[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 149 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11363-S11389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 1609. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of 
desig-
nating the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail extending through 
western Massachusetts and central Connecticut as a national historic 
trail; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill along with 
my senior Senator, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, to amend the 
National Trails System Act to conduct a study on the feasibility of 
designating the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail extending through 
western Massachusetts and central Connecticut as a national historic 
trail.
  The National Trails System was created in 1968 to provide outdoor 
recreation and to conserve the scenic, historic, natural, and cultural 
qualities of the areas through which trails more than 100 miles long 
pass. Trails provide opportunities for outdoor recreation to citizens 
in Massachusetts and around the country. People enjoy bicycling, cross-
country skiing, day hiking, jogging, camping, and long-distance 
backpacking. In addition, National Scenic Trails promote tourism and 
foster economic development. National trails

[[Page S11364]]

can only be authorized and designated by Acts of Congress.
  The Metacomet-Monadnock-Matta-
besett Trail plays an important role in land protection and wildlife 
habitat preservation. It is a system of trails and potential trails 
extending southward approximately 180 miles from the Metacomet-
Monadnock Trail in western Massachusetts, across central Connecticut on 
the Metacomet Trail and the Mattabesett Trail, and ending at Long 
Island Sound. Dozens of waterfalls, natural areas, and wildlife viewing 
spots can be found along the route. There are dramatic traprock ledges 
and summits that provide tremendous views of the Connecticut River 
Valley. At a time when the Northeast corridor is faced with 
overdevelopment, designating the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett as a 
national trail would help protect it, facilitate better planning for 
power lines, pipelines, and roads, and help maintain natural habitats 
through the financial and technological assistance of the National Park 
Service, nonprofit organizations, and local volunteers.
  I would like to share a few of the comments from organizations in 
Massachusetts and Connecticut that support this legislation. Peter 
Westover, the conservation director for the town of Amherst, wrote to 
express strong support for the trail. He is confident that there will 
be widespread support among trail managers and trail users throughout 
the region. Both Durand, the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental 
Affairs, wrote that the Metacomet-Monadnock portion of the trail is an 
important recreational, scenic, and historic resource that could be 
significantly enhanced by this project. The Massachusetts director of 
the Nature Conservancy, Wayne Klockner, expressed his strong support 
for the trail, writing that he supports the benefits that designation 
can bring to a fragile area and that he looks forward to increased land 
protection, funding and technical expertise. From Connecticut, Leslie 
Kane, chairman of the Guilford Land Acquisition Committee, supports the 
trail because it will preserve Connecticut's natural heritage for all 
people to enjoy. These comments represent only a handful of the letters 
of support that my colleagues and I have received.
  Establishing a new national scenic trail is typically a four-step 
process, which, on average, can take 10 years to complete. In 10 years, 
given the rapid development in the Northeast, entire landscapes and 
habitats can change and become endangered. The first step in the 
process to establish a new national trail is amending the National 
Trails System Act to allow for a feasibility study. Senator Kennedy and 
I are asking today that we take that first step and get started 
protecting the natural heritage of this small part of New England.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 1611. A bill to restore Federal remedies for infringements of 
intellectual property by States, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in June 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court issued 
a pair of decisions that altered the legal landscape with respect to 
intellectual property. I am referring to the Florida Prepaid and 
College Savings Bank cases. The Court ruled in these cases that States 
and their institutions cannot be held liable for patent infringement 
and other violations of the Federal intellectual property laws, even 
though they can and do enjoy the full protection of those laws for 
themselves.
  About 4 months after the Court ruled in these cases, I introduced a 
bill that responded to the Court's decisions. The Intellectual Property 
Restoration Act of 1999 was designed to restore Federal remedies for 
violations of intellectual property rights by States.
  I regret that the Senate Judiciary Committee did not consider my 
legislation during the last Congress, and that the Senate has yet to 
give any attention to the nearly 2-year-old Supreme Court decisions 
that opened such a troubling loophole in our Federal intellectual 
property laws. We should delay no further.
  Today, I am introducing the Intellectual Property Protection 
Restoration Act of 2001, IPPRA. This legislation builds on my earlier 
proposal and on the helpful comments I received on that proposal from 
legal experts across the country. In particular, I would like to thank 
Justin Hughes, David Carson, Steve Tepp, Michael Kirk, Michael Klipper, 
and John Kent for their assistance in improving and refining this 
legislation. I also want to thank the House sponsors of the counterpart 
bill, Howard Coble and Howard Berman, who are the chairman and ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property.
  The IPPRA has two essential components. First, it places States on an 
equal footing with private parties by eliminating any damages remedy 
for infringement of State-owned intellectual property unless the State 
has waived its immunity in Federal suits for infringement of privately 
owned intellectual property. Second, it improves the limited remedies 
that are available to enforce a nonwaiving State's obligations under 
Federal law and the United States Constitution. I will discuss both 
provisions in more detail later in these remarks.
  Innovation and creativity have been the fuel of our national economic 
boom over the past decade. The United States now leads the world in 
computing, communications and biotechnologies, and American authors and 
brand names are recognized across the globe.
  Our national prosperity is, first and foremost, a tribute to American 
ingenuity. But it is also a tribute to the wisdom of our Founding 
Fathers, who made the promotion of what they called ``Science and the 
Useful Arts'' a national project, which they constitutionally assigned 
to Congress. And it is no less of a tribute to the successive 
Congresses and administrations of both parties who have striven to 
provide real incentives and rewards for innovation and creativity by 
providing strong and even-handed protection to intellectual property 
rights. Congress passed the first Federal patent law in 1790, and the 
U.S. Government issued its first patent the same year, to Samuel 
Hopkins of my home State of Vermont. The first Federal copyright law 
was also enacted in 1790, and the first Federal trademark laws date 
back to the 1870s.
  The Supreme Court has long recognized that intellectual property 
rights bear the hallmark of true constitutional property rights, the 
right of exclusion against the world, and are therefore protection 
against appropriation both by individuals and by government. Consistent 
with this understanding of intellectual property, Congress has long 
ensured that the rights secured by the Federal intellectual property 
laws were enforceable against the Federal Government by waiving the 
government's immunity in suits alleging infringements of those rights.
  No doubt Congress would have legislated similarly with respect to 
infringements by State entities and bureaucrats had there been any 
doubt that they were already fully subject to Federal intellectual 
property laws. But there was no doubt. States had long enjoyed the 
benefits of the intellectual property laws on an equal footing with 
private parties.
  By the same token, and in accordance with the fundamental principles 
of equity on which our intellectual property laws are founded, the 
States bore the burdens of the intellectual property laws, being liable 
for infringements just like private parties. States were free to join 
intellectual property markets as participants, or to hold back from 
commerce and limit themselves to a narrower governmental role. The 
intellectual property right of exclusion meant what it said and was 
enforced even-handedly for public and private entities alike.
  This harmonious state of affairs ended in 1985, with the Supreme 
Court's announcement of the so-called ``clear statement'' rule in 
Atascadero State Hospital versus Scanlon. The Court in Atascadero held 
that Congress must express its intention to abrogate the States' 11th 
Amendment immunity ``in unmistakable language in the statute itself.'' 
A few years later in Pennsylvania versus Union Gas Co., the Supreme 
Court assured us that if the intent to abrogate were expressed clearly 
enough, it would be honored.
  Following Atascadero, some courts held that States and State entities 
and

[[Page S11365]]

officials could escape liability for patent, copyright and trademark 
infringement because the patent, copyright and trademark laws lacked 
the clear statement of congressional intent that was now necessary to 
abrogate State sovereign immunity.

  To close this new loophole in the law, Congress promptly did 
precisely what the Supreme Court had told us was necessary. In 1990 and 
1992, Congress passed three laws--the Patent and Plant Variety 
Protection Remedy Clarification Act, the Copyright Remedy Clarification 
Act, and the Trademark Remedy Clarification Acts. The sole purpose of 
the Clarification Acts was to make it absolutely, unambiguously, 100 
percent clear that Congress intended the patent, copyright and 
trademark laws to apply to everyone, including the States, and that 
Congress did not intend the States to be immune from liability for 
money damages. Each of the three Clarification Acts passed unanimously.
  In 1996, however, by a five-to-four-vote, the Supreme Court in 
Seminole Tribe of Florida versus Florida reversed its earlier decision 
in Union Gas and held that Congress lacked authority under article I of 
the Constitution to abrogate the States' 11th amendment immunity from 
suit in Federal court.
  Then, on June 23, 1999, by the same bare majority, the Supreme Court 
in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board versus College 
Savings Bank told us that it did not really mean what it said in 
Atascadero and invalidated the Patent and Plant Variety Protection 
Remedy Clarification Act. In the companion case decided on the same 
day, College Savings Bank versus Florida Prepaid Postsecondary 
Education Expense Board, the same five Justices held that the Trademark 
Remedy Clarification Act also failed to abrogate State sovereign 
immunity.
  The Florida Prepaid decisions have been the subject of bipartisan 
criticism. In a floor statement on July 1, 1999, I highlighted the 
anti-democratic implications of the approach of the activist majority 
of the Supreme Court, who have left constitutional text behind, ripped 
up precedent, and treated Congress with less respect than that due to 
an administrative agency in their haste to impose their natural law 
notions of sovereignty as a barrier to democratic regulation. I also 
noted that ``the Court's decisions will have far-reaching consequences 
about how * * * intellectual property rights may be protected against 
even egregious infringements and violations by the states.''
  One of my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Specter, expressed similar concerns in a floor statement on August 5, 
1999. He noted that the Court decisions ``leave us with an absurd and 
untenable state of affairs,'' where ``states will enjoy an enormous 
advantage over their private sector competitors.''
  Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School and former Solicitor 
General during the Reagan administration, has called the Florida 
Prepaid decisions ``truly bizarre.'' He observed in an op-ed piece in 
the New York Times:

       [The Court's decisions] did not question that states are 
     subject to the patent and trademark laws of the United 
     States. It's just that when a state violates those laws--as 
     when it uses a patented invention without permission and 
     without paying for it--the patent holder cannot sue the state 
     for infringement. So a state hospital can manufacture 
     medicines patented by others and sell or use them, and state 
     schools and universities can pirate textbooks and software, 
     and the victims cannot sue for infringement.
       It is hard to see what sense this makes, and the claim that 
     ``the Constitution made me do it'' is particularly 
     unconvincing. The 11th Amendment does protect states from 
     suits in Federal courts by residents of other states--a 
     provision almost certainly not intended to protect states 
     from suits based on Federal law.

  Not surprisingly, alarm has also been expressed in the business 
community about the potential of the Court's recent decisions to harm 
intellectual property owners in a wide variety of ways. A commentary in 
Business Week offered these cautions:

       Watch out if you publish software that someone at a state 
     university wants to copy for free . . . Watch out if you own 
     a patent on a medical procedure that some doctor in a state 
     medical school wants to use. Watch out if you've invested 
     heavily in a great trademark, like Nike's Swoosh, and a 
     bureaucrat decides his state program would be wildly promoted 
     if it used the same mark.

  I believe that these concerns are real. As Congress acknowledged when 
it waived Federal sovereign immunity in this area, it would be naive to 
imagine that reliance on the commercial decency of the government and 
its myriad agencies and officials would provide the security needed to 
promote investment in research and development and to facilitate 
negotiation in the exclusive licensing arrangements that are often 
necessary to bring valuable products and creations to market. Indeed, 
the good intentions of government may be beside the point, if 
businesses are unwilling to enter into agreements because one side 
cannot be bound by the law.
  Since the Court issued its decisions in June 1999, intellectual 
property scholars and practitioners across the country have come 
together to explore ways for Congress to restore protection for federal 
intellectual property rights as against the States. The Patent and 
Trademark Office hosted a particularly enlightening conference in March 
2000, in cooperation with the American Intellectual Property Law 
Association and the Intellectual Property Section of the American Bar 
Association. I commend the PTO for taking the initiative on this 
important issue.
  More recently, in September 2001, the General Accounting Office 
released a report requested by Senator Orrin Hatch on State Immunity in 
Infringement Actions. The GAO's research confirmed that, after Florida 
Prepaid, owners of intellectual property have few alternatives or 
remedies available against State infringements. A State cannot be sued 
in Federal court for damages except in the unlikely event that it 
waives its sovereign immunity. As for the State courts, there is little 
chance of success with infringement-type a actions for patents and 
copyrights because of Federal judicial preemption and an absence of 
State-recognized causes of action. Furthermore, even if infringement 
suits can be brought in State court, it may not be possible to bring 
them against States that have governmental immunity shielding them from 
suit in their own courts.

  What I have just described is a series of dead ends for intellectual 
property owners. That is why the two Federal agencies with expertise in 
intellectual property matters, the U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. 
Patent and Trademark Office, have expressed their support for 
corrective legislation by Congress. As the Copyrights Office told the 
GAO, ``Only in this way can the proper balance, and basic fairness, be 
restored.''
  I hope we can all agree on the need for congressional action on this 
issue. We need to assure American inventors and investors, and our 
foreign trading partners, that as State involvement in intellectual 
property becomes ever greater in the new information economy, U.S. 
intellectual property rights are backed by legal remedies.
  This is important as a matter of economics: Our national economy 
depends on real and effective intellectual property rights. It is also 
important as a matter of justice: In conceding that the States are 
constitutionally bound to respect Federal intellectual property rights 
but invalidating the remedies Congress has created to enforce those 
rights, the Court has jeopardized one of the basic principles that 
distinguishes our Constitution from the constitution of the old Soviet 
Union, the principle that where there is a right, there must also be a 
remedy.
  It is also important as a matter of foreign relations: American 
trading interests have been well served by our strong and consistent 
advocacy of effective intellectual property protections in treaty 
negotiations and other international fora, and those efforts could be 
jeopardized by the loophole in U.S. intellectual property enforcement 
that the Supreme Court has created.
  Like most of the constitutional experts who have examined the issue, 
I have no doubt that several constitutional mechanisms remain open to 
Congress to restore substantial protection for patents, copyrights and 
trademarks. The Supreme Court's hypertechnical constitutional 
interpretations require us to jump through some technical hoops of our 
own, but that the exercise is now not merely worthwhile, but essential 
to safeguard both U.S. prosperity and the continued authority of 
Congress.

[[Page S11366]]

  My bill is based on a simple premise: That there is no inherent, 
``natural law'' entitlement to Federal intellectual property rights and 
remedies. In discussing the policies underlying the intellectual 
property laws, the Supreme Court has emphasized that intellectual 
property is not a right but a privilege, and that it is conditioned by 
a public purpose. For example, the Court wrote in Mercoid Corp. versus 
Mid-Continent Invest Co., a 1944 case, that ``The grant of a patent is 
the grant of a special privilege `to promote the Progress of Science 
and useful Arts,' '' and that ``It is the public interest which is 
dominant in the patent system.'' Similarly, in discussing the copyright 
laws in Fogerty versus Fantasy, Inc, the Court underscored that ``the 
monopoly privileges that Congress has authorized, while intended to 
motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the 
provision of a special reward, are limited in nature and must 
ultimately serve the public good.''

  The Constitution empowers but does not require Congress to make 
intellectual property rights and remedies available, and Congress 
should do so in a manner that encourages and protects innovation in the 
public and private sector alike.
  States and their institutions, especially State Universities, benefit 
hugely from the Federal intellectual property laws. All 50 States own 
or have obtained patents, some hold many hundreds of patents. States 
also hold other intellectual property rights secured by Federal law, 
and the trend is toward increased participation by the States in 
commerce involving intellectual property.
  Principles of State sovereignty tell us that States and their 
instrumentalities are entitled to a free and informed choice of whether 
or not to participate in the Federal intellectual property system, 
subject only to their constitutional obligations.
  Equity and common sense tell us that one who chooses to enjoy the 
benefits of a law, whether it be a Federal research grant or the 
multimillion-dollar benefits of Federal intellectual property 
protections, should also bear its burdens.
  Sound economics and traditional notions of federalism tell us that it 
is appropriate for the Federal Government to assist and encourage the 
sovereign States in their sponsorship of whatever innovation and 
creation they freely choose to sponsor by giving them intellectual 
property protection and, on occasion, funding, so long as the States 
hold up their end of the bargain by honoring the exclusive rights of 
other intellectual property owners.
  The IPPRA builds on these principles. In order to promote cooperative 
federalism in the intellectual property arena, it provides reasonable 
incentives for states to waive their immunity in intellectual property 
cases and participate in our national intellectual property project on 
equal terms with private parties. States that choose not to waive their 
immunity within 2 years after enactment of the IPPRA would continue to 
enjoy many of the benefits of the Federal intellectual property system; 
however, like private parties that sue non-waiving states for 
infringement, nonwaiving States that sue private parties for 
infringement could not recover any money damages that would otherwise 
be available under Federal law. That is because Federal intellectual 
property that has been owned by a nonwaiving State would be short one 
``stick'' from the usual bundle of rights accorded by Federal law: The 
ability to sue for damages under Federal law when the intellectual 
property has been infringed.
  This scheme is plainly authorized by the letter of the Constitution. 
Article I empowers Congress to ``promote the Progress of Science and 
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the 
exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'' 
Incident to this power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt 
of exclusive intellectual property rights. Indeed, we have always 
attached certain conditions, such as the requirement of public 
disclosure of an invention at the Patent and Trademark Office in order 
to obtain a patent.
  My proposal is also consistent with the spirit of federalism, as 
interpreted by the Supreme Court, because it gives State entities a 
free, informed and meaningful choice to waive or not to waive immunity 
at any time. The condition imposed on receipt of federal benefits by 
the IPPRA, submitting to suit under laws that are already binding on 
the States, is not onerous, nor does it co-opt any state resources to 
the service of Federal policy. It simply levels the intellectual 
property playing field.
  Congress may attach conditions on a State's receipt of Federal 
intellectual property protection under its Article I intellectual 
property power just as Congress may attach conditions on a State's 
receipt of Federal funds under its Article I spending power. Either 
way, the power to attach conditions to the Federal benefit is an 
integral part of the greater power to deny the benefit altogether. 
Either way, the State has a choice, to forgo the Federal benefit and 
exercise its sovereign power however it wishes subject to the 
Constitution, or to take the benefit and exercise its sovereign power 
in the manner requested by Congress.
  Three Federal appeals courts have applied similar reasoning in 
connection with the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The Courts of Appeals 
for the Fifth, Seventh, Tenth Circuits have reasoned that, because 
Congress was under no obligation to allow States to participate in the 
regulatory scheme established by the 1996 Act, Congress could validly 
condition a state commission's decision to exercise regulatory 
authority under the Act on its waiving sovereign immunity.
  This seems like plain common sense to me. It would be a truly bizarre 
reading of the Constitution to say that it is up to Congress whether or 
not to let States participate in telecom regulation or in the 
intellectual property regime, but that if we choose to let them 
participate, we cannot hold them accountable for their actions.
  Given the choice between opting in to the intellectual property laws 
and forging some intellectual property protection under the Federal 
laws, States and their institutions will, I hope, choose to opt in. The 
benefit--being able to recover damages for an infringement--is 
significant, while the burden--consenting to be sued for future State 
infringements--is slight. Most States already respect intellectual 
property rights and will seldom find themselves in infringement suits.
  However, some State entities and officials have violated intellectual 
property rights in the past, and the massive growth of both 
intellectual property and state participation in the 
intellectual property marketplace that we are seeing in the new economy 
give ample cause for concern that such violations will continue. Now 
that the Supreme Court has seemingly given the States carte blanche to 
violate intellectual property rights free from any adverse financial 
consequences so long as they stand on their newly augmented sovereign 
immunity, the prospect of States violating Federal law and then 
asserting immunity is too serious to ignore.

  The IPPRA therefore also provides for the limited set of remedies 
that the Supreme Court's new jurisprudence leaves available to Congress 
to enforce a nonwaiving State's obligations under Federal law and the 
United States Constitution. The key point here is that, while the Court 
struck down our prior effort to enforce the intellectual property laws 
themselves by authorizing actions for damages against the states, it 
nonetheless acknowledged Congress' power to authorize actions for 
injunctions and actions to enforce constitutional rights related to 
intellectual property.
  First, for the avoidance of doubt, the IPPRA ensures the full 
availability of prospective equitable relief to prevent States from 
violating or exceeding their rights under Federal intellectual property 
laws. As the Supreme Court expressly acknowledged in its Seminole Tribe 
decision in 1996, such relief is available, notwithstanding any 
assertion of State sovereign immunity, under what is generally known as 
the doctrine of Ex parte Young.
  Second, to address the harm done to the rights of intellectual 
property owners before they can secure an injunction, the IPPRA also 
provides a damages remedy to the full extent of Congress' power to 
enforce the constitutional rights of intellectual property owners. 
Under the Supreme Court's recent decisions, this remedy is necessarily 
limited to the redress of constitutional violations, not violations of

[[Page S11367]]

the Federal intellectual property laws themselves. However, the Supreme 
Court has reaffirmed on may occasions that the intellectual property 
owner's right of exclusion is a property right fully protected from 
governmental violation under the Fifth amendment's takings clause and 
under the 14th amendment's due process clause.
  The constitutional remedy provided by the IPPRA closely resembles the 
remedy that Congress provided decades ago for deprivations of Federal 
rights by persons acting under color of State law. The bill does not 
expand the property rights secured by the Federal intellectual property 
laws--these laws are already binding on the States' nor does the bill 
interfere with any governmental authority to regulate businesses that 
own such rights. It simply restores the ability of private persons to 
enforce such rights against the States.
  I view this bill as an exercise in cooperative federalism. Clear, 
certain, and uniform national rules protecting Federal intellectual 
property rights benefit everyone: Consumers, businesses, the Federal 
Government and the States. The IPPRA preserves States' rights, and 
gives States a free choice. At the same time, it ensures effective 
protection for individual constitutional rights closing the loophole 
created by the Supreme Court of Federal rights unsupported by effective 
remedies. We unanimously passed more sweeping legislation in the early 
1990s, but were thwarted by Supreme Court's shifting jurisprudence. The 
IPPRA is designed to restore the benefits we sought to provide 
intellectual property owners while meeting the Court's new 
jurisprudential requirements.

  There are to be sure, other approaches that Congress could take to 
address the problems created by the Court's decisions. In consultation 
with experts in intellectual property law and constitutional law, I 
reviewed several alternatives before settling on the IPPRA's approach. 
In the end, I concluded that the approach I have outlined is the best 
way to achieve a solution that meets any constitutional concerns, 
fosters State-Federal cooperation, and encourages American innovation 
and creativity to providing certain and effective intellectual property 
protection.
  when I first introduced the IPPRA in 1999, it prompted a flurry of 
constructive comments and suggestions on how the legislation could be 
improved. I look forward to considering further refinements to the bill 
as the legislative process moves forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-
section 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. 1611

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2001''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in this Act to the Trademark 
     Act of 1946 shall be a reference to the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks 
     used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain 
     international conventions, and for other purposes'', approved 
     July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) help eliminate the unfair commercial advantage that 
     States and their instrumentalities now hold in the Federal 
     intellectual property system because of their ability to 
     obtain protection under the United States patent, copyright, 
     and trademark laws while remaining exempt from liability for 
     infringing the rights of others;
       (2) promote technological innovation and artistic creation 
     in furtherance of the policies underlying Federal laws and 
     international treaties relating to intellectual property;
       (3) reaffirm the availability of prospective relief against 
     State officials who are violating or who threaten to violate 
     Federal intellectual property laws; and
       (4) abrogate State sovereign immunity in cases where States 
     or their instrumentalities, officers, or employees violate 
     the United States Constitution by infringing Federal 
     intellectual property.

     SEC. 3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REMEDIES EQUALIZATION.

       (a) Amendment to Patent Law.--Section 287 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d)(1) No remedies under section 284 or 289 shall be 
     awarded in any civil action brought under this title for 
     infringement of a patent issued on or after January 1, 2002, 
     if a State or State instrumentality is or was at any time the 
     legal or beneficial owner of such patent, except upon proof 
     that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the infringement commenced or 
     January 1, 2004, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to a patent if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2002; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the patent, and, at the time of the purchase, 
     did not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that 
     a State or State instrumentality was once the legal or 
     beneficial owner of the patent.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2004, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2004, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Amendment to Copyright Law.--Section 504 of title 17, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Remedies in Certain Cases.--
       ``(1) No remedies under this section shall be awarded in 
     any civil action brought under this title for infringement of 
     an exclusive right in a work created on or after January 1, 
     2002, if a State or State instrumentality is or was at any 
     time the legal or beneficial owner of such right, except upon 
     proof that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the infringement commenced or 
     January 1, 2004, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to an exclusive right if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2002; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the exclusive right, and, at the time of the 
     purchase, did not know and was reasonably without cause to 
     believe that a State or State instrumentality was once the 
     legal or beneficial owner of the right.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2004, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2004, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (c) Amendment to Trademark Law.--Section 35 of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Remedies in Certain Cases.--
       ``(1) No remedies under this section shall be awarded in 
     any civil action arising under this Act for a violation of 
     any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the 
     Patent and Trademark Office on or after January 1, 2002, or 
     any right of the owner of a mark first used in commerce on or 
     after January 1, 2002, if a State or State instrumentality is 
     or was at any time the legal or beneficial owner of such 
     right, except upon proof that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the violation commenced or 
     January 1, 2004, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to a right of the registrant or owner 
     of a mark if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2002; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the right, and, at the time of the purchase, did 
     not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that a 
     State or State instrumentality was once the legal or 
     beneficial owner of the right.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the

[[Page S11368]]

     action. If raised before January 1, 2004, the court may stay 
     the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later than 
     January 1, 2004, to afford the State an opportunity to waive 
     its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Amendments to patent law.--
       (A) In general.--Section 296 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (B) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     29 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 296.
       (2) Amendments to copyright law.--
       (A) In general.--Section 511 of title 17, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (B) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 5 
     of title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     item relating to section 511.
       (3) Amendments to trademark law.--Section 40 of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1122) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b);
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``or (b)'' after 
     ``subsection (a)''; and
       (C) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR STATUTORY 
                   VIOLATIONS BY STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.

       In any action against an officer or employee of a State or 
     State instrumentality for any violation of any of the 
     provisions of title 17 or 35, United States Code, the 
     Trademark Act of 1946, or the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), remedies shall be available against the 
     officer or employee in the same manner and to the same extent 
     as such remedies are available in an action against a private 
     individual under like circumstances. Such remedies may 
     include monetary damages assessed against the officer or 
     employee, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs, attorney 
     fees, and destruction of infringing articles, as provided 
     under the applicable Federal statute.

     SEC. 5. LIABILITY OF STATES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS 
                   INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

       (a) Due Process Violations.--Any State or State 
     instrumentality that violates any of the exclusive rights of 
     a patent owner under title 35, United States Code, of a 
     copyright owner, author, or owner of a mask work or original 
     design under title 17, United States Code, of an owner or 
     registrant of a mark used in commerce or registered in the 
     Patent and Trademark Office under the Trademark Act of 1946, 
     or of an owner of a protected plant variety under the Plant 
     Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), in a manner 
     that deprives any person of property in violation of the 
     fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, shall 
     be liable to the party injured in a civil action in Federal 
     court for compensation for the harm caused by such violation.
       (b) Takings Violations.--
       (1) In general.--Any State or State instrumentality that 
     violates any of the exclusive rights of a patent owner under 
     title 35, United States Code, of a copyright owner, author, 
     or owner of a mask work or original design under title 17, 
     United States Code, of an owner or registrant of a mark used 
     in commerce or registered in the Patent and Trademark Office 
     under the Trademark Act of 1946, or of an owner of a 
     protected plant variety under the Plant Variety Protection 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), in a manner that takes property 
     in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the 
     United States Constitution, shall be liable to the party 
     injured in a civil action in Federal court for compensation 
     for the harm caused by such violation.
       (2) Effect on other relief.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall prevent or affect the ability of a party to obtain 
     declaratory or injunctive relief under section 4 of this Act 
     or otherwise.
       (c) Compensation.--Compensation under subsection (a) or 
     (b)--
       (1) may include actual damages, profits, statutory damages, 
     interest, costs, expert witness fees, and attorney fees, as 
     set forth in the appropriate provisions of title 17 or 35, 
     United States Code, the Trademark Act of 1946, and the Plant 
     Variety Protection Act; and
       (2) may not include an award of treble or enhanced damages 
     under section 284 of title 35, United States Code, section 
     504(d) of title 17, United States Code, section 35(b) of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117 (b)), and section 
     124(b) of the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2564(b)).
       (d) Burden of Proof.--In any action under subsection (a) or 
     (b)--
       (1) with respect to any matter that would have to be proved 
     if the action were an action for infringement brought under 
     the applicable Federal statute, the burden of proof shall be 
     the same as if the action were brought under such statute; 
     and
       (2) with respect to all other matters, including whether 
     the State provides an adequate remedy for any deprivation of 
     property proved by the injured party under subsection (a), 
     the burden of proof shall be upon the State or State 
     instrumentality.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to violations 
     that occur on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Jurisdiction.--The district courts shall have original 
     jurisdiction of any action arising under this Act under 
     section 1338 of title 28, United States Code.
       (b) Broad Construction.--This Act shall be construed in 
     favor of a broad protection of intellectual property, to the 
     maximum extent permitted by the United States Constitution.
       (c) Severability.--If any provision of this Act or any 
     application of such provision to any person or circumstance 
     is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and 
     the application of the provision to any other person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected.
                                  ____


 Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2001--Section-by-
                            Section Summary

       Recent Supreme Court decisions invalidated prior efforts by 
     Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity in actions 
     arising under the federal intellectual property laws. The 
     Court's decisions give states an unfair advantage in the 
     intellectual property marketplace by shielding them from 
     money damages when they infringe the rights of private 
     parties, while leaving them free to obtain money damages when 
     their own rights are infringed. These decisions also have the 
     potential to impair the rights of private intellectual 
     property owners, discourage technological innovation and 
     artistic creation, and compromise the ability of the United 
     States to fulfill its obligations under a variety of 
     international treaties. The Intellectual Property Protection 
     Restoration Act of 2001 creates reasonable incentives for 
     states to waive their immunity in intellectual property cases 
     and participate in the intellectual property marketplace on 
     equal terms with private parties. The bill also provides new 
     remedies for state infringements that rise to the level of 
     constitutional violations.
       Sec. 1. Short title; references.--This Act may be cited as 
     the ``Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 
     2001.
       Sec. 2. Purposes.--Legislative purposes in support of this 
     Act.
       Sec. 3. Intellectual property remedies equalization.--
     Places states on an equal footing with private parties by 
     eliminating any damages remedy for infringement of state-
     owned intellectual property unless the state has waived its 
     immunity from any damages remedy for infringement of 
     privately-owned intellectual property. Intellectual property 
     that the state owned before the enactment of this Act is not 
     affected.
       Sec. 4. Clarification of remedies available for statutory 
     violations by state officers and employees.--Affirms the 
     availability of injunctive relief against state officials who 
     violate the federal intellectual property laws. Such relief 
     is authorized under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 
     123 (1908), which held that an individual may sue a state 
     official for prospective relief requiring the state official 
     to cease violating federal law, even if the state itself is 
     immune from suit under the eleventh amendment. This section 
     also affirms that state officials may be personally liable 
     for violations of the intellectual property laws.
       Sec. 5. Liability of states for constitutional violations 
     involving intellectual property.--Establishes a right to 
     compensation for state infringements of intellectual property 
     that rise to the level of constitutional violations. 
     Compensation shall be measured by the statutory remedies 
     available under the federal intellectual property laws, but 
     may not include treble damages.
       Sec. 6. Rules of construction.--Establishes rules for 
     interpreting this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON:
  S. 1612. A bill to provide Federal managers with tools and 
flexibility in areas such as personnel, budgeting, property management 
and disposal, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON:
  S. 1613. A bill to provide for expedited congressional consideration 
of ``Freedom to Manage'' legislative proposals transmitted by the 
President to Congress to eliminate or reduce barriers to efficient 
government operations that are posed by laws that apply to one or more 
agencies, including government-wide laws; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that 
was referred to Congress by President Bush. The legislation seeks to 
extensively reform management of the Federal Government. I applaud the 
Administration's attention to the issue of government reform, and I 
will work with my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee and 
in Congress to enact this important package, because it includes 
comprehensive reforms that will make government work better.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee has documented the problems 
affecting Executive Branch operations for some time, and I am impressed 
with the President's attention to these issues at this critical time in 
our Nation's history. The President's package of management reform 
proposals will allow government managers to carry out their critical 
responsibilities for the American public more effectively. It's obvious 
the Administration understands how very important government

[[Page S11369]]

reform is to ensuring that the government can accomplish its varied 
missions.
  The legislation, which includes the Freedom to Manage Act and the 
Managerial Flexibility Act, makes it easier for Executive Branch 
management to increase accountability, reduce unnecessary costs, and 
manage for results. The Managerial Flexibility Act will help the 
government recruit and retain people with needed skills, increase the 
flexibility of federal property management, and allow agencies to 
budget for results. The Freedom to Manage Act would allow other reform 
proposals, submitted to the Congress by the Administration, to be 
considered expeditiously by the Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this important legislation 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Freedom to Manage Reform Package--A Summary

     Freedom to Manage Act of 2001
       This legislation establishes a procedure under which heads 
     of departments and agencies can identify statutory barriers 
     to good management. Congress, in turn, would quickly consider 
     those obstacles and act to remove them.
     Managerial Flexibility Act of 2001
       This legislation provides federal managers with increased 
     flexibility in managing personnel; assigns agencies the 
     responsibility for funding the full government share of the 
     accruing cost of all retirement and retiree health care 
     benefits for Federal employees; and gives agencies greater 
     flexibility in managing property.
       Reform Personnel Management. This proposal gives Federal 
     agencies and managers increased discretion and flexibility in 
     attracting, managing, and retaining a high quality workforce. 
     It empowers Federal agencies to determine when, if, and how 
     they might offer new employee incentives, and it enhances the 
     agencies' authority to use recruitment, retention, and 
     relocation bonuses to compete better with the private sector. 
     The bill permits agencies to develop alternative personnel 
     systems to attract and hire employees that best fit the 
     position, and it will enable managers to offer early 
     retirement packages. By enacting important changes to the 
     Senior Executive Service, this proposal also permits high-
     level Federal managers to be treated more like their private 
     sector counterparts, by results-based performance standards 
     that hold them accountable.
       Budgeting and Managing for Results.--Full Funding for 
     Federal Retiree Costs: This proposal charges Federal agencies 
     the full accruing cost of all retirement and retiree health 
     care benefits for Federal employees. This proposal is the 
     first government-wide step in linking the full cost of 
     resources used with the results achieved, which will make 
     management in the Executive Branch more performance-oriented. 
     This proposal will not change any of the benefits provided by 
     these programs, and will not change the level of employee 
     contributions.
       Reform Federal Property Management.--The Federal Government 
     owns or controls more than 24 million acres of land and 
     facilities, but existing rules restrict the government's 
     ability to consolidate or release underperforming property. 
     In many instances, Federal agencies lack the incentives and 
     authority to renovate the property or tap its equity. This 
     proposal facilitates a total asset management approach to 
     Federal property issues by: improving life cycle planning and 
     management; allowing greater flexibility to optimize asset 
     performance; and providing incentives for better property 
     management. Modernizing these processes enhances government-
     wide property management, bringing the practices federal 
     agencies use to manage their assets into the 21st century.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
        Shelby, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lott, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
        Helms, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 1614. A bill to provide for the preservation and restoration of 
historic buildings at historically women's public colleges or 
universities; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I rise to re-introduce legislation 
to help preserve the heritage of eight historic women's colleges and 
universities. The legislation would authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to provide restoration and preservation grants for historic 
buildings and structures at eight historically women's colleges or 
universities. The bill directs the Secretary to award $16 million 
annually from fiscal years 2002 through 2006 to the eight institutions. 
Funds would be awarded from the National Historic Preservation Fund and 
are subject to a 50 percent matching requirement from non-federal 
sources.
  The sweeping changes of the industrial revolution prompted Congress 
in 1862, with further action in 1887 and 1890, to provide Federal 
support for the establishment of agricultural and mechanical colleges 
with growing emphasis on industrial and technical education. 
Unfortunately, these ``land-grant'' schools were only for men, leaving 
women untrained as they entered the expanded work force. Women's 
advocates, such as Miss Julia Tutwiler in Alabama, immediately 
recognized the need for institutions where women could receive an equal 
education. Beginning in 1836, eight institutions in seven separate 
States were established as industrial schools for women. These 
institutions include the Mississippi University for Women, in Alabama 
the University of Montevallo, Georgia College and State University, 
Wesleyan College also in Georgia, Winthrop University in South 
Carolina, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Texas Women's 
University, and the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. These 
eight institutions remain open, providing a liberal arts education for 
both men and women, but retain significant historical and academic 
features of those pioneering efforts to educate women. Despite their 
continued use, many of the structures located on these campuses are 
facing destruction or closure because preservation funds are not 
available. My legislation would enable these buildings to be preserved 
and maintained by providing funding for the historic buildings located 
at the colleges and universities that I have identified. Funding would 
originate from the National Historic Preservation Fund. No more than 
$16 million would be available and would be distributed in equal 
amounts to the eight institutions. My bill also provides that a 50 
percent matching contribution from non-federal sources and assures that 
alterations in properties using the funds are subject to approval from 
the Secretary of the Interior and reasonable public access for 
interpretive and educational purposes.
  These historically women's colleges and universities have contributed 
significantly to the effort to attain equal opportunity through 
postsecondary education for women, low income individuals, and 
educationally disadvantaged Americans. I believe it is our duty to do 
all we can to preserve these historic institutions and I ask my 
colleagues for their support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 1616. A bill to provide for interest on late payments of health 
care claims; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Prompt 
Payment Bill''. This legislation addresses the need for the managed 
care industry to not only take responsibility for their payments on 
time, but to face specific penalties if they do not do so.
  HMOs are one of the few entities that continue to be shielded from 
lawsuits. It is shocking that under current federal and most state 
laws, there are no consequences when HMOs fail to pay their bills in a 
timely manner. HMOs even have the right to drop out of Medicare simply 
because they are unsatisfied with the rate, let alone the timeliness, 
of what the government is paying them. It is time that this lack of 
accountability is addressed and significantly increased.
  In my State of New Jersey, there is in fact a ``prompt pay'' law that 
requires HMOs to pay their bills in thirty days from receiving a claim 
from a beneficiary, hospital or health care provider. However, a 1998 
survey of twenty-four New Jersey hospitals found that more than $150 
million in HMO payments were held up for sixty days or longer. That 
same year, sixty percent of New Jersey hospitals lost money, over $172 
million in statewide losses. HMOs simply face no consequences from 
state regulatory agencies and the enforcement mechanisms currently in 
place are too weak. If we let this continue, we will jeopardize the 
care that people receive from their health care providers.
  For these reasons, I am introducing the ``Prompt Payment Bill''. This 
amendment will move HMOs considerably closer to assuming the financial 
responsibilities for the health care coverage they are being paid to 
provide.

[[Page S11370]]

Specifically, it will call for a ten-percent interest penalty per year 
on any payment not made within 45 days. If the HMO continues to be 
delinquent, beneficiaries or health care providers can bring the HMO to 
court to make them pay their bills.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts in making the managed 
care industry significantly more accountable to their beneficiaries.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 1617. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to 
increase the hiring of firefighters, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator 
Warner, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Schumer, Senator Murray, Senator 
Cleland, and Senator Corzine to introduce legislation to ensure that 
America's firefighters have the staffing they need to safely do their 
jobs.
  It has been nearly seven weeks since the terrorist attacks on the 
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We are still assessing the damage 
done by those attacks, but one thing is already absolutely certain, the 
world has changed. And as we begin to figure out all of the ways in 
which the world has changed, we are starting to reassess our national 
priorities. We, as a Nation, are taking stock of our strengths and 
vulnerabilities, and we're identifying ways to improve our capacity to 
deal with the threats that became so apparent on September 11.
   One of the fundamental new realities that we find ourselves facing 
is that America needs to be better prepared to respond to deliberate 
acts of mass destruction. We need to be better prepared to deal with 
acts of bioterrorism and we need to be prepared to help save people 
even if they are deliberately attacked with toxic chemical weapons. In 
short, we need to be prepared for what seemed unthinkable.
  The legislation that we are proposing will help ensure that America's 
local fire agencies have the human resources that they need to meet the 
challenges which they will address as America faces the challenge of an 
extended war against terrorism.
  Just as we have called up the National Guard to meet the increased 
need for more manpower in the military, we need to make a national 
commitment to hire the firefighters necessary to protect the American 
people here on the home front. The legislation that we are proposing 
will put 75,000 new firefighters on America's streets over the next 
seven years.
  Many of us in Congress have long understood that America's 
firefighters make extraordinary contributions to their communities 
everyday. But on September 11, we got a glimpse of a larger role that 
the men and women of the fire service, not to mention police forces 
play. The national role of our firefighters has become apparent. They 
have made the nation proud.
  Despite the increasingly important role firefighters play both in our 
local communities and as part of our national homeland defense system, 
communities over the years have not maintained the level of staffing 
necessary to ensure the safety of the public or even of the 
firefighters themselves.
  Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. 
workforce has steadily declined. Today in America there is only one 
firefighter for every 280 citizens. We have fewer firefighters per 
capita than nurses and police officers. We need to turn this trend 
around, now more than ever.
  Understaffing is dangerous for the public and for firefighters. 
Chronic understaffing means that many firefighters do not have the 
backup and on-the-ground support they need to do their jobs safely. The 
sad consequence is that about every three days we lose a firefighter in 
the line of duty. And on some days, the losses are unimaginably high.
  We learned on September 11 that the American homeland is not immune 
from unthinkable acts of violence. Knowing that, we have an obligation 
to take every reasonable step to mitigate the potential damage that may 
be caused by future attacks.
  Again, just as we have called up the National Guard to meet the 
increased need for more manpower in the military, we need to make a 
national commitment to hire firefighters to protect the American 
people. In these difficult times, it is both necessary and proper for 
us to send for reinforcements for our domestic defenders. The SAFER Act 
will make that commitment.
  This legislation honors America's firefighters. It acknowledges the 
men and women who charge up the stairs while everybody else is running 
down them. But it is more than that. This legislation is an investment 
in America's security, an investment that will rebuild public 
confidence and help reassure Americans that their homes and businesses 
are as well protected as possible.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

                                S. 1617

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

     SECTION 1. STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE.

       Title III of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Public 
     Law 105-220; 112 Stat. 1080) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

    ``Subtitle E--Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response

     ``SEC. 351. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This subtitle may be cited as the `Staffing for Adequate 
     Fire and Emergency Response Act of 2001' or as the `SAFER Act 
     of 2001'.

     ``SEC. 352. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this subtitle are--
       ``(1) to expand on the firefighter assistance grant program 
     under section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control 
     Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229), in order to ensure adequate 
     funding to increase the number of firefighting personnel 
     throughout the Nation;
       ``(2) to substantially increase the hiring of firefighters 
     so that communities can--
       ``(A) meet industry minimum standards for providing 
     adequate protection from acts of terrorism and hazards; and
       ``(B) enhance the ability of firefighter units to save 
     lives, save property, and effectively respond to all types of 
     emergencies; and
       ``(3) to promote that substantial increase in hiring by 
     establishing a program of grants, authorized for 7 years, to 
     provide direct funding to States, units of local government, 
     and Indian tribal organizations for firefighter salaries and 
     benefits.

     ``SEC. 353. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) a State, a unit of local government, a tribal 
     organization, or another public entity; or
       ``(B) a multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia of 
     entities described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Firefighter.--The term `firefighter' has the meaning 
     given the term `employee in fire protection activities' in 
     section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
     203).
       ``(3) Indian tribe; tribal organization.--The terms `Indian 
     tribe' and `tribal organization' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       ``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Labor, acting after consultation with the Director of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency.
       ``(5) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands.

     ``SEC. 354. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `qualifying 
     entity', used with respect to a fiscal year, means any 
     eligible entity (including a State) that has submitted an 
     application under section 355 for the fiscal year that meets 
     the requirements of this subtitle and such additional 
     requirements as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(b) Grant Authorization.--The Secretary may make grants 
     to eligible entities to pay for the Federal share of the cost 
     of carrying out projects to hire firefighters.
       ``(c) Minimum Amount.--
       ``(1) Amount.--For any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that the qualifying entities in each State shall 
     receive, through grants made under this section, a total 
     amount that is not less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount 
     appropriated under section 362 for the fiscal year.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply for a 
     fiscal year if the Secretary makes a grant under this section 
     to every qualifying entity for the fiscal year.
       ``(d) Grant Periods.--The Secretary may make grants under 
     this section for periods of 3 years.
       ``(e) Federal Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out a project to hire firefighters under this 
     subtitle shall be not more than 75 percent.

[[Page S11371]]

       ``(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share shall be 
     provided--
       ``(A) in cash;
       ``(B) in the case of a State or unit of local government, 
     from assets received through an asset forfeiture program; or
       ``(C) in the case of a tribal organization or the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs, from any Federal funds made available for 
     firefighting functions to assist an Indian tribe.
       ``(3) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) for an eligible entity.

     ``SEC. 355. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subtitle, an entity shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each such application shall--
       ``(1) include a long-term strategy and detailed 
     implementation plan, for the hiring to be conducted under the 
     grant, that reflects consultation with community groups and 
     appropriate private and public agencies and reflects 
     consideration of a statewide strategy for such hiring;
       ``(2) specify the reasons why the entity is unable to hire 
     sufficient firefighters to address the entity's needs, 
     without Federal assistance;
       ``(3)(A) specify the average number of firefighters 
     employed by the entity during the fiscal year prior to the 
     fiscal year for which the application is submitted; and
       ``(B) outline the initial and planned level of community 
     support for implementing the strategy and plan, including the 
     level of financial and in-kind contributions or other 
     tangible commitments;
       ``(4)(A) specify plans for obtaining necessary support and 
     continuing the employment of a greater number of firefighters 
     than the number specified under paragraph (3)(A), following 
     the conclusion of Federal assistance under this subtitle; and
       ``(B) include an assurance that the entity will continue 
     the employment of firefighters hired with funds made 
     available through the grant for at least 1 year after the end 
     of the grant period; and
       ``(5) include assurances that the entity will, to the 
     extent practicable, seek, recruit, and hire members of racial 
     and ethnic minority groups and women in order to increase the 
     ranks of minorities and women within the entity's firefighter 
     units.
       ``(c) Small Jurisdictions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this subtitle, the Secretary may waive 1 or more 
     of the requirements of subsection (b), and may make special 
     provisions to facilitate the expedited submission, 
     processing, and approval of an application under this 
     section, for an eligible entity that is a unit of local 
     government, or an eligible entity serving a fire district, 
     that has jurisdiction over an area with a population of less 
     than 50,000.
       ``(d) Preference.--In awarding grants under this subtitle, 
     the Secretary--
       ``(1) shall give preference to a unit of local government; 
     and
       ``(2) may give preference, where feasible, to an eligible 
     entity that submits an application containing a plan that--
       ``(A) provides for hiring (including rehiring) career 
     firefighters; and
       ``(B) requires the entity to contribute a non-Federal share 
     of more than 25 percent of the cost of carrying out a project 
     to hire the firefighters.
       ``(e) State and Local Applications.--If a unit of local 
     government for a community, and the State in which the 
     community is located, submit applications under this section 
     for a fiscal year to carry out a project in a community, and 
     the unit of local government and State are qualifying 
     entities under section 354(a), the Secretary--
       ``(1) shall make a grant under this subtitle to the unit of 
     local government for that year; and
       ``(2) shall not make a grant under this subtitle to the 
     State to carry out a project in that community for that year.

     ``SEC. 356. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this subtitle shall use the funds made available 
     through the grant to hire career firefighters. The funds may 
     only be used to increase the number of firefighters employed 
     by the agency from the number specified under section 
     355(b)(3)(A). The funds may be used for salaries and benefits 
     for the firefighters.
       ``(b) Hiring Costs.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2002.--For fiscal year 2002, in hiring 
     any 1 firefighter, the entity may not use more than $90,000 
     of such funds.
       ``(2) Subsequent years.--For each subsequent fiscal year, 
     in hiring any 1 firefighter, the entity may not use more than 
     $90,000 of such funds, increased or decreased by the same 
     percentage as the percentage by which the Consumer Price 
     Index for All Urban Consumers (United States city average), 
     published by the Secretary of Labor, has increased or 
     decreased by September of the preceding fiscal year from such 
     Index for September 2001.
       ``(3) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of 
     paragraph (1) or (2) for an eligible entity.
       ``(c) Supplement, not Supplant.--Funds appropriated 
     pursuant to the authority of this subtitle shall be used to 
     supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local 
     public funds expended to hire firefighters.

     ``SEC. 357. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``The Secretary may provide technical assistance to 
     eligible entities to further the purposes of this Act.

     ``SEC. 358. MONITORING AND EVALUATIONS.

       ``(a) Monitoring Components.--Each project funded through a 
     grant made under this subtitle shall contain a monitoring 
     component, developed pursuant to regulations established by 
     the Secretary. The monitoring required by this subsection 
     shall include systematic identification and collection of 
     data about the project throughout the period of the project 
     and presentation of such data in a usable form.
       ``(b) Evaluation Components.--The Secretary may require 
     that selected grant recipients under this subtitle conduct 
     local evaluations or participate in a national evaluation, 
     pursuant to regulations established by the Secretary. Such 
     local or national evaluations may include assessments of the 
     implementation of different projects. The Secretary may 
     require selected grant recipients under this subtitle to 
     conduct local outcome evaluations to determine the 
     effectiveness of projects under this subtitle.
       ``(c) Periodic Reports.--The Secretary may require a grant 
     recipient under this subtitle to submit to the Secretary the 
     results of the monitoring and evaluations required under 
     subsections (a) and (b) and such other data and information 
     as the Secretary determines to be reasonably necessary.
       ``(d) Revocation or Suspension of Funding.--If the 
     Secretary determines, as a result of the monitoring or 
     evaluations required by this section, or otherwise, that a 
     grant recipient under this subtitle is not in substantial 
     compliance with the terms and requirements of an approved 
     grant application submitted under section 355, the Secretary 
     may revoke the grant or suspend part or all of the funding 
     provided under the grant.

     ``SEC. 359. ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS.

       ``For the purpose of conducting an audit or examination of 
     a grant recipient that carries out a project under this 
     subtitle, the Secretary and the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall have access to any pertinent books, 
     documents, papers, or records of the grant recipient and any 
     State or local government, person, business, or other entity, 
     that is involved in the project.

     ``SEC. 360. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       ``Not later than September 30, 2008, the Secretary shall 
     submit a report to Congress concerning the experiences of 
     eligible entities in carrying out projects under this 
     subtitle, and the effects of the grants made under this 
     subtitle. The report may include recommendations for such 
     legislation as the Secretary may consider to be appropriate, 
     which may include reauthorization of this subtitle.

     ``SEC. 361. REGULATIONS.

       ``The Secretary may issue regulations to carry out this 
     subtitle.

     ``SEC. 362. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this subtitle--
       ``(1) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;-
       ``(2) $1,030,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(3) $1,061,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(4) $1,093,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(5) $1,126,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(6) $1,159,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(7) $1,194,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       ``(b) Availability.--Funds appropriated under subsection 
     (a) for a fiscal year shall remain available until the end of 
     the second succeeding fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-220; 112 Stat. 936) is 
     amended, in the items relating to title III, by adding at the 
     end the following:

    ``Subtitle E--Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response

``Sec. 351. Short title.
``Sec. 352. Purposes.
``Sec. 353. Definitions.
``Sec. 354. Authority to make grants.
``Sec. 355. Applications.
``Sec. 356. Use of funds.
``Sec. 357. Technical assistance.
``Sec. 358. Monitoring and evaluations.
``Sec. 359. Access to documents.
``Sec. 360. Report to Congress.
``Sec. 361. Regulations.
``Sec. 362. Authorization of appropriations.''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Dodd, in introducing legislation that will address 
a pressing issue for many States and localities which do not have the 
necessary funding to hire additional firefighters. The SAFER Act 
establishes a new grant program that will provide direct funding to 
fire and rescue departments to cover some of the costs associated with 
hiring and training new firefighters.
  The brave women and men serving in our nation's fire service are on 
the front lines in America's new war on terrorism. They have a critical 
role in our homeland defense initiatives.
  The SAFER Act would help ensure adequate staffing for fire and 
emergency response. Earlier this year the National Fire Protection 
Association, a nonprofit organization which develops and promotes 
scientifically based consensus codes and standards, adopted

[[Page S11372]]

a standard on response operational and deployment issues pertaining to 
fire and rescue departments. Based upon that standard, almost two 
thirds of fire companies across the country operate with inadequate 
staffing. The cost for many municipalities to meet these new safety 
standards, however, would be significant.
  Many Americans are not aware of the staffing shortages we may face in 
our fire and rescue departments. The role of firefighter in our 
communities is far greater than most realize. They are first to respond 
to hazardous materials calls, chemicals emergencies, biohazard 
incidents, and water rescues. These are dangers which our fire rescue 
personnel deal with on a daily basis.
  Well over 300 firefighters lost their lives in the line of duty in 
responding to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks. We need to 
recognize our firefighters and emergency personnel around the country 
who continue to make sacrifices in their service to the public. We must 
provide our fire and rescue departments with sufficient funding to hire 
the necessary personnel in order to ensure that our nation's 
communities are adequately protect.
  I am honored to be an original cosponsor of the important 
legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure and 
address this critical need of our fire and rescue services throughout 
the country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 1618. A bill to enhance the border security of the United States, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senators 
Brownback, Cantwell, Collins, Edwards, Hagel, Reid, and Ensign in 
introducing legislation to strengthen the security of our borders and 
enhance our ability to deter potential terrorists. There is an urgent 
need to improve intelligence and technology capabilities, enhance the 
ability to screen individuals before they arrive at our borders, and 
improve the monitoring of foreign nationals already within the United 
States.
  In strengthening the security of our borders, we must also safeguard 
the unobstructed entry of the more than 31 million persons who enter 
the U.S. legally each year as visitors, students, and temporary 
workers. Many of them cross the Canadian and Mexican borders to conduct 
daily business or visit close family members.
  We must also live up to our history and heritage as a Nation of 
immigrants. Immigration is essential to who we are as Americans. 
Continued immigration is part of our national well-being, our identity 
as a Nation, and our strength in today's world. In defending the 
Nation, we are also defending the fundamental constitutional principles 
that have made America strong in the past and will make us even 
stronger in the future.
  Our action must strike a careful balance between protecting civil 
liberties and providing the means for law enforcement to identify, 
apprehend and detain potential terrorist. It makes no sense to enact 
reforms that severely limit immigration into the United States. 
``Fortress America,'' even if it could be achieved, is an inadequate 
and ineffective response to the terrorist threat.
  A major goal of this legislation is to improve coordination and 
information-sharing by the Department of State, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, and law enforcement and intelligence agencies. 
It will require the Department of State and the INS to work with the 
Office of Homeland Security and the recently formed Foreign Terrorist 
Tracking Task Force to submit and implement a plan to improve their 
access to critical security information. It will give those responsible 
for screening visa applicants and persons entering the U.S. the tools 
they need to make informed decisions.
  We must provide enforcement personnel at our ports of entry with 
greater resources and technology. These men and women are a primary 
defense in the battle against terrorism. This legislation will see that 
they receive adequate pay, can hire necessary support staff, and are 
well-trained to identify individuals who pose a security threat.
  The anti-terrorism bill recently passed by the Senate addressed the 
need for machine-readable passports, but it did not focus on machine-
readable visas, a necessary part of our efforts to improve border 
security. This legislation allows the Department of State to raise fees 
through the use of machine-readable visas and use the funds collected 
from those fees to improve technology at our ports of entry.
  We must do more to improve our ability to screen individuals along 
our entire North American perimeter. This legislation directs the 
Department of State and the INS to work with the Office of Homeland 
Security and the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force to strengthen 
our ability to screen individuals at the Perimeter before they reach 
our continent. We can work with Canada and Mexico to coordinate these 
efforts.
  We must also strengthen our ability to monitor foreign nationals in 
the United States. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation mandating the 
development of an automated entry/exit control system to record the 
entry of every non-citizen arriving in the U.S., and to match it with 
the record of departure. Although technology is currently available for 
such a system, it has not been implemented because of the high costs 
involved. Our legislation builds on the anti-terrorism bill and 
provides greater direction to the INS for implementing the entry/exit 
system.

  We must improve the ability of foreign service officers to detect and 
intercept potential terrorists before they arrive in the U.S. Most 
foreign nationals who travel here must apply for visas at American 
consulates overseas. Traditionally, consular officers have focused on 
interviewing applicants to determine whether they are likely to violate 
their visa status. Although this review is important, consular officers 
must also be trained specifically to screen for security threats.
  We must require all airlines to electronically transmit passenger 
lists to destination airports in the United States, so that once the 
planes have landed, law enforcement authorities can intercept 
passengers who are on federal lookout lists. United States airlines 
already do this, but some foreign airlines do not. Our legislation 
requires all airlines to transmit passenger manifest information prior 
to the arrival of flight in the U.S.
  In 1996, Congress established a program to collect information on 
non-immigrant foreign students and participants in exchange programs. 
Although a pilot phase of this program ended in 1999, a permanent 
system has not yet been implemented. Congress passed provisions in the 
anti-terrorism bill for the quick and effective implementation of this 
system by 2003, but gaps still exist. This legislation will increase 
the data collected by the monitoring to include the date of entry, the 
port of entry, the date of school enrollment, and the date the student 
leaves the school. It requires the Department of State and INS to 
monitor students who have been given visas, and to notify schools of 
their entry. It also requires a school to notify the INS if a student 
does not actually report to the school. If institutions fail to comply 
with these and other requirements, they should lose their ability to 
admit foreign students.
  INS regulations provide for regular reviews of over 26,000 
educational institutions that are authorized to enroll foreign 
students. However, inspections have been sporadic in recent years. This 
legislation will require INS to monitor institutions on a regular 
basis.
  As we work to implement stronger tracking systems, we must also 
remember that the vast majority of foreign visitors, students, and 
workers who overstay their visas are not criminals or terrorists. It 
would be wrong and unfair, without additional information, to 
stigmatize them.
  This legislation will also help restrict visas to foreign nationals 
from countries that the Department of State has determined are sponsors 
of terrorism. It precludes visas to individuals from countries that 
sponsor terrorism, unless specific steps are taken to ensure the person 
is not a security threat.
  We must be able to retain highly skilled immigration inspectors. Our 
legislation will provide incentives to immigration inspectors by 
providing

[[Page S11373]]

them with the same benefits as other law enforcement personnel.
  We must fully implement the use of biometric border crossing cards 
and allow sufficient time for individuals to obtain these cards. Many 
of these cards are already in use, but INS does not have the necessary 
equipment to read the cards. This legislation appropriates needed funds 
to enable the INS to purchase the machines, and it extends the deadline 
for individuals crossing the border to acquire the cards.
  When planes land at our airports, inspectors are under significant 
time constraints to clear the planes and ensure the safety of all 
departing passengers. Our legislation removes the existing 45 minute 
deadline, providing inspectors with adequate time to clear and secure 
aircraft.
  The Senate took significant steps last week to improve immigration 
security by passing the anti-terrorism bill, but further action is 
needed. This legislation will strengthen the security of our borders 
and enhance our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks, while also 
reaffirming our tradition as a Nation of immigrants. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 
have unsettled the public's confidence in our Nation's security and 
have raised concerns about whether our institutions are up to the task 
of intercepting and thwarting would-be terrorists. Given that the 
persons responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon came from abroad, our citizens understandably ask how these 
people entered the United States and what can be done to prevent their 
kind from doing so again. Clearly, our immigration laws and policies 
are instrumental to the war on terrorism. While the battle may be waged 
on several fronts, for the man or woman on the street, immigration is 
in many ways the front line of our defense.
  The immigration provisions in the anti-terrorist bill passed by this 
body last week, the USA Patriot Act of 2001, represent an excellent 
first step toward improving our border security, but we must not stop 
there. Our Nation receives millions of visitors each year, foreign 
nationals who come to the United States to visit family, to do 
business, to tour our sites, to study and learn. Most of these people 
enter lawfully and mean well; they are good for our economy and are 
potential ambassadors of good will to their home countries. However, 
there is a small minority who intend us harm, and we must take 
intelligent measures to keep these people out.
  For that reason, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my 
colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Collins, Senator Cantwell, Senator 
Hagel, Senator Edwards, Senator Ensign, and Senator Reid, legislation 
that looks specifically toward strengthening our borders and better 
equipping the agencies that protect them. The Enhanced Border Security 
Act of 2001 represents an earnest, thoughtful, and bipartisan effort to 
refine our immigration laws and institutions to better combat the evil 
that threatens our Nation.
  The legislation recognizes that the war on terrorism is, in large 
part, a war of information. To be successful, we must improve our 
ability to collect, compile, and utilize information critical to our 
safety and national security. This bill provides that the agencies 
tasked with screening visa applicants and applicants for admission, 
namely the Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, must be provided with law enforcement and intelligence 
information that will enable these agencies to identify alien 
terrorists. By directing better coordination and access, this 
legislation will bring together the agencies that have the information 
and those that need it. With input from the Office of Homeland Security 
and the President's Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, this bill 
will make prompt and effective information-sharing between these 
agencies a reality.
  In complement to last week's anti-terrorist act, this legislation 
provides for necessary improvements in the technologies used by the 
State Department and the Service. It provides funding for the State 
Department to better interface with foreign intelligence information 
and to better staff its infrastructure. It also provides the Service 
with guidance on the implementation of the Integrated Entry and Exit 
Data System, pointing the Service to such tools as biometric 
identifiers in immigration documents, machine readable visas and 
passports, and arrival-departure and security databases. In fact, this 
legislation expressly enables the Service to take immediate advantage 
of biometric technology by authorizing the funding to purchase 
equipment for reading border-crossing cards that are already available 
for use.

  To the degree that we can reasonably and realistically do so, we 
should attempt to intercept terrorists before they reach our borders. 
Accordingly, we must consider security measures not only at domestic 
ports of entry but also at foreign ports of departure. To that end, 
this legislation directs the State Department and the Service, in 
consultation with Office of Homeland Security, to examine, expand, and 
enhance screening procedures to take place outside the United States, 
as preinspection and preclearance. It also requires international air 
carriers to transmit, in advance of their arrival, passenger manifests 
for review by the Service. Further, it eliminates the 45-minute 
statutory limit on airport inspections, which many feel compromises the 
Service's ability to screen arriving flights properly. Finally, since 
we should ultimately look to expand our security perimeter to include 
Canada and Mexico, this bill requires these agencies to work with our 
neighbors to create a collaborative North American Security Perimeter.
  While this legislation mandates certain technological improvements, 
it does not ignore the human element in the security equation. It 
provides special training to border patrol agents, inspectors, and 
foreign service officers to better identify terrorists and security 
threats to the United States. Moreover, to help the Service retain its 
most experienced people on the borders, this bill provides the Service 
with increased flexibility in pay, certain benefit incentives, and the 
ability to hire necessary support staff.
  Finally, this legislation considers certain classes of aliens that 
raise security concerns for our country: nationals from states that 
sponsor terrorism and foreign students. With respect to the former, 
this bill expressly prohibits the State Department from issuing a 
nonimmigrant visa to any alien from a country that sponsors terrorism 
until it has been determined that the alien does not pose a threat to 
the safety or national security of the United States. With respect to 
the latter, this legislation would fill data and reporting gaps in our 
foreign student programs by requiring the Service to electronically 
monitor the student at every stage in the student visa process. It 
would also require the educational institution to report a foreign 
student's failure to enroll and the Service to monitor schools' 
compliance with this reporting requirement.
  While we must be careful not to compromise our values or our economy, 
we must take intelligent, immediate steps to enhance the security of 
our borders. This legislation, consonant with both the USA Patriot Act 
and President Bush's recent directive on immigration, would implement 
many changes that are vital to our war on terrorism. I therefore urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President I rise today for two purposes. First, I 
commend my colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his tireless work on 
immigration issues and to offer my support for a bill he and Senator 
Brownback are introducing today, the Enhanced Border Security Act of 
2001. Also, I want to discuss legislation I will be introducing that 
builds upon the visa technology standards provisions of the USA Patriot 
Act of 2001 and fits within the construct of what Senators Kennedy and 
Brownback seek to accomplish. Several of the provisions I have proposed 
have already been incorporated by Senators Kennedy and Brownback, and I 
will continue to work with them and my other colleagues to move other 
provisions of my bill.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been honored to work 
closely with Senator Kennedy to find ways to better protect our borders 
and provide necessary support to the men

[[Page S11374]]

and women who work for the State Department, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Agency.
  I, along with many of my colleagues, am currently pressing for 
funding to triple the number of Immigration and Naturalization Service 
and U.S. personnel on our northern border and improve border 
technology, the authorization for which was included in the USA Patriot 
Act. In the past, a severe lack of resources at our northern border has 
compromised the ability of border control officials to execute their 
duties. I am pleased that Congress made the tripling of these resources 
a priority for national security, and I will continue to fight for full 
funding of this measure. Senators Kennedy and Brownback have also 
addressed these needs by improving INS pay standards, providing 
additional training for Border Patrol and Customs agents, and 
increasing information technology funding.
  Let me commend Senators Kennedy and Brownback on the bill they are 
introducing today. It reflects a thoughtful response to the current 
situation at our borders, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor. 
I am aware that others have proposals to address border issues as well, 
and I look forward to working with them.
  The Enhanced Border Security Act of 2001 addresses several critical 
issues. In hearings in recent weeks before the Immigration Subcommittee 
and the Technology and, Terrorism Subcommittee, we heard repeated calls 
for better sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information as 
it relates to admitting aliens into the United States. The bill 
addresses this problem by mandating INS and Department of State access 
to relevant FBI information within one year. I am pleased that the 
authors of this bill have included provisions to protect the privacy 
and security of this information, and require limitations on the use 
and repeated dissemination of the information.
  Sharing U.S. law enforcement and intelligence information with the 
State Department and INS is important, but it is also critical to build 
upon our relationships with Canada and Mexico. We share a mutual 
interest in protecting our respective borders. The U.S., Canada and 
Mexico must also improve the sharing of information by our law 
enforcement and intelligence communities. We need to develop a 
perimeter national security program with our partners to our north and 
south, and the Enhanced Border Security Act does just that.
  The Enhanced Border Security Act requires airlines to provide 
passenger manifests to the INS and Customs in advance of a flight's 
arrival. This will be one more source of data, that will help INS 
screen for those who should not be allowed to enter. It also tightens 
controls on student visas, and restricts the issuance of visas to 
aliens who are citizens of countries that sponsor terrorism. This is a 
thoughtful bill and I urge my colleagues' support.
  Last week with the enactment of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, the 
Federal Government committed to developing a visa technology standard 
that would facilitate the sharing of information related to the 
admissibility of aliens into the United States. I proposed this 
language recognizing that for many years, the U.S. law enforcement and 
intelligence communities have maintained numerous, but separate, non-
interoperable databases. These databases are not easily or readily 
accessible to front-line Federal agents responsible for making the 
critical decisions of whether to issue a visa or to admit an alien into 
the United States.
  To build on and fulfill the goals of establishing this standard, my 
bill will do three things. First, it will require technology be 
implemented to track the initial entry and exit of aliens traveling on 
a U.S. visa. We know now that several of the terrorists who attacked 
America on September 11 were traveling on expired visas. We have had 
the law in place for several years now, but due to concerns about 
maintaining the flow of trade and tourism across our borders, concerns 
I share, the provisions of Section 110 have not been fully implemented. 
Technology will address those concerns, allowing electronic recordation 
and verification of entry and exit data in an instant.
  Second, I believe it is necessary to require the Departments of State 
and Justice to work with the Office of Homeland Security to build a 
cohesive electronic data sharing system. The system must incorporate 
interoperability and compatibility within and between the databases of 
the various agencies that maintain information relevant to determining 
whether a visa should be issued or whether an alien should be admitted 
into the United States. My legislation will require interoperable real-
time sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information relevant 
to the issuance of a visa or an alien's admissibility to the U.S. The 
provision will require that information is made available, although 
with the appropriate safeguards for privacy and the protection of 
intelligence sources, to the front line government agents making the 
decisions to issue visas or to admit visa holding aliens to the United 
States. I am pleased that Senators Kennedy and Brownback have adopted 
these provisions into their legislation.
  Finally, building on the provisions of the Kennedy-Brownback bill for 
a Perimeter National Security Program, and on the technology standard 
required under the USA Patriot Act, my legislation will require the 
Department of State and the Attorney General to study and report to 
Congress within 90 days on how best to facilitate sharing of 
information that may be relevant to determining whether to issue a U.S. 
visa. Our borders are only as secure as the borders of those countries 
with whom we have agreements that visas are not required. We need to 
build on our relationships with these international partners to secure 
our respective borders through better information sharing.
  Keeping terrorists out of the U.S. in the first place will reduce the 
risks of terrorism within the U.S. in the future. Aliens known to be 
affiliated with terrorists have been admitted to the U.S. on valid 
visas simply because one agency in government did not share important 
information with another department in a timely fashion. We must make 
sure that this does not happen again.
  Until now, we had hoped that agencies would voluntarily share this 
information on a real-time and regular basis. This has not happened, 
and although I know that the events of September 11 have led to serious 
rethinking of our information-sharing processes and procedures, I think 
it is time to mandate the sharing of fundamental information.
  Advancements in technology have provided us with additional tools to 
verify the identify of individuals entering our country without 
impairing the flow of legitimate trade, tourism, workers and students. 
It is time we put these tools to use.
  Improving our national security is vitally important, but I will not 
support measures that compromise America's civil liberties. Both the 
bill being introduced today and the bill I will be introducing include 
several safeguards to protect individuals' rights to privacy. The bills 
provide that where databases are created or shared, there must be 
protection of privacy and adequate security measures in place, 
limitations on the use and re-dissemination of information, and 
mechanisms for removing obsolete or erroneous information. Even in 
times of urgent action, we must protect the freedoms that make our 
country great.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Lincoln, and 
        Mr. McConnell):
  S. 1619. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of substitute adult day care services under the 
Medicare Program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Mr. 
Rockefeller, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. McConnell to introduce bipartisan 
legislation aimed at improving long-term care health and rehabilitation 
options for Medicare beneficiaries, and also assisting family 
caregivers.
  We all recognize that our Nation needs to address sooner rather than 
later challenges of financing long-term care services for our growing 
aging population. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that 
national expenditures for long-term care services for the elderly will 
increase each year through 2040. But it is in just over a decade when 
we will see these challenges become even more pronounced

[[Page S11375]]

when the 76 million baby boomers begin to turn 65. Baby boomers are 
expected to live longer and greater numbers will reach 85 and older.
  Given the expected growing costs of long-term care services, and 
combined with the fact that today so many American families are already 
serving as caregivers for aging or ailing seniors and providing such a 
large portion of long-term care services, it is more important than 
ever that we have in place quality options in how to best care for our 
senior population about to dramatically increase.
  This is why we are introducing the Medicare Adult Day Services 
Alternative Act, legislation to offer home health beneficiaries more 
options for receiving care in a setting of their own choosing, rather 
than confining the provision of those benefits solely to the home.
  This legislation would give beneficiaries the option to receive some 
or all of their Medicare home health services in an adult day setting. 
This would be a substitution, not an expansion, of services. The bill 
would not make new people eligible for Medicare home health benefits or 
expand the list of services paid for. In fact, this legislation may be 
designed to produce net savings for the Medicare program.
  Permitting homebound patients to receive their home health care in a 
clinically-based senior day center, as an alternative to receiving it 
at home, could result in significant benefits to the Medicare program, 
such as reduced cost-per-episode, reduced numbers of episodes, as well 
as mental and physical stimulation for patients.
  Moreover, the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act could well 
have a positive impact on our economy, as it would enable caregivers to 
attend to other things in today's fast-paced family life, such as 
working a full- or part-time job and caring for children, knowing their 
loved ones are well cared for. It is unfortunate that today many 
caregivers have to choose between working or caring for a family 
member. It is estimated that the average loss of income to these 
caregivers is more than $600,000 in wages, pension, and Social Security 
benefits. And by extension, the loss in productivity in United States 
businesses is pegged at more than $10 billion annually.
  But it does not have to be an either-or proposition. The Medicare 
Adult Day Services Alternative Act is a creative solution to health 
care delivery, which would adequately reimburse providers in a fiscally 
responsible way. Located in every state in the United States and the 
District of Columbia, adult day centers generally offer transportation, 
meals, personal care, and counseling in addition to the medical 
services and socialization benefits offered.
  We can and should offer both our Medicare beneficiaries and family 
caregivers more and better options for health care delivery, and that 
is exactly what the Medicare Adult Day Services Alternative Act is 
designed to do. This legislation is bipartisan, and is supported by 
more than 20 national non-profit organizations concerned with the well-
being of America's older population and committed to representing their 
interests.
  I hope our colleagues will join us in this cause. I again thank 
Senators Rockefeller, Lincoln and McConnell for working with me in this 
effort, and 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. 1619

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Adult Day Services 
     Alternative Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) adult day care offers services, including medical care, 
     rehabilitation therapies, dignified assistance with 
     activities of daily living, social interaction, and 
     stimulating activities, to seniors who are frail, physically 
     challenged, or cognitively impaired;
       (2) access to adult day care services provides seniors and 
     their familial caregivers support that is critical to keeping 
     the senior in the family home;
       (3) more than 22,000,000 families in the United States 
     serve as caregivers for aging or ailing seniors, nearly 1 in 
     4 American families, providing close to 80 percent of the 
     care to individuals requiring long-term care;
       (4) nearly 75 percent of those actively providing such care 
     are women who also maintain other responsibilities, such as 
     working outside of the home and raising young children;
       (5) the average loss of income to these caregivers has been 
     shown to be $659,130 in wages, pension, and Social Security 
     benefits;
       (6) the loss in productivity in United States businesses 
     ranges from $11,000,000,000 to $29,000,000,000 annually;
       (7) the services offered in adult day care facilities 
     provide continuity of care and an important sense of 
     community for both the senior and the caregiver;
       (8) there are adult day care centers in every State in the 
     United States and the District of Columbia;
       (9) these centers generally offer transportation, meals, 
     personal care, and counseling in addition to the medical 
     services and socialization benefits offered; and
       (10) with the need for quality options in how to best care 
     for our senior population about to dramatically increase with 
     the aging of the baby boomer generation, the time to address 
     these issues is now.

     SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF SUBSTITUTE ADULT DAY CARE SERVICES UNDER 
                   MEDICARE.

       (a) Substitute Adult Day Care Services Benefit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1861(m) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``or (8)'' after ``paragraph (7)'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (7), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (7), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) substitute adult day care services (as defined in 
     subsection (ww));''.
       (2) Substitute adult day care services defined.--Section 
     1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:

     ``Substitute Adult Day Care Services; Adult Day Care Facility

       ``(ww)(1)(A) The term `substitute adult day care services' 
     means the items and services described in subparagraph (B) 
     that are furnished to an individual by an adult day care 
     facility as a part of a plan under subsection (m) that 
     substitutes such services for a portion of the items and 
     services described in subparagraph (B)(i) furnished by a home 
     health agency under the plan, as determined by the physician 
     establishing the plan.
       ``(B) The items and services described in this subparagraph 
     are the following items and services:
       ``(i) Items and services described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (7) of subsection (m).
       ``(ii) Meals.
       ``(iii) A program of supervised activities designed to 
     promote physical and mental health and furnished to the 
     individual by the adult day care facility in a group setting 
     for a period of not fewer than 4 and not greater than 12 
     hours per day.
       ``(iv) A medication management program (as defined in 
     subparagraph (C)).
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B)(iv), the term 
     `medication management program' means a program of services, 
     including medicine screening and patient and health care 
     provider education programs, that provides services to 
     minimize--
       ``(i) unnecessary or inappropriate use of prescription 
     drugs; and
       ``(ii) adverse events due to unintended prescription drug-
     to-drug interactions.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     the term `adult day care facility' means a public agency or 
     private organization, or a subdivision of such an agency or 
     organization, that--
       ``(i) is engaged in providing skilled nursing services and 
     other therapeutic services directly or under arrangement with 
     a home health agency;
       ``(ii) meets such standards established by the Secretary to 
     ensure quality of care and such other requirements as the 
     Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and 
     safety of individuals who are furnished services in the 
     facility;
       ``(iii) provides the items and services described in 
     paragraph (1)(B); and
       ``(iv) meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) through (8) 
     of subsection (o).
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term `adult day 
     care facility' shall include a home health agency in which 
     the items and services described in clauses (ii) through (iv) 
     of paragraph (1)(B) are provided--
       ``(i) by an adult day-care program that is licensed or 
     certified by a State, or accredited, to furnish such items 
     and services in the State; and
       ``(ii) under arrangements with that program made by such 
     agency.
       ``(C) The Secretary may waive the requirement of a surety 
     bond under paragraph (7) of subsection (o) in the case of an 
     agency or organization that provides a comparable surety bond 
     under State law.
       ``(D) For purposes of payment for home health services 
     consisting of substitute adult day care services furnished 
     under this title, any reference to a home health agency is 
     deemed to be a reference to an adult day care facility.''.
       (b) Payment for Substitute Adult Day Care Services.--
     Section 1895 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

[[Page S11376]]

       ``(f) Payment Rate for Substitute Adult Day Care 
     Services.--In the case of home health services consisting of 
     substitute adult day care services (as defined in section 
     1861(ww)), the following rules apply:
       ``(1) The Secretary shall estimate the amount that would 
     otherwise be payable under this section for all home health 
     services under that plan of care other than substitute adult 
     day care services for a period specified by the Secretary.
       ``(2) The total amount payable for home health services 
     consisting of substitute adult day care services under such 
     plan may not exceed 95 percent of the amount estimated to be 
     payable under paragraph (1) furnished under the plan by a 
     home health agency.''.
       (c) Adjustment in Case of Overutilization of Substitute 
     Adult Day Care Services.--
       (1) Monitoring expenditures.--Beginning with fiscal year 
     2003, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     monitor the expenditures made under the medicare program 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.) for home health services (as defined in section 
     1861(m) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m))) for the fiscal 
     year, including substitute adult day care services under 
     paragraph (8) of such section (as added by subsection (a)), 
     and shall compare such expenditures to expenditures that the 
     Secretary estimates would have been made for home health 
     services for that fiscal year if subsection (a) had not been 
     enacted.
       (2) Required reduction in payment rate.--If the Secretary 
     determines, after making the comparison under paragraph (1) 
     and making such adjustments for changes in demographics and 
     age of the medicare beneficiary population as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate, that expenditures for home health 
     services under the medicare program, including such 
     substitute adult day care services, exceed expenditures that 
     would have been made under such program for home health 
     services for a year if subsection (a) had not been enacted, 
     then the Secretary shall adjust the rate of payment to adult 
     day care facilities so that total expenditures for home 
     health services under such program in a fiscal year does not 
     exceed the Secretary's estimate of such expenditures if 
     subsection (a) had not been enacted.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2002.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my good friend 
from Pennsylvania as an original cosponsor of the ``Medicare Adult Day 
Services Alternative Act.''
  Adult day health care is a vital component of good long-term care, 
for patients and for their caregivers. I am hopeful that as a result of 
this bill, adult day health care will play an increasingly larger role 
in how we care for the elderly in this country.
  To be clear, this bill would simply give beneficiaries of the 
Medicare home health benefit the option of choosing to receive their 
care partially in an adult day care setting. This bill would not expand 
the list of who is eligible for home care, it simply changes the 
location where services may be provided. The benefits of this 
legislation, are that beneficiaries gain increased social interaction 
with peers, while simultaneously giving caregivers a measure of 
respite.
  I am a strong supporter of adult day health care, because I've seen 
the tremendous benefits of it in the VA health care system. The 
federally funded VA health care system, because of the very substantial 
World War II veteran population, has developed some of the most 
innovative ways to care for older people especially in non-
institutional settings. As a result of this demand, VA has led the 
Nation in developing adult day health care programs. The Adult Day 
Health Care Program at VA was established in the late 1970s at five 
facilities. At this time, there are 15 in-house VA Adult Day Health 
Care programs. All other VA medical centers provide this program to 
veterans through a contractual basis with community-based programs.
  In 1999, I introduced legislation to further expand on VA adult day 
by making adult day health care, and other non-institutional long-term 
care services, part of the standard benefits package in the VA. I am 
thrilled that my legislation was passed later that year and that all 
veterans who enroll for VA care will have access to these services.
  I look forward to working with members of the Senate Finance 
Committee to advance the cause of long-term care. It is my view that 
providing long-term care to all Americans is a priority. Let us delay 
no longer.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 1620. A bill to authorize the Government National Mortgage 
Association to guarantee conventional mortgage-backed securities, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Home 
Ownership Expansion Act of 2001. This legislation is designed to expand 
home ownership by increasing the supply of affordable mortgages 
available for home buyers. The legislation establishes a private-public 
partnership between mortgage providers and insurers and the Government 
National Mortgage Association, GNMA or Ginnie Mae.
  GNMA is a part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
and its current business is limited to home loans that are insured only 
by government agencies. GNMA provides a guarantee to investors who 
purchase FHA and VA home loans that are bundled into securities. These 
securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. 
government.
  The Home Ownership Expansion Act of 2001 would authorize a new 
program that permits GNMA to guarantee securities that consist of 
mortgages insured by private mortgage insurance. Private insurance 
results in reduced risk to taxpayers which will in turn make more 
capital available for home mortgages.
  This new GNMA program would be targeted at first-time and middle 
income home buyers. The program would be limited to mortgages up to 
$275,000 and tailored to borrowers who have less than 20 percent down 
payments to put into homes. GNMA would benefit from the ability to 
compete for privately insured mortgage business. GNMA's income would 
increase through the program and GNMA would be strengthened by its 
ability to offer a greater variety of products to investors.
  By permitting GNMA to enter the secondary market for privately 
insured mortgages, the legislation would increase competition. Mortgage 
lenders would have a new entity to which they could sell their 
mortgages, and the number and variety of loan-approval systems at use 
in the low down payment mortgage market would increase. The 
beneficiaries of this increase in competition would be consumers who 
wish to purchase a home.
  Mr. President, the current rate of home ownership in the United 
States is 67 percent of households. This rate has risen steadily in 
recent decades and is great achievement for our nation. However, the 
rate of home ownership among minority families, entry level workers, 
and younger Americans remains much lower. This legislation is designed 
to further increase the home ownership rate by increasing the 
availability of affordable mortgages.
  The Home Ownership Expansion Act of 2001 would strengthen the 
Government National Mortgage Association. It would protect taxpayers by 
increasing private sector risk sharing on GNMA products. It would 
increase competition in the secondary mortgage market, helping to lower 
costs to consumers. And by increasing the use of varying underwriting 
systems it would help to qualify more first-time, middle income and 
minority home buyers. 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. 1620

       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 ``Home Ownership Expansion Act 
     of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. GNMA GUARANTEE OF SECURITIES BACKED BY CONVENTIONAL 
                   MORTGAGES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) expanding home ownership is a national goal, and that 
     increasing the principal secondary market outlets for 
     conventional home mortgages will serve that goal by improving 
     the liquidity of investments in those mortgages; and
       (2) risk-sharing between the public sector and the private 
     mortgage insurance industry will provide consumers with 
     greater access to mortgage credit opportunities.
       (b) Authority to Guarantee Conventional Mortgage-Backed 
     Securities.--Section 306 of the National Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1721) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) GNMA Guarantee of Securities Backed by Conventional 
     Mortgages.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Association may guarantee the timely 
     payment of principal and interest on conventional mortgage-
     backed securities that are backed by qualifying privately 
     insured mortgages that are

[[Page S11377]]

     insured with primary mortgage insurance, extended mortgage 
     insurance, and supplemental mortgage insurance.
       ``(2) Premiums.--The issuer of securities guaranteed by the 
     Association under this subsection that are backed by 
     qualifying privately insured mortgages shall--
       ``(A) for primary mortgage insurance, collect from the 
     mortgagor, and remit to the qualified mortgage insurer, the 
     premium or premiums as may be established by the qualified 
     mortgage insurer in accordance with applicable Federal or 
     State law; and
       ``(B) for extended mortgage insurance and supplemental 
     mortgage insurance, pay and remit the premium or premiums to 
     the qualified mortgage insurer from the sums attributable to 
     the difference between the interest rates applicable to the 
     mortgages in the particular pool and the interest rate set 
     forth on the trust certificate or security guaranteed by the 
     Association based on and backed by such mortgages, and 
     without additional premium charge therefore to the mortgagor.
       ``(3) Disposition of property upon default.--Upon default 
     by a mortgagor of a mortgage guaranteed under this 
     subsection, the property covered by the mortgage shall be 
     disposed of by the issuer of the securities guaranteed under 
     this subsection or the qualified mortgage insurer in 
     accordance with the customary policies and procedures of that 
     issuer and insurer.
       ``(4) Authority.--As part of the authority provided to the 
     Association to issue guarantees under this subsection for 
     fiscal year 2002, the Association may, during fiscal year 
     2002, issue guarantees of the timely payment of principal and 
     interest on trust certificates or other securities based on 
     and backed by qualifying privately insured mortgages in an 
     aggregate amount equal to not more than $50,000,000,000.
       ``(5) Regulatory power of the secretary.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) have authority to review and approve premiums and 
     other terms and conditions established for the primary 
     mortgage insurance covering the mortgages contained in the 
     trusts or pools guaranteed by the Association under this 
     subsection, and shall have the authority to approve 
     participation in the program based on safety and soundness;
       ``(B) prescribe such rules and regulations as shall be 
     necessary and proper to ensure that the purposes of the Home 
     Ownership Expansion Act of 2001 are accomplished.
       ``(i) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Conventional mortgage limit.--The term `conventional 
     mortgage limit' means the greater of the applicable maximum 
     original principal obligation of conventional mortgages 
     established by--
       ``(A) the Federal National Mortgage Association, pursuant 
     to section 302(b)(2); or
       ``(B) the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, pursuant 
     to section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
     Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1454(a)(2)).
       ``(2) Coverage percentage.--The term `coverage percentage' 
     means the percentage of the total of the outstanding 
     principal balance on a mortgage, and accrued interest, 
     advances, and reasonable expenses related to property 
     preservation and foreclosure, that is subject to payment in 
     the event of a claim under a policy of primary mortgage 
     insurance on a qualifying privately insured mortgage.
       ``(3) Extended mortgage insurance.--The term `extended 
     mortgage insurance' means insurance that--
       ``(A) is issued by a qualified mortgage insurer;
       ``(B) guarantees and insures against losses on the 
     mortgage;
       ``(C) has the same coverage percentage and other 
     substantially similar terms and conditions as the primary 
     mortgage insurance for the mortgage;
       ``(D) becomes effective upon mandatory cancellation or 
     termination of the primary mortgage insurance, and remains in 
     effect until the mortgage is paid in full; and
       ``(E) is not subject to mandatory cancellation or 
     termination.
       ``(4) Mandatory cancellation or termination.--The term 
     `mandatory cancellation or termination' means cancellation or 
     termination of mortgage insurance, as provided in section 3 
     of the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4902) or 
     by a protected State law, as defined in section 9 of that 
     Act.
       ``(5) Primary mortgage insurance.--The term `primary 
     mortgage insurance' means insurance that--
       ``(A) is issued by a qualified mortgage insurer;
       ``(B) guarantees and insures against losses on the 
     mortgage, under standard terms and conditions generally 
     offered in the private mortgage guaranty insurance industry;
       ``(C) has a coverage percentage equal to--
       ``(i) not less than 12 percent, if the principal-to-value 
     ratio is greater than 80 percent and not greater than 85 
     percent;
       ``(ii) not less than 25 percent, if the principal-to-value 
     ratio is greater than 85 percent and not greater than 90 
     percent;
       ``(iii) not less than 30 percent, if the principal-to-value 
     ratio is greater than 90 percent and not greater than 95 
     percent; and
       ``(iv) not less than 35 percent, if the principal-to-value 
     ratio is greater than 95 percent; and
       ``(D) may be canceled or terminated by the mortgagor, 
     issuer, or qualified mortgage insurer only pursuant to 
     mandatory cancellation or termination.
       ``(6) Principal-to-value ratio.--The term `principal-to-
     value ratio' means the ratio of the original outstanding 
     principal balance of a first mortgage to the value of the 
     property securing the mortgage, as established at the time of 
     origination by appraisal or other reliable indicia of 
     property, conducted or performed not earlier than 6 months 
     before the date of origination, and not later than that date 
     of origination.
       ``(7) Qualified mortgage insurer.--The term `qualified 
     mortgage insurer' means a provider of private mortgage 
     insurance, as defined in section 2 of the Homeowners 
     Protection Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901), that--
       ``(A) is authorized and licensed by a State or an 
     instrumentality of a State to transact private mortgage 
     insurance business in the State in which the provider is 
     transacting that business, excluding any entity that is 
     exempt from State licensing requirements;
       ``(B) is rated in 1 of the 2 highest rating categories by 
     not less than 1 nationally recognized statistical rating 
     organization; and
       ``(C) meets such additional qualifications as may be 
     determined by the Association.
       ``(8) Qualifying privately insured mortgage.--The term 
     `qualifying privately insured mortgage' means a first 
     mortgage--
       ``(A) that is not--
       ``(i) insured under title II of this Act, except as 
     specifically provided in this section;
       ``(ii) insured under title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 
     U.S.C. 1471 et seq.);
       ``(iii) insured or guaranteed under chapter 37 of title 38, 
     United States Code; or
       ``(iv) made or guaranteed under part B of title V of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb et seq.);
       ``(B) that--
       ``(i) is secured by property comprising 1-to-4 family 
     dwelling units;
       ``(ii) has a term of not longer than 30 years;
       ``(iii) has a principal-to-value ratio of more than 80 
     percent; and
       ``(iv) has an original principal obligation that does not 
     exceed the conventional mortgage limit;
       ``(C) not more than 1 payment of which has been delinquent 
     by more than 30 days, and no payment of which has been 
     delinquent by more than 60 days, during the 12-month period 
     immediately preceding the time of guarantee; and
       ``(D) that is covered by primary mortgage insurance, 
     extended mortgage insurance, and supplemental mortgage 
     insurance.
       ``(9) Supplemental mortgage insurance.--The term 
     `supplemental mortgage insurance' means insurance that--
       ``(A) is issued by a qualified mortgage insurer;
       ``(B) guarantees and insures against losses on the mortgage 
     under such terms and conditions as are reasonably acceptable 
     to the Association;
       ``(C) becomes effective on the date on which the guaranty 
     becomes effective; and
       ``(D) terminates as if subject to automatic termination 
     under section 3(b) of the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 
     (12 U.S.C. 4902(b)), subject to the conditions stated in that 
     section, or when the mortgage is paid in full, whichever 
     occurs first.
       ``(10) Trust or pool.--A trust or pool referred to in this 
     section means a trust or pool composed only of--
       ``(A) qualifying privately insured mortgages; or
       ``(B) mortgages insured under title II.''.
       (c) Guaranty Fee.--Section 306(g)(3)(A) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(3)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) The Association shall assess and collect a fee in an 
     amount equal to not more than 8 basis points, as determined 
     by the Secretary, in order to generate revenues to the 
     Federal Government in excess of the cost to the Federal 
     Government, as defined in section 502 of the Federal Credit 
     Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a), of the guaranty of the 
     timely payment of principal and interest on trust 
     certificates or other securities based on or backed by 
     qualifying privately insured mortgages under subsection 
     (h).''.
       (d) Voluntary Program Participation; No Federal Contractor 
     Status.--Section 306(g) of the National Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1721(g)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     require any issuer to issue any trust certificate or security 
     that is based on and backed by a trust or pool composed of 
     qualifying privately insured mortgages.
       ``(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     qualified mortgage insurer that participates in the guarantee 
     program under subsection (h) shall not be considered, by 
     virtue of such participation, as entering into a contract 
     with any Federal department or agency, or participating in 
     any program or activity receiving Federal financial 
     assistance, or participating in any program or activity 
     conducted by any Federal department or agency. Nothing in 
     this paragraph is intended to deny or otherwise affect the 
     rights of the Association as the assignee, holder, or 
     beneficiary of a mortgage insurance contract.''.
       (e) Reinsurer Ratings Requirements.--Section 306(g) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), as amended by this 
     Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) A qualified mortgage insurer may not reinsure any 
     portion of its obligations under subsection (h) with any 
     reinsurance that--
       ``(A) is not rated in 1 of the 2 highest rating categories 
     by not less than 1 nationally recognized statistical rating 
     organization; or
       ``(B) fails to meet such other requirements as the 
     Secretary may deem appropriate.''.

[[Page S11378]]

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Guarantees.--Section 306(g)(1) of the National Housing 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or subsection (h)'' after the term 
     ``this subsection'' each place it appears;
       (2) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)'';
       (3) by striking ``The Association shall collect'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) The Association shall collect'';
       (4) by striking ``In the event'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) In the event'';
       (5) by striking ``In any case'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(D) In any case'';
       (6) in subparagraph (D), as so designated by paragraph (4) 
     of this subsection--
       (A) by striking ``(I)'' and inserting ``(i)'';
       (B) by striking ``(II)'' and inserting ``(ii)''; and
       (C) by striking ``(III)'' and inserting ``(iii)'';
       (7) by striking ``The Association is hereby empowered,'' 
     and all that follows through ``against which the guaranteed 
     securities are issued.'' and inserting the following:
       ``(E)(i) The Association may, in connection with any 
     guaranty under this subsection or subsection (h), whether 
     before or after any default by the issuer or any default by 
     the qualified mortgage insurer (in the case of securities 
     based on and backed by qualifying privately insured 
     mortgages)--
       ``(I) provide by contract with the issuer for the 
     extinguishment, upon default by the issuer, of any 
     redemption, equitable, legal, or other right, title, or 
     interest of the issuer in any mortgage or mortgages 
     constituting the trust or pool against which the guaranteed 
     securities are issued; or
       ``(II) provide by contract with the qualified mortgage 
     insurer for the extinguishment, upon default by the qualified 
     mortgage insurer, of any redemption, equitable, legal, or 
     other right, title, or interest of the qualified mortgage 
     insurer in such mortgage or mortgages, as well as any related 
     primary mortgage insurance, extended mortgage insurance, or 
     supplemental mortgage insurance coverage or any future 
     premiums and proceeds related thereto.
       ``(ii) With respect to any issue of guaranteed securities--
       ``(I) in the event of default by the issuer, and pursuant 
     otherwise to the terms of the contract, the mortgages that 
     constitute the trust or pool referred to in clause (i) shall 
     become the absolute property of the Association, subject only 
     to the unsatisfied rights of the holders of the securities 
     based on and backed by that trust or pool; and
       ``(II) in the event of default by the qualified mortgage 
     insurer, and pursuant otherwise to the terms of the contract, 
     any right of the qualified mortgage insurer with respect to 
     the mortgages that constitute such trust or pool and any 
     related primary mortgage insurance, extended mortgage 
     insurance, or supplemental mortgage insurance coverage and 
     any future premiums and proceeds related thereto shall become 
     the absolute property of the Association, subject only to the 
     unsatisfied rights of the holders of the securities based on 
     and backed by such trust or pool and to the unsatisfied 
     rights of any insured issuer with respect to any mortgage 
     insurance coverage.
       ``(F) No State, local, or Federal law (other than a Federal 
     statute enacted expressly in limitation of this subsection 
     after the date of enactment of the Home Ownership Expansion 
     Act of 2001), shall preclude or limit the exercise by the 
     Association of--
       ``(i) its power to contract with the issuer, or the 
     qualified mortgage insurer on the terms stated in 
     subparagraph (E);
       ``(ii) its rights to enforce any such contract with the 
     issuer or the qualified mortgage insurer; or
       ``(iii) its ownership rights, as provided in subparagraph 
     (E), with respect to the mortgages constituting the trust or 
     pool against which the guaranteed securities are issued, and 
     with respect to any related primary mortgage insurance, 
     extended mortgage insurance, or supplemental mortgage 
     insurance coverage and any future premiums and proceeds 
     related thereto.'';
       (8) by striking ``The full faith'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(G) The full faith''; and
       (9) by striking ``There shall be'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(H) There shall be''.
       (b) Separate Accountability.--Section 307 of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1722) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``All'' and inserting ``(a) In General.--
     All''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), with 
     respect to qualifying privately insured mortgages (as defined 
     in section 306(i)), related earnings described in subsection 
     (a) of this section or other amounts as become available 
     after such allowances and as are attributable to the fees and 
     charges assessed or collected in connection with the guaranty 
     of trust certificates or securities based on or backed by 
     such qualifying privately insured mortgages shall inure to 
     the benefit of and may be retained by the Secretary in 
     support of programs under titles II and III of this Act.''.

     SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORT.

       (a) In General.--The Government National Mortgage 
     Association shall provide for the initial implementation of 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act by--
       (1) giving notice to its participating issuers; and
       (2) submitting a report to the Chairpersons and Ranking 
     Members of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives, that confirms that 
     the authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development under section 306(h)(5) of the National Housing 
     Act, as added by this Act, does not adversely impact the 
     safety and soundness of the Government National Mortgage 
     Association.
       (b) Publication.--The notice required by subsection (a) 
     shall be published not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Report.--The report submitted in accordance with 
     subsection (a) shall include an economic analysis of the 
     adequacy of the guarantee fee provided for in section 
     306(g)(3)(A)(ii) of the National Housing Act, as added by 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, and Mrs. 
        Murray):
  S. 1625. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to approve up to 4 State waivers to allow a State to use its allotment 
under the State children's health insurance program under title XXI of 
the Social Security Act to increase the enrollment of children eligible 
for medical assistance under the Medicaid Program under title XIX of 
such Act; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today 
with Senators Jeffords, Leahy, and Murray entitled the ``Children's 
Health Equity Act of 2001'' addresses an inequity that was created 
during the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program, CHIP, that unfairly penalized certain States that had done the 
right thing and had expanded Medicaid coverage to children prior to the 
enactment of the bill.
  While the Congress recognized this fact for some States and 
``grandfathered'' in their expansions so those States could use the new 
CHIP funding for the children of their respective states, the 
legislation failed to do so for others, including New Mexico. This had 
the effect of penalizing a certain group of states for having done the 
right thing.
  As a result, the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2001'' addresses 
this inequity by allowing four States, including New Mexico, Vermont, 
Washington, and Rhode Island, to be allowed to also utilize their CHIP 
allotments for coverage of children covered by Medicaid above their 
1996 levels, putting them on a more level field with all other States 
in the country.
  Mr. President, as you know, in 1997 Congress and President Clinton 
agreed to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
CHIP, and provide $48 billion over 10 years as an incentive to States 
to provide health care coverage to uninsured, low-income children up 
200 percent of poverty or beyond.
  During the negotiations of the Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997, 
Congress and the Administration properly recognized that certain states 
were already undertaking Medicaid or separate state-run expansions of 
coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty or above and that 
they would be allowed to use the new CHIP funding for those purposes. 
The final bill specifically allowed the States of Florida, New York, 
and Pennsylvania to convert their separate state-run programs into CHIP 
expansions and States that had expanded coverage to children through 
Medicaid after March 31, 1997, were also allowed to use CHIP funding 
for their expansions.
  Unfortunately, New Mexico and other States that had enacted similar 
expansions prior to March 1997 were denied the use of CHIP funding for 
their expansions. This created an inequity among the states where some 
were allowed to have their prior programs ``grandfathered'' into CHIP 
and others were denied. Again, our bill addresses this inequity.
  New Mexico has a strong record of attempting to expand coverage to 
children through the Medicaid program. In 1995, prior to the enactment 
of CHIP, New Mexico expanded coverage to for all children through age 
18 through the Medicaid program up to 185 percent of poverty. After 
CHIP was passed, New Mexico further expanded its coverage up to 235 
percent of poverty, above the level of the vast majority of states 
across the country.

[[Page S11379]]

  Due to the inequity caused by CHIP, New Mexico has been allocated 
$182 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2000, and yet, has 
only been able to spend slightly over $5 million as of the end of last 
fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend only 
3 percent of its Federal CHIP allocations.
  New Mexico is unable to spend its funding because it had enacted its 
expansion of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty prior to 
the enactment of CHIP and our State was not ``grandfathered'' into CHIP 
as other comparable States were.
  The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous. 
According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 129,000 
uninsured children. In other words, almost 22 percent of all the 
children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact the State has 
expanded coverage up to 235 percent of poverty. This is the fourth 
highest rate of uninsured children in the country.
  This is a result of the fact that an estimated 103,000 of the 129,000 
uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty. 
These children are, consequently, eligible for Medicaid but currently 
unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between 185 and 
200 percent of poverty who are eligible for CHIP funding, all of the 
remaining uninsured children below 185 percent of poverty in New Mexico 
are denied CHIP funding despite their need.
  Exacerbating this inequity is the fact that many states are accessing 
their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New 
Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those 
states are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than 
the children of New Mexico.
  As the most recent policy statement by the National Governors' 
Association reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that 
innovative States not be penalized for having expanded coverage to 
children before the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced 
funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support 
providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already 
significantly expanded coverage to the majority of uninsured children 
in their States.''
  Consequently, the bill I am introducing today corrects this inequity. 
The bill reflects a carefully-crated response to the unintended 
consequences of CHIP and brings much needed assistance to children 
currently uninsured in my State and other similarly situated States, 
including Washington, Vermont, and Rhode Island.
  Rather than simply changing the effective date included in the BBA 
that helped a smaller subset of States, this initiative includes strong 
maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our State to 
conduct outreach and enrollment efforts and program simplification to 
find and enroll uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they 
receive the health coverage for which they are eligible.
  The bill does not take money from other States' CHIP allotments. It 
simply allows our States to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments 
from the Federal Government on our uninsured children, just as other 
States across the country are doing.
  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. 1625

       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 ``Children's Health Equity Act 
     of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. APPROVAL OF UP TO 4 STATE WAIVERS TO ALLOW TITLE XXI 
                   ALLOTMENTS TO BE USED FOR INCREASING THE 
                   ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID CHILDREN.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Child.--With respect to a State, the term ``child'' has 
     the meaning given such term for purposes of the State 
     medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
       (2) Child health assistance.--The term ``child health 
     assistance'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     2110(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(a)).
       (3) Enhanced fmap.--The term ``enhanced FMAP'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 2105(b) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397ee(b)).
       (4) Federal medical assistance percentage.--The term 
     ``Federal medical assistance percentage'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 1905(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396d(b)).
       (5) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 2110(c)(5) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397jj(c)(5)).
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (7) State child health plan.--The term ``State child health 
     plan'' has the meaning given that term under section 
     2110(c)(7) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(c)(7)).
       (b) Approval of Certain Waivers.--The Secretary shall 
     approve not more than 4 waiver applications under which the 
     Secretary shall pay to a State that the Secretary determines 
     satisfies the requirements described in subsection (c) the 
     payment authorized under subsection (d).
       (c) Requirements.--The requirements described in this 
     subsection are the following:
       (1) SCHIP income eligibility.--The State has a State child 
     health plan that (whether implemented under title XIX or XXI 
     of the Social Security Act)--
       (A) has the highest income eligibility standard permitted 
     under title XXI of such Act as of January 1, 2001;
       (B) subject to paragraph (2), does not limit the acceptance 
     of applications for children; and
       (C) provides benefits to all children in the State who 
     apply for and meet eligibility standards on a statewide 
     basis.
       (2) No waiting list imposed.--With respect to children 
     whose family income is at or below 200 percent of the poverty 
     line, the State does not impose any numerical limitation, 
     waiting list, or similar limitation on the eligibility of 
     such children for child health assistance under such State 
     plan.
       (3) Additional requirements.--The State has implemented at 
     least 4 of the following policies and procedures (relating to 
     coverage of children under titles XIX and title XXI of the 
     Social Security Act):
       (A) Uniform, simplified application form.--With respect to 
     children who are eligible for medical assistance under 
     section 1902(a)(10)(A) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(10)(A)), the State uses the same uniform, simplified 
     application form (including, if applicable, permitting 
     application other than in person) for purposes of 
     establishing eligibility for benefits under titles XIX and 
     XXI of that Act.
       (B) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not apply 
     any asset test for eligibility under section 1902(l) or title 
     XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(l), 1397aa et 
     seq.) with respect to children.
       (C) Adoption of 12-month continuous enrollment.--The State 
     provides that eligibility shall not be regularly redetermined 
     more often than once every year under title XXI of such Act 
     or for children described in section 1902(a)(10)(A) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)).
       (D) Same verification and redetermination policies; 
     automatic reassessment of eligibility.--With respect to 
     children who are eligible for medical assistance under 
     section 1902(a)(10)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(10)(A)), the State provides for initial eligibility 
     determinations and redeterminations of eligibility using the 
     same verification policies (including with respect to face-
     to-face interviews), forms, and frequency as the State uses 
     for such purposes under title XXI of that Act, and, as part 
     of such redeterminations, provides for the automatic 
     reassessment of the eligibility of such children for 
     assistance under titles XIX and XXI.
       (E) Outstationing enrollment staff.--The State provides for 
     the receipt and initial processing of applications for 
     benefits under title XXI of such Act and for children under 
     title XIX of that Act at facilities defined as 
     disproportionate share hospitals under section 1923(a)(1)(A) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(a)(1)(A)) and Federally-
     qualified health centers described in section 1905(l)(2)(B) 
     of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(l)(2)(B)) consistent with 
     section 1902(a)(55) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(55)).
       (d) Payment Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of title XIX 
     or XXI of the Social Security Act, or any other provision of 
     law, with respect to a State with a waiver approved under 
     this section that satisfies the requirements of subsection 
     (c) (and that otherwise has a State child health plan 
     approved under title XXI of the Social Security Act), the 
     Secretary shall pay to the State from its allotment under 
     section 2104 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) an 
     amount for each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2002) 
     determined under subparagraph (D) as follows:
       (A) Base expenditure amount.--The Secretary shall determine 
     the total amount of expenditures for medical assistance under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act in the State for 
     children described in paragraph (2) for fiscal year 1995.
       (B) Current expenditure amount.--The Secretary shall 
     determine the total amount of expenditures for medical 
     assistance under title XIX of such Act in the State for 
     children described in paragraph (2) for the fiscal year 
     involved.
       (C) Increased expenditures.--The Secretary shall determine 
     the number (if any) by which the total amount determined 
     under subparagraph (B) exceeds the total amount determined 
     under subparagraph (A).

[[Page S11380]]

       (D) Bonus amount.--The amount determined under this 
     subparagraph for a fiscal year is equal to the product of the 
     following:
       (i) The total amount determined under subparagraph (C).
       (ii) The difference between the enhanced FMAP and the 
     Federal medical assistance percentage for that State for the 
     fiscal year involved.
       (2) Children described.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), 
     the children described in this paragraph are--
       (A) children who are eligible and enrolled for medical 
     assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act; and
       (B) children who--
       (i) would be described in subparagraph (A) but for having 
     family income that exceeds the highest income eligibility 
     level applicable to such individuals under the State plan; 
     and
       (ii) would be considered disabled under section 
     1614(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1382c(a)(3)(C)) (determined without regard to the reference 
     to age in that section but for having earnings or deemed 
     income or resources, as determined under title XVI of such 
     Act for children) that exceed the requirements for receipt of 
     supplemental security income benefits.
       (3) Order of title xxi payments.--With respect to a State 
     with a waiver approved under this section, payments to the 
     State under section 2105(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397ee(a)) for a fiscal year shall, notwithstanding 
     paragraph (2) of such section, be made in the following 
     order:
       (A) First, for expenditures for items described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) of section 2105(a) of such Act.
       (B) Second, for expenditures for items described in 
     paragraph (1)(B) of such section.
       (C) Third, for the payment authorized under subsection 
     (d)(1) of this section.
       (D) Fourth, for expenditures for items described in 
     paragraph (1)(C) of section 2105(a) of the Social Security 
     Act.
       (E) Fifth, for expenditures for items described in 
     paragraph (1)(D) of such section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. 
        Lincoln, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. 
        Corzine):
  S. 1626. A bill to provide disadvantaged children with access to 
dental services; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today 
with Senators Cochran, Daschle, Lincoln, Collins, Carnahan, Hutchinson 
of Arkansas, and Corzine entitled the ``Children's Dental Health 
Improvement Act of 2001'' is designed to improve the access and 
delivery of dental health services to our Nation's children through 
Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, the 
Indian Health Service, IHS, and our Nation's safety net of community 
health centers.
  The oral health problems facing children are highlighted in a 
landmark report issued by the Surgeon General and the Department of 
Health and Human Services, HHS, last year entitled Oral Health in 
America: A Report of the Surgeon General in which he observed that our 
Nation is facing what amounts to ``a `silent epidemic' of dental and 
oral diseases.''
  In fact, dental caries, which refers to both decayed teeth or filled 
cavities, is the most common childhood disease. According to the 
Surgeon General, ``Among 5- to 17-year olds, dental caries is more than 
5 times as common as a reported history of asthma and 7 times as common 
as hay fever.'' In short, dental care is, as the Surgeon General adds, 
``the most prevalent unmet health need among American children.''
  The severity of this problem is even greater among children is 
poverty. Poor children aged 2 to 9 have twice the levels of untreated 
decayed teeth as nonpoor children. Moreover, the Surgeon General has 
found that poor Mexican American children have rates of untreated 
decayed teeth that exceed 70 percent, a rate of true epidemic 
proportions.
  For these children, their personal suffering is real. Many of the 
oral diseases and disorders can cause severe pain, undermine self-
esteem and self-image, discourage normal social interaction, cause 
other health problems, compromise nutritional status, and lead to 
chronic stress and depression as well as incur great financial cost. 
Lack of treatment is estimated to result in a loss of 1.6 million 
school days annually, according to the National Center for Health 
Statistics.
  The General Accounting Office, GAO, in its April 2000 report, 
entitled ``Oral Health: Dental Disease is a Chronic Problem Among Low-
Income Populations,'' adds, ``Poor children suffer nearly 12 times more 
restricted-activity days, such as missed school, than higher-income 
children as a result of dental problems.''
  Incredibly, this could all be prevented. As the Surgeon General's 
report notes, prevention programs in oral health that have been 
designed and evaluated for children using a variety of fluoride and 
dental sealant strategies has the ``potential of virtually eliminating 
dental caries in all children.''
  Unfortunately, children do not get the dental services they need. 
According to the Surgeon General,'' Although over 14 percent of 
children under 18 have no form of private or public medical insurance, 
more than twice that many, 23 million children, have no dental 
insurance.'' The report adds, ``There are at least 2.6 children without 
dental insurance for each child without medical insurance.''
  One important provision in the bill would grant States flexibility to 
provide dental coverage to low-income children through the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, just as States currently are able 
to do through Medicaid.
  Unfortunately, SCHIP law prohibits coverage of children for services 
unless they are completely uninsured. As authors Ruth Almeida, Ian 
Hill, and Genevieve Kenney of an Urban Institute report entitled Does 
SCHIP Spell Better Dental Care for Children? An Early Look at New 
Initiatives write, ``. . . many low-income children are covered by 
employer-based or other private health insurance for their medical 
care, but do not have a comprehensive dental benefit. Because these 
children are privately insured, they are not eligible for SCHIP and 
cannot avail themselves of dental coverage under SCHIP. Expanding SCHIP 
to furnish dental services on a wraparound basis to privately covered 
low-income children without dental coverage could help achieve broader 
improvements in children's oral health.''
  For low-income children with medical coverage but no dental insurance 
through the private sector, their only option would be to completely 
dump their private coverage for their children in order to access SCHIP 
coverage.
  Instead, the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' 
would create an option for states to provide low-income families with 
the ability to receive wrap-around dental coverage through SCHIP 
without having to completely drop their private insurance. This reduces 
the crowd-out of private insurance, which was a priority of the 
Congress during passage of SCHIP, and it provides low-income children 
with dental services that other children in the same economic 
circumstance are already receiving through SCHIP.
  In implementing such a change, I want to make it clear that I am in 
strong support of providing additional funding to SCHIP to ensure that 
these services are provided without reducing current levels of SCHIP 
funding. I am concerned about SCHIP funding in forthcoming years, 
particularly in those years referred to as the ``CHIP dip'' when 
funding levels drop from over $4 billion annually to around $3 billion. 
I have other legislation entitled, S. 1016, the ``Start Healthy, Stay 
Healthy Act of 2001,'' that addresses this very problem.
  With those additional funds, I strongly believe that SCHIP, just as 
Medicaid, should provide services to low-income children who are both 
uninsured and underinsured. Children need a comprehensive set of child 
health services, including dental services, to ensure their appropriate 
health and development.
  However, coverage for these services is often not enough. Even when 
children do have dental coverage, the access to care is often sorely 
lacking. Medicaid is the largest insurer of dental coverage to 
children. Yet, despite the design of the Medicaid program to ensure 
access to comprehensive services for children, including dental care, 
the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services 
reported in 1996 that only 18 percent of children eligible for Medicaid 
received even a single preventive dental service. The same report shows 
that no State provides preventive services to more than 50 percent of 
eligible children. The factors are complex but the primary one is due 
to limited dentist participation in Medicaid.

[[Page S11381]]

  According to GAO, in its September 2000 report entitled Oral Health: 
Factors Contributing to Low Use of Dental Services by Low-Income 
Populations, ``Of 39 states that provided information about dentists' 
participation in Medicaid, 23 reported that fewer than half of the 
states' dentists saw at least one Medicaid patient during 1999.'' Even 
worse, a 1998 survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures 
indicates that fewer than 20 percent of dentists participate in the 
Medicaid program nationwide.
  The GAO concludes poor participation rates by dentists is due in 
large part to poor reimbursement rates in Medicaid. As the GAO points 
out, ``Our analysis showed that Medicaid payment rates are often well 
below dentists' normal fees. Only 13 states had Medicaid rates that 
exceeded two-thirds of the average regional fees dentists charged. . . 
.''
  Clearly, Medicaid is chronically underfunded with respect to dental 
care. The Surgeon General's report notes, ``On average, state Medicaid 
agencies contribute only 2.3 percent of their child health expenditures 
to dental care, whereas nationally, the percentage of all child health 
expenditures dedicated to dental care is more than 10 times that rate, 
almost 30 percent.''
  The good news is that many States, including New Mexico, are taking 
actions to improve the participation of dentists in the Medicaid 
program by raising low payment rates and reducing administrative 
requirements. These efforts were highlighted by the GAO in its 
September 2000 report. To further encourage such efforts, the 
``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides $50 
million annually as financial incentives and planning grants to states 
to undertake additional improvements in their Medicaid programs 
delivery of dental health services to children.
  In addition to Medicaid and SCHIP, the federal government administers 
other health care programs providing dental services or providers for 
low-income children and their families, including services administered 
by community health centers and the Indian Health Service, IHS. 
Unfortunately, both of these programs are underfunded and, as the GAO 
found, ``report difficulty in meeting the dental needs of their target 
populations.''
  For example, the GAO found that ``HHS and health center officials 
report that the demand for dental services significantly exceeds the, 
urban and rural health, centers' capacity to deliver it. In 1998 . . ., 
a little more than half of the nearly 700 health center grantees funded 
under this program had active dental programs.'' This is also true for 
public health departments across the country.
  To assist the health centers and public health departments with this 
need, the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides 
$40 million to community health centers and public health departments 
to expand dental health services through the hiring of additional 
dental health professionals to serve low-income populations.
  This is particularly a problem that needs to be addressed in areas 
with severe dental health professional shortages, such as New Mexico. 
For example, New Mexico ranked next to last in the Nation with just 
32.1 dentists per 100,000 population in 1998, according to HHS. This 
compares to the national average of 48.4 per 100,000. Moreover, the 
number of dentists in New Mexico declined by 7 percent between 1991 and 
1998 while the State's population grew 12 percent. The result was a 17 
percent decline in dentists per capita during the period.
  With regard to American Indian and Alaska Native populations, the 
need is so great and the funding so little that a comprehensive 
solution is requiring throughout the IHS system. With respect to the 
unmet need, the GAO notes that ``American Indian and Alaska Native 
children aged 2 to 4 years old have five times the rate of dental decay 
that all children have.''
  Unfortunately, the GAO adds, ``. . . about one-fourth of IHS' dentist 
positions at 269 HIS and tribal facilities were vacant in April 2000. 
Vacancies have been chronic at IHS facilities, in the past 5 years, at 
least 67 facilities have had one or more dentist position vacant for at 
least a year. According to IHS officials, the primary reason for these 
vacancies is that IHS is unable to provide a competitive salary for new 
dentists. . .''
  The GAO continues, ``The IHS' dental personnel shortages translate 
into a large unmet need for dental services among American Indians and 
Alaska Natives. IHS reports that only 24 percent of the eligible 
population had a dental visit in 1998. The personnel shortages have 
also reduced the scope of services that facilities are able to provide. 
According to IHS officials, available services have concentrated more 
on acute and emergency care, while routine and restorative care have 
dropped as a percentage of workload. Emergency services increased from 
one-fifth of the workload in 1990 to more than one-third of the 
workload in 1999.'
  To help alleviate this workforce shortage, the ``Children's Dental 
Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides IHS with the authority to 
offer multi-year retention bonuses to dental providers offering 
services through the IHS and tribal programs.
  The bill also provides for some technical amendments to ensure that 
tribal organizations and community health centers are allowed to apply 
for school-based dental sealant funding from the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, CDC.
  And finally, to help address this ``silent epidemic,'' HHS 
implemented what is referred to as the Oral Health Initiative, OHI, to 
coordinate dental health services in both the Health Resources and 
Services Administration, HRSA, and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare 
Services, CMS, formerly known as the Health Care Financing 
Administration. Despite the progress of the Initiative, it has no legal 
authority unlike other programs that target specific health needs of 
children, such as Emergency Medical Services for Children or the 
Traumatic Brain Injury Program. Because it lacks formal status and 
program control, the OHI is susceptible to future disruptions or 
dispanding.

  To ensure the continuation of the OHI, the ``Children's Health 
Improvement Act of 2001'' provides statutory authority for the OHI and 
authorized funding of $25 million to improve the oral health of low-
income populations served by both the public and private sector.
  The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today would improve the 
access and delivery of dental health services to our Nation's children 
through Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, 
the Indian Health Service, IHS, and our Nation's safety net of 
community health centers. These problems are well-documented and call 
out for congressional action as soon as possible.
  I would like to thank the American Dental Association, the American 
Dental Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatric 
Dentistry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc., 
the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Dental 
Hygienists' Association, and the Children's Dental Health Project for 
their outstanding support and/or their technical advice on this 
legislation. This bill is a result of their outstanding work.
  In particular, I want to thank Dr. Burt Edelstein and Libby Mullin of 
the Children's Dental Health Project for their vast knowledge and 
technical assistance on this issue. I want to thank Judy Sherman of the 
American Dental Association, Myla Moss of the American Dental Education 
Association, Dr. Heber Simmons and Scott Litch of the American Academy 
of Pediatric Dentistry, Karen Sealander of the American Dental 
Hygienists' Association, and Heather Mizeur of the National Association 
of Community Health Centers, Inc., for their valuable insight, 
technical advice, and support for this legislation. I look forward to 
working with them all to ensure that we achieve increased access to 
oral health care for our children.
  In addition to those organizations, I would like to thank the 
following groups for their support of the bill, including: Academy of 
General Dentistry, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, American Academy 
of Periodontology, American Association of Dental Examiners, American 
Association of Dental Research, American

[[Page S11382]]

Association of Endodontists, American Association of Public Health 
Dentistry, American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 
American Association of Orthodontists, American Association of Women 
Dentists, American College of Dentists, American College of Preventive 
Medicine, American Dental Trade Association, American Public Health 
Association, American Society of Dentistry for Children, American 
Student Dental Association, Association of Clinicians of the 
Underserved, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, 
Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors, Dental Dealers 
of America, Dental Manufacturers of America, Inc., Family Voices, 
Hispanic Dental Association, International College of Dentists, USA, 
March of Dimes, National Association of City and County Health 
Officers, National Association of Local Boards of Health, National 
Dental Association, National Health Law Program, New Mexico Department 
of Health, Partnership for Prevention, Society of American Indian 
Dentists, Special Care Dentistry, and United Cerebral Palsy 
Associations.
  I request unanimous consent that a Fact Sheet and 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. 1626

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children's 
     Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID 
                               AND SCHIP

Sec. 101. Grants to improve the provision of dental services under 
              medicaid and SCHIP.
Sec. 102. Authority to provide dental coverage under SCHIP as a 
              supplement to other health coverage.

    TITLE II--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER 
  COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, AND THE INDIAN 
                             HEALTH SERVICE

Sec. 201. Grants to improve the provision of dental health services 
              through community health centers and public health 
              departments.
Sec. 202. Dental officer multiyear retention bonus for the Indian 
              Health Service.
Sec. 203. Streamline process for designating dental health professional 
              shortage areas.
Sec. 204. Demonstration projects to increase access to pediatric dental 
              services in underserved areas.

   TITLE III--IMPROVING ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION 
                                PROGRAMS

Sec. 301. Oral health initiative.
Sec. 302. CDC reports.
Sec. 303. Early childhood caries.
Sec. 304. School-based dental sealant program.

TITLE I--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID 
                               AND SCHIP

     SEC. 101. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE PROVISION OF DENTAL SERVICES 
                   UNDER MEDICAID AND SCHIP.

       Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 511. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE PROVISION OF DENTAL 
                   SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID AND SCHIP.

       ``(a) Authority to Make Grants.--In addition to any other 
     payments made under this title to a State, the Secretary 
     shall award grants to States that satisfy the requirements of 
     subsection (b) to improve the provision of dental services to 
     children who are enrolled in a State plan under title XIX or 
     a State child health plan under title XXI (in this section, 
     collectively referred to as the `State plans').
       ``(b) Requirements.--In order to be eligible for a grant 
     under this section, a State shall provide the Secretary with 
     the following assurances:
       ``(1) Improved service delivery.--The State shall have a 
     plan to improve the delivery of dental services to children 
     who are enrolled in the State plans, including providing 
     outreach and administrative case management, improving 
     collection and reporting of claims data, and providing 
     incentives, in addition to raising reimbursement rates, to 
     increase provider participation.
       ``(2) Adequate payment rates.--The State has provided for 
     payment under the State plans for dental services for 
     children at levels consistent with the market-based rates and 
     sufficient enough to enlist providers to treat children in 
     need of dental services.
       ``(3) Ensured access.--The State shall ensure it will make 
     dental services available to children enrolled in the State 
     plans to the same extent as such services are available to 
     the general population of the State.
       ``(c) Application.--A State shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary for a grant under this section in such form and 
     manner and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to make grants under this 
     section $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       ``(e) Application of Other Provisions of Title.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     other provisions of this title shall not apply to a grant 
     made under this section.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--The following provisions of this title 
     shall apply to a grant made under subsection (a) to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as such provisions apply to 
     allotments made under section 502(c):
       ``(A) Section 504(b)(6) (relating to prohibition on 
     payments to excluded individuals and entities).
       ``(B) Section 504(c) (relating to the use of funds for the 
     purchase of technical assistance).
       ``(C) Section 504(d) (relating to a limitation on 
     administrative expenditures).
       ``(D) Section 506 (relating to reports and audits), but 
     only to the extent determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate for grants made under this section.
       ``(E) Section 507 (relating to penalties for false 
     statements).
       ``(F) Section 508 (relating to nondiscrimination).
       ``(G) Section 509 (relating to the administration of the 
     grant program).''.

     SEC. 102. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE DENTAL COVERAGE UNDER SCHIP AS 
                   A SUPPLEMENT TO OTHER HEALTH COVERAGE.

       (a) Authority To Provide Coverage.--
       (1) SCHIP.--
       (A) In general.--Section 2105(a)(1)(C) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(a)(1)(C)) is amended--
       (i) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(C)''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) notwithstanding clause (i), in the case of a State 
     that satisfies the conditions described in subsection (c)(8), 
     for child health assistance that consists only of coverage of 
     dental services for a child who would be considered a 
     targeted low-income child if that portion of subparagraph (C) 
     of section 2110(b)(1) relating to coverage of the child under 
     a group health plan or under health insurance coverage did 
     not apply, and such child has such coverage that does not 
     include dental services; and''.
       (B) Conditions described.--Section 2105(c) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(8) Conditions for provision of dental services only 
     coverage.--For purposes of subsection (a)(1)(C)(ii), the 
     conditions described in this paragraph are the following:
       ``(A) Income eligibility.--The State child health plan 
     (whether implemented under title XIX or this XXI)--
       ``(i) has the highest income eligibility standard permitted 
     under this title as of January 1, 2001;
       ``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), does not limit the 
     acceptance of applications for children; and
       ``(iii) provides benefits to all children in the State who 
     apply for and meet eligibility standards.
       ``(B) No waiting list imposed.--With respect to children 
     whose family income is at or below 200 percent of the poverty 
     line, the State does not impose any numerical limitation, 
     waiting list, or similar limitation on the eligibility of 
     such children for child health assistance under such State 
     plan.''.
       (C) State option to waive waiting period.--Section 
     2102(b)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397bb(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) at State option, may not apply a waiting period in 
     the case of child described in section 2105(a)(1)(C)(ii), if 
     the State satisfies the requirements of section 2105(c)(8) 
     and provides such child with child health assistance that 
     consists only of coverage of dental services.''.
       (2) Application of enhanced match under medicaid.--Section 
     1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (b), in the fourth sentence, by striking 
     ``or subsection (u)(3)'' and inserting ``(u)(3), or (u)(4)''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (u)--
       (i) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (ii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) For purposes of subsection (b), the expenditures 
     described in this paragraph are expenditures for dental 
     services for children described in section 2105(a)(1)(C)(ii), 
     but only in the case of a State that satisfies the 
     requirements of section 2105(c)(8).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     take effect on October 1, 2001 and apply to child health 
     assistance and medical assistance provided on or after that 
     date.

[[Page S11383]]

    TITLE II--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER 
  COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, AND THE INDIAN 
                             HEALTH SERVICE

     SEC. 201. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE PROVISION OF DENTAL HEALTH 
                   SERVICES THROUGH COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS AND 
                   PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS.

       Part D of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by insert before section 330, 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 329. GRANT PROGRAM TO EXPAND THE AVAILABILITY OF 
                   SERVICES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration, shall establish a 
     program under which the Secretary may award grants to 
     eligible entities and eligible individuals to expand the 
     availability of primary dental care services in dental health 
     professional shortage areas or medically underserved areas.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section an entity--
       ``(A) shall be--
       ``(i) a health center receiving funds under section 330 or 
     designated as a Federally qualified health center;
       ``(ii) a county or local public health department, if 
     located in a federally-designated dental health professional 
     shortage area;
       ``(iii) an Indian tribe or tribal organization (as defined 
     in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)); or
       ``(iv) a dental education program accredited by the 
     Commission on Dental Accreditation; and
       ``(B) shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Individuals.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section an individual shall--
       ``(A) be a dental health professional licensed or certified 
     in accordance with the laws of State in which such individual 
     provides dental services;
       ``(B) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require; and
       ``(C) provide assurances that--
       ``(i) the individual will practice in a federally-
     designated dental health professional shortage area; and
       ``(ii) not less than 33 percent of the patients of such 
     individual are--

       ``(I) receiving assistance under a State plan under title 
     XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
       ``(II) receiving assistance under a State plan under title 
     XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.); or
       ``(III) uninsured.

       ``(c) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Entities.--An entity shall use amounts received under 
     a grant under this section to provide for the increased 
     availability of primary dental services in the areas 
     described in subsection (a). Such amounts may be used to 
     supplement the salaries offered for individuals accepting 
     employment as dentists in such areas.
       ``(2) Individuals.--A grant to an individual under 
     subsection (a) shall be in the form of a $1,000 bonus payment 
     for each month in which such individual is in compliance with 
     the eligibility requirements of subsection (b)(2)(C).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other amounts 
     appropriated under section 330 for health centers, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $40,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2006 to hire and retain dental health care 
     providers under this section.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--Of the amount appropriated for a 
     fiscal year under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall use--
       ``(A) not less than 75 percent of such amount to make 
     grants to eligible entities; and
       ``(B) not more than 25 percent of such amount to make 
     grants to eligible individuals.''.

     SEC. 202. DENTAL OFFICER MULTIYEAR RETENTION BONUS FOR THE 
                   INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.

       (a) Terms and Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Creditable service.--The term ``creditable service'' 
     includes all periods that a dental officer spent in graduate 
     dental educational (GDE) training programs while not on 
     active duty in the Indian Health Service and all periods of 
     active duty in the Indian Health Service as a dental officer.
       (2) Dental officer.--The term ``dental officer'' means an 
     officer of the Indian Health Service designated as a dental 
     officer.
       (3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Indian Health Service.
       (4) Residency.--The term ``residency'' means a graduate 
     dental educational (GDE) training program of at least 12 
     months leading to a specialty, including general practice 
     residency (GPR) or an advanced education general dentistry 
     (AEGD).
       (5) Specialty.--The term ``specialty'' means a dental 
     specialty for which there is an Indian Health Service 
     specialty code number.
       (b) Requirements for Bonus.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible dental officer of the Indian 
     Health Service who executes a written agreement to remain on 
     active duty for 2, 3, or 4 years after the completion of any 
     other active duty service commitment to the Indian Health 
     Service may, upon acceptance of the written agreement by the 
     Director, be authorized to receive a dental officer multiyear 
     retention bonus under this section. The Director may, based 
     on requirements of the Indian Health Service, decline to 
     offer such a retention bonus to any specialty that is 
     otherwise eligible, or to restrict the length of such a 
     retention bonus contract for a specialty to less than 4 
     years.
       (2) Limitations.--Each annual dental officer multiyear 
     retention bonus authorized under this section shall not 
     exceed the following:
       (A) $14,000 for a 4-year written agreement.
       (B) $8,000 for a 3-year written agreement.
       (C) $4,000 for a 2-year written agreement.
       (c) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a 
     dental officer multiyear retention bonus under this section, 
     a dental officer shall--
       (A) be at or below such grade as the Director shall 
     determine;
       (B) have completed any active duty service commitment of 
     the Indian Health Service incurred for dental education and 
     training or have 8 years of creditable service;
       (C) have completed initial residency training, or be 
     scheduled to complete initial residency training before 
     September 30 of the fiscal year in which the officer enters 
     into a dental officer multiyear retention bonus written 
     service agreement under this section; and
       (D) have a dental specialty in pediatric dentistry or oral 
     and maxillofacial surgery.
       (2) Extension to other officers.--The Director may extend 
     the retention bonus to dental officers other than officers 
     with a dental specialty in pediatric dentistry, as well as to 
     other dental hygienists with a minimum of a baccalaureate 
     degree, based on demonstrated need.
       (d) Termination of Entitlement to Special Pay.--The 
     Director may terminate, with cause, at any time a dental 
     officer's multiyear retention bonus contract under this 
     section. If such a contract is terminated, the unserved 
     portion of the retention bonus contract shall be recouped on 
     a pro rata basis. The Director shall establish regulations 
     that specify the conditions and procedures under which 
     termination may take place. The regulations and conditions 
     for termination shall be included in the written service 
     contract for a dental officer multiyear retention bonus under 
     this section.
       (e) Refunds.--
       (1) In general.--Prorated refunds shall be required for 
     sums paid under a retention bonus contract under this section 
     if a dental officer who has received the retention bonus 
     fails to complete the total period of service specified in 
     the contract, as conditions and circumstances warrant.
       (2) Debt to united states.--An obligation to reimburse the 
     United States imposed under paragraph (1) is a debt owed to 
     the United States.
       (3) No discharge in bankruptcy.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a discharge in bankruptcy under title 11, 
     United States Code, that is entered less than 5 years after 
     the termination of a retention bonus contract under this 
     section does not discharge the dental officer who signed such 
     a contract from a debt arising under the contract or under 
     paragraph (1).

     SEC. 203. STREAMLINE PROCESS FOR DESIGNATING DENTAL HEALTH 
                   PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREAS.

       Section 332(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     254e(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) In designating health professional shortage areas 
     under this section, the Secretary may designate certain areas 
     as dental health professional shortage areas if the Secretary 
     determines that such areas have a severe shortage of dental 
     health professionals. The Secretary shall, in consultation 
     with State and local dental societies and tribal health 
     organizations, streamline the process to develop, publish and 
     periodically update criteria to be used in designating dental 
     health professional shortage areas.''.

     SEC. 204. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO INCREASE ACCESS TO 
                   PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES IN UNDERSERVED AREAS.

       (a) Authority To Conduct Projects.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, through the Administrator of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration and the Director of the 
     Indian Health Service, shall establish demonstration projects 
     that are designed to increase access to dental services for 
     children in underserved areas, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

   TITLE III--IMPROVING ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION 
                                PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. ORAL HEALTH INITIATIVE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall establish an oral health initiative to reduce 
     the profound disparities in oral health by improving the 
     health status of vulnerable populations, particularly low-
     income children, to the level of health status that is 
     enjoyed by the majority of Americans.
       (b) Activities.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall, through the oral health initiative--

[[Page S11384]]

       (1) carry out activities to improve intra- and inter-agency 
     collaborations, including activities to identify, engage, and 
     encourage existing Federal and State programs to maximize 
     their potential to address oral health;
       (2) carry out activities to encourage public-private 
     partnerships to engage private sector communities of interest 
     (including health professionals, educators, State 
     policymakers, foundations, business, and the public) in 
     partnerships that promote oral health and dental care; and
       (3) carry out activities to reduce the disease burden in 
     high risk populations through the application of best-science 
     in oral health, including programs such as community water 
     fluoridation and dental sealants.
       (c) Coordination.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall--
       (1) through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & 
     Medicaid Services (formerly known as the Health Care 
     Financing Administration) establish a Chief Dental Officer 
     for the medicaid and State children's health insurance 
     programs established under titles XIX and XXI, respectively, 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. 1397aa et 
     seq.); and
       (2) carry out this section in collaboration with such 
     Administrator and Chief Dental Officer and the Administrator 
     and Chief Dental Officer of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     subsequent fiscal year.

     SEC. 302. CDC REPORTS.

       (a) Collection of Data.--The Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention in collaboration with other 
     organizations and agencies shall annually collect data 
     describing the dental, craniofacial, and oral health of 
     residents of at least 1 State and 1 Indian tribe from each 
     region of the Department of Health and Human Services.
       (b) Reports.--The Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention shall compile and analyze data 
     collected under subsection (a) and annually prepare and 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report 
     concerning the oral health of certain States and tribes.

     SEC. 303. EARLY CHILDHOOD CARIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, shall--
       (1) expand existing surveillance activities to include the 
     identification of children at high risk of early childhood 
     caries;
       (2) assist State, local, and tribal health agencies and 
     departments in collecting, analyzing and disseminating data 
     on early childhood caries; and
       (3) provide for the development of public health nursing 
     programs and public health education programs on early 
     childhood caries prevention.
       (b) Appropriateness of Activities.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall carry out programs and activities 
     under subsection (a) in a culturally appropriate manner with 
     respect to populations at risk of early childhood caries.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each fiscal year.

     SEC. 304. SCHOOL-BASED DENTAL SEALANT PROGRAM.

       Section 317M(c) of the Public Health Service Act (as added 
     by section 1602 of Public Law 106-310)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and school-linked'' 
     after ``school-based'';
       (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and school-linked'' after ``school-
     based''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``State''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive funds under 
     paragraph (1), an entity shall--
       ``(A) prepare and submit to the State or Indian tribe an 
     application at such time, in such manner and containing such 
     information as the State or Indian tribe may require; and
       ``(B) be a--
       ``(i) public elementary or secondary school--

       ``(I) that is located in an urban area in which and more 
     than 50 percent of the student population is participating in 
     Federal or State free or reduced meal programs; or
       ``(II) that is located in a rural area and, with respect to 
     the school district in which the school is located, the 
     district involved has a median income that is at or below 235 
     percent of the poverty line, as defined in section 673(2) of 
     the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)); 
     or

       ``(ii) public or non-profit health organization, including 
     a grantee under section 330, that is under contract with an 
     elementary or secondary school described in subparagraph (B) 
     to provide dental services to school-age children.''.
                                  ____


      Fact Sheet--Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001

       Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Blanche 
     Lincoln (D-AR), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Susan Collins (R-ME), 
     Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Tim Hutchinson (R-AR), and Jon Corzine 
     (D-NJ) are preparing to introduce the ``Children's Dental 
     Health Improvement Act of 2001.'' The legislation seeks to 
     improve the access and delivery of dental care to children 
     across the country.


                         problems and solutions

                     Lack of Coverage for Children

       According to the Surgeon General's report, Oral Health in 
     America: A Report of the Surgeon General, that was issued in 
     2000, ``Although over 14 percent of children under 18 have no 
     form of private or public medical insurance, more than twice 
     that many, 23 million children, have no dental insurance.'' 
     The report adds, ``There are at least 2.6 children without 
     dental insurance for each child without medical insurance.''
       Moreover, according to the General Accounting Office in a 
     report entitled Factors Contributing to Low Use of Dental 
     Services by Low-Income Populations (Sept. 2000), AHHS and 
     health center officials report that the demand for dental 
     services significantly exceeds the [urban and rural health] 
     centers' capacity to delivery it. In 1998 . . ., a little 
     more than half of the nearly 700 health center grantees 
     funded under this program had active dental programs.''
       Legislative Proposal: The legislation would improve the 
     dental health of uninsured children by: Allowing states the 
     flexibility to utilize the State Children's Health Insurance 
     Program (SCHIP) to provide dental coverage to low-income 
     children below 200 percent of poverty that may have private 
     insurance for medical care but not dental services; and 
     providing $40 million to community health centers and public 
     health departments to expand dental health services through 
     the hiring of additional dentist health professionals to 
     serve low-income children.

                         Lack of Access to Care

       According to the GAO, ``While several factors influence the 
     access low-income groups have to dental care, the primary one 
     is limited dentist participation in Medicaid . . . Of 39 
     states that provided information about dentists' 
     participation in Medicaid, 23 reported that fewer than half 
     of the states' dentists saw at least one Medicaid patient 
     during 1999.''
       The GAO concludes this is due in large part to poor 
     reimbursement rates in Medicaid. As the GAO adds, ``Our 
     analysis showed that Medicaid payment rates are often well 
     below dentists' normal fees. Only 13 states had Medicaid 
     rates that exceeded two-thirds of the average regional fees 
     dentists charged. . ..''
       Legislative Proposal: The legislation seeks to improve 
     access to dental services for low-income children in the 
     Medicaid program by providing $50 million as financial 
     incentives and planning grants to states to improve their 
     Medicaid programs in terms of adequate payment rates, 
     access to care, and improved service delivery.

             Lack of Providers in Federally Funded Programs

       With respect to community health centers, the GAO notes, 
     ``HHS and health center officials report that the demand for 
     dental services significantly exceeds the [urban and rural 
     health] centers' capacity to delivery it. In 1998 . . ., a 
     little more than half of the nearly 700 health center 
     grantees funded under this program had active dental 
     programs.''
       With respect to the Indian Health Service (IHS) the GAO 
     adds, ``. . . about one-fourth of IHS'' dentist positions at 
     269 IHS and tribal facilities were vacant in April 2000. 
     Vacancies have been chronic at IHS facilities--in the past 5 
     years, at least 67 facilities have had one or more dentist 
     positions vacant for at least a year. According to IHS 
     officials, the primary reason for these vacancies is that IHS 
     is unable to provide a competitive salary for new dentists.''
       Legislative Proposal: The legislation seeks to improve 
     access to dental services for children served by community 
     health centers and the Indian Health Service by: Again, 
     providing $40 million to community health centers and public 
     health departments to expand dental health services through 
     the hiring of additional dental health professionals to serve 
     low-income children; and providing the Indian Health Service 
     with the authority to offer multi-year retention bonuses to 
     dental providers offering service through the IHS and tribal 
     programs.

            Need for Improved Coordination and Collaboration

       Despite Medicaid and SCHIP, dental care is the least 
     utilized core pediatric health service for low-income 
     children. There are 2.6 times more children lacking dental 
     coverage than health coverage and over a hundred million 
     Americans without dental insurance. Dental care is the most 
     frequently cited unmet health need of children, according to 
     their parents. In fact, the Health Interview Survey reveals 
     that the unmet need is three times greater than unmet need 
     for medical care, four times greater than unmet need for 
     prescription drugs, and five times greater than unmet need 
     for vision care. The third National Health and Nutrition 
     Interview Survey showed that dental caries [or dental decay] 
     is the most prevalent chronic disease of childhood.
       To help address this ``hidden epidemic,'' the Department of 
     Health and Human Services (HHS) enacted the Oral Health 
     Initiative (OHI) to coordinate dental health services in both 
     the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and 
     the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (formerly 
     known as the Health Care Financing Administration).
       Despite the progress of the initiative, it has no legal 
     authority unlike other programs

[[Page S11385]]

     that target specific health needs of children (e.g., 
     Emergency Medical Services for Children and the Traumatic 
     Brain Injury Program). Because it lacks formal status and 
     program control, the OHI is susceptible to future disruptions 
     or disbanding.
       Legislative Proposal: The legislation provides statutory 
     authority for the OHI and authorized funding of $25 million 
     to improve the oral health of low-income populations served 
     by both the public and private sector.

                            Other Provisions

       In addition, the legislation contains the following 
     technical provisions:
       Dental Health Professional Shortage Area Designation: The 
     bill streamlines the process for the designation of dental 
     health professional shortage areas.
       Technical School-Based Sealant Provisions: The bill 
     includes technical provisions ensuring that entities eligible 
     for funding include both ``school-linked'' as well as school-
     based organizations, clarifies that an eligible entitle can 
     be a public or non-profit health organization or tribal 
     organization.
       Demonstration: The bill creates authority for HHS to 
     establish demonstration projects to increase access to dental 
     services for children in underserved areas.


                        endorsing organizations

       American Dental Association, American Dental Education 
     Association, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, 
     National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc., 
     National Association of Children's Hospitals, American Dental 
     Hygienists' Association, Academy of General Dentistry, 
     American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American 
     Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, American Academy 
     of Periodontology, American Association of Dental Examiners, 
     American Association of Dental Research, American Association 
     of Endodontists, American Association of Public Health 
     Dentistry, American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial 
     Surgeons, American Association of Orthodontists, American 
     Association of Women Dentists, American College of Dentists, 
     American College of Preventive Medicine, American Dental 
     Trade Association, American Public Health Association, 
     American Society of Dentistry for Children, American Student 
     Dental Association, Association of Clinicians of the 
     Underserved, Association of Maternal and Child Health 
     Programs, Association of State and Territorial Dental 
     Directors, Dental Dealers of America, Dental Manufacturers of 
     America, Inc., Family Voices, Hispanic Dental Association, 
     International College of Dentists USA, March of Dimes, 
     National Association of City and County Health Officers, 
     National Association of Local Boards of Health, National 
     Dental Association, National Health Law Program, New Mexico 
     Department of Health, Partnership for Prevention, Society of 
     American Indian Dentists, Special Care Dentistry, and United 
     Cerebral Palsy Associations.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I would like to bring your attention to 
a hidden epidemic. This epidemic affects the overall health of 
children, especially children in low-income families. It has been 
called a ``hidden epidemic'' because it can be difficult to detect at a 
glance, and because it receives relatively little attention as a threat 
to children's health. But while this epidemic is ``hidden,'' it 
manifests itself every day in the smiles of America's children.
  The epidemic I am referring to is that of poor dental health. Dental 
decay, a major cause of tooth loss, is the most prevalent chronic 
disease of childhood. Each year, dental conditions cause children in 
the U.S. to miss more than 750,000 days of school. One in ten children 
between the ages of five and eleven has never visited a dentist. This 
is a shocking and distressing statistic. The unfortunate trend cannot 
be allowed to continue.
  States are working hard to offer dental health services through their 
Medicaid programs and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
but they need our help in meeting the challenge. The General Accounting 
Office reported that the biggest reason low-income people lack dental 
care is that not enough dentists participate in Medicaid. In Missouri, 
as in other states, some dentists simply choose not to accept Medicaid 
patients, while others cannot afford to accept them because Medicaid 
reimbursement is not sufficient to cover the costs of providing care. 
In Missouri, there are more than 1,000 children on Medicaid for every 
dentist willing to serve them.
  As a result, Medicaid patients must search far and wide to find a 
dentist and then face another challenge in traveling long distances to 
see that dentist. Often, this requires hours of planning to arrange for 
public or Medicaid-provided transportation, and several more hours of 
waiting after the visit to be picked up and returned home. For many 
lower-income parents, these hours away from work will severely cut into 
the family's income. Is it any wonder why so many children do not get 
the preventive dental care they need, and are not seen by a dentist 
until they are in intense pain or have infections so severe that their 
eyes have swelled shut? We cannot let this continue to happen to 
children in the United States.
  There are many reasons for protecting children's oral health. For 
instance, we know that when children have healthy smiles:
  They chew more easily and gain more nutrients from the foods they 
eat.
  They learn to speak more quickly and clearly.
  They look and feel more attractive improving self-confidence and 
willingness to communicate with others.
  They have better school attendance and pay more attention in class.
  They avoid extensive and costly treatment of dental disease.
  And they begin a lifetime of good dental habits.
  For all of these reasons, I am proud to join with Senators Bingaman, 
Cochran, Corzine, Collins, Daschle, Hutchison, and Lincoln in 
introducing the Children's Dental Health Improvement Act. This 
bipartisan bill would improve dental care for low-income children. I 
appreciate Senator Bingaman's leadership on this bill, and I am honored 
for the opportunity to work with him on this important issue. In order 
to make real improvements in our current situation, this legislation 
takes a multi-faceted approach that addresses each component of the 
problem.
  First, this bill would give States the option to provide dental 
coverage through the State Children's Health Insurance Program to low-
income children who may have private insurance for medical care but not 
for dental services. Part of the reason for the epidemic in dental 
health is a lack of insurance for dental services. For every child 
without health insurance, there are nearly three children who are 
uninsured for dental care. By providing more of these children with 
insurance, we can reduce their dental care costs--one of the many 
barriers that low-income families face in getting dental care for their 
children. Although the bill does not call for additional SCHIP funding, 
I support a separate funding increase for this program. This increase 
is essential to giving States the ability to expand coverage to dental 
services, especially States like Missouri, whose SCHIP programs are 
doing an excellent job and as a result spend all of their existing 
funding.
  Second, this bill would invest $25 million in and provide statutory 
authority to the Federal Oral Health Initiative. The Department of 
Health and Human Services initiated the Oral Health Initiative to 
coordinate its dental health services. These funds would be used to 
promote public-private partnerships and cooperation among Federal 
agencies in order to reduce the profound disparities in oral health 
among vulnerable populations. Low-income people are the hardest hit 
when it comes to dental disease. Compared to their counterparts in 
higher-income families, poor children have five times more untreated 
dental disease and poor teens are half as likely to visit a dentist 
annually. Giving legal authority to this Initiative will allow it to 
work on improving access to dental health without fear of future 
disruptions or disbanding and the increased funding will allow for the 
Oral Health Initiative's much-needed expansion.
  Third, this bill would offer States the opportunity to apply for $50 
million in Federal grants to assist them in improving dental coverage 
for children through Medicaid. The financial incentives and planning 
grants included in the bill would enable states to improve payment 
rates, access to care, and service delivery. It also includes an 
investment of $40 million for community health centers and public 
health departments to increase the number of dental health 
professionals who serve low-income children. With these funds, we can 
increase access to dental care for low-income children, shorten travel 
times and the wait for a dental appointment. This is especially 
important in rural areas, which generally face a greater shortage of 
providers.
  The Children's Dental Health Improvement Act has gained the support 
of over twenty dental health organizations, including the American 
Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and the

[[Page S11386]]

American Dental Association. Other supporters include the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Children's 
Hospitals, and the National Association of Community Health Centers. 
With their support, and the leadership of my fellow cosponsors of this 
bill, I hope that we can have a profound impact on dental health and 
ensure that America's low-income children will have healthy, beautiful 
smiles.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Hatch, 
        Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 1627. A bill to enhance the security of the international borders 
of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join with the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona, who is my ranking member on the Technology and 
Terrorism Subcommittee of Judiciary, to introduce a piece of 
legislation.
  On October 12, the committee held a hearing on what could be done to 
technologically improve our visa entry system. It has become very 
clear, now that we know all 19 of the terrorists essentially had, at 
some time, valid visas, that our system is such that it really cannot 
countermand or alert our Government to any possible terrorist entering 
this country legally through our visa system.
  We have about 7 million nonimmigrants entering the U.S. a year. About 
4 million of them disappear and are unaccounted for. We have 23 million 
people coming in on visa waivers from 29 different countries. We have 
an unregulated student visa program. And we also have about 300 million 
people coming across borders back and forth. We have about 5 million 
containers a year that come in through the ports of entry, fewer than 2 
percent of them searched.
  The ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and I 
have been very concerned about this. As a product of the hearing, we 
believed that the most important thing we could do was create a 
centralized data base, using cutting-edge technology, and also enabling 
that data base to interface between our intelligence agencies, our law 
enforcement agencies, and our State Department, to create a kind of 
lookout data base so that the situation that happened--whereby in Saudi 
Arabia 15 terrorists came in to the State Department consul's office 
and got visas, and we were told there was no intelligence to alert the 
system--would not, in fact, happen in the future. This legislation 
would create that kind of centralized, integrated data base.
  Additionally, we provide for a biometric visa smart card. We provide 
that all Federal identity permit and license documents be fraud-
resistant and tamper-resistant. We provide for passenger manifests of 
all commercial transportation vehicles to go into that data base, 
again, so that it can alert the proper authorities about who is about 
to come into the U.S. Law enforcement information, intelligence 
information all combine to send certain signals.
  We also provide regulation and school responsibility for the student 
visa program. I am very pleased to indicate that Senator Kyl and I are 
joined by Senators Kohl, Snowe, Hatch, Thurmond, and Bond.
  I would like to now defer to my colleague from Arizona, the ranking 
member of our Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein, the chairman of 
the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, 
for her leadership both in the holding of the hearing that she 
mentioned, as well as putting together the legislation we introduce 
this evening.
  Something happened on September 11 that, with one exception, really 
had not happened since the War of 1812 when British soldiers came into 
the United States and literally attacked Americans on our own soil. 
Except for the first attack on the World Trade Center, that did not 
happen again until September 11, when over 6,000 people were killed by 
foreigners who were here and attacked Americans in our country.
  At that point, we began to realize that we had to begin to close the 
loopholes in our immigration system that, frankly, were allowing just 
about anybody and everybody to come into this country and, as we have 
learned, to do some very bad things to Americans here in our own 
country.
  So this legislation would do a variety of things, as Senator 
Feinstein has said, beginning with the creation of a data base that 
would enable us to know what the FBI knows, what the CIA knows, what 
the INS knows, what the State Department knows.
  Today, these different computers do not talk to each other, so that 
when a consular officer is asked to grant a visa to someone, he may 
have no information indicating this person should be denied the visa, 
yet it is quite possible that person is not someone we would want to 
have come into the United States.
  In our hearing, the representative from the State Department said the 
State Department personnel who granted visas to these 19 terrorists 
were heartbroken.
  She said it is like when a person hits the little kid who runs out 
from between the parked cars. It obviously is not the driver's fault, 
but you feel horrible about it. It is obviously not the fault of the 
people in the State Department who granted these visas, but they felt 
horrible about it because they didn't have the information to tell them 
that those visas should have been denied.
  This bill will enable us to put all of that information into one 
simple database so that our consular offices will know to whom to grant 
the visas and who should not receive them. It will make a lot of other 
changes, as Senator Feinstein said, all of which are designed to gain 
better for the process of admitting people into the country, for 
knowing when they exit the country, for ensuring that people who come 
here to study in fact come here and study and don't come on a pretext, 
as at least one of these terrorists did, and a variety of other things 
that take advantage of the technology we have today.
  The great thing about this bill, as verified by the hearing and some 
other very hard work Senator Feinstein has done on her own, is to 
determine that the technology is here. We can apply technology to this 
problem. The other piece of good news is that it doesn't cost that 
much, relatively speaking. In fact, we are going to have to employ 
technology to save money. We can't possibly hire enough people or take 
all of the time it would take to do this if we don't employ technology.
  We are very excited about the prospect of applying technology to a 
new challenge here in America to close the loopholes in our immigration 
law, to ensure or at least be a lot more sure that we are not letting 
terrorists come into this country or stay in this country when they 
shouldn't be here. I am proud to join my colleague Senator Feinstein in 
the introduction of this legislation. I hope we can find a way very 
early on to see that it gets considered in the proper fora so that the 
full Senate will have an opportunity to support the legislation and 
support the President, who has called for exactly this kind of 
approach.
  Mr. President, today, Senators Feinstein and I, joined by Senators 
Snowe, Hatch, Thurmond, Bond, and Kohl, introduce the Visa Entry Reform 
Act, legislation that will strengthen our U.S. visa system, and allow 
better tracking and monitoring of foreign nationals in the United 
States who present national security risks to our country.
  Last week the President signed into law anti-terrorism legislation 
that will provide many of the tools necessary to keep terrorists out of 
the United States, and to detain those terrorists who have entered our 
country. That law provides new, better definitions of what a terrorist 
organization is, and provides the Attorney General greater authority to 
detain members of such organizations. It clarifies that individuals who 
have contributed to such organizations, even if such support went to 
nonterrorist activities of the organizations, are inadmissible and 
deportable. The new law also authorizes the tripling of Border Patrol, 
Customs inspectors, and INS inspectors at the northern border, a 
minimal addition, given the expected high rates of attrition for these 
agencies over the next

[[Page S11387]]

five years, and the continued and growing need for personnel along the 
southwest border.
  Yesterday, the President announced three initiatives in our fight to 
track down terrorists: a task force, headed by the deputy assistant 
director of the FBI for intelligence, to work toward greater 
coordination of intelligence and law enforcement information on 
terrorists; a comprehensive study of our never-implemented foreign 
student tracking system; and an initiative to provide much-needed 
coordination among Customs and INS officials in the United States, 
Canada, and Mexico.
  These are all important tools, and will be instrumental in our 
overall efforts to track down terrorists. The legislation that we 
introduce today will complement our recent efforts. Under the Visa 
Entry Reform Act of 2001, law enforcement, the Departments of 
Transportation and State, and all of our intelligence agencies will be 
connected by a comprehensive database, headed by the Director of 
Homeland Defense, with necessary shared law enforcement and 
intelligence information to thwart attempts to enter the country and to 
find terrorists who have made their way into the United States.
  Under our bill, terrorists will be deprived of the ability to present 
fake or altered international documents in order to gain entrance, or 
stay here. Foreign nationals will be provided with a new fraud-proof 
``SmartVisa'' card, using new technology that would include a person's 
fingerprints or other forms of ``biometric'' identification. These 
cards would be used by visitors upon exit and entry into the United 
States, and would alert authorities immediately if a visa has expired 
or a red flag is raised by a Federal agency. Our bill would also 
strengthen other Federal identification documents such as pilots' 
licenses, visas, immigration work authorization cards, and others by 
requiring that they be fraud- and tamper-resistant, contain biometric 
data, and, if applicable, include the visa's expiration date.
  Another provision of the bill would require that the 29 nations that 
participate in the government's visa waiver program be required, after 
1 year, to issue tamper-resistant, machine-readable passports. In 
addition, our bill would require that, after 2 years, all countries 
that participate include biometric data on their passports. INS 
inspectors would have to check passport numbers and, where available, 
biometric information with the new, centralized information database. 
Countries that participate in the program would be required to report 
stolen passport numbers to the State Department in order to continue to 
participate in the program.
  Another section of our bill will make a significant difference in our 
efforts to stop terrorists from ever entering our country. Section six 
of the bill will require that passenger manifests on all flights 
scheduled to come to the United States be forwarded in real-time, and 
then cleared, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. All cruise 
and cargo lines and cross-border bus lines would also have to submit 
such lists to the INS. Our bill also removes a current U.S. requirement 
that all passengers on flights to the United States be cleared by the 
INS within 45 minutes of arrival. Clearly, in some circumstances, the 
INS will need more time to clear all prospective entrants to the United 
States. These simple steps would give law enforcement advance notice of 
foreigners coming into the country, particularly visitors or immigrants 
who pose security threats to the United States.
  The Visa Entry Reform Act will also provide much needed reforms and 
requirements in our U.S. foreign student visa program, which has 
allowed numerous foreigners to enter the country without ever attending 
classes and with lax oversight by the Federal Government. The system is 
rife with abuse, with numerous examples of fraud and bribery by persons 
seeking student visas.
  Just as alarming, in the past decade, more than 16,000 people have 
entered the United States on student visas from states included on the 
government's list of terrorist sponsors. Notwithstanding that Syria is 
one of the countries on the list, the State Department recently issued 
visas to 14 Syrian nationals so that they could attend flight schools 
in Fort Worth, TX.
  Our legislation would prevent most persons from obtaining student 
visas if they come from terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Iraq, 
Sudan, Libya, and Syria, with the authority of the Secretary of State 
to waive the bar. Additionally, our bill would require the INS to 
conduct background checks before the State Department issues the visas. 
U.S. educational institutions would also be required to immediately 
notify the INS when a foreign student violates the term of the visa by 
failing to show up for class or leaving school early.
  For the first time since the War of 1812, the United States has faced 
a massive attack from foreigners on our own soil. Every one of the 
terrorists who committed the September 11 atrocities were foreign 
nationals who had entered the United States legally through our visa 
system. None of them should have been allowed entry due to their ties 
to terrorist organizations, and yet even those whose visas had expired 
were not expelled.
  Mohamed Atta, for example, the suspected ringleader of the attacks, 
was allowed into the United States on a tourist visa, even though he 
made clear his intentions to go to flight school while in the United 
States. Clearly, at the very least, he should have been queried about 
why he was using his tourist visa to attend flight school.
  We also know that two of the terrorists were on watch lists that 
should have been provided to the State Department and the INS, in order 
to prevent their entry to the United States.
  Another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, was here on a student visa that had 
expired as of September 11. Hani Hanjour never attended class. In 
addition, at least two other visitor visa-holders overstayed their 
visa. In testimony before my own Senate subcommittee, U.S. officials 
have told us that they possess little information about foreigners who 
come into this country, how many there are, and even whether they leave 
when required by their visas. America is a nation that welcomes 
international visitors--and should remain so. But terrorists have taken 
advantage of our system and its openness. Now that we face new threats 
to our homeland, it is time we restore some balance to our immigration 
policy.

  As former chairman and now ranking Republican of the Judiciary 
Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, I have long suggested, and strongly 
supported, many of the anti-terrorism and immigration initiatives now 
being advocated by Republicans and Democrats alike. In my sadness about 
the overwhelming and tragic events that took thousands of precious 
lives, I am resolved to push forward on all fronts to fight against 
terrorism. That means delivering justice to those who are responsible 
for the lives lost on September 11, and reorganizing the institutions 
of government so that the law-abiding can continue to live their lives 
in freedom. I hope that we will soon pass, the Congress will pass, the 
Visa Entry Reform Act. It will make a difference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague 
from Arizona for those comments. He is very hard working, and it has 
been a great pleasure for me to be able to work with him. He and I hope 
to sit down with Senators Kennedy and Brownback next week. I think all 
four of us believe that if it is possible to have one bill, we would 
like to have one bill. We have taken on the technology aspect of our 
bill. But bottom line, the Senator from Arizona is correct, our Nation 
has essentially been laid back when it comes to matters of really 
scrupulously trying to set up a system that can provide a measure of 
protection for our national security.
  It has become very clear now, post September 11, that we must take 
steps to do so. Otherwise, we are derelict in our duty to protect 
American citizens. This bill does it.
  Because the student visa part of it has been somewhat controversial, 
this morning I was visited by the chancellor of the California State 
University system. This is the largest system in the United States, 
with about 380,000 students. He came in to indicate his support for our 
bill, for the acknowledgment that he knows that schools across America 
also have to assume more responsibility to see that there is a system 
where there is some regulation.

[[Page S11388]]

Right now, a student can apply to a number of schools, get accepted to 
a number, and show up at none. And there is no reporting.
  We would change this. The university association will be supportive 
of these changes.
  I am very optimistic that we have an opportunity, in meeting with 
Senators Kennedy and Brownback, to put together one bill that could 
provide some reform to a porous visa entry system.
  As I said, I sit as the chair of the Judiciary Committee's 
Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information. Last 
month, we held a hearing into the need for new technologies to assist 
our government agencies in keeping terrorists out of the United States.
  The testimony at that hearing was very illuminating. We were given a 
picture of an immigration system in chaos, and a border control system 
that acts like a sieve. Agencies don't communicate with each other. 
Computers are incompatible. And even in instances where technological 
leaps have been made--like the issuance of more than 4.5 million 
``smart'' border crossing cards with biometric data--the technology is 
not even used.
  Let me give some specific examples of the testimony we heard before 
our subcommittee:
  There are 29 countries that now participate in a ``visa waiver'' 
program that invites 23 million visitors a year to our country. 
Travelers from these countries do not have to get a visa before 
entering the United States, so nobody knows when they arrive, and 
nobody knows whether they leave. Passports don't have to be machine-
readable or tamper-proof, and the result is millions of people coming 
and going with no accountability, and no way to find them if they 
choose to stay and do mischief.
  We also heard in our subcommittee that the student visa program is 
unregulated and subject to abuse and fraud. Schools don't keep track of 
students, the INS does not find out when the students leave or whether 
they even show up for classes, and many students overstay their visas 
by years. Furthermore, students who apply to many schools can receive 
multiple documents--called ``I-20'' forms--giving them the right to 
entry. Because they only need one of these forms, the possibility for 
fraud is enormous. Additional forms are sold, and many enter the 
country with no real plans to go to school here at all.
  In our hearing, Mary Ryan, the Assistant Secretary of State for 
Consular Affairs, said that the lack of information sharing is a 
``colossal intelligence failure'' and that the State Department ``had 
no information on the terrorists from law enforcement.'' Personally, I 
am amazed that a person can apply for a visa, be granted a visa, and 
that there is no mechanism by which the FBI or CIA can enter a code 
into the system to raise a red flag on individuals known to have links 
to terrorist groups and pose a national threat. In the wake of 
September 11th, it is hard for me to fathom how a terrorist might be 
permitted to enter the U.S. because our government agencies aren't 
sharing information.

  This was one, sobering hearing. It made it clear to all who were 
present that our borders act only as a sieve, essentially allowing easy 
access to all who would do us harm. Something must be done, and 
something must be done now.
  When I arrived in the Senate in 1992, I brought with me the concerns 
of millions of Californians about the porous nature of the Southwest 
border. When I tried to address the problems there, I met with the same 
response over and over again--``nothing can be done.''
  But something was done, and our Southwest border is now far more 
difficult to transit.
  Here, too, I am now told that ``nothing can be done'' to keep 
terrorists from entering the country on student visas, or through the 
visa waiver program, or through some other program. I am told that 
commerce and trade are too important. Or that the technology simply 
does not exist. Or that the agencies involved are incapable of 
cooperating in a way that would keep our country safe from those who 
try to enter.
  Well, I did not accept those arguments then, and I do not accept them 
now. There are things we can do to solve some of these problems, and 
this issue is too important to wait.
  Let me talk about how this legislation would address these problems.
  First, the most important piece of this solution is the creation of 
one, central database containing all the information our government has 
about foreign nationals who cross the border into the United States. 
Private industry can help in this effort--in fact, I recently met with 
Larry Ellison, Chairman of Oracle, who wrote me a letter offering the 
services of his company, free of charge, in the creation of the 
necessary software.
  Right now, our government agencies use different systems, with 
different information, in different formats. And they often refuse to 
share that information with other agencies within our own government. 
This is not acceptable.
  When a terrorist presents himself at a consular office asking for a 
visa, or at a border crossing with a passport, we need to make sure 
that his name and identifying information is checked against an 
accurate, up-to-date, and comprehensive database. Period.

  My legislation will require the creation of this central database, 
and will require the cooperation of all U.S. government agencies in 
providing accurate and compatible information to that system.
  Incidentally, this legislation also contains strict privacy 
provisions, limiting access to this database to authorized federal 
officials. And the bill contains severe penalties for wrongful access 
or misuse of information contained in the database.
  Second, the legislation I will introduce will include concrete steps 
to restore the integrity to the immigration and visa process, including 
the following:
  First, the legislation requires all foreign nationals to be 
fingerprinted, and, when appropriate, submit other biometric data, to 
the State Department when applying for a visa. This provision should 
help eliminate fraud, as well as identify potential threats to the 
country before they gain access.
  Second, we include reforms of the visa waiver program, so that any 
country wishing to participate in that program must quickly provide its 
citizens with tamper-proof, machine-readable passports, eventually with 
biometric data to help verify identity at ports of entry.
  Third, we establish a robust ``SmartVisa'' program. Newly issued 
visas must contain biometric data and other identifying information--
like more than 4 million already do on the Southwest border--and, just 
as importantly, our own officials at the border and other ports of 
entry must have the equipment necessary to read those new smart cards.
  Next, we worked closely with the university community in crafting 
new, strict requirements for the student visa program, to crack down on 
fraud, make sure that students really are attending classes, and give 
the government the ability to track any foreign national who arrives on 
a student visa but fails to enroll in school.
  The legislation prohibits the issuance of a student visa to any 
citizen of a country identified by the State Department as a terrorist-
supporting nation. There is a waiver provision to this prohibition, 
however, allowing the State Department to allow students even from 
these countries after review and evaluation.
  We require that airlines, cruiselines, buslines, and other 
transportation services provide passenger and crew manifests to law 
enforcement before arrival, so that any potential terrorists or other 
wrongdoers can be singled out before they arrive in this country and 
disappear into the general populace.
  The bill contains a number of other related provisions as well, but 
the gist of this legislation is this:
  Where we can provide law enforcement more information about 
potentially dangerous foreign nationals, we do so;
  Where we can reform our border-crossing system to weed out or deter 
terrorists or others who would do us harm, we do so;
  And where we can update technology to meet the demands of the modern 
war against terror, we do that as well.
  As we prepare to modify our immigration system, we must be sure to 
enact changes that are realistic and

[[Page S11389]]

feasible. We must also provide the necessary tools to implement them.
  Our Nation will be no more secure tomorrow if we create new top of 
the line databases and no not see to it that government agencies share 
critical information.
  We will be no safer tomorrow if we do not create a workable entry-
exit tracking system to ensure that terrorists do not enter the U.S. 
and blend into our communities without detection.
  And we will be no safer if we simply authorize new programs and 
information sharing, but do not provide the resources necessary to put 
the new technology at the border, train agents appropriately, and 
require our various government agencies to cooperate in this effort.
  We have a lot to do and I am confident that we will move swiftly and 
with great care to address these important issues. The legislation I 
introduce today is an important, and strong, first step. But this is 
only the beginning of a long, difficult process.
  I urge my colleagues to support us on this legislation. I yield the 
floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join with Senators Feinstein 
and Kyl in introducing the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001.
  Both of these leaders have worked feverishly to bring this bipartisan 
bill to fruition and I have very much appreciated the opportunity to 
work with them in assembling a strong and meaningful package to help 
secure our homeland.
  The bottom line is, at this extraordinary time, in the wake of 
horrific attacks from without against innocent lives within our 
borders, we must take every conceivable step with regard to those 
variables we can control in securing our Nation. How can we do anything 
less when it has become so abundantly and tragically apparent that 
admittance into this country cannot and must not be the ``X-Factor'' in 
protecting our homeland?
  Entry into this country is a privilege, not a right, and it's a 
privilege that's clearly been violated by evildoers who were well aware 
of inherent weaknesses in the system. Just look at the story of Mohamed 
Atta, coming into Miami, he told the INS that he was returning to the 
U.S. to continue flight training, despite the fact that he presented 
them with a tourist visa, not the student required visa for his 
purposes, and they let him in. INS has since said that Atta had filed 
months earlier to change his status from tourist to student so they let 
him in, despite long-standing policy that once you leave the country, 
you're considered to have abandoned your change of status request.
  What this bill is about is stopping dangerous aliens from entering 
our country at their point-of-origin and their point of entry by giving 
those Federal agencies charged with that responsibility the tools 
necessary to do the job. Now, some say the tools we need are better 
technologies, some say better information, some say better 
coordination. The beauty of this bill is that it stands on all three 
legs, because I can tell you if there's one thing I learned from my 
experience in working on these issues on the House Foreign Affairs 
International Operations Subcommittee it's that we're only going to get 
to the root of the problem with a comprehensive approach.
  This was clear from the aftermath of our investigation of the comings 
and goings of the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 
the radical Egyptian cleric Sheikh Rahman. We found that the Sheikh had 
entered and exited the country five times totally unimpeded, even after 
the State Department formally revoked his visa and even after the INS 
granted him permanent resident status. In fact, in March of 1992, the 
INS rescinded that status which was granted in Newark, New Jersey about 
a year before.
  But then, unbelievably, the Sheikh requested asylum in a hearing 
before an immigration judge in the very same city, got a second 
hearing, and continued to remain in the country even after the bombing, 
with the Justice Department rejecting holding Rahman in custody pending 
the outcome of deportation proceedings and the asylum application, 
stating that ``in the absence of concrete evidence that Rahman is 
participating in or involved in planning acts of terrorism, the 
assumption of that burden, upon the U.S. Government, is considered 
unwarranted.''
  To address the trail of errors, I introduced legislation to modernize 
the State Department's antiquated microfiche lookout system, but as 
we've painfully learned in the interim, such a system is only as good 
as the information they can access. That's why we fought tooth and nail 
to require information sharing between the FBI and the State 
Department, but even then it was only a watered-down provision that 
eventually passed into law in 1994, with even that sunsetting in 1997 
with a brief extension lapsing in 1998.
  So I'm pleased that the terrorism bill we just passed does require 
information sharing between the State Department and the FBI, but we 
can and must do more, we must also require information sharing among 
all agencies like the CIA, DEA, INS, and Customs.
  And that's what this bill does, along with my measure that's included 
to establish ``Terrorist Lookout Committees'' at every embassy, which 
are required to meet on a monthly basis and report on their knowledge 
or lack of knowledge of anyone who should be excluded from the U.S. 
Ultimately, each Deputy Chief of Mission would be responsible for this 
information, because to paraphrase Admiral Rickover, unless you can 
identify the person who's responsible when something goes wrong, then 
you have never had anyone really responsible.
  We should also know who and what is in our waters and be pro-active 
in preventing potential threats from reaching our shores. As I 
mentioned at a recent Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee hearing, a 
terrorist act involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear 
weapons at one of our seaports could result in the extensive loss of 
lives. In that light, I'm pleased this bill also includes a measure I 
developed that requires incoming vessels to submit to the Coast Guard 
crew and passenger manifests as background on the vessel 96 hours 
before arrival.
  And finally, we ought to ensure that the person standing in front of 
the INS agent at the border is the same person who applied for that 
visa. It does no good to do every background check in the world 
overseas, only to have someone else actually show up at our doorstep. 
The fact is, we have the so-called ``biometric technology'' available 
to close this gap, and I'm pleased that my measure requiring 
fingerprinting for visa applicants both abroad and at the border has 
been included.
  As the President said just the other day, ``We're going to start 
asking a lot of questions that heretofore have not been asked.'' By 
giving the Director of Homeland Security the responsibility of 
developing a centralized ``lookout'' database for all of this 
information, along with instituting tighter application and screening 
procedures and increased oversight for student visas, we will close the 
loopholes and help bring all our Nation's resources to bear in securing 
our nation.
  This is a crucial bill in our war on terrorism and I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________