Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to announce a landmark agreement regarding the use of pesticides in our Nation's schools. This agreement marks the first time that the Federal Government will institute regulations on pesticides and schoolchildren. The Senate unanimously accepted my amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which passed in the Senate late last week. For the first time, parents in all fifty States will be notified when pesticides are used in schools. This agreement was reached after seven weeks of negotiations between my staff, environmental health groups, a broad coalition of pesticide, agriculture, and education groups. It was developed with these various groups to achieve a balance between the need to protect children from pests and addressing the concerns about the safety of pesticide applications. A recent study by the General Accounting Office found that no credible statistics exist regarding the amount of pesticides used in public schools and no information exists about students' exposure to pesticides or their health impacts. We can and must do a better job of providing accurate information to parents and staff at our Nation's schools regarding pesticide use and the potential effects on our children. This amendment requires local educational agencies and schools to implement a school pest management plan. This plan must incorporate pest control methods that minimize health and environmental risks in school and around schools. This amendment does not ban any pesticide. It simply states that the area of the pesticide application must remain unoccupied during the treatment, and for some pesticides, the area must remain unoccupied for up to 24 hours after the treatment. Perhaps the most important component of this amendment is the requirement for schools to provide universal notification to parents three times throughout the year. The universal notice must include a summary of the school pest management plan, a statement about pesticides, information on how to sign up to be notified prior to all pesticide applications, notice of pesticides that are exempt from notification requirements, and information on who to contact for additional information regarding pesticide applications at the school. The amendment also gives parents the option of being notified at least 24 hours in advance of every pesticide application. Between universal notification and this additional notice option, parents will be armed with the knowledge they need to protect their children from potentially harmful pesticides when they send them to school. It is an enormous and hard fought victory for the health of our children. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Boxer and Reid for joining me in introducing this important amendment. Their strong support for the protection of our children against exposure to pesticides was critical to the passage of this amendment. They have both been leaders on this issue for years, and I look forward to their continued advocacy on behalf of our Nation's children. I extend my thanks to the majority leader, Senator Daschle, for working to address the concerns of all sides. I appreciate the willingness of the managers of the bill, Chairman Kennedy and Senator Gregg, to have this important issue considered in the context of the ESEA bill. In addition, I wish to thank the many groups whose support this amendment enjoys, including: Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, the National Pest Management Association, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, American Crop Protection Association, Consumer Specialty Products Association, Chemical Producers and Distributors Association, and the International Sanitary Supply Association. I also appreciate the support of the New Jersey Pest Management Association, and the New Jersey Environmental Federation. Finally, this amendment would not have been possible without the work of Joe Fiordaliso of my staff. I look forward to working with members of the conference on ESEA to ensure that this amendment is included in the final bill, which is presented to President Bush.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, this debate is symbolic in many ways. It holds the prospect of ending a five-year effort to pass meaningful HMO reform. A Patients' Bill of Rights that recognizes, that while the move to HMO based health care may have started with the best of intentions, the results have been less than spectacular. Beyond the prospect of finally enacting HMO reform, this debate marks the beginning of the tenure of Tom Daschle as majority leader. It is a testament to the priority that he and our caucus have given to this issue, that it is the first legislation we have brought to the floor. For too long this debate has been one-sided and bottled-up by partisanship. I was hopeful that Majority Leader Daschle's earlier commitment to a full and fair debate on amendments would begin this debate on a positive note. However, I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side have objected to the motion to proceed and that it potentially will be days before we can begin the debate on amendments. The Senate HELP Committee has done a study and found that each day of delay on this issue has very real consequences. Every day 41,000 patients experience a worsening of their condition, 35,000 patients have needed care delayed, 10,000 patients are denied a diagnostic test or treatment, and 7,000 patients are denied a referral to specialist. As important as the education debate over the past month has been, no issue will touch more families than what we do on HMO reform. Today, more than 90 percent of working Americans receive insurance from their employer. Most do not have a choice about the type of coverage. This means that many working families are stuck with an HMO despite any concerns they may have with the quality of care they receive. There are over 160 million Americans with HMO insurance. Mr. President, 33 percent of the residents of my state--2.3 million-- are in an HMO. A vast majority of these Americans are in favor of and are demanding fundamental change in the way HMOs provide care. A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted just 60 days ago found that 85 percent of Americans want comprehensive HMO reform. These Americans believe, as I do, that doctors, not HMO accountants should be in control of medical decisions. The reality is that HMOs are a product of the runaway health care inflation of the 1970's and 1980's that drove the ranks of the uninsured. It was hoped that by providing a pre-determined list of doctors and medical coverage, the costs of medical care could be contained and coverage provided to more people. But after three decades of cutting costs and services to keep costs low, it is clear that HMOs have failed to strike the necessary balance. Today, we are faced with a situation where medical decisionmaking is disproportionately in the hands of insurance company bureaucrats. That is why, from patients to doctors, there is unanimity in making some common sense reforms. While Washington has been paralyzed by partisan gridlock, state legislatures have been debating and acting on this issue for years. For example, my state of New Jersey became a national health care reform leader with the passage of the Health Care Quality Act in 1997. The law now prohibits gag clauses, provides an independent health care appeals program and requires that insurers provide clear information on covered services and limitations. These reforms, long sought by Democrats and consumers, were passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Republican governor. But no matter how many individual states act, the reality is that an overwhelming number of Americans won't be protected because their state laws are exempt under ERISA. Mr. President, 83 percent--124 million--of Americans who get their health care from their employer are not covered by state laws, and 50 percent of people enrolled in an HMO in New Jersey are exempt from State protections. Originally designed to protect employees from losing pension benefits due to fraud, the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 has provided HMOs with immunity from state regulations for their negligent behavior. So despite the progress in states like New Jersey, complaints about the quality of care by HMOs continue to rise. A survey by Rutgers University and the state Department of Health found overall that one in four New Jerseyans enrolled in an HMO was dissatisfied with their health plan. Last October a state report card found that patients in NJ were less satisfied with their HMO care than the previous year. The bipartisan legislation being brought to the floor this week, is supported by more than 500 doctor and patient rights groups, and will finally extend patient protections to all Americans in an HMO. This promises to be a long debate and while I look forward to dealing with many of the important details, I want to outline the fundamental principles we must address. Under current practices, many HMOs force a patient with a chronic condition like heart disease to be treated by only the family doctor. The Kennedy-Edwards bill will guarantee access to a cardiologist or other needed specialist, even one outside his or her network. Currently, if your sick or suffer an injury while traveling or on vacation you must get prior approval from your HMO before going to the emergency room. Our plan will ensure that a patient could go to the nearest emergency room without having to first get permission from the HMO. Under current HMO policies, many women must obtain a referral from their primary care doctor before seeing an OB/GYN. This bill will guarantee access to an OB/GYN without a referral. HMOs often force a child with a chronic, life threatening condition to seek approval from a primary care doctor before seeing a specialist. The Kennedy-Edwards plan would ensure a child with cancer, for example, would have the right to see a pediatric oncologist whenever the care is needed. Today, many HMOs restrict physicians from discussing all treatment options with their patients and cut reimbursement rates for doctors who advocate with the HMO on behalf of their patients. This bill will prohibit HMOs from financially penalizing doctors who provide the best quality care for their patients. HMOs typically have the last word when they decide to deny a needed test, procedure or treatment. We will guarantee medical decisions by HMO bureaucrats will be subject to a swift internal review and a fair external review process. And when reckless medical decisions made by HMOs injure or kill, they are shielded from any responsibility. Now we will finally ensure that all Americans will have the right to hold HMOs accountable in court. These protections will provide a new sense of health care security but undoubtedly over the next weeks we will hear arguments that the price for these protections will be higher cost and increases in the uninsured. But the CBO report on this legislation states that it would increase premiums by only 4.2 percent over 10 years, this will mean a little over $1 per month for the average employee. There will be arguments that this is unnecessary because HMO's have responded to criticisms and already provide these protections. If this were truly the case, then costs should not rise at all. They will also argue that with every one percent increase in premiums, approximately 300,000 Americans lose their health insurance coverage. But in 2000, when overall health insurance premiums increased 10 percent, the number of uninsured actually dropped. Mr. President, we will debate many issues in this Congress but none with more impact on more people than this. I want to thank our new majority leader, Senator Daschle, for bringing this to the floor so quickly and I look forward to its debate.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Shirley Tilghman on becoming the 19th President of Princeton University. Dr. Tilghman comes to this revered post eminently qualified, having previously served as an exceptional teacher and a world renowned scholar. Dr. Tilghman has been a valuable member of the Princeton faculty for many years. Arriving at Princeton in 1986, she served as the Howard A. Prior Professor of the Life Sciences. She has also served as the chair of Princeton's Council on Science and Technology from 1993 through 2000, and in 1998 undertook the responsibilities of founding director for Princeton's multi-disciplinary Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics. The founding of the Lewis-Sigler Institute grew out of Dr. Tilgman's role as one of the architects of the national effort to map the human genome. Harold R. McAlindon once said, ``Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.'' I am confident that based on Dr. Tilghman's wealth of experience and interests, she will continue in this spirit as she guides Princeton University. I wish her all the best.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a vital piece of legislation that will encourage the growth of some of the most innovative companies in the world. I refer to the small biotechnology firms throughout the country which on a daily basis perform breakthrough research that enhances our daily lives. Indeed, biotechnology research over the years has benefitted greatly from successful initiatives such as the R&D tax credit. The R&D credit is of particular importance to my State of New Jersey because there are over 100 companies who spend $20 billion a year in R&D. In fact, over 50 percent of all the prescription drug research in the world is conducted in my State. Going hand in hand with the R&D tax credit are the contributions of the biotechnology industry. My colleagues are well aware of the importance of this segment of industry and the beneficial role biotechnology plays in improving our quality of life and protecting the environment. In fact, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution acknowledging the benefits of biotech research earlier this Congress. The Senate has recognized these benefits that are seen in the drugs and vaccines developed over the last 20 years, which have already enabled over 270 million people throughout the world live healthier and longer lives. Today, a breast cancer, leukemia or diabetes patient has a fighting chance to survive their illness through treatments developed by biotech research. The record number of biotech drug approvals by the FDA over the past five years demonstrates the potential of this industry to develop new therapies which may someday lead to cures and vaccines for debilitating diseases such as heart disease, Alzheimer's, AIDS and cancer. While the R&D credit has been responsible for enabling much of this breakthrough research, the irony is that many small firms who are performing the most advanced, cutting edge research and experimentation, who desperately need the R&D credit are unable to utilize it because they have failed to turn a profit. These small companies often dedicate all of their resources to one or two major initiatives to conduct long term R&D projects benefitting our medical, agricultural and industrial sectors. In many instances, these projects are time consuming, expend much capital, and unfortunately are unsuccessful or unmarketable. Consequently, the long term unprofitability of these companies make them unable to take advantage of tax breaks and incentives such as the R&D credit. Therefore, many small firms are forced to abandon their research, sell their innovations to larger companies or simply go out of business. I firmly believe that these industry failures are our failures because the firm that ends its research today, may have been the company that provides the cure for Parkinson's or Lou Gherig's disease tomorrow. In order to address this situation, it is time for Congress to adopt a straightforward proposal that would build on the success of the R&D credit to provide these small research companies with the resources they need to continue their vital work. Specifically, I am introducing a proposal to allow these small firms to elect to take a refundable tax credit, equal to 75 percent of the nominal value of their current-year research credits or deductions or 75 percent of the value of the current- year net operating losses multiplied by the highest marginal tax rate for corporations (currently 35 percent). I have also included safeguard provisions to ensure that the government's investment in these companies is put to good use. Any company that elects to take this refundable tax credit would become ineligible for normal R&D tax credits and normal corporate tax deductions until they are able to payback the original amount of the refundable tax credit in federal income taxes after they turn a profit. Furthermore, my proposal requires that the proceeds from the refundable tax credit must be used towards ongoing research-related activities. My legislation also maintains that if it is determined that a company claiming this credit is not using the proceeds for research, the IRS can recapture that portion of the credit. This proposal does not seek to supercede or replace the R&D tax credit. Rather, it complements the tremendous success of the R&D credit. It helps the struggling companies that the R&D credit doesn't reach. I am hopeful that my colleagues will recognize, as I do, the magnificent potential of the biotech industry and make this investment in its future.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a vital piece of legislation that will encourage the growth of some of the most innovative companies in the world. I refer to the small biotechnology firms throughout the country which on a daily basis perform breakthrough research that enhances our daily lives. Indeed, biotechnology research over the years has benefitted greatly from successful initiatives such as the R&D tax credit. The R&D credit is of particular importance to my State of New Jersey because there are over 100 companies who spend $20 billion a year in R&D. In fact, over 50 percent of all the prescription drug research in the world is conducted in my State. Going hand in hand with the R&D tax credit are the contributions of the biotechnology industry. My colleagues are well aware of the importance of this segment of industry and the beneficial role biotechnology plays in improving our quality of life and protecting the environment. In fact, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution acknowledging the benefits of biotech research earlier this Congress. The Senate has recognized these benefits that are seen in the drugs and vaccines developed over the last 20 years, which have already enabled over 270 million people throughout the world live healthier and longer lives. Today, a breast cancer, leukemia or diabetes patient has a fighting chance to survive their illness through treatments developed by biotech research. The record number of biotech drug approvals by the FDA over the past five years demonstrates the potential of this industry to develop new therapies which may someday lead to cures and vaccines for debilitating diseases such as heart disease, Alzheimer's, AIDS and cancer. While the R&D credit has been responsible for enabling much of this breakthrough research, the irony is that many small firms who are performing the most advanced, cutting edge research and experimentation, who desperately need the R&D credit are unable to utilize it because they have failed to turn a profit. These small companies often dedicate all of their resources to one or two major initiatives to conduct long term R&D projects benefitting our medical, agricultural and industrial sectors. In many instances, these projects are time consuming, expend much capital, and unfortunately are unsuccessful or unmarketable. Consequently, the long term unprofitability of these companies make them unable to take advantage of tax breaks and incentives such as the R&D credit. Therefore, many small firms are forced to abandon their research, sell their innovations to larger companies or simply go out of business. I firmly believe that these industry failures are our failures because the firm that ends its research today, may have been the company that provides the cure for Parkinson's or Lou Gherig's disease tomorrow. In order to address this situation, it is time for Congress to adopt a straightforward proposal that would build on the success of the R&D credit to provide these small research companies with the resources they need to continue their vital work. Specifically, I am introducing a proposal to allow these small firms to elect to take a refundable tax credit, equal to 75 percent of the nominal value of their current-year research credits or deductions or 75 percent of the value of the current- year net operating losses multiplied by the highest marginal tax rate for corporations (currently 35 percent). I have also included safeguard provisions to ensure that the government's investment in these companies is put to good use. Any company that elects to take this refundable tax credit would become ineligible for normal R&D tax credits and normal corporate tax deductions until they are able to payback the original amount of the refundable tax credit in federal income taxes after they turn a profit. Furthermore, my proposal requires that the proceeds from the refundable tax credit must be used towards ongoing research-related activities. My legislation also maintains that if it is determined that a company claiming this credit is not using the proceeds for research, the IRS can recapture that portion of the credit. This proposal does not seek to supercede or replace the R&D tax credit. Rather, it complements the tremendous success of the R&D credit. It helps the struggling companies that the R&D credit doesn't reach. I am hopeful that my colleagues will recognize, as I do, the magnificent potential of the biotech industry and make this investment in its future.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding the time. I believe these have been a very productive few weeks in the Senate. I am very proud of the institution and how, on a bipartisan basis, it has put differences aside and found common ground in dealing with the educational problems of our country. In adopting the Dodd amendment on title I, for the first time we are guaranteeing that poor school districts will receive 100 percent of their title I funding. What a remarkable statement by this institution. Currently, there are districts in our country that are receiving a third or a quarter of that to which they are entitled, imposing an enormous burden on local school districts. We adopted the Harkin amendment to meet our Federal commitment to special education by guaranteeing $181 billion over the next 10 years. In 1975, when IDEA was created, the Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of the special education needs. Last year, it paid 13 percent. These are two remarkable positions by this institution in which every Senator should take great pride. Blocking school voucher amendments stated our commitment to the public school system on an uncompromised basis. In fact, we will be funding reading programs at the $900 million level next year and voted to authorize $3 billion for professional development programs. All of these things, including the President's proposal for accountability and testing and those programs Democrats have supported for a long time, enhance the quality of performance and teaching. With this amendment, Senator Dodd takes us into a new area, not simply accountability, not only instruction, but the lives of the students themselves, recognizing that education involves all of these aspects of a student's life, including the quality of their lives and what they do after school, recognizing it is all part of preparing a student for life. That is why I support the Dodd amendment. That is why I believe this is not a matter of discretion for some people who believe they should do it or should not do it. This is a national commitment to recognize that education is a part of the entire student day. It may be a Governor's responsibility. It may be a local school board's responsibility. It is also our responsibility. This makes sense. I know something about this subject. In the 1950s, it was unusual for a young woman to work outside the home. In the community in which I lived in suburban New Jersey, I believe I may have been the only student who came home after school to an empty home, not simply because my mother chose to work but because she had to work. I remember those hours. School let out at 2:30 p.m. or 3 p.m. My mother and father would work until 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m., and for 3 and 4 hours sometimes I would sit in my home alone. My community was without some of the temptations of modern life. I encountered few problems, but I remember that stage of life. That is why when police chiefs were asked, as Senator Dodd has demonstrated, what would you do to deal with school violence, the problems of students, 69 percent said exactly what Senator Dodd is doing: Afterschool programs. We have done every one of these other things. Metal detectors in schools: We did that and should do that. One percent of police chiefs said that was the answer. Hire more police officers: We did that for years and we should. That is 13 percent. Try juveniles as adults: Many of our States have done that. The Federal Government is doing that. That is 17 percent. The Senator from Arkansas said: Why don't we listen to those of our constituents at other levels of government who have more experience? Exactly, I say to the Senator. Look at Senator Dodd's chart. Of the police chiefs involved in this every day, 69 percent of them said afterschool programs. That is what we are doing, and it is the right money in the right place. What may have been unusual in my suburban community in New Jersey is now common to millions of Americans. Twenty-eight million school age children have parents who work outside the home. Maybe I was the only child in my town, but 15 million American children in the afternoon now return to an empty home, and my colleagues know what that means. Juvenile crime peaks between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. All of those police officers looking in the middle of the night for kids who are committing crimes, causing problems, are looking at the wrong time. That is not the problem. It is after school: No parents, no teachers, no supervision, no options. Senator Dodd is offering the option. Violent crime: The greatest risk to our children being hurt themselves is not in school. We are putting in metal detectors and police officers. But it is after school: No options, no supervision. Senator Dodd has the answer.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield me an additional 3 minutes?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, a few weeks ago we adopted the Boxer amendment to authorize $2 billion for afterschool programs, but under the current bill States can opt out of providing afterschool care for those who need it. This is not something on which people should opt out, not recognize the problem. It is not a local problem; it is a national problem. There is not a study I have ever seen where it is not clear that not only is this the source of juvenile violence, it is the principal time of the day and the time in life when young people experiment with narcotics. It is a principal reason and a problem for teenage pregnancy. Many things in America change. Some do not. Young people without supervision and time on their hands are mischievous, are led to temptations and wrong influences. This, I say to my colleagues, is an opportunity to address the problem, and the evidence could not be more overwhelming. A national study of five housing projects with afterschool programs and five without shows us the difference. Those without had 50 percent more vandalism and 30 percent more drug activity than those with afterschool programs. This Senate has met its responsibility with IDEA. We have taken a stand on special education. We are putting resources into reading. We have answered the President's call for accountability and testing. We have resisted abandonment of the public schools on school vouchers. Every Member of the Senate can be proud of this education bill. Senator Dodd now writes the last word, and what we did during the school day we now provide for afterschool programs. I am proud of his amendment, proud of Senator Dodd, and I urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support his amendment. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator for the time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. As we debate this issue, we understand the forces in education that will fight for more money for special education. And they should. I understand the constituency that wants school construction. I support that. My concern is there is not a constituency, other than us, representing the interests of law enforcement and our own experience with these children who are fighting for money to deal with this violence and afterschool activities. Senators, on a well-reasoned basis, come to the floor and say, make this all discretionary; throw it into a pot and let the States do what they want. But, I don't know who is coming to Trenton, to my State capital, to fight for afterschool programs. I know the people who want construction. I know the people who want more teachers. I support them. But I don't know who is going there representing the mothers and the fathers who are not home in the afternoon or the police chiefs who are concerned about drug use or teenage pregnancy. They only have us. That is why I am not for taking away anyone's discretion. I believe in the judgment of the State and local governments, but this is an instance where the Congress has to compensate for the fact that we know from experience, we have looked at the empirical data, and we have heard from the police chiefs, and we know what is happening with the students on their performance when they don't have afterschool programs. We know what happens with teenage pregnancy and drug use. We know the evidence. This is a case where our judgment is required. That is why I think the amendment is so worthwhile.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Anne M. Glatt's years of devotion and commitment to the Highland Park Conservative Temple and Center in Highland Park, NJ. Mrs. Glatt will soon receive the prestigious ``Chaver Award,'' the Temple's highest award for exemplary service to the Jewish community. Devoted to her three daughters and to the Jewish faith, Mrs. Glatt decided on the Highland Park Conservative Temple and Center to further her children's knowledge of their faith and culture. However, her involvement with the Temple did not end there. Mrs. Glatt offered her services as a bookkeeper for the Temple, and for the past thirty-seven years it has been an experience of great benefit to the Temple. She has shared her wisdom, generosity and love with the 900 members of the congregation, considering them all as a part of her extended family. I have no doubt that as the community grows, Mrs. Glatt will be there to tend to the needs of future generations. Therefore, I join with the Highland Park Conservative Temple and Center today in recognizing Anne M. Glatt, saluting her service to the community, her countless acts of compassion, and her constant attention to the needs of those around her. May her spirit of service be a model for all of us to admire and emulate.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Allenhurst Fire Department on its 100th Anniversary of dedicated volunteer fire service. For the last 100 years, with courage and devotion to their fellow neighbors, the volunteers of the Allenhurst Fire Department have valiantly given of themselves to protect the lives and property of the residents of Allenhurst, New Jersey. In doing so, they have taken on a great deal of personal responsibility in promoting the well being of their community and served as an exemplar of good citizenship. I would like to extend my best wishes to the volunteers and families of the Allenhurst Fire Department and wish them many more years of fine service to their community.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to bring my colleagues' attention to an important issue which affects the men and women who are charged with enforcing our nation's tax laws. While I am withdrawing my amendment to the tax reconciliation bill which affects Section 1203 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, I hope that bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate, will allow us to address this important issue at a later time. Section 1203 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act outlines 10 infractions for which IRS employees must be removed from employment. These areas of misconduct have become known as the ``Ten Deadly Sins''. As of last year, a total of 109 violations of any of the ten infractions outlined in Section 1203 had been substantiated. Of those 109 infractions, 102 were of Section 1203(b)(8), which subjects employees to mandatory termination for failure to file their federal tax return on time. I believe that all IRS employees should be required to file their tax returns on time and abide by the IRS Rules of Conduct. I also strongly believe that those who do not abide by the Rules of Conduct should be held accountable for their actions. However, it would seem that mandatory dismissal, rather than supervisory discretion in applying penalties for these infractions, is unduly harsh. This point becomes clear when we learn that IRS employees have been and continue to face the loss of their jobs for filing their income tax returns late, even when they have a tax refund coming to them. There are no other taxpayers who are subject to any penalty for the late filing of a tax return with a refund due. Close to a thousand charges have been filed against IRS employees under section 1203(b)(6), which subjects employees to mandatory terminations for ``harassment of, or retaliations against, a taxpayer. The latest data available shows that of the 830 investigations of these charges completed by the Inspector General for Tax Administration, none have been substantiated. Yet even though it appears that the overwhelming majority of these charges filed have been unfounded, the employees themselves must live under the constant fear of losing their jobs for sometimes more than a year, while the investigation of these charges goes on. It would not be an overstatement to say that Section 1203 is having a chilling effect on the ability of employees at the IRS to perform their jobs. This notion is reflected in the fact that there has been a steadily declining audit-rate of non-compliant taxpayers. Making a minor change in the current law, as my amendment does, will do much to enable the overwhelming majority of honest, hardworking IRS agents to perform their duties in an efficient and professional manner. I believe that my proposal strikes a reasonable balance which will permit IRS employees to do their jobs better, but will also maintain termination as a punishment for an employee who willfully harasses a taxpayer. As we continue to debate this reconciliation bill, which will make hundreds of changes to the tax code, I hope that we will make sure that the employees who we entrust to enforce these new laws are given the tools to do what they need to do. While I now withdraw my amendment, I hope that this issue can be discussed by this chamber in the very near future.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President I rise today to recognize Albert R. Gamper, George M. Ring, and Rose Cali as they are honored by the New Jersey Network for their outstanding commitment to the young citizens of New Jersey, education and community-building. Mr. Ring, a lifelong resident of New Jersey, has been an extremely active and generous citizen with public institutions, from the NJN Foundation to St. Barnabas Health Care Systems to Rutgers University, and the New Jersey Performing Arts Center. Mr. Gamper has devoted countless hours and tremendous energy to organizations that touch the lives of thousands of New Jersey's families. I also wanted to salute Mr. Ring for his commitment to our Nation. He put his life on the line for this country when he served in the military and has received various distinguished medals for his many achievements, valor and dedicated service to America. Ms. Cali, founder of the Yogi Berra Museum and Learning Center, has invested much of her time into education and the arts. As a board member of a major State educational institution of higher learning and as a board member of her community's museum, she has made critical contributions in both of these areas and continues to do so. I applaud her efforts. New Jersey has been blessed with residents such as Mr. Gamper, Mr. Ring, and Ms. Cali who have made a great effort to make a difference. It is both an honor and an inspiration to recognize the dedication of these individuals and the impact they have on the community at large. I commend all three for their commitment and generosity to New Jersey and her residents.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind remarks and join Senator Schumer in what is an important moment in this debate. Indeed, I believe this moment defines whether or not there is a chance for this tax legislation to genuinely be bipartisan. In the Finance Committee, Democrats joined with Republicans to attempt to moderate the tax reduction, to assure it was affordable, would protect the surplus, but would also make a difference, having revenue for prescription drugs and education. Within the committee a balance was achieved that, while rates were being reduced for taxpayers, there were other objectives also being met. The amendment offered by Senator Hutchison is a threat to that balance. It raises the question about whether or not bipartisan tax reduction can survive in the Senate. Like Senator Hutchison, I would like to see the marriage penalty eliminated. Indeed, in a variety of ways, through considerable means, over a period of a decade this legislation deals with the marriage penalty. It simply was not possible to eliminate the marriage penalty immediately any more than it was possible to lower rates immediately or deal with the inheritance tax immediately. This is a decade-long process of reducing the tax burdens on Americans. We do that to married couples as we have done it in other means. But part of this plan was that, as we reduced taxation on many Americans, we would look specifically at the issue of education. There isn't a Member of this Senate who has not come to this floor and argued that the future of the Nation depends upon our investment in education, the quality of education. The simple truth is, a college education for middle-income Americans is increasingly out of reach. The average student graduating from an American university owes $20,000 on the day he or she graduates. It is affecting the quality of their lives, their career choices. Middle-income parents, wanting to do the best for their children, are taking second mortgages on their homes, postponing retirement, putting themselves into financial jeopardy, anything to get their child a college education. Among the many balances in this bill is a provision upon which I insisted in the committee, a fight Senator Schumer has led for several years on the floor, the deductibility of college tuition from income taxes. Under this legislation, it will rise to $5,000 during the decade. For many students, that makes all the difference. We will eliminate the marriage penalty, but we can both eliminate the marriage penalty and get deductibility of college tuition under this plan. Finally, there is the question of education savings accounts. Ever since I came to the Senate, for many years, with Senator Coverdell, I led the fight for education savings accounts. More than two-thirds of this Senate has voted for education savings accounts to allow parents to put aside their own money for their own child for public or private education. In large measure, through the amendment of Senator Hutchison--well intentioned though it may be--we lose the sum and substance of education savings accounts by the reductions of the amounts available. I hope not only these education provisions can be retained but the bipartisan nature of the bill can be retained. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his very gracious comments and for the place in which we find ourselves at this moment. The long fight to allow parents and students to deduct the cost of college tuition is now at a critical moment. It is not a usual moment in the life of the Senate when a Senator arises with the intent of having his own work replaced by a colleague's. That is exactly where I find myself. The Finance Committee, with the considerable help of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, has brought to the Senate Chamber for the first time the deductibility of college tuition from income taxes. Senator Schumer has built upon this work by expanding our $5,000 deduction to a full $12,000. It is, in my estimation, a more realistic approximation of the financial burden before American families. I therefore support the Schumer amendment. American families are mortgaging their futures. Parents are literally taking second mortgages on their homes. Families are postponing retirement. They are using retirement savings. They are borrowing against inheritance. They are doing anything and everything to get a college education for their child. Students themselves are working night jobs and borrowing endlessly to get themselves a college education. The average student graduating from an American university, on the day they graduate, owes $20,000. It is not uncommon for a business student, a law student, or a medical student to owe $50,000, $100,000, or $200,000. It is an enormous tragedy. The options in life that many of us enjoyed that allowed us to go into public service are not available to American students. If you come out of college owing $20,000, $50,000, $100,000, your chance to be a schoolteacher, your chance to run for public office, your chance to go into the Peace Corps, your chance to go into an American city or a small town and make a difference in American life is lost before your career begins. You begin life under a mountain of debt. It may not be in our reach to eliminate that problem today, but we have a chance to reduce it. Over the years, from Stafford loans to HOPE scholarships to student loans, again and again, every time there was a chance to reduce this financial burden and help American education, we have risen to the occasion, and that is where we are again tonight. With this amendment, we can make fully deductible $12,000 worth of college tuition. I will concede this is a national problem, but in my State of New Jersey, as in some other States, it is particularly acute. My State exports more students to colleges in other States than any other State in the Union per capita. We do not have a huge State university. The middle-class families of New Jersey are having to face, with no choice and through no fault of their own, massive private tuition costs. It is the deciding point about whether or not these families can keep their families in the middle class, and they are holding on by their fingertips, knowing that if they cannot pay these tuitions, they may be the first generation in American history whose kids will be less educated, have less of a financial future, less of a quality of life than they have. And Americans do not give that up easily. That is why this mountain of debt. That is why the frustration. But that is also why I stand here tonight. We have a chance to fight back. In the last decade, the cost of a college education has risen by 40 percent. There is no end in sight. In a free economy, with free institutions, there is no way to legislate to control that cost or stop it, nor am I proposing we do so. We simply have to allow families to fight back, and it has to be more than loans. We have to offer more than debt. We have to let families help meet this cost. I am very grateful to Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. Without their support, we would not even be having this debate, Senator Schumer would not be able to offer this amendment. The committee took a stand, and I am proud of every member of the Finance Committee for doing so. But now we can take a good provision and we can make it better. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I think it is a vote in which we can all take great pride. I thank the Senator from New York for yielding me the time.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that would greatly improve the lives of millions of Americans, thousands of whom live in my State of New Jersey, who are infertile. The Fair Access to Infertility Treatment and Hope, FAITH, Act first introduced during the 106th Congress, will again give hope to those families who have struggled silently for years with the knowledge that they cannot have children. For many American families, the blessing of raising a family is one of the most basic human desires. Unfortunately almost fifteen percent of all married couples, over six million American families, are unable to have children due to infertility. The physical and emotional toll that infertility has on families is impossible to ignore. I have heard from a number of men and women from New Jersey who have experienced the pain and trauma of discovering that their bodies, which appear normal and function perfectly, are somehow deficient in the one area that matters most to them. This is only compounded when patients discover that their insurer, which they rely on for all of their critical health needs, refuse to cover treatment for this disease. The deep sense of loss expressed by those who desire a family as a result of this gap in coverage is real and significant. Their pain should no longer be ignored. Infertility is a treatable disease. New technologies and procedures that have been developed in the past two decades make starting a family a real possibility for many couples previously unable to conceive. In fact, up to two thirds of all married couples who seek infertility treatment are subsequently able to have children. Unfortunately, due to the high cost of treating this illness, only 20 percent of infertile couples seek medical treatment each year. Even worse, only four out of every ten couples that seek infertility treatment receive coverage from health insurers, and only one quarter of all health plans provide coverage for infertility services. My bill will end this inequity by requiring all health insurance plans to ensure testing and coverage of infertility treatment. Specifically, FAITH requires health plans to cover all infertility procedures considered non-experimental that are deemed appropriate by patient and physician, up to four attempts, with two additional attempts provided for those successful couples that desire a second child. One reason often cited by health insurers for their continued refusal to provide infertility treatment is the negative impact that this coverage would have on monthly premiums. However, recent studies demonstrate that FAITH would raise the costs of health coverage by as little as $.21 cents per month per person, an insignificant amount compared to the enormous premium increases we have recently seen from HMOs. Similar legislation that recognizes the vital right of families to infertility treatments has already been passed in thirteen states, including Texas, California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, and West Virginia. In my home state, both branches of the New Jersey Legislature recently passed legislation that mandates this coverage. Reproduction is one of the most important values for both men and women, and those individuals who desire the gift of family should have access to the necessary treatments that make life possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that would greatly improve the lives of millions of Americans, thousands of whom live in my State of New Jersey, who are infertile. The Fair Access to Infertility Treatment and Hope, FAITH, Act first introduced during the 106th Congress, will again give hope to those families who have struggled silently for years with the knowledge that they cannot have children. For many American families, the blessing of raising a family is one of the most basic human desires. Unfortunately almost fifteen percent of all married couples, over six million American families, are unable to have children due to infertility. The physical and emotional toll that infertility has on families is impossible to ignore. I have heard from a number of men and women from New Jersey who have experienced the pain and trauma of discovering that their bodies, which appear normal and function perfectly, are somehow deficient in the one area that matters most to them. This is only compounded when patients discover that their insurer, which they rely on for all of their critical health needs, refuse to cover treatment for this disease. The deep sense of loss expressed by those who desire a family as a result of this gap in coverage is real and significant. Their pain should no longer be ignored. Infertility is a treatable disease. New technologies and procedures that have been developed in the past two decades make starting a family a real possibility for many couples previously unable to conceive. In fact, up to two thirds of all married couples who seek infertility treatment are subsequently able to have children. Unfortunately, due to the high cost of treating this illness, only 20 percent of infertile couples seek medical treatment each year. Even worse, only four out of every ten couples that seek infertility treatment receive coverage from health insurers, and only one quarter of all health plans provide coverage for infertility services. My bill will end this inequity by requiring all health insurance plans to ensure testing and coverage of infertility treatment. Specifically, FAITH requires health plans to cover all infertility procedures considered non-experimental that are deemed appropriate by patient and physician, up to four attempts, with two additional attempts provided for those successful couples that desire a second child. One reason often cited by health insurers for their continued refusal to provide infertility treatment is the negative impact that this coverage would have on monthly premiums. However, recent studies demonstrate that FAITH would raise the costs of health coverage by as little as $.21 cents per month per person, an insignificant amount compared to the enormous premium increases we have recently seen from HMOs. Similar legislation that recognizes the vital right of families to infertility treatments has already been passed in thirteen states, including Texas, California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, and West Virginia. In my home state, both branches of the New Jersey Legislature recently passed legislation that mandates this coverage. Reproduction is one of the most important values for both men and women, and those individuals who desire the gift of family should have access to the necessary treatments that make life possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding. In the last few weeks this Senate has begun to focus on what is, by any measure, the most pressing issue before the country; and that is simply the quality of education for America's schoolchildren. It is a quality-of-life issue. It is an economic issue. It is even a national security issue. A great nation cannot long endure in its position if the quality of education for its children is not paramount. You cannot lead economically, socially, culturally, or even militarily for long if you do not lead in the quality of education for your children. This reality, I believe, has focused the Senate's attention on funding standards and quality of education. I believe the debate has been promising. The Senate adopted the Dodd amendment to authorize a $132 billion increase over 10 years in title I aid to poor schools. Currently, the Federal Government provides school districts with only one-third of the assistance for which they are eligible. Under the Dodd measure, by 2011, they will receive 100 percent of the assistance they both need and require. The Senate adopted the Harkin amendment to meet our Federal commitment to special education by guaranteeing $181 billion over 10 years for IDEA. This program was enacted by Congress in 1975. The Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of the per-pupil cost. The reality is, for the year 2000, we have paid simply 13 percent. The Harkin amendment will make an enormous difference to local school district budgets where the share of the special education funding has increased from 3 percent to 20 percent in total cost since 1975. But also, I believe that the bill itself--before amendment --does have the underpinnings of genuine reform. The Bush administration's plan does include an emphasis on accountability, standards, and testing. If these provisions of accountability are married with meeting a genuine Federal commitment on special education, training, hiring teachers, and special education, then the Senate can be proud of this legislation. Indeed, to date, we have done exactly that. Now we turn to the question of construction, the quality of these schools themselves. Most Americans in their communities would not believe what many of us have seen in our States, that in this extraordinary time of American prosperity, economic power, and budget surplus, American students are attending class in gymnasiums, trailers, and hallways. I have seen it in New Jersey, in prosperous communities. It is not a proud statement about our country. Mr. President, 2,400 schools will have to be built in the next 2 years just to accommodate rising enrollments. Education reform will be incomplete without dedicating this funding. No standard of accountability or testing will mean anything--indeed, even hiring teachers will mean little--if we do not do something about the quality of the schools themselves. As strongly as I believe in the building of schools, even that must be complemented by doing something about the human capital, our teachers, for it to be a balanced piece of legislation. This week we passed the Kennedy amendment which authorized $3 billion for professional development. By combining professional development with class size reduction, this bill, however, will be jeopardized without keeping the commitment of the Clinton administration to hire 100,000 new teachers. I believe there was nothing more significant accomplished in the Clinton administration than the hiring of these new teachers to reduce class size. In the Nation, we have hired 30,000 towards that national goal. In my State of New Jersey, 1,500 new teachers are at work today who would not be in place, reducing class size, but for this initiative. A balanced program in the Senate will have accountability; it will construct new classrooms. But it must also reduce class size. Every study that has ever been chartered has made it clear that the single greatest variable in the quality of education is having more teachers teaching fewer students. Overcrowded classrooms are a direct threat to the ability of our children to learn. We must take disadvantaged students and have them engaged in the classroom to increase performance. An important element is going to be not only recruiting but also retaining teachers who otherwise are leaving the classroom, who can only be retained by improvements in discipline, but also easing the burden by smaller class size and, of course, by compensation. In the next decade in New Jersey, more than one-third of our 93,000 teachers are going to retire. It is going to happen. It is a clock that is ticking. Nationwide in the next 11 years, 2.4 million teachers will retire. As I believe this debate has demonstrated, we have moved beyond a partisan debate. The most significant element in this education discussion is that Democratic and Republican ideas are now being melded together. It is a great moment for the Senate. If we can preserve the Clinton administration's efforts at hiring new teachers to reduce class size, combine the efforts of Democrats in the Senate for school construction to improve the quality of the infrastructure, and take the Bush administration's proposals for accountability and testing and discipline, this Senate can be proud of what we have done. The Harkin and Dodd amendments on special education, on title I, on full funding of IDEA are important beginnings. But it is in the balance whether good legislation can now be made great, reducing class size, constructing the schools that America's children need and deserve. I believe every Member of the Senate can be proud of this debate to date. Now let's finish and make a good bill great. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have been discouraged at times about our Nation's willingness to deal with our fundamental educational problems.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator for yielding. Will the Senator from Vermont yield 5 minutes?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Massachusetts, and the Senator from Vermont--indeed, the entire New England delegation--for helping me to make these remarks. Mr. President, I have been discouraged at times about, not simply the issue of education in America but about the willingness in public policy to deal with these fundamental problems. The fact that so many Senators have given so much time, commitment, and energy to dealing with this problem is one of the most encouraging things I have seen in years. Perhaps the Nation is getting ready, in a fundamental way, to deal with our educational problems. It is none too soon, perhaps, because we all recognize the same thing: America's educational problems point like a dagger at the heart of our national prosperity--indeed, one day even our national security. America cannot long endure with this standard of living without dealing in a major way, on a grand scale, with our persistent, almost endemic problems of education. Indeed, there are a plethora of problems. Who would believe, under these economic and budgetary circumstances, that a great nation would allow its future leaders, the engines of its future economy, to attend classes in trailers, hallways, or gymnasiums? Mr. President, 2,400 schools need to be built in the next 2 years to relieve overcrowding and accommodate rising enrollments--2,400. In some communities with the property tax base, they may get built. In others where there is not, they will not get built. Every lost school, every child who will not meet his or her potential, is a social, economic, and even a political problem. Our teachers, no matter how dedicated they might be, wage a battle with old textbooks and a dearth of modern technology. While we have made the Internet available to the smallest business and every government agency, only 27 percent of public school classrooms can even take advantage of this new asset of technology for learning even if they have a teacher who knows how to use it. After years of study, we all understand that the problem of children unattended, without supervision in the afternoons is a principal reason for poor grades, dropouts from school, alcohol and drug use, and lives of crime. Indeed, violent juvenile crime triples in the hours after school. Rising enrollments, inadequate school construction, inadequate technology, these are things that we have known and understood not for a year, not for a few years, but for a generation. Yet today we meet again to discuss these issues, recognizing that this afternoon 15 million children will arrive to empty homes or spend their afternoons on the streets when, indeed, they could have had supervision and used the time productively. The question is not whether or not we are making insufficient progress. I believe the question is whether we are making any progress at all. The National Assessment of Educational Progress showed no improvement from 1992 to 2000 in fourth grade reading ability. Less than a third of the country's fourth graders read at a grade level that is appropriate, and the gap in reading skills between the highest performance level and that of our lowest performing students is widening. I will recognize that during this debate, Senators will come with ideas from the left or the right. They will have radical solutions or modest solutions. This much I believe about this debate. I hope that no Senator will come to this floor believing that anyone has a monopoly on good ideas, and that no one will come to this floor and defend the status quo because the status quo does not deserve defense. The Bush administration enters into this debate and understandably wants to plant their own mark on educational reform. They have a right to do so. And, indeed, the administration's view is that accountability and improvement of standards in testing is part of educational reform, and that is correct. All the money in the world will not improve American education and accountability. Reform of almost every aspect of American education is required. But as certainly as money is not the entire answer, it is certainly part of the answer. Nine thousand schools nationwide have been identified as needing improvement. The number of low-performing schools is rising each year. Accountability of those schools will matter. It will shoulder the other problems that I mentioned. Accountability will not solve leaking roofs. Accountability alone will not bring technology to classrooms. Accountability alone will not retain good teachers. There is a marriage of ideas of the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans. Other aspects of the administration's plan should be supported. I have fought for years for educational savings accounts for K-12. It is time to enact them. It makes sense to bring private resources in to help with this growing national problem. Charter schools are a tested and sometimes workable addition to the problems of public education. And they should be supported. But as I reach across the aisle and commend the Bush administration on its ideas, I hope this much will be granted: There is no alternative to a large-scale, immediate national program of building new schools for America. One-third of America's public schools need major repairs or total replacement. There is a $322 billion backlog to build and modernize America's schools. This requires Federal resources. Local communities should not face a choice of ruinous property taxes or declining opportunities for their own children. We are the difference. In New Jersey today we are beginning the Nation's largest school construction program with $8.6 billion for school construction. I am proud of it. It is needed. It is a good bipartisan plan, and it is impressive, unless you consider the scale of the problem. We are spending $8.6 billion. But New Jersey alone has a $22 billion need for school construction. This year, my State saw the largest increase in enrollment in 20 years. Our fastest growing school districts need a new school constructed every 3 to 5 years. That is why I am supporting the Harkin amendment to fund new school construction. As much as we need the Harkin amendment, we need to continue with our program of adding 100,000 new teachers. I believe in time that the Clinton administration's greatest achievement, at least for my State of New Jersey and I believe for the country, may be the reducing of class size. Every study that has ever been conducted and every review that we have ever chartered has made clear that the greatest variable in the performance of a America's students is to reduce class size. And the goal of a national class size standard of 18 by adding 100,000 teachers, of which 30,000 are now employed, is the greatest variable and can make the greatest contribution. I believe this marriage of ideas from Democrats and Republicans can make a real difference. I begin now by endorsing the Harkin amendment and by strongly supporting the continuation of our program of hiring new teachers. I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues for yielding the time.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act of 2001 along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Osteoporosis and other related bone diseases pose a major public health threat. More than 28 million Americans, 80 percent of whom are women, suffer from, or are at risk for, osteoporosis. Between three and four million Americans suffer from related bone diseases like Paget's disease or osteogenesis imperfecta. Today, in the United States, 10 million individuals already have osteoporosis and 18 million more have low bone mass, placing them at increased risk. Osteoporosis is preventable through the use of new technology, yet the majority of Americans with the disease remain undiagnosed and untreated. Osteoporosis is often called the ``silent disease'' because bone loss occurs without symptoms. Often people do not know they have osteoporosis until their bones become so weak that a sudden bump or fall causes a fracture or a vertebrae to collapse. Every year, there are 1.5 million bone fractures caused by osteoporosis. Half of all women, and one-eighth of all men, age 50 or older, will suffer a bone fracture due to osteoporosis. The consequences of osteoporosis are often unrecognized. In New Jersey, individuals hospitalized with osteoporosis fractures average 9.3 days in the hospital for hip fracture and 71 days for vertebral fracture. National statistics show that 10 to 20 percent of people with hip fracture either die within six months, cannot walk without aid or require long-term care. Education is needed to encourage individuals and their providers to diagnose osteoporosis early and treat the disease swiftly, preventing costly and debilitating fractures. Osteoporosis is a progressive condition that has no known cure; thus, prevention and treatment are key. The Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act of 2001 seeks to combat osteoporosis, and related bone diseases like Paget's disease by requiring private health plans to cover bone mass measurement tests for qualified individuals who are at risk for developing osteoporosis. Bone mass measurement is the only reliable method of detecting osteoporosis in its early stages. The test is non-invasive and painless and is predictive of future fractures as high cholesterol or high blood pressure is of heart disease or stroke. This legislation is similar to a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that requires Medicare coverage of bone mass measurements. Medical experts agree that osteoporosis is preventable. Thus, if the toll of osteoporosis and other related bones diseases are to be reduced, the commitment to prevention and treatment must be significantly increased. The bill is supported by the National Osteoporosis Foundation, American Medical Women's Association, American Society for Bone & Mineral Research, Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation, National Association of Orthopedic Nurses, American Physical Therapy Association and the Health Promotion Institute. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.