THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

Mr. President, this legislation represents a significant step toward helping to ensure that small companies share a portion of the investment benefits our tax laws give to major telecommunications companies. Over the next several months, we look forward to working with interested organizations to further refine this legislation. Specifically, we would welcome comments on how to further refine the concepts of qualified telecommunications business and eligible purchaser so as to ensure that this legislation meets its

[Page: S11004]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. President, hallmark developments in the telecommunications industry have been made by gifted individuals with small companies and unlimited vision. In this sense the telecommunications industry is a true microcosm of the American free-market system, in which the benefits produced by its entrepreneurs generate benefits that extend to all of us. It is therefore critically important that new entrants and small businesses have a chance to participate across the broad spectrum of industries that will make up the telecommunications industry in the Information Age. The Act will help them do that, and Senator BURNS and I are proud to sponsor it and to work for its enactment.

   By Mr. MCCAIN:

   S. 3237. A bill to provide for an international scientific commission to assess changes in global climate patterns, to conduct scientific studies and analyses on behalf of nations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

   INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE COMMISSION ACT

   Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, this bill provides for the creation of an international scientific commission to assess changes in global climate patterns and to conduct scientific studies and analysis on behalf of the nations of the world.

   The Commerce Committee held three hearings on the subject of climate change this year. We heard from several witnesses on the science of global warming, the impacts of climate change on the United States, and solutions to climate change.

   One of the most salient points of the three hearings was the importance of good science to the policymaking process. Most importantly, any action the United States takes in response to claims of global warming must be based on the best science available and not on rhetoric or political expedience. We must continue to invest in our research capabilities to fully understand the scientific interactions between humans, the land, the ocean, and the atmosphere.

   Based upon testimonies received by the Commerce Committee, the knowledge base in some countries is far greater than in others. To solve this global problem of climate change, we must rely upon all the resources and knowledge available to us. We must ensure that the United States research program is providing the maximum returns on our investment dollars. It was both surprising and disappointing to see that for a recent assessment of the United States, we had to rely upon two foreign computer models. We must do better.

   Mr. President, I feel it is of vital importance that we allow scientists the opportunity to pursue knowledge as opposed to being constrained by politics. In introducing this bill entitled, International Climate Change Science Commission Act, it is my hope and intention that the membership of the Commission will be filled by those who are scientists and fully appreciate the pursuit of truth and knowledge. I hope this commission will provide them with an opportunity to freely research, discuss, and document their scientific findings.

   Mr. President, I realize this bill will not pass this session. However, it is my hope that by introducing this bill a discussion will begin in the scientific community of how to better structure this piece of legislation and to ensure that the best available science is used for policy decisions. After discussions with the scientific community, I intend to re-introduce this bill or a new version of the measure next session and hopefully then move towards its enactment.

   I also plan to offer other pieces of legislation next year in this area. There are several types of actions that may be taken to address this situation as indicated in the Commerce Committee's hearing, ``Solutions to Climate Change,'' held on September 21, 2000.

   Mr. DURBIN:

   S. 3238. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide protections for individuals who need mental health services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health , Education, Labor, and Pensions.

   THE MENTAL HEALTH ACCESS ACT OF 2000

   Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of the more than 50 million Americans each year who suffer from mental illness. This bill, the Mental Health Access Act, removes one of the many barriers to health care faced by those who have been treated for a mental condition.

   The Mental Health Access Act limits the ability of health plans to redline individuals with a preexisting mental health conditions. I undertook this initiative when I learned that some of my constituents were being turned away from health plans in the private non-group market due solely to a past history of treatment for mental conditions. Unfortunately, under the current system of care in the United States, individuals who are undergoing treatment or have a history of treatment for mental illness may find it difficult to obtain private health insurance, especially if they must purchase it on their own and do not have an employer-sponsored group plan available to them. In part this is because while the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPAA) protects millions of Americans in the group health insurance market, it affords few protections for individuals who apply for private non-group insurance.

   The Mental Health Access Act closes this loophole by limiting any preexisting condition exclusion relating to a mental health condition to not more than 12 months and reducing this exclusion period by the total amount of previous creditable coverage. It prohibits any health insurer that offers health coverage in the individual insurance market from imposing a preexisting condition exclusion relating to a mental health condition unless a diagnosis, medical advice or treatment was recommended or received within the 6 months period to the enrollment date. And it prohibits health plans in the individual market from charging higher premiums to individuals based solely on the determination that the such individual has had a preexisting mental health condition. These provisions apply to all health plans in the individual market, regardless of whether a state has enacted an alternative mechanism (such as a risk pool) to cover individuals with preexisting health conditions.

