance of
these procedures. In addition, shortages of qualified
radiologic technologists have had an adverse affect on access
to quality mammography services. We appreciate your
acknowledgment that the problem of access to quality
mammography is both a reimbursement problem, as well as a
personnel problem.
In 1991, you were one of the first Senators to recognize
the need to improve access to and the quality of mammography
services. Your cosponsorship of the Woman's Health Equity Act
of 1991--which ultimately became the Mammography Quality
Standards Act (MQSA) of 1992--was an important first step
towards improving the quality of radiologic imaging services.
An important component of that bill was the establishment of
minimum federal standards for radiologic technologists
performing mammography services.
While considerable progress has been made since 1992 in
improving the quality of mammography services, we regret that
a similar statement cannot be made with respect to other
radiologic imaging services. We would therefore like to take
this opportunity to bring to your attention legislation we
are promoting entitled the Consumer Assurance of Radiologic
Excellence (CARE). This legislation is designed to increase
the quality of all radiologic services and reduce medical
errors by establishing federal minimum standards for
education and credentialing of personnel who perform plan or
deliver medical imaging procedures or radiation therapy.
Again, we commend and support your efforts to improve
access and availability of quality mammography services and
we look forward to working with you on Legislation that will
improve the quality of all medical imaging services.
Sincerely,
Michael DelVecchio, B.S., R.T. (R),
ASRT President.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join Senator
Harkin and Senator Mikulski as an original cosponsor of the Assure
Access to Mammography Act of 2001. This bill addresses an emerging need
in the fight for breast cancer--the need for adequate reimbursement for
screening mammography in the Medicare Program and the need to preserve
access to mammographies services for women across the country.
Mr. President, we are clearly making small gains in fighting breast
cancer, which is one of the most challenging and daunting health
problems in America today. There is no question that a diagnosis of
breast cancer is something that every woman dreads. But for an
estimated 192,200 American women, this is the year their worst fears
will

[[Page S2401]]

be realized. One thousand new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed
among the women in Maine, and 200 women in my home state will die from
this tragic disease. The fact is, one in nine women will develop breast
cancer during their lifetime, and for women between the ages of 35 and
54, there is no other disease which will claim more lives.
But the fact is that mammograms are the most powerful weapon we have
in the fight against breast cancer. They enable us to detect and treat
breast cancer at its earliest stage when the tumors are too tiny to be
detected by a woman or her doctor, providing a better prognosis. An
estimated 30 million mammograms were performed last year at a cost of
over $2 billion--a valuable down-payment in our fight against an
unmerciful killer. And due to the aging of the baby boom generation it
is estimated that more than one million additional women each year will
need regular mammograms.
In 1990 we succeeded in making screening mammography the very first
preventive benefit available under Part B of the Medicare Program, and
we set the reimbursement level in statute. In 1998, the Medicare
Program alone provided over 6 million mammography procedures.
Unfortunately the Medicare payment, which was indexed to inflation
under the statute, has not kept pace with the actual increase in health
care costs. Last year the Medicare reimbursement for a screening
mammogram was $69.23--well under the mean cost of $90 per procedure.
There is evidence that radiology clinics are closing their doors, and
that radiologists are no longer able to provide mammography services
due to the simple fact that providers are not reimbursed enough for
their work and cannot justify the losses they incur by providing
mammography services. Over the past 18 months 243 facilities have
closed their doors; close to 100 of them in just the past four months.
This is a problem that must be addressed immediately.
The legislation we introduce today would increase Medicare
reimbursement for screening mammograms to $90 for 2002, insuring that
radiologists across the country are appropriately reimbursed for the
valuable service they provide.
On March 7, 2001, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a
fascinating report evaluating the new technologies of mammography
titled ``Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for the Early
Detection of Breast Cancer.''
At the same time, the IOM recommended analyzing current Medicare and
Medicaid reimbursement rates for mammography to determine whether they
adequately cover the total costs of providing the procedure. The report
also recommends that the Health Resources and Services Administration
(HRSA) undertake or fund a study to analyze trends in speciality
training for breast cancer screening among radiologists and radiologic
technologists, and examine factors affecting the decision of
practitioners to enter or remain in the field.
We have taken these recommendations very seriously and by introducing
this legislation today, we are acting to preserve access to
mammography. The truth is we simply cannot risk slipping back in our
fight against breast cancer.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this very important
bill and work towards passing it this year.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators
Harkin, Snowe, Murkowski, Murray, Schumer, and Reid in introducing the
Assure Access to Mammography Act of 2001. The goal of this bill is to
help ensure that women have access to screening mammograms.
Breast cancer mortality has decreased because of early detection,
diagnosis, and treatment. Mammography is vital to early detection, yet
I have seen press reports about women having to wait weeks or months
for a mammogram. In Maryland, waiting times for mammograms at some
facilities have increased from one to two weeks to six to eight weeks.
In addition, some wait times have increased from one to two days to two
weeks for a diagnostic mammogram. In these cases, usually a woman has
already had a suspicious finding from a screening mammogram and has to
wait longer to get the results of a diagnostic mammogram to determine
if she has breast cancer or not.
I have also heard about mammography facilities closing down because
they could no longer make ends meet. In fact, a couple mammography
facilities in the Baltimore area have closed their doors. This
coincides with a national trend. Over the last 18 months, close to 250
mammography facilities have closed down, with almost 100 facilities
closing between October 2000 and February 2001. Women living in areas
with no or few mammogram facilities are less likely to have mammograms
than those living in areas with more facilities.
At the same time, the size of the population requiring annual
mammograms is increasing about one million per year. The American
population is aging. There will be 70 million Americans aged 65 and
over in 2030. Age is also the most important risk factor for breast
cancer. A woman's chance of getting breast cancer is 1 out of 2,212 by
age 30. This increases to 1 out of 23 by age 60 and 1 out of 10 by age
80. More than 85 percent of breast cancers occur in women over the age
of 50. This means that more and more women will be on Medicare and need
screening mammograms. Screening mammograms have been shown to reduce
breast cancer mortality by 25-30 percent in women age 50-70. About 68
percent of Maryland women age 65 and older had a mammogram within the
last year. More women will need this screening at the same time that we
are seeing fewer mammography facilities available to provide this
valuable service to women.
Eleven years ago, I introduced the Medicare Screening Mammography
Amendments of 1990 to provide Medicare coverage of annual screening
mammography. This bill set out the conditions under which Medicare
would cover screening mammograms and how they would be reimbursed. My
legislation was included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990. Before that, Medicare did not cover routine annual screening
mammograms. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) reimburses
screening mammograms at a rate of $55 indexed to inflation. This means
that for 2001, Medicare pays $69.23 for screening mammograms. Last
year, Congress changed how Medicare pays for screening mammograms.
Starting in 2002, screening mammograms will be reimbursed through the
Medicare physician fee schedule like diagnostic mammograms and other
services.
Mammography is a unique procedure. Screening mammography has been
reimbursed differently under Medicare than diagnostic mammography.
Mammography is also one of the most technically challenging
radiological procedures. Ensuring the quality of the image is difficult
and mammograms are the most difficult radiologic images to read. I
authored the mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 to set uniform
quality standards for mammography facilities, personnel, and equipment
so that women would have safe and reliable mammograms. These standards
are unique to mammography. A study has found that allegation of error
in the diagnosis of breast cancer is now the most prevalent reason for
medical malpractice lawsuits among all claims against physicians and is
associated with the second highest indemnity payment size.
Last week, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report entitled
``Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for the Early
Detection of Breast Cancer''. Among the IOM's recommendations is that
HCFA should analyze the current Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement
rates for mammography, including a comparison with other radiological
techniques, to determine whether they adequately cover the total costs
of providing the procedure. The cost analysis should include the costs
associated with meeting the requirements of the Mammography Quality
Standards Act. The bill we are introducing today would delay for one
year (until 2003) the inclusion of screening mammography in the
Medicare physician fee schedule. This would give time for HCFA to
collect data and review Medicare reimbursement rates for screening
mammography before moving it into the physician fee schedule and to
help ensure a smooth transition into the fee schedule. This is
important given the unique characteristics of mammography that I

[[Page S2402]]

have already outlined. In the meantime, the bill would increase
Medicare reimbursement for screening mammograms to $90 in 2002 to help
decrease waiting times and the closure of mammography facilities so
that women have timely access to screening mammograms.

In addition, there is evidence that fewer numbers of radiologists and
technologists are going into mammography. That's why this bill
increases Medicare Graduate Medical Education funding for additional
radiology residency slots and increases funding for Allied Health
Professions programs to increase the supply of radiologic technologists
(RTs) able to conduct mammograms. The IOM report last week acknowledges
this concern by recommending that the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA) should undertake or fund a study that analyzes
trends in specialty training for breast cancer screening among
radiologists and radiologic technologists and that examines the factors
that affect practitioners' decision to enter or remain in the field.
Finally, this bill would require a General Accounting Office study of
the Medicare reimbursement structure for gender-specific procedures and
require a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission study of Medicare
reimbursement for screening services. These studies will provide
important information for Congress and HCFA to consider as we look at
ways to improve and modernize Medicare.
I'm pleased that this legislation has the support of the American
Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology, the American Society
of Radiologic Technologists, and the Society of Breast Imaging. I hope
this bill will begin a conversation about the adequacy of Medicare
reimbursement of screening mammograms. I urge my colleagues to support
this bill, and I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to
consider this bill as they craft Medicare reform legislation. A decade
ago Congress provided coverage of annual mammograms to women under
Medicare. This legislation will help ensure that the promise we made a
decade ago remains a meaningful promise to current and future Medicare
beneficiaries. Without it, some women at risk for breast cancer may not
have access to screening that could detect cancer earlier and help them
live longer.
______

By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 549. A bill to ensure the availability of spectrum to amateur
radio operators; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Amateur Radio
Spectrum Protection Act of 2001. This bill would help preserve the
amount of radio spectrum allocated to the Amateur Radio Service during
this era of dramatic change in our telecommunications system. I am
pleased to be joined today in this bi-partisan effort by Senator Daniel
Akaka.
Organized radio amateurs, more commonly known as `ham' operators,
through formal agreements with the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
the National Weather Service, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and
other government and private relief services, provide emergency
communication when regular channels are disrupted by disaster. In
Idaho, these trained volunteers have performed tasks as various as
helping to rescue stranded back-country hikers, organizing cleanup
efforts after the Payette River flooded, and helping the Forest Service
communicate during major forest fires. In other communities, they may
be found monitoring tornado touchdowns in the Midwest, helping
authorities reestablish communication after a hurricane in the Gulf or
sending ``health and welfare'' messages following an earthquake on the
West Coast. Not only do they provide these services using their own
equipment and without compensation, but they also give their personal
time to participate in regular organized training exercises.
In addition to emergency communication, amateur radio enthusiasts use
their spectrum allocations to experiment with and develop new circuitry
and techniques for increasing the effectiveness of the precious natural
resource of radio spectrum for all Americans. Much of the electronic
technology we now take for granted is rooted in amateur radio
experimentation. Moreover, amateur radio has long provided the first
technical training for youngsters who grow up to be America's
scientists and engineers.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Federal Communications
Commission, FCC, to conduct spectrum auctions to raise revenues. Some
of that revenue may come from the auction of current amateur radio
spectrum. This bill simply requires the FCC to provide the Amateur
Radio Service with equivalent replacement spectrum if it reallocates
and auctions any of the Service's current spectrum.
The Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2001 will protect these
vital functions while also maintaining the flexibility of the FCC to
manage the nation's telecommunications infrastructure effectively. It
will not interfere with the ability of commercial telecommunications
services to seek the spectrum allocations they require. I ask my
colleagues to join the more than 670,000 U.S. licensed radio amateurs
in supporting this measure and welcome their co-sponsorship.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 549

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 ``Amateur Radio Spectrum
Protection Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) More than 650,000 radio amateurs in the United States
are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission.
(2) Among the basic purposes of the Amateur Radio and
Amateur Satellite Services are to provide voluntary,
noncommercial radio service, particularly emergency
communications.
(3) Emergency communications services by volunteer amateur
radio operators have consistently and reliably been provided
before, during, and after floods, hurricanes, tornadoes,
forest fires, earthquakes, blizzards, train accidents,
chemical spills, and other disasters.
(4) The Federal Communications Commission has taken actions
which have resulted in the loss of at least 107 MHz of
spectrum to radio amateurs.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL POLICY REGARDING REALLOCATION OF AMATEUR
RADIO SPECTRUM.

Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
303) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(z) Notwithstanding subsection (c), after the date of the
enactment of this subsection--
``(1) make no reallocation of primary allocations of bands
of frequencies of the amateur radio and amateur satellite
services;
``(2) not diminish the secondary allocations of bands of
frequencies to the amateur radio or amateur satellite
service; and
``(3) make no additional allocations within such bands of
frequencies that would substantially reduce the utility
thereof to the amateur radio or amateur satellite service;
unless the Commission, at the same time, provides equivalent
replacement spectrum to amateur radio and amateur satellite
service.''.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Idaho (Mr. Crapo) for introducing this very important legislation that
will help to protect and preserve the radio spectrum necessary to
ensure the continuation of the Amateur Radio Service. The Amateur Radio
Spectrum Act of 2001 is a bipartisan effort to secure the amateur radio
spectrum as the telecommunications industry continues to change.
Amateur radio operators, more commonly known as ``hams,'' have been
around as long as radio itself, and a few pioneers in amateur radio
provided valuable insight into the current communications system that
we know today. While many people may look at amateur radio operators as
radio enthusiasts with a fun hobby, I would like to remind everyone
that they also provide a valuable service to communities all over the
world.
Mr. President, the Amateur Radio Service was created by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to utilize amateur radio operators to
provide backup emergency communications. These operators set up and
operate organized communications networks locally for governmental and
emergency officials.
While television and radio broadcast stations are the more common
methods of providing emergency information to

[[Page S2403]]

the public, these stations may not be in service for weeks after such
disasters as tornados and hurricanes. Instead, this valuable emergency
service usually is provided by the Amateur Radio Service. Through
several networks that are decentralized, with many transceivers and
antennas, amateur radio operators are able to transmit safety and
health conditions in times of disasters.
In the State of Hawaii, the sole source of information in the
immediate aftermath of Hurricane Iniki, which hit the island of Kauai
on September 11, 1992, was from amateur radio operators. The
devastation to the island was immense; one out of five of the island's
power and telephone poles were down, power, cable television, and phone
lines were out, cellular phone, microwave dishes, two-way radio antenna
boosters, television station translators, and radio station
transmitters were damaged. Kauai Electric Company was inoperable and
100 percent of its customers were without power. While the company did
have a disaster plan, no one fathomed that a storm would have such a
devastating effect. Fortunately, amateur radio operators on Kauai were
able to keep state officials informed about the island's condition.
Mr. President, Senator Crapo and I are here today because the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the FCC to conduct spectrum
auctions as a means to increase revenue. While these auctions may not
immediately take away from the Amateur Radio Service, there is nothing
to prevent the FCC from selling off portions of the spectrum currently
utilized by amateur radio operators.
Mr. President, this bill will protect the Amateur Radio Service by
requiring the FCC to provide the Service with equivalent spectrum if it
reallocates and auctions any of the Service's current spectrum. The
Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2001 will ensure that the
valuable service provided by amateur radio operators will continue.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Crapo in this bipartisan
effort to protect the Amateur Radio Service and ask my colleagues to
support this important measure.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Cochran, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 550. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act
to provide equitable access for foster care and adoption services for
Indian children in tribal areas; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to
correct an inequity in the laws affecting many Native American
children. I am joined by Senators McCain, Inouye, Baucus, Feinstein,
and Cochran in supporting this important piece of legislation. This
effort is also supported by the National Indian Child Welfare
Association, American Public Human Services Association, and National
Congress of American Indians.
Every year, for a variety of often tragic reasons, thousands of
children across the country are placed in foster care. To assist with
the cost of food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision and school
supplies, foster parents of children who have come to their homes
through state court placement receive money through Title IV-E of the
Social Security Act. Additionally, states receive funding for
administrative training and data collection to support this program.
Unfortunately, because of a legislative oversight, many Native American
children who are placed in foster care by tribal courts do not receive
foster care and adoptive services to which all other income-eligible
children are entitled.
Not only are otherwise eligible Native children denied foster care
maintenance payments, but this inequity also extends to children who
are adopted through tribal placements. Currently, the IV-E program
offers limited assistance for expenses associated with adoption and the
training of professional staff and parents involved in the adoption.
These circumstances, sadly, have meant that many Indian children
receive little Federal support in attaining the permanency they need
and deserve.
In many instances, these children face insurmountable odds. Many come
from abusive homes. Foster parents who open their doors to care for
these special children deserve our help. These generous people who take
these children into their homes should not have sleepless nights
worrying about whether they have the resources to provide nourishing
food or a warm coat, or even adequate shelter for these children. This
legislation will go a long way to ease their concerns.
Currently, some tribes and states have entered into IV-E agreements,
but these arrangements are the exception. They also, by and large, do
not include funds to train tribal social workers and foster and
adoptive parents. This bill would make it clear that tribes would be
treated like States when they run their own programs under the IV-E
program. The bill would make funding fair and equitable for all
children, Native and non-Native.
The bill I am introducing today would do the following:
Extend the Title IV-E entitlement programs to tribal placements in
foster and adoptive homes;
Authorize tribal governments to receive direct funding from the
Department of Health and Human Services for administration of IV-E
programs (tribes must have HHS-approved programs):
Allow the Secretary flexibility to modify the requirements of the IV-
E law for tribes if those requirements are not in the best interest of
Native children; and
Allow continuation of tribal-State IV-E agreements.
In a 1994 report, HHS found that the best way to serve this
underfunded group is to provide direct assistance to tribal governments
and qualified tribal families. I want to emphasize that this bill would
not result in reduced funding for the States, as they would continue to
be reimbursed for their expenses under the law. I strongly believe
Congress should address this oversight and provide equitable benefits
to Native American children who are under the jurisdiction of their
tribal governments, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting
this bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation with
my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Inouye, Baucus, Feinstein and Cochran,
to amend the Social Security Act and extend eligibility for Indian
tribes to fully implement, like states, the Title IV-E Foster Care and
Adoption Assistance Act. This important legislation will make certain
that Indian children living in tribal areas have the same access to
services of the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program
enjoyed by other children nationwide.
The purpose of the Title IV-E program is to ensure that children
receive adequate care when placed in foster care and adoption programs.
The Title IV-E program operates as an open-ended entitlement program
for eligible state governments with approved plans. State governments
receive funding for foster care maintenance payments to cover food,
shelter, clothing, school supplies, and liability insurance for income-
eligible children placed in foster homes by state courts, and for
related administrative and training costs.
While Congress intended that the Title IV-E program should benefit
all eligible children, Indian children who are under the jurisdiction
of the respective tribal court are generally not considered eligible.
When enacted, the Title IV-E law did not properly consider that Indian
tribal governments retain sole jurisdiction over the domestic affairs
of their own tribal members, particularly Indian children.
State administrators have attempted to meet the intended goals of
these programs by extending their efforts to Indian country. However,
administrative and jurisdictional hurdles make it nearly impossible to
provide these services. As a result, Indian children in need of foster
care and child support are not accorded the same level of service as
other children nationwide. Tribal governments, who are legally
responsible for Indian children in foster care, are not entitled to
federal reimbursement for children placed in foster care by a tribal
court, unless the tribe, as a public agency, enters into a cooperative
agreement with the state.
A cooperative agreement may not sound all that difficult, but in
reality,

[[Page S2404]]

such an agreement can prove impossible. Rather than providing
incentives, current law often discourages states from entering into
agreements with tribes. For example, a state is accountable for tribal
compliance with Title IV-E requirements. If a tribe cannot fulfill a
matching requirement, the state must assume the costs on behalf of the
tribe in order to retain federal funds. It is entirely possible that
states could lose their Title IV-E funds if tribal records were out of
compliance.
Unfortunately, State-tribal relations are not always productive,
particularly when disputes arise over issues unrelated to child
welfare. Providing this direct eligibility for tribal governments, with
the same accountability and enforcement requirements, will resolve such
problems. State agencies have indicated that direct participation by
the tribes would help address an overburden of casework and preclude
tension over jurisdictional issues. While direct tribal authority would
be authorized by enactment of this legislation, I want to make clear
that we have no intention to supplant or discourage State-tribal
agreements. Existing agreements will be honored, while allowing Indian
tribes to directly access needed resources for further protection for
income-eligible Indian children.
The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated that this legislation
would cost $236 million over a five-year period, which generally
amounts to less than 1 percent of total federal Title IV-E
expenditures. While this legislation does not currently include any
identified offsets to pay for adding tribal eligibility for this
entitlement program, I have been assured by Senator Daschle that the
inclusion of an offset, prior to final passage, will in no way affect
the Social Security Trust Fund or increase the federal debt. We have
pledged to work together to find the necessary and agreeable offset for
this program.
Enactment of this legislation will bring an end to the disparate
treatment of eligible Indian children under Title IV-E programs. I urge
my colleagues to correct this unfair oversight and make the benefits of
the Title IV-E entitlement program available for all children as
intended.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am happy to co-sponsor this legislation
with my colleagues, Senators Daschle, McCain, Inouye, Feinstein, and
Cochran, to extend the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
programs to Indian tribes. This legislation will enhance tribal
sovereignty by giving tribes choices when it comes to providing child
welfare services to their children.
Hundreds of thousands of children are currently in foster care due to
abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The programs authorized under Title IV-
E of the Social Security Act play an important role in safeguarding the
well-being of these children. The programs provide funding to states to
cover the costs of food, shelter, clothing, and other supplies for
eligible children that are placed in foster care. States also receive
funding for related administrative and training costs.
Unfortunately, thousands of Native American children who meet income
eligibility criteria are not automatically eligible to receive this
funding if they are placed in foster care or up for adoption by a
tribal agency. Under current law, only states can directly benefit from
this funding source. In order to receive these monies, tribes must form
cooperative agreements with their respective states.
In Montana, all seven of our tribes have developed foster care
agreements with the state government, and the agreements reportedly are
successful for the parties involved. But we are lucky. Not all tribes
or states have been able to form these agreements with each other. Nor
should they have to.
This legislation will allow tribes, like states, to submit plans to
the Department of Health and Human Services in order to receive Title
IV-E payments directly. Or tribes could continue their cooperative
state agreements. The point is, this bill will give tribes choices when
it comes to their child welfare services. It will enhance tribal
sovereignty. And for many tribes, it will give them access to funding
sources currently not available to them.
I believe this legislation is important for Indian children and
tribal sovereignty. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this
bill and making Title IV-E programs available to all eligible children.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 551. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify
the individual income tax by providing an election for eligible
individuals to only be subject to a 15 percent tax on wage income with
a tax return free filing system, to reduce the burdens of the marriage
penalty and alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is a great deal of discussion and
debate going on right now about cutting taxes. Everyone, it seems,
supports a tax cut although there is great disagreement over how big it
should be, when it should take effect and who it should benefit.
The American people deserve and need a tax cut, and I hope they will
get one.
But there is another part to this discussion that's not getting much
attention. The American people also deserve and need tax
simplification. There is broad agreement on this question, much broader
and much deeper than any consensus on the need for a tax cut.
I think we ought to act to provide it.
Just a few months ago, the press reported several independent studies
showing that American families and business will spend at least $115
billion trying to comply with federal tax laws this year. That is an
enormous amount of money. It represents an enormous amount of time, an
enormous amount of effort, and I'm pretty certain, it represents an
enormous amount of frustration for tens of millions of American
taxpayers.
Lately there has been a lot of talk about lifting tax burdens, and we
should be talking about that, but let's also talk about one of the
biggest tax burdens of all: the tax compliance burden, the colossal
hassle taxpayers face to file their tax returns each year. I think it
is simply inexcusable that it is so complex, so difficult, and so
expensive for Americans to fulfill this basic civic duty.
I find it even more unacceptable that we should do nothing to lift
this burden, even as the nation is focused on lifting the tax burden
when it comes to what is owed.
We must do both.
As I mentioned, taxpayers will spend somewhere around $115 billion
and more than 3 billion hours this year in the effort to meet their
federal income tax obligations. At this very moment, millions of
taxpayers are probably just beginning the gut-wrenching process of
wading through complex forms and instruction books so they can meet
this year's fast-approaching filing deadline. After completing this
annual ritual, they will once again start barraging congressional
offices with letters imploring us to simplify the tax code. I don't
blame them for doing so.
They are right. Each little provision in the tax code has a
justification, but together they add up to a big headache for the
American taxpayer. We can't blame the IRS for the misery endured this
year or in the years ahead. There's no way to truly simplify tax day
unless Congress changes the underlying law. Nevertheless, the President
and Congress appear ready to move forward with tax relief of possibly
historic proportions without addressing the tax compliance burden that
most Americans urgently want fixed.
That's why I am pleased to be joined by Senators Gregg and Durbin in
re-introducing a tax reform proposal that we call the ``Fair and Simple
Shortcut Tax'', FASST plan. Our plan would give most taxpayers the
opportunity to pay their federal income taxes without having to prepare
a tax return if they so choose. More than thirty countries already
enable their citizens to pay their federal taxes in this way. We
believe tax simplification along these lines can work in this country,
too.
Our bill is based on a principle that both sides of the aisle
generally are eager to espouse, namely, choice. The bill would allow
taxpayers to choose to pay their taxes without complexity, paperwork
and hassle. Those who prefer to use the current system, with its

[[Page S2405]]

complexity and expenses, could do so if they wanted. But if they want
something simpler, they could choose our approach instead.
Under FASST, most taxpayers could forget about filing a federal tax
return on April 15th. Instead, their entire income tax liability would
be withheld at work. There would be no more deciphering statements from
mutual funds, no more frantic search for records and receipts, and no
last minute dash to the Post Office in order to meet the midnight
deadline. According to Treasury Department officials who have studied
it, the FASST plan could give at least 70 million Americans the
opportunity to elect the no-return option.
Specifically, under the FASST plan, most taxpayers could choose the
no-filing option by filling out a slightly modified W- 4 form at work.
Using tables prepared by the IRS, their employers would determine the
employee's exact tax obligation at a single rate of 15 percent on
wages, after several major adjustments, and withhold that amount. This
amount would satisfy the taxpayer's entire federal income tax
obligation for the year, absent some unforeseeable changes in
circumstances.
The FASST plan would be available for couples earning up to $100,000
in wages and no more than $5,000 in other income such as interest,
dividends or capital gains. In the case of individual taxpayers, the
wage and non-wage income limits would be $50,000 and $2,500,
respectively. Popular deductions would continue under this plan: the
standard deduction, personal exemptions, the child credit and Earned
Income Tax Credit, along with a deduction for home mortgage interest
expenses and property taxes. Our bill would include critical
savings incentives for average Americans by exempting up to $5,000 of
all interest, dividends and capital gains income from taxation for
couples, $2,500 for singles. Moreover, savings contributions made
through employers would be excluded from the wage calculations in the
beginning.

Consider some of the advantages of this hassle-free plan:
No taxpayers would lose. If a taxpayer prefers to file an ordinary
return, he or she would still have that choice, and no one would be
forced to lose a tax deduction that he or she wants to keep.
Wages would be taxed at a single, low rate of 15 percent.
A deduction for home mortgage interest expenses, the Earned Income
Tax Credit, and other popular parts of our current tax code would be
preserved. Other major tax reform plans would eliminate those
deductions, which many people count on.
The alternative minimum tax, AMT, and the marriage penalty would be
eliminated.
Compliance costs for taxpayers and government alike would fall. If 70
million Americans chose the FASST option, hundreds of millions of
dollars now spent on paper pushing could be used in more productive
ways.
Those taxpayers who continued to file under the old system would get
relief too. The plan would reduce the marriage penalty by making the
standard deduction for married couples double the amount available for
single filers. Also, it would virtually eliminate the complicated AMT
for most sole proprietors, farmers and other small businesses by
exempting the first $1 million in self-employment income from the AMT
calculations. This legislation also would provide a 50 percent credit
for up to $1,000 in expenses that businesses might incur implementing
the FASST plan. In addition, it would grant taxpayers who continue to
use the current system a 50 percent tax credit for up to $200 in tax
preparer expenses, provided they file their returns electronically.
Finally, the bill would offer individuals a substantial incentive for
savings and investment by exempting up to $500 of dividend and interest
income, $1,000 for couples.
Our bill is both simple and fair, and it gives most taxpayers the
choice to avoid the annual tax filing nightmare that they have come to
dread.
In testimony before a Senate subcommittee last year, IRS Commissioner
Rossotti testified that it's ``unquestionable that this bill provides
significant tax simplification.'' Imagine how much better life would be
if April 15th were just another day. Under the FASST plan, for millions
of Americans, that could be true.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 551

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fair and
Simple Shortcut Tax Plan''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.

TITLE I--FAIR AND SIMPLE SHORTCUT TAX PLAN

SEC. 101. FAIR AND SIMPLE SHORTCUT TAX PLAN.

(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to
determination of tax liability) is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``PART VIII--FAIR AND SIMPLE SHORTCUT TAX PLAN

``Sec. 60. Tax on individuals electing FASST.
``Sec. 60A. Computation of applicable taxable income.
``Sec. 60B. Credit against tax.
``Sec. 60C. Election.
``Sec. 60D. Liability for tax.

``SEC. 60. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS ELECTING FASST.

``(a) Tax Imposed.--If an individual who is an eligible
taxpayer has an election in effect under this part for a
taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 15
percent of the taxpayer's applicable taxable income.
``(b) Coordination With Other Taxes.--The tax imposed by
this section shall be in lieu of any other tax imposed by
this subchapter. The preceding sentence shall not apply to
taxes described in section 26(b)(2) other than subparagraph
(A) thereof.

``SEC. 60A. COMPUTATION OF APPLICABLE TAXABLE INCOME.

``(a) In General.--For purposes of this part, the term
`applicable taxable income' means the taxpayer's applicable
wage income, minus--
``(1) the standard deduction,
``(2) the deductions for personal exemptions provided in
section 151, and
``(3) the homeowner expense deduction allowable under
subsection (c).
``(b) Applicable Wage Income.--For purposes of this part--
``(1) In general.--The term `applicable wage income' means,
with respect to an individual, wages received by such
individual for the taxable year for services performed as an
employee of an employer.
``(2) Employment.--The term `employment' has the meaning
given such term in section 3121(b).
``(3) Wages.--The term `wages' has the meaning given such
term in section 3401(a).
``(c) Homeowner Expense Deduction Allowed.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), there
shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an
amount equal to the product of--
``(A) $5,000, and
``(B) a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of
months in such year in which the taxpayer owned and used
property as the taxpayer's principal residence (within the
meaning of section 121) and the denominator of which is 12.
``(2) Special rules.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Married individuals.--In the case of a married
individual, the ownership and use requirements of paragraph
(1) shall be treated as met for any month if either spouse
meets them.
``(B) Divorce; cooperative housing.--Rules similar to the
rules of paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 121(d) shall
apply.
``(C) Out-of-residence care.--If a taxpayer becomes
physically or mentally impaired while owning and using
property as a principal residence, then the taxpayer shall be
treated as meeting the ownership and use requirements of
paragraph (1) during any period the taxpayer owns the
property and resides in any facility (including a nursing
home) licensed by a State or political subdivision to care
for an individual in the taxpayer's condition.

``SEC. 60B. CREDITS AGAINST TAX.

``No credit shall be allowed against the tax imposed by
this part other than--
``(1) the credit allowable under section 24 (relating to
child tax credit),
``(2) the credit allowable under section 32 (relating to
earned income credit), and
``(3) the credit for overpayment of tax under section 6402.

``SEC. 60C. ELECTION.

``(a) Election.--An eligible taxpayer may elect to have
this part apply for any taxable year.
``(b) Eligible Taxpayer.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this part, the term
`eligible taxpayer' means, with respect to any taxable year,
a taxpayer who receives--

[[Page S2406]]

``(A) applicable wage income in an amount not in excess
of--
``(i) $100,000, in the case of a taxpayer described in
section 1(a), and
``(ii) 50 percent of the amount in effect under clause (i)
for the taxable year, in the case of any other taxpayer, and
``(B) gross income (determined without regard to applicable
wage income) in an amount not in excess of--
``(i) $5,000, in the case of a taxpayer described in
section 1(a), and
``(ii) 50 percent of the amount in effect under clause (i)
for the taxable year, in the case of any other taxpayer.
``(2) Exclusions.--The term `eligible taxpayer' shall not
include--
``(A) a married individual unless the individual and the
spouse both have the same taxable year and both make the
election,
``(B) a nonresident alien individual, or
``(C) an estate or trust.
``(3) Inflation adjustments.--In the case of a taxable year
beginning after 2002, each dollar amount under paragraph (1)
shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2001'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(b) Form of Election.--
``(1) In general.--An individual shall make an election to
have this part apply for any taxable year by furnishing an
election certificate to such individual's employer not later
than the close of the first payroll period after the
individual commences work for such employer or January 1 of
the taxable year to which such election relates, whichever is
later.
``(2) Contents of certificate.--The election certificate
furnished under paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) contain such information as the Secretary requires to
enable the Secretary to carry out this part and enable the
employer to withhold the appropriate amount of wages under
section 3402, and
``(B) contain a certification by the employee under penalty
of perjury that the information furnished is correct.
``(3) Amendment of certificate.--A new election certificate
shall be filed within 30 days after the date of any change in
the information required under paragraph (2).
``(4) Election certificate.--For purposes of this section,
the term `election certificate' means the withholding
exemption certificate used for purposes of chapter 24.
``(5) Advance payment of earned income amount.--The
Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary to allow an eligible taxpayer to treat an election
certificate furnished under this section as including an
earned income eligibility certificate under section 3507 in
the case of an eligible individual claiming the earned income
credit under section 32.
``(c) Period Election In Effect.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
election under this section shall be effective for the
taxable year for which it is made and all subsequent taxable
years.
``(2) Termination.--An election under this part shall
terminate with respect to an individual for any taxable year
and all subsequent taxable years if at any time during such
taxable year such individual--
``(A) is no longer an eligible taxpayer,
``(B) elects to terminate such individual's election, or
``(C) commits fraud with respect to any information
required to be provided under this section.
``(d) Safe Harbor for Ineligibility.--In the case of an
individual who has a termination under subsection (c)(2)(A),
no addition to tax under section 6654 shall apply to any
underpayment attributable to eligible wage income of such
individual for such taxable year if such underpayment was not
due to fraud, negligence, or disregard of rules or
regulations (within the meaning of section 6662).
``(e) Marital Status.--For purposes of this part, marital
status shall be determined under section 7703.

``SEC. 60D. LIABILITY FOR TAX.

``(a) Amount Withheld Treated as Satisfaction of
Liability.--Except as provided in this section, any amount
withheld as tax under section 3402(t) for an eligible
individual with an election in effect under section 60C for
the taxable year shall be treated as complete satisfaction of
liability for the tax imposed by section 60(a) for such
taxable year.
``(b) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)--
``(1) Overpayment.--If the amount withheld as tax under
section 3402(t) for an eligible taxpayer with an election in
effect under section 60C for the taxable year exceeds the tax
imposed under section 60(a) for the taxable year, the excess
amount shall be treated as an overpayment for purposes of
section 6402.
``(2) Underpayment.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that the
amount withheld as tax under section 3402(t) for an eligible
taxpayer is less than the tax imposed under section 60(a) and
such underpayment is not due to fraud, the Secretary may
assess and collect such underpayment in the same manner as if
such underpayment were on account of a mathematical or
clerical error appearing on a return of the individual for
the taxable year.
``(B) De minimis exception.--If the amount by which the tax
imposed by section 60(a) exceeds the amount withheld as tax
under section 3402(t) by less than the lesser of $100 or 10
percent of the tax so imposed, the taxpayer shall be treated
as having no underpayment.
``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions
of this section, including regulations--
``(1) to allow a refund of an overpayment under subsection
(b)(1) to a taxpayer without requiring additional filing of
information by the taxpayer, and
``(2) to notify taxpayers of eligibility for credits
allowable under section 60B and allow a claim and refund of
any credit not claimed by an eligible taxpayer during the
taxable year.''.
(b) Withholding From Wages.--Section 3402 (relating to
income tax collected at source) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(t) Withholding Under the Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax
Plan.--
``(1) In general.--An employer making payment of wages to
an individual with an election in effect under section 60C
shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax (in lieu of
the tax required to be deducted and withheld under subsection
(a)) determined in accordance with tables prescribed by the
Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2).
``(2) Withholding tables.--The Secretary shall prescribe 1
or more tables which set forth amounts of wages and income
tax to be deducted and withheld based on information
furnished to the employer in the employee's election form and
to ensure that the aggregate amount withheld from such
employee's wages approximates the tax liability of such
individual for the taxable year. Any tables prescribed under
this paragraph shall--
``(A) apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during
such periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and
``(B) be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be
deducted and withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most
appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to
reflect the provisions of chapter 1 applicable to such
periods, including taking into account any credits allowable
under section 24 or 32.

The Secretary shall provide that any other provision of this
section shall not apply to the extent such provision is
inconsistent with the provisions of this subsection.
``(2) Election Certificate.--
``(A) In general.--In lieu of a withholding exemption
certificate, an employee shall furnish the employer with a
signed election certificate and any amended election
certificate at such time and containing such information as
required under section 60C.
``(B) When certificate takes effect.--
``(i) First certificate furnished.--An election certificate
furnished to an employer in cases in which no previous such
certificate is in effect shall take effect as of the
beginning of the first payroll period ending, or the first
payment of wages made without regard to a payroll period, on
or after the date on which such certificate is so furnished.
``(ii) Replacement certificate.--An election certificate
furnished to an employer which replaces an earlier
certificate shall take effect as of the beginning of the 1st
payroll period ending (or the 1st payment of wages made
without regard to a payroll period) on or after the 30th day
after the on which the replacement certificate is so
furnished.''.
(c) Waiver of Requirement to File Return of Income.--
Subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 6012 (relating to persons
required to make return of income) is amended by striking
``or'' at the end of clause (iii), by striking the period at
the end of clause (iv) and inserting ``, or'', and by
inserting after clause (iv) the following new clause:
``(v) who is an eligible taxpayer with an election in
effect for the taxable year under section 60C.''.
(d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The table of parts for subchapter A of chapter 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Part VIII. Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax Plan.''.

(2) Section 6654(a) is amended by inserting ``and section
60C(d)'' after ``this section''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 102. TAX CREDIT FOR EMPLOYER FASST PLAN STARTUP COSTS.

(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business related credits) is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 45E. FASST PLAN EMPLOYER START-UP CREDIT.

``(a) Credit Allowed.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, the Fair and
Simple Shortcut Tax plan start-up credit determined under
this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to the
lesser of--
``(A) 50 percent of eligible start-up costs of the taxpayer
for the taxable year, or
``(B) $1,000.
``(2) Maximum credit.--The maximum credit allowed with
respect to a taxpayer under this subsection for all taxable
years shall not exceed the amount determined under paragraph
(1) for all taxable years.

[[Page S2407]]

``(b) Eligible start-up costs.--For purposes of this
section, the term `eligible start-up costs' means amounts
paid or incurred by an employer (or any predecessor) during
the 1 year period beginning on the date on which the employer
first employs 1 or more employees with an election in effect
under section 60C for the taxable year, in connection with
carrying out the withholding requirements of section 3402.
``(c) Credit Available for Each Worksite.--If a taxpayer
maintains a separate worksite for employees, such person
shall be treated as a single employer with respect to such
worksite for purposes of the credit allowable under
subsection (a).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(b) is amended--
(A) by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (12),
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (13),
and inserting a comma and ``plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(14) the Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax plan start-up
credit determined under section 45E.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``Sec. 45E. Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax plan start-up credit.''.

TITLE II--PROVISIONS TO SIMPLIFY THE TAX CODE

SEC. 201. REDUCTION IN MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD
DEDUCTION.

(a) In General.--Section 63(c)(2) (relating to basic
standard deduction) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Basic standard deduction.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the basic standard deduction is--
``(A) 200 percent of the amount under subparagraph (C) for
the taxable year, in the case of a joint return or a
surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
``(B) 150 percent of such amount, in the case of a head of
household (as defined in section 2(b)), and
``(C) $3,000, in the case of an individual who is not
married and who is not a surviving spouse or head of
household or a married individual filing a separate
return.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 202. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX EXCLUSION OF SELF-
EMPLOYMENT INCOME AND CERTAIN ITEMS OF
PREFERENCE AND ADJUSTMENTS.

(a) Increased Exemption for Self-Employment Income.--
Section 55(d)(1) (relating to exemption amount for taxpayers
other than corporations) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Exemption amount for taxpayers other than
corporations.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, the term `exemption amount' means the sum of--
``(A) an amount equal to--
``(i) $45,000 in the case of--

``(I) a joint return, or
``(II) a surviving spouse,

``(ii) $33,750 in the case of an individual who--

``(I) is not a married individual, or
``(II) is not a surviving spouse, and

``(iii) $22,500 in the case of--

``(I) a married individual who files a separate return, or
``(II) an estate or trust, and

``(B) an amount equal to the lesser of--
``(i) the self employment income (as defined in section
1402(b)) of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or
``(ii) $1,000,000.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `surviving spouse'
has the meaning given to such term by section 2(a), and
marital status shall be determined under section 7703.''.
(b) Exclusion of Certain Items of Preference and
Adjustments.--Section 55 (relating to alternative minimum tax
imposed) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) Special Rule for Small Businesses.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this part, in computing
the alternative minimum taxable income of a taxpayer to which
this subsection applies for any taxable year--
``(A) no adjustments provided in section 56 which are
attributable to a trade or business of the taxpayer shall be
made, and
``(B) taxable income shall not be increased by any item of
tax preference described in section 57 which is so
attributable.
``(2) Application.--
``(A) In general.--This subsection shall apply to a
taxpayer for a taxable year if the taxpayer is not a
corporation and the gross receipts of the taxpayer for the
taxable year from all trades or businesses do not exceed
$1,000,000.
``(B) Special rules.--Rules similar to the rules of
paragraphs (2), (3)(B), and (3)(C) of section 448(c) shall
apply for purposes of this subsection.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 55(d)(3) is amended--
(1) by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(A)(i)'' in subparagraph (A),
(2) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(A)(ii)'' in subparagraph (B),
(3) by striking ``paragraph (1)(C)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(A)(iii)'' in subparagraph (C), and
(4) by striking ``paragraph (1)(C)(i)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(A)(iii)(I)'' in the second sentence.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 203. NONREFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT FOR TAX PREPARATION
EXPENSES.

(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 25B. TAX PREPARATION EXPENSES.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the
lesser of--
``(1) 50 percent of the qualified tax preparation expenses
of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or
``(2) $100.
``(b) Qualified Tax Preparation Expenses.--For purposes of
this section, the term `qualified tax preparation expenses'
means expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year by an
individual in connection with the preparation of the
taxpayer's Federal income tax return for such taxable year,
but only if such return is electronically filed. Such term
shall include any expenses related to an income tax return
preparer.
``(c) Denial of Deduction.--No deduction shall be allowed
under this chapter for any amount taken into account in
determining the credit under this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended
by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Tax preparation expenses.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to expenses paid or incurred for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2001.

SEC. 204. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME
FROM TAX.

(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1
(relating to amounts specifically excluded from gross income)
is amended by inserting after section 115 the following new
section:

``SEC. 116. PARTIAL EXCLUSION OF DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST
RECEIVED BY INDIVIDUALS.

``(a) Exclusion From Gross Income.--In the case of an
individual who does not have an election in effect under
section 60C for the taxable year, gross income does not
include dividends and interest otherwise includible in gross
income which are received during the taxable year by such
individual.
``(b) Limitation.--The aggregate amount excluded under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed $500
($1,000 in the case of a joint return).
``(c) Certain Dividends Excluded.--Subsection (a) shall not
apply to any dividend from a corporation which, for the
taxable year of the corporation in which the distribution is
made, or for the next preceding taxable year of the
corporation, is a corporation exempt from tax under section
501 (relating to certain charitable, etc., organization) or
section 521 (relating to farmers' cooperative associations).
``(d) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Treatment of certain dividends.--

``For treatment of dividends received from regulated investment
companies and real estate investment trusts, see sections 854(a),
854(b), and 857(c).

``(2) Certain nonresident aliens ineligible for
exclusion.--In the case of a nonresident alien individual,
subsection (a) shall apply only--
``(A) in determining the tax imposed for the taxable year
under section 871(b)(1) and only in respect of dividends
which are effectively connected with the conduct of a trade
or business within the United States, or
``(B) in determining the tax imposed for the taxable year
under section 877(b).
``(3) Dividends from employee stock ownership plans.--
Subsection (a) shall not apply to any dividend described in
section 404(k).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (C) of section 32(c)(5) is amended by
striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i), by striking the
period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``; or'', and
by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:
``(iii) interest and dividends received during the taxable
year which are excluded from gross income under section
116.''.
(2) Subparagraph (A) of section 32(i)(2) is amended by
inserting ``(determined without regard to section 116)''
before the comma.
(3) Subparagraph (B) of section 86(b)(2) is amended to read
as follows:
``(B) increased by the sum of--
``(i) the amount of interest received or accrued by the
taxpayer during the taxable year which is exempt from tax,
and
``(ii) the amount of interest and dividends received during
the taxable year which are excluded from gross income under
section 116.''.
(4) Subsection (d) of section 135 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) and by inserting
after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:

[[Page S2408]]

``(4) Coordination with section 116.--This section shall be
applied before section 116.''.
(5)(A) Subsection (a) of section 246A is amended--
(i) by inserting ``or the exclusion from gross income under
section 116,'' after ``245(a)'' in the matter preceding
paragraph (1), and
(ii) by inserting ``received by a corporation'' after
``dividend'' in paragraph (1).
(B) Subsection (e) of section 246A is amended by inserting
``or the exclusion from gross income under section 116''
after ``245''.
(6) Paragraph (2) of section 265(a) is amended by inserting
before the period ``, or to purchase or carry obligations or
shares, or to make deposits, to the extent the interest
thereon is excludable from gross income under section 116''.
(7) Subsection (c) of section 584 is amended by adding at
the end the following new flush sentence:

``The proportionate share of each participant in the amount
of dividends or interest received by the common trust fund
and to which section 116 applies shall be considered for
purposes of such section as having been received by such
participant.''.
(8) Subsection (a) of section 643 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8) and by inserting
after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
``(7) Dividends or interest.--There shall be included the
amount of any dividends or interest excluded from gross
income under section 116.''.
(9)(A) Subsection (a) of section 854 is amended by
inserting ``section 116 (relating to partial exclusion of
dividends and interest received by individuals) and'' after
``For purposes of''.
(B) Paragraph (1) of section 854(b) is amended--
(i) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' in subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``subparagraphs (A) and (B)'',
(ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C),
and
(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Exclusion under section 116.--If the aggregate
dividends and interest received by a regulated investment
company during any taxable year are less than 95 percent of
its gross income, then, in computing the exclusion under
section 116, rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (A)
shall apply.''.
(C) Paragraph (2) of section 854(b) is amended by inserting
``the exclusion under section 116 and'' after ``for purposes
of''.
(10) Subsection (c) of section 857 is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Restrictions Applicable to Dividends Received From
Real Estate Investment Trusts.--For purposes of section 116
(relating to partial exclusion of dividends and interest
received by individuals) and section 243 (relating to
deductions for dividends received by corporations), a
dividend received from a real estate investment trust which
meets the requirements of this part shall not be considered
as a dividend.''.
(11) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of
chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 115 the following new item:

``Sec. 116. Partial exclusion of dividends and interest received by
individuals.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
______

By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 553. A bill to help establish and enhance early childhood family
education programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
creates a competitive grant program modeled on one of Minnesota's
greatest successes in education, the Early Childhood and Family
Education program. Let me first mention my gratitude to some of the
finest educators my home state has to offer--Betty Cooke, Lois
Engstrom, Jackie Anderson, and Don Kramlinger. I would like to also
thank Ernie Pines for his vision and spirit and former Minnesota State
Senator Jerry Hughes, whose vision for early childhood education in the
sixties has led to stronger families today. Of course, I must also
thank the many early childhood education coordinators, parent
educators, teachers and paraprofessionals in our small rural
communities for reaching from within to give parents and their children
every opportunity to succeed.
The ECFE program, which has broad bipartisan support in Minnesota, is
based on the idea that the family provides a child's first and most
important learning environment, and parents are a child's first and
most significant teachers. ECFE is a voluntary, center-based, parent-
child education program that is open to all families in a school
district or locality with children under the age of 5 regardless of
cost. It provides concurrent or joint classes for parents and children
that include training in parenting skills and children's social,
emotional, cognitive and physical development. The classes teach ways
for parents to foster strong learning environments for their children
and ways to help prepare children for kindergarten. They provide
activities geared toward enhancing children's social, emotional,
cognitive and physical development and school readiness.
ECFE is not a child care program, but rather offers parents a few
hours a week to get the support they need to be better parents and
teachers for their children through discussion groups, play activities
for kids, parent-child interactive activities, home visits, early
screening for health and developmental problems and community resource
referrals.

The program addresses the need of all communities and has been
successful in all communities and with all types of families, whether
it is dealing with the unique needs of immigrant communities,
communities of color, suburban communities, first time families, single
parent families, families with members with disabilities, families with
a history of abuse and families that for whatever reason, want some
extra help and support as they try to be the best parents that they
can.
The program in Minnesota has been extraordinarily successful. It is
the largest early childhood program in Minnesota and is now offered in
districts that together encompass 99 percent of the population of
infants and toddlers in the state. 44 percent of all young children and
their families participate in the program.
Four different studies of outcomes of the ECFE program have all
concluded that ECFE is effective with all types of families. Benefits
for children include improved social interactions and relationships,
improved social skills, increased self confidence and self-esteem, and
improvement in language and communication skills. For parents, ECFE
increases the ability to know what is important for children's healthy
growth and development over time, improves their confidence and leads
to far higher participation in parental involvement activities in
elementary school.
A recent study by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement
at the United States Department of Education has described the
Minnesota ECFE program as an example of the type of program that can
provide children and families with ``continuity and [can] ease the
critical transition to school.''
The words of parents probably tell the story the best. One parent
said, ``when my son throws things, I try to keep it in perspective. I
no longer yell and slap. I relax and do not push him all the time. I've
learned different ways to discipline.'' Another said, ``Raising a child
is a wonderful, awesome and sometimes overwhelming experience. It is a
shame that a job so important is generally without adequate
preparation. ECFE provides some of that preparation, knowledge and
support that is vital to being a good parent. It is not a frill, it is
a necessity.''

Recently, I had the opportunity to spend a morning at the South
Washington County School's ECFE program. There I met with a group of
parents who were committed to being the best parents they could be. I
met a father who was learning English, a single mother who was learning
child raising skills from other mothers in the class, and a new
immigrant from Korea who talked of the isolation she felt before
meeting other parents in her community. This program was a model as it
combined Early Childhood Family Education with Adult Basic Education
giving parents the tools to not only be great parents, but to learn
English and obtain their GED as well. These parents told me that ECFE
was teaching them to better parent their children.
Last year, the Minnesota Early Care and Education Finance Commission,
a non-partisan Commission dedicated to improving the lives of young
children in Minnesota, issued a report called ``The Action Plan for
Early Care and Education in Minnesota.'' That non-partisan Commission,
led by Don Fraser, the former Mayor of Minneapolis, and Bob Caddy
issued a challenge to the people of my state when they unequivocally
concluded that ``without question, the importance of the parent child
relationship must be asserted as a

[[Page S2409]]

fundamental moral value of our state.'' They asked for a ``new covenant
between parents and Minnesota.''
Today I ask for the same between parents and the United States. The
need is so clearly established. 40 percent of all American children
enter kindergarten unprepared for school. This is unacceptable. We know
that children need to be in a stimulating environment to spur the brain
development that is critical to intelligence. We know the role that
parents can play in creating that environment. ECFE will help with
this.
We have an obligation to do more for children. The whole debate
around the elementary and secondary education act and our desire to
close the achievement gap between poor and more affluent students will
be moot if we do not intervene early. The achievement gap is greatest
when children start school. If we want children to have an equal start,
we have to start with our youngest children. ECFE is not the only
answer, but it is one way to meet this covenant so aptly called for in
Minnesota, that we have with our parents and our children.
______

By Mrs. Murray (for herself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Mikulski, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Chafee):
S. 554. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
expand medicare coverage of certain self-injected biologicals; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by
Senators Collins, Mikulski, Cantwell, Cochran, and Chafee in
introducing the Access to Innovation for Medicare Patients Act of 2001.
This legislation will give Medicare patients access to innovative
medical treatments that are convenient and affordable and will remove a
bureaucratic burden to promising new drugs.
For many years, patients with diseases like rheumatoid arthritis,
multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C and deep vein thrombosis could only get
effective treatments in a doctor's office. This method of drug delivery
puts a great burden on patients with limited mobility.
Fortunately, in recent years, new medical technologies have created
promising drug treatments that patients can use in their own homes.
These drugs don't have to be administered by a doctor. Patients can
inject the drugs themselves. So instead of traveling to a doctor's
office several times a week, patients can now get the same treatments
in their own homes. These new treatments, known as self-injectible
biologics, mean patients can save time and have a better quality of
life.
Biologics are genetically-engineered proteins that must be infused or
injected into a patient to be effective. If swallowed orally, biologics
simply pass through the body during the digestion process and are not
absorbed into the system. These drugs represent a major breakthrough in
disease treatment and management.
Today, many patients with private insurance and those on Medicaid
have coverage for many self-injectible biologics. Unfortunately,
patients on Medicare do not. Today, Medicare discriminates against
these effective medical treatments and patients are feeling the impact.
The time has come to remove this unfair burden and give Medicare
patients access to self-injectible biologics. As sponsors of this bill,
we believe that Medicare should not discriminate against patients who
are treated with the same drugs either in a doctor's office or at home.
The bill we are introducing today will correct this mistake and ensure
that Medicare patients have access to safe, promising drugs.
Our legislation has been endorsed by the Arthritis Foundation, the
American Public Health Association, National Association of Retired
Federal Employees, National Council on the Aging, National Farmers
Union, National Hispanic Council on Aging, Association of Jewish Aging
Services and the Visiting Nurses Associations of America.
I want my colleagues to understand that this bill does not address
the broader need for prescription drug coverage overall. Congress still
must address that hole in the Medicare system. But this bill does
correct a clear mistake in Medicare's payment rules for self-
injectible biologics.

This unfair policy has several consequences. First, it prevents
patients from getting the treatments they need. The FDA has recently
approved several new self injected biologics to treat rheumatoid
arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C and deep vein thrombosis.
Medicare beneficiaries should have immediate access to these new
treatments without delay. Many of these diseases hinder a patient's
mobility and quality of life. It is difficult to explain to these
patients that in order to have treatments covered they must travel to
their physicians office once, twice or even three times a week. Many of
these patients are disabled and depend on family or friends for
transportation. Patients in rural areas are particularly hurt by this
policy, where their doctor may be many miles away. These patients might
have to drive 50 or 60 miles a week. For individuals living on fixed
income, this policy is especially difficult.
This outdated policy hits women the hardest. As many of my colleagues
know, more women are covered by Medicare, and women are twice as likely
as men to live with a disabling, chronic condition. Women are also
twice as likely as men to live in poverty after age 65. Older women or
disabled women simply do not have the same economic resources as men.
In addition, many of the illnesses that could be treated with self
injected biologics strike women in larger numbers. Rheumatoid arthritis
and multiple sclerosis most often affect women. Any policy that limits
access to new innovative treatments for rheumatoid arthritis and
multiple sclerosis places women at a severe disadvantage.
In addition to the impact this policy has on patients, it also affect
drug development. This practice discourages drug companies from
offering patients new drugs that are self-injectible. That can hinder
innovations and developments in biotechnology research. In the future,
companies may choose not to develop self injected biologics. Our
policies should promote new drug development, not discourage it.
As you know, the U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly to doubling NIH
funding to encourage more research. it's one of my top priorities, and
we are on track. However, I am troubled that patients on Medicare might
not benefit from our efforts. It is counterproductive to invest in
medical research, but then deny Medicare beneficiaries the fruits of
that investment.
I would like to briefly mention one particular new self-injected
biologic treatment that has literally changed the lives of hundreds of
RA patients. This particular treatment, Enbrel, took well over 10 years
to develop and bring to patients. Since its introduction, however, it
has dramatically improved the lives of RA suffers. I have heard from
many patients about how Enbrel has allowed them to remain productive
and how it has dramatically reduced their daily pain and suffering.
Since RA can and does lead to disability, preventing or delaying the
disabled effects of this disease means huge economic savings for all of
us. Medicare should not discriminate against this new, patient-friendly
therapy simply because it is self-injected.
I urge my colleagues to carefully review this legislation and to talk
to patients and health providers about how an outdated policy hinders
access and discourages innovation and how the measure we are
introducing today can give Medicare patients access to innovative
drugs.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
S. 555. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a
tolerance for the presence of methylmercury in seafood, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month the Food and Drug Administration
issued new consumer guidance, warning pregnant women, women of
childbearing age, nursing mothers, and young children not to eat shark,
swordfish, king mackerel, and tilefish in order to avoid exposure to
methylmercury. I commend the FDA

[[Page S2410]]

for issuing this guidance, which is important information for the most
vulnerable members of our population. Unfortunately, despite
acknowledging the problem of mercury contamination in large fish, the
FDA still has not revised its so-called ``action level,'' which is
important data for consumers and local governments, nor do they enforce
this level. There is a lot more to be done to protect the public, and
after so many years of delays, we should not wait any longer.
That is why Senator Harkin and I are introducing important
legislation today to promote food safety and protect thousands of
Americans, especially pregnant women and young children, from the
serious risks of methylmercury. The ``Mercury-Safe Seafood Act of
2001'' requires the Food and Drug Administration to establish a formal
tolerance for safe methylmercury levels in seafood. It mandates seafood
testing to ensure compliance, along with public education and health
advisories to inform the public.
Mercury is a dangerous poison that is still not fully regulated in
the United States. According to the Environmental Protection Agency,
coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, and other sources spew 150
tons of mercury into the atmosphere each year. Although new and
expected EPA rules address much of this pollution, full compliance and
large emission reductions are still years away. Much of this mercury
returns to earth with rain to pollute our waterways. It accumulates in
fish as methylmercury, especially in large predatory species, and is
passed on to the humans who eat these fish. Methylmercury is a powerful
neurotoxin that affects the human central nervous system. It is
especially harmful to pregnant women, infants, and young children,
where even small doses can cause permanent damage to their developing
brains and nervous systems.
Last year's comprehensive report by the National Academy of Sciences,
``Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury,'' estimates that 60,000
newborns each year may be at risk from prenatal mercury exposure. Two
weeks ago, the Centers for Disease Control released preliminary results
from an ongoing study showing that 10 percent of American women may
have potentially hazardous levels of mercury. This means that a lot
more newborns may be at risk. This is a public health problem we cannot
ignore.
Certain commercial seafood species--large predators such as
swordfish, shark, mackerel, and tuna--can have dangerously high levels
of methylmercury contamination. Food and Drug Administration data
throughout the 1990's showed numerous fish samples with high mercury
levels, exceeding FDA's own action level and presenting a direct hazard
to consumers. FDA stopped testing for mercury in 1998, which means they
have no way to enforce their action level. Yet recent testing by
independent organizations still shows high mercury levels in some fish
species.

FDA's action level of 1.0 part per million was established in 1979
using information from the 1970's, without regard for the greater
vulnerability of pregnant women, infants, and children. More recent
studies have highlighted the damaging effects of mercury, especially
for these populations. In 1997, EPA's ``Mercury Study Report to
Congress'' recommended a level five times more strict than FDA's action
level, and this was confirmed by last year's National Academy of
Sciences report. FDA's current action level, even if there were
sampling and enforcement, is not stringent enough to protect the most
vulnerable American consumers from mercury.
Last month the General Accounting Office released a report on seafood
safety, at the request of Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar. That report
confirms that FDA has not acted vigorously enough to address the issue
of mercury in seafood.
This bill seeks to remedy these problems. It amends the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require a tolerance level for methylmercury
in seafood, with special attention to pregnant women, infants, and
children. This will replace FDA's outdated and unenforced action level
with a formal tolerance that must be enforced. It mandates ongoing
sampling of mercury levels to ensure compliance. This will restart the
testing which FDA stopped three years ago. It mandates public education
and health advisories to ensure the public is aware of the new
standards and of the risks of mercury contamination in seafood. It
requires consideration of last year's National Academy of Sciences
report, which clearly shows the need for prompt, strong action.
Finally, it authorizes modest appropriations to support not only FDA's
sampling and public education but also the efforts of our States to
protect our citizens from methylmercury in freshwater fish.
I enjoy fishing and I love eating fish. This legislation is not meant
to harm the fishing industry--it is meant to help bring the safest fish
to market for the American consumer. Most importantly, this bill will
protect pregnant women and young children who may now unknowingly be
exposed to high levels of mercury. No one can dispute the science that
tells us mercury is toxic and unsafe at certain levels in fish. We need
to bring those levels down. But, until we do, we also need to keep the
food supply safe for all Americans--especially those most at risk.
We have a responsibility to protect the American public, especially
our children. Until such time as mercury emissions are drastically
reduced and seafood is no longer contaminated, we must take this action
to protect Americans from this dangerous pollutant..
The American Public Health Association has endorsed this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows.

S. 555

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 ``Mercury-Safe Seafood Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants, waste
incinerators, and other anthropogenic sources continues to
contaminate inland waterways and territorial waters of the
United States;
(2) mercury accumulates in fish as methylmercury and is
passed on to humans that eat those fish;
(3) methylmercury is a potent neurotoxin that, even in
small quantities--
(A) can cause serious damage to the human central nervous
system and adverse effects on many other systems in the human
body;
(B) is especially harmful to pregnant women and young
children; and
(C) puts an estimated 60,000 newborns at risk for adverse
neurodevelopmental effects each year in the United States
from in utero exposure;
(4) certain commercial seafood species can have dangerously
high levels of methylmercury, as evidenced by Food and Drug
Administration data acquired in the 1990's, up to the time
that the agency discontinued domestic sampling in 1998;
(5) the Food and Drug Administration's long-standing action
level of 1.0 parts per million for methylmercury in fish--
(A) is out of date; and
(B) according to scientific evidence, does not adequately
protect pregnant women and young children;
(6) the comprehensive Mercury Study Report to Congress
issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in December
1997 recommended a methylmercury consumption limit of 0.1
micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, which is 5
times lower than the Food and Drug Administration's current
action level;
(7) the report entitled ``Toxicological Effects of
Methylmercury'', issued by the National Academy of Sciences
in July 2000, confirmed that the Environmental Protection
Agency's limit is ``scientifically justifiable for the
protection of public health'';
(8) the report entitled ``Food Safety: Federal Oversight of
Seafood Does Not Sufficiently Protect Consumers'', issued by
the General Accounting Office in February 2001, highlights
the inadequacies of Food and Drug Administration guidance
regarding methylmercury in commercial seafood;
(9) many States have been forced to issue mercury
advisories for inland waterways and health warnings regarding
the fish that may be caught in those waterways; and
(10) some States have also issued mercury advisories for
commercial seafood.

SEC. 3. TOLERANCE FOR METHYLMERCURY IN SEAFOOD.

Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 402(a)(2), by inserting after ``section 512;
or'' the following: ``(D) if it is seafood that bears or
contains methylmercury that is unsafe within the meaning of
section 406A(a); or''; and
(2) by inserting after section 406 the following:

[[Page S2411]]

``SEC. 406A. TOLERANCE FOR METHYLMERCURY IN SEAFOOD.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall by regulation
establish a tolerance for the presence of methylmercury in
seafood.
``(b) Requirements.--The tolerance established under
subsection (a) shall--
``(1) be based on a scientific analysis of the health risks
attributable to methylmercury; and
``(2) be set at a level for which the Secretary determines
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to methylmercury in seafood,
including all anticipated dietary exposures for which there
is reliable information.
``(c) Seafood Deemed Unsafe.--Any seafood bearing or
containing methylmercury shall be deemed to be unsafe for
purposes of section 402(a)(2)(D) unless the quantity of
methylmercury is within the limits of the tolerance.
``(d) Pregnant Women, Infants, and Children.--In
establishing or modifying the tolerance under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to pregnant women,
infants, and children from aggregate exposure to
methylmercury.
``(e) Sampling System.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of this section, the Secretary, after
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall
establish a system for the collection and analysis of samples
of seafood to determine the extent of compliance with the
tolerance under subsection (a).
``(2) Monitoring.--The sampling system shall provide
statistically valid monitoring (including market-basket
studies) with respect to compliance with the tolerance.
``(3) Avoidance of duplication of effort.--To the extent
practicable, the sampling system shall be consistent with,
and shall be coordinated with, other seafood sampling systems
that are in use, so as to avoid duplication of effort.
``(f) Public Education and Advisory System.--
``(1) Public education.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
private and public organizations (including cooperative
extension services and appropriate State entities) shall
design and implement a national public education program
regarding the presence of methylmercury in seafood.
``(2) Features.--The program shall provide--
``(A) information to the public regarding--
``(i) Federal standards and good practice requirements; and
``(ii) promotion of public awareness, understanding, and
acceptance of the standards and requirements;
``(B) information to health professionals so that health
professionals may improve diagnosis and treatment of mercury-
related illness and advise individuals whose health
conditions place those individuals at particular risk; and
``(C) such other information or advice to consumers and
other persons as the Secretary determines will promote the
purposes of this section.
``(3) Health advisories.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, shall work with the
States and other appropriate entities to--
``(A) develop and distribute regional and national
advisories concerning the presence of methylmercury in
seafood;
``(B) develop standardized formats for written and
broadcast advisories regarding methylmercury in seafood; and
``(C) incorporate State and local advisories into the
national public education program under paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 4. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES.

In carrying out section 406A(a) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (as added by section 3), the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs, shall consider the findings of the National
Academy of Sciences regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency's recommended level for methylmercury exposure and the
presence of methylmercury in seafood, as such findings are
described in the report issued by the National Academy of
Sciences in July 2000.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Sampling.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out sampling under section 406A(e) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by section 3) $500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
(b) Public Education and Advisory System.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to develop and implement the
public education and advisory system under section 406A(f) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by section
3) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
(c) State Support.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
support efforts of the States to sample noncommercial fish
and inland waterways for mercury and to produce State-
specific health advisories related to mercury $2,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
(2) Equitable distribution.--The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall distribute amounts made
available under paragraph (1) equitably among the States
through programs in existence on the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 6. REPORT.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
shall submit to Congress a report on the progress of the
Secretary in establishing the tolerance required by section
406A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by
section 3).
(b) Contents.--The report shall include a description of
the research that has been conducted or reviewed with respect
to the tolerance.
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Schumer, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Reed, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 556. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from
electric powerplants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am here to announce the
introduction of the Clean Power Act of 2001 which reduces emissions
from power plants of the four primary air pollutants. These four
pollutants, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and carbon
dioxide are the major cause of the nation's most serious public health
and environmental problems: smog, soot, acid rain, mercury
contamination, and global warming. The Clean Power Act set standards
for these four serious pollutants that are both cost-effective and
technologically feasible.
The 1970 Clean Air Act, and its subsequent amendments, were enacted
to improve the quality of our nation's air. This was a major milestone
in environmental legislation. I was proud to be one of the principle
negotiators of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Those were
important steps to take to improve the quality of our Nation's air and
since that time we have made significant headway in that direction.
Although current legislation sets standards for nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide, they are at levels that we now know are far too high to
protect us from the devastating effects of resulting smog, acid rain,
and increased respiratory disease. Currently, there is no standard for
carbon dioxide pollution, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for
global warming, and no standard for mercury emissions, a dangerous
pollutant linked to cognitive and developmental ailments in children
and responsible for fish advisories in forty states. Therefore, there
is still much to be done to protect the quality of our nation's air and
now is the time to take the next step.
Electric generating power plants are our nation's single largest
source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Annual power
plants emissions are responsible for 64 percent of the nation's sulfur
dioxide, or 13 million tons, 26 percent of the nitrogen oxides, or 6
million tons, 40 percent of the carbon dioxide, that's over 2 billion
tons, and 52 tons of mercury.
Updating electric power plants represent the most cost-effective way
to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Many of the
most polluting power plants were exempt from stringent controls imposed
by the original Clean Air Act and today, after more than 30 years, they
are still in use. As a result, these outdated power plants can emit
between 10 and 100 times the amount of nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide pollution emitted by a modern power plant.
Sulfur dioxide fine particle pollution for U.S. power plants cuts
short the lives of over 30,000 people each year. Ground-level ozone
smog triggers over 6.2 million asthma attacks each summer in the
eastern United States alone; another 160,000 people are sent to the
emergency room and 53,000 are hospitalized due to smog induced
respiratory distress. The National Academy of Sciences' National
Research Council has concluded that over 60,000 children are born in
the U.S. each year at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental effects due
to in utero exposure to mercury. Over forty states have issued fish
consumption advisories to mitigate this threat. Power plants are our
nation's largest unregulated source of mercury emissions.
Fortunately, we now have technologies available that will permit

[[Page S2412]]

power plants to reach the levels set in the Clean Power Act. The
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury reductions are set at
levels in the Clean Power Act that are known to be cost effective with
available technologies. The Clean Power Act will allow power plants to
use market-oriented mechanisms in order to reach these much needed
emissions standards for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and carbon
dioxide. Therefore, with new technologies at our disposal and trading
mechanisms providing flexibility to the utilities, we no longer need to
compromise the health of our great nation; neither it's citizens nor
it's environment. We only need the will to act.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman).
S. 557. A bill to clarify the tax treatment of payments made under
the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a simple bill that stands for
the proposition that when the Federal Government burns your house down
it is not a taxable event.
I can't believe any member of this chamber would argue that the
Federal Government is so hard up for revenue that it would try to tax
the very payment that it makes to someone whose home, business, and
community it burned down.
Let me summarize the events:
The Park Service decided to start a fire--a so-called ``controlled
burn.''
The Park Service didn't follow its own guidelines regarding when it
is safe to conduct a controlled burn.
They lit a fire when the rules were clear that they shouldn't.
The fire raged out of control and burned 48,000 acres.
It burned down hundreds of homes, and businesses.
No dispute that this fire should never have been set.
Congress passed a bill to compensate the victims for their losses.
When Congress passed the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act we were
assured that the FEMA payments to the victims of the Cerro Grande Fire
would not be taxed under current law.
Well, apparently there are some in the IRS who now have a different
view.
While it only took Congress 50 days from the day the fire was lit to
the day legislation creating the claims process was signed into law, it
has taken the IRS at least seven months to answer pretty basic
questions, and the best they can offer is that people have extra time
to file their income taxes.
These victims should be paid. They should rebuild their lives and the
IRS shouldn't be trying to tax the payments that are intended to put
them back to the same place they were on the day before the Park
Service lit the fire.
I hope my colleagues will support me in expeditiously passing this
bill.
______

By Mr. McCain (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Baucus,
and Mr. Campbell):
S. 558. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax credits for investment in Indian reservation economic development,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation,
along with my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Inouye, Baucus and
Campbell, to foster economic investment, development, and growth in
Native American communities. This legislation would establish
investment tax credits that will serve to attract private sector
investments on Indian reservations.
As a nation, the United States ranks third in entrepreneurial
activity among the world's leading economies. The level of
entrepreneurial activity in the country remains strong despite recent
fluctuations in the market. However, what also remains are deep pockets
of poverty in our country that have not substantially improved along
with the economic growth that has swept the rest of our Nation, and
those areas include Native American reservations.
During my tenure in the Congress, I have worked on various
legislative initiatives to help Indian tribes address the problems and
barriers they face in attracting private sector activity onto
reservation areas. Indian country, both historically and at the present
time, cannot successfully compete with other areas in attracting
businesses due to the unique issues affecting Indian country, such as
jurisdictional complexities, taxation, and infrastructure deficits.
Most Indian communities continue to struggle to provide basic jobs,
infrastructure, housing and telephone service to tribal members.
Some of my colleagues might only be aware of the handful of Indian
tribes that have been successful in generating economic revenues
through gaming activities. However, for the majority of Indian tribes,
the main economic activity is the kind generated by federal or tribal
government employment. I understand why this is the case, but I also
believe that free enterprise must be allowed to flow freely on Indian
lands as it does in the rest of our nation.
By their very nature, governments, including tribal governments,
simply are not good at running businesses. I know this is acknowledged
by many tribes, who, consistent with their cultural traditions, have
created tribal corporations or cooperative ventures that mix private
sector business with tribal principles. I believe that private
investment needs to be encouraged on Indian reservations if we are to
see a significant improvement in the economies of Indian tribes.
The investment tax credits we are proposing today are geared
specifically to Indian reservations where there is economic need. The
full credit is available to those reservations whose Indian
unemployment rate exceeds the Nation's average unemployment by 300
percent. One-half of the credit is available on reservations where the
unemployment rate is 150 to 300 percent of the national average. No
investment tax credit is provided where the Indian unemployment rate is
less than 150 percent of the national average. The bill is restricted
to non-gaming related economic activity, which would prevent the
investment from being used for development and/or operation of gaming
establishments on Indian reservations.
While this legislation may not be the panacea for all the economic
ills afflicting Indian reservations today, I believe that the adoption
of a specific program of Indian tax incentives would be a critical step
toward the goal of providing Indian tribal governments with the
opportunity to strengthen their economies.
In previous Congresses, I have offered amendments to the federal tax
code to create incentives for private sector investment on Indian
reservations and remove inequities in the tax code so that tribal
governments can enjoy the same tax benefits accorded other nontaxable
government entities. I have offered these provisions, not to provide an
advantage to Indians, but merely to give them the same kind of tax
incentives and benefits the Congress has given other economically
depressed areas and other units of government. We have been successful
in enacting a few measures, but given the extremely underdeveloped
economies of Native American communities, I believe we should enact
these additional tax incentives.
My colleagues and I are sponsoring this measure today because we
believe these investment tax credits are necessary to reach out to
those tribal communities that do not have the economic advantage of
living near a booming metropolitan area, or do not enjoy the benefits
of Indian gaming revenue. We believe that a strategy of tax incentives
such as this legislation proposes is the most effective way that the
federal government can act to stimulate reservation economic
development. Tax incentives do not depend for their effectiveness on
the actions of federal bureaucracies that are often slow-moving and
unimaginative. The incentives are usable only by viable businesses
ready and able to invest in Indian communities, which will consequently
foster a strong entrepreneurial environment on Native American
reservations.
I look forward to working with my respective colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to enact this important legislation. I ask unanimous
consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 558

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 ``Indian Reservation Economic
Investment Act of 2001''.

[[Page S2413]]

SEC. 2. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT FOR PROPERTY ON INDIAN
RESERVATIONS.

(a) Allowance of Indian Reservation Credit.--Section 46 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to investment
credits) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(3) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding after paragraph
(3) the following new paragraph:
``(4) the Indian reservation credit.''.
(b) Amount of Indian Reservation Credit.--
(1) In general.--Section 48 of such Code (relating to the
energy credit and the reforestation credit) is amended by
adding after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
``(c) Indian Reservation Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 46, the Indian
reservation credit for any taxable year is the Indian
reservation percentage of the qualified investment in
qualified Indian reservation property placed in service
during such taxable year, determined in accordance with the
following table:

The Indian reservation percentage is--reservation property which is--
Reservation personal property..................................10....

New reservation construction property..........................15....

Reservation infrastructure investment..........................15....

``(2) Qualified investment in qualified indian reservation
property defined.--For purposes of this subpart--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified Indian reservation
property' means property--
``(i) which is--

``(I) reservation personal property;
``(II) new reservation construction property; or
``(III) reservation infrastructure investment; and

``(ii) not acquired (directly or indirectly) by the
taxpayer from a person who is related to the taxpayer (within
the meaning of section 465(b)(3)(C)).

The term `qualified Indian reservation property' does not
include any property (or any portion thereof) placed in
service for purposes of conducting or housing class I, II, or
III gaming (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).
``(B) Qualified investment.--The term `qualified
investment' means--
``(i) in the case of reservation infrastructure investment,
the amount expended by the taxpayer for the acquisition or
construction of the reservation infrastructure investment;
and
``(ii) in the case of all other qualified Indian
reservation property, the taxpayer's basis for such property.
``(C) Reservation personal property.--The term `reservation
personal property' means qualified personal property which is
used by the taxpayer predominantly in the active conduct of a
trade or business within an Indian reservation. Property
shall not be treated as `reservation personal property' if it
is used or located outside the Indian reservation on a
regular basis.
``(D) Qualified personal property.--The term `qualified
personal property' means property--
``(i) for which depreciation is allowable under section
168;
``(ii) which is not--

``(I) nonresidential real property;
``(II) residential rental property; or
``(III) real property which is not described in subclause
(I) or (II) and which has a class life of more than 12.5
years.

For purposes of this subparagraph, the terms `nonresidential
real property', `residential rental property', and `class
life' have the respective meanings given such terms by
section 168.
``(E) New reservation construction property.--The term `new
reservation construction property' means qualified real
property--
``(i) which is located in an Indian reservation;
``(ii) which is used by the taxpayer predominantly in the
active conduct of a trade or business within an Indian
reservation; and
``(iii) which is originally placed in service by the
taxpayer.
``(F) Qualified real property.--The term `qualified real
property' means property for which depreciation is allowable
under section 168 and which is described in subclause (I),
(II), or (III) of subparagraph (D)(ii).
``(G) Reservation infrastructure investment.--
``(i) In general.--The term `reservation infrastructure
investment' means qualified personal property or qualified
real property which--

``(I) benefits the tribal infrastructure;
``(II) is available to the general public; and
``(III) is placed in service in connection with the
taxpayer's active conduct of a trade or business within an
Indian reservation.

``(ii) Property may be located outside the reservation.--
Qualified personal property and qualified real property used
or located outside an Indian reservation shall be reservation
infrastructure investment only if its purpose is to connect
to existing tribal infrastructure in the reservation, and
shall include, but not be limited to, roads, power lines,
water systems, railroad spurs, and communications facilities.
``(H) Coordination with other credits.--The term `qualified
Indian reservation property' shall not include any property
with respect to which the energy credit or the rehabilitation
credit is allowed.
``(3) Real estate rentals.--For purposes of this section,
the rental to others of real property located within an
Indian reservation shall be treated as the active conduct of
a trade or business in an Indian reservation.
``(4) Indian reservation defined.--For purposes of this
subpart, the term `Indian reservation' means--
``(A) a reservation, as defined in section 4(10) of the
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1903(10)), or
``(B) lands held under the provisions of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) by a Native
corporation as defined in section 3(m) of such Act (43 U.S.C.
1602(m)).
``(5) Limitation based on unemployment.--
``(A) General rule.--The Indian reservation credit allowed
under section 46 for any taxable year shall equal--
``(i) if the Indian unemployment rate on the applicable
Indian reservation for which the credit is sought exceeds 300
percent of the national average unemployment rate at any time
during the calendar year in which the property is placed in
service or during the immediately preceding 2 calendar years,
100 percent of such credit;
``(ii) if such Indian unemployment rate exceeds 150 percent
but not 300 percent, 50 percent of such credit; and
``(iii) if such Indian unemployment rate does not exceed
150 percent, 0 percent of such credit.
``(B) Special rule for large projects.--In the case of a
qualified Indian reservation property which has (or is a
component of a project which has) a projected construction
period of more than 2 years or a cost of more than
$1,000,000, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting
`during the earlier of the calendar year in which the
taxpayer enters into a binding agreement to make a qualified
investment or the first calendar year in which the taxpayer
has expended at least 10 percent of the taxpayer's qualified
investment, or the preceding calendar year' for `during the
calendar year in which the property is placed in service or
during the immediately preceding 2 calendar years'.
``(C) Determination of indian unemployment.--For purposes
of this paragraph, with respect to any Indian reservation,
the Indian unemployment rate shall be based upon Indians
unemployed and able to work, and shall be certified by the
Secretary of the Interior.
``(6) Coordination with nonrevenue laws.--Any reference in
this subsection to a provision not contained in this title
shall be treated for purposes of this subsection as a
reference to such provision as in effect on the date of the
enactment of this paragraph.''.
(2) Lodging to qualify.--Paragraph (2) of section 50(b) of
such Code (relating to property used for lodging) is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and
inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the following
subparagraph:
``(E) new reservation construction property.''.
(c) Recapture.--Subsection (a) of section 50 of such Code
(relating to recapture in case of dispositions, etc.), is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Special rules for indian reservation property.--
``(A) In general.--If, during any taxable year, property
with respect to which the taxpayer claimed an Indian
reservation credit--
``(i) is disposed of; or
``(ii) in the case of reservation personal property--

``(I) otherwise ceases to be investment credit property
with respect to the taxpayer; or
``(II) is removed from the Indian reservation, converted,
or otherwise ceases to be Indian reservation property,

the tax under this chapter for such taxable year shall be
increased by the amount described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Amount of increase.--The increase in tax under
subparagraph (A) shall equal the aggregate decrease in the
credits allowed under section 38 by reason of section 48(c)
for all prior taxable years which would have resulted had the
qualified investment taken into account with respect to the
property been limited to an amount which bears the same ratio
to the qualified investment with respect to such property as
the period such property was held by the taxpayer bears to
the applicable recovery period under section 168(g).
``(C) Coordination with other recapture provisions.--In the
case of property to which this paragraph applies, paragraph
(1) shall not apply and the rules of paragraphs (3), (4), and
(5) shall apply.''.
(d) Basis Adjustment To Reflect Investment Credit.--
Paragraph (3) of section 50(c) of such Code (relating to
basis adjustment to investment credit property) is amended by
striking ``energy credit or reforestation credit'' and
inserting ``energy credit, reforestation credit, or Indian
reservation credit other than with respect to any expenditure
for new reservation construction property''.
(e) Certain Governmental Use Property To Qualify.--
Paragraph (4) of section 50(b) of such Code (relating to
property used by governmental units or foreign persons or
entities) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and
(E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively, and by
inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) Exception for reservation infrastructure
investment.--This paragraph

[[Page S2414]]

shall not apply for purposes of determining the Indian
reservation credit with respect to reservation infrastructure
investment.''.
(f) Application of At-Risk Rules.--Subparagraph (C) of
section 49(a)(1) of such Code is amended by striking ``and''
at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end
of clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new clause:
``(iv) the qualified investment in qualified Indian
reservation property.''.
(g) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Section 48 of such Code is amended by striking the
heading and inserting the following:

``SEC. 48. ENERGY CREDIT; REFORESTATION CREDIT; INDIAN
RESERVATION CREDIT.''.

(2) The table of sections for subpart E of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item
relating to section 48 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 48. Energy credit; reforestation credit; Indian reservation
credit.''.

(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2001.
______

By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 559. A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I realize that I am not going out on a
limb here, but I want to say this: I support Campaign Finance Reform.
To that end, today I am introducing the Campaign Finance Integrity Act
of 2001.
My bill would:

Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their
contributions from individuals in the state or district in
which they are running.
Equalize contributions from individuals and political
action committees, PACs, by raising the individual limit from
$1000 to $2500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5000 to
$2500.
Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation.
Reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by
allowing political party committees to match dollar for
dollar the personal contribution of a candidate above $5000.
Require corporations and labor organizations to seek
separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues,
initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for
political activity, and requires annual full disclosure of
those activities to members and shareholders.
Prohibit depositing an individual contribution by a
campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are
reported.
Encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing
of reports by fax machines and other emerging technologies
and to make that information accessible to the public on the
Internet less than 24 hours of receipt.
Ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings.

This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate
back into his district or state to raise money from individual
contributions. It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure
requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or
the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the
best disinfectant.
The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what
they want in a political campaign is preserved--but the right of the
public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is
also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own
decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely
information.

____________________