   The Mental Health Access Act complements ongoing efforts to enhance parity between mental health services and other health benefits. This is because parity alone will not help individuals who do not have access to any affordable health insurance due to preexisting mental illness discrimination. The Access Act does not mandate that insurers provide mental health services if they are not already offering such coverage. It simply prohibits plans in the private non-group market from redlining individuals who apply for general health insurance based solely on a past history of treatment for a mental condition.

   Recognizing that we are nearing the close of this year's legislative session. I plan to reintroduced this bill when Congress returns and it is my hope that many of my colleagues will join me. In the meantime, I have asked the General Accounting Office (GAO)to examine the extent to which private health insurers medically underwrite for mental health conditions by either denying coverage or raising premiums, often to a level that is unaffordable for many individuals. Specifically, I have asked the GAO to examine: the types of mental health conditions for which individual health insurers typically underwrite; the degree to which there is an actuarial basis for these carrier practices; the prevalence of medical underwriting for mental health conditions that result in denying coverage or raising premiums; and the extent of state laws that prevent or constrain insurers from denying coverage or raising premiums due to a history of mental health conditions, including consumer protections such as appeals procedures and access to information.

   It simply does not make sense that just because a person seeks treatment

[Page: S11005]  GPO's PDF

   By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Johnson):

   S. 3242. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to encourage equity investment in rural cooperatives and other rural businesses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

   NATIONAL RURAL COOPERATIVE AND BUSINESS EQUITY FUND ACT

   Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Craig and I are introducing the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act to create a new public/private partnership designed to attract equity investment in cooperatives and other businesses in rural America. Senators Daschle, Jeffords, and JOHNSON are cosponsoring this bipartisan measure.

   The Iowa 2010 Strategic Planning Council was commissioned by Governor Vilsack to identify barriers to Iowa's economic development progress over the next ten years. The council found that two very significant hurdles were lack of venture funding and access to capital.

   The situation is no different in many other rural areas. Many new rural businesses, particularly cooperatives and farmer-owned businesses, have tremendous difficulty acquiring equity capital--especially those involving value-added agricultural processing.

   In Iowa alone, I have seen many cases where equity capital would have made a big difference in the future of a rural business. And every time we lose an opportunity to help a business, it means fewer jobs, fewer well-paying jobs, and less income for rural and small town America.

   In fact, just recently, in eastern Iowa, a group of turkey producers joined together to purchase the soon-to-be-closed West Liberty packing plant from Louis Rich. Ultimately--with the assistance of a USDA loan guarantee and state and private support--the co-op successfully purchased the plant. However, they almost went under because of limited equity. Only by the skin of our teeth are those jobs still in Iowa and those farmers still enjoying the benefits of cooperative ownership of that plant. In too many other cases, good ideas have been shattered because of a lack of equity.

   My state has made some progress through the Iowa Department of Economic Development's ``Community Economic Betterment Account'' or CEBA, which recently set aside some funding for venture capital. But far more resources are needed in Iowa and across Rural America.

   That's why this legislation is so important. If we pass the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act, we will help quality rural cooperatives and businesses succeed and expand, and we will create jobs and raise the incomes of employees and farmers.

   We're opening this bill up to discussion today with the hope of passing it in the next Congress. I believe this legislation has a strong start in the support of Senators CRAIG, DASCHLE, JEFFORDS, and Johnson. We also have the support of a number of national organizations that are key players in rural economic development including: Agribank, the American Bankers Association, CoBank, the Farm Credit Council, the Independent Community Bankers Association, the National Cooperative Business Association, the National Cooperative Bank, National Farmers Union, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Cooperation.

   The equity fund created by this legislation will have a 12-person Board of Directors that would decide which proposals to fund. This board would include the Secretary of Agriculture and two of his or her appointees, and the remainder of the Board would be made up of private investors in the fund. The first $150 million in private sector investments will be matched dollar for dollar by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over a three year period. As a compensation for the lower rate of return in the equity fund relative to other investments, the Department of Agriculture will guarantee up to 50 percent of an investment. Debentures, which would be guaranteed, could also be issued.

   Businesses applying for equity from the fund must be sponsored by a local entity, such as a bank, a regional or local development council, or a cooperative or economic development group. The businesses must be based in rural areas, and they cannot be primarily retail businesses. Cooperatives and other businesses receiving an equity investment from the fund will be required to invest a substantial amount of their own capital.

   The Fund is intended to support projects that will provide off-farm income, additional markets for agricultural products, and new business opportunities in rural communities. A diverse range of viable projects, representing a variety of business structures, operating in rural communities of various sizes would be encouraged.

   Mr. President, I urge my colleagues and those concerned about rural economic development to examine this measure between Congresses and at the beginning of the coming Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able to make the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund a reality.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents