[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4705-S4726]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 2539. A bill to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to advocate a 
position that is inconsistent with existing Supreme Court precedent 
with respect to the Second amendment; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to advocate a position on the 
meaning of the Second Amendment that is inconsistent with existing 
Supreme Court precedent, as expressed in the Supreme Court case of 
United States v. Miller.
  This legislation responds to the Bush Administration's recent filing 
of two unprecedented briefs to the United States Supreme Court, which 
argued that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to 
possess firearms. In taking this position, the Justice Department 
directly contradicted the well-established precedents of the Supreme 
Court, as expressed in the seminal case of United States v. Miller. In 
that 1939 case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment did 
not establish a private right of individuals to possess firearms, but 
rather was intended to ensure the effectiveness of groups of citizen-
soldiers known at the time as the Militia.
  The Court in United States v. Miller explained the historical 
background to the Second Amendment and issued its ruling clearly and 
unambiguously. That ruling has never been reversed, and the Court has 
followed it in every subsequent related case. Similarly, the precedent 
in United States v. Miller has been followed by every Justice 
Department over the past several decades, including the Justice 
Departments of Presidents Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George H.W. 
Bush.
  The meaning of the Second Amendment should not be a partisan issue. 
In fact, it should not be a political issue. It is a legal and 
constitutional issue. And the law on this question has been clearly 
established by the highest court in the land in case after case for a 
period of many decades.
  Unfortunately, instead of following the law, as Attorney General 
promised to do during his confirmation hearing, the Bush Administration 
and the Justice Department have used their authority to file briefs as 
a means of pursuing a partisan political agenda that flies in the face 
of established Supreme Court precedents. This is wrong. And, in my 
view, it is a misuse of taxpayer dollars.
  Congress should not have to pass a law to ensure that the Executive 
Branch follows the Constitution, as clearly interpreted by the Supreme 
Court. Unfortunately, in light of the Bush's Administration's latest 
actions, Congress must step in. After all, Congress's ultimate power is 
the power of the purse. And we have a responsibility to use that power, 
when necessary, to ensure that the Executive Branch complies with 
constitutional law.
  This responsibility flows from Congress's obligation to preserve, 
protect and defend the Constitution. It also flows from our obligation 
to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not misused. The American people 
should not be forced to pay taxes to support an unreasonable 
interpretation of the Second Amendment that is not only inconsistent 
with constitutional law, but that threatens to undermine legislation 
needed to reduce gun violence and to save lives.
  In 1998, more than 30,000 Americans died from firearm-related deaths. 
That is almost as many as the number of Americans who died in the 
entire Korean War. In my view, there is much that Congress needs to do 
to reduce these deaths, including enacting reasonable gun safety 
legislation. Yet if the Bush Administration prevails in its effort to 
radically revise the Second Amendment, such laws could well be 
undermined. The end result would be more death and more families losing 
loved ones to the scourge of gun violence.
  In fact, I would note that one week after the Bush Administration 
filed their briefs, lawyers for accused American Taliban terrorist John 
Walker Lindh used the Administration's arguments to urge dismissal of 
the gun charge filed against him. Now, I hope and trust that the courts 
will quickly reject this line of argument. But why would the Bush 
Administration want to strengthen the position of criminals and alleged 
terrorists like John Walker Lindh in the first place?
  I have asked the Congressional Research Service whether there are any 
constitutional precedents that would bar the Congress from adopting 
this legislation, and the answer was ``no.'' I also would note that 
there is precedent for Congress prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars 
to advocate positions with which Congress disagrees. For example, 
Congress for many years prohibited the Justice Department from using 
appropriated money to overturn certain rules under our antitrust laws. 
This responded to the filing of a brief in the Supreme Court by the 
Justice Department urging a revision of its precedents on resale price 
maintenance, and the legislation effectively blocked the Department 
from filing similar briefs.
  In conclusion, we should not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to 
misrepresent the meaning of the Second Amendment on behalf of a 
partisan, political agenda. We should defend the Constitution against 
such ideological attacks. We should protect taxpayers from being forced 
to subsidize ideological gambits. And we should ensure that the 
Constitution is not misused to undermine gun safety legislation that 
could save the lives of many innocent Americans.
  I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record, 
along with some related materials about this matter.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2539

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.

       No funds appropriated to the Department of Justice or any 
     other agency may be used to file any brief or to otherwise 
     advocate before any judicial or administrative body any 
     position with respect to the meaning of the Second Amendment 
     to the Constitution that is inconsistent with existing 
     Supreme Court precedent, as expressed in United States v. 
     Miller (307 U.S. 174 (1939)).
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, May 12, 2002]

                A Faulty Rethinking of the 2nd Amendment

                            (By Jack Rakove)

       Stanford, CA.--The Bush administration has found a 
     constitutional right it wants to expand. Attorney General 
     John D. Ashcroft attracted only mild interest a year ago when 
     he told the National Rifle Association, ``The text and 
     original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the 
     right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.''
       Now, briefs just filed by Solicitor General Theodore Olson 
     in two cases currently being appealed to the Supreme Court 
     indicate that Mr. Ashcroft's personnel opinion has become 
     that of the United States government. This posture represents 
     an astonishing challenge to the long-settled doctrine that 
     the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is 
     closely tied to membership in the militia. It is no secret 
     that controversy about the meaning of the amendment has 
     escalated in recent years. As evidence grew that a 
     significant portion of the American electorate favored the 
     regulation of firearms, the N.R.A. and its allies insisted 
     ever more vehemently that the private right to possess arms 
     is a constitutional absolute. This opinion, once seen as 
     marginal, has become an article of faith on the right, and 
     Republican politicians have in turn had to acknowledge its 
     force.
       The two cases under appeal do not offer an ideal test of 
     the administration's new views. One concerns a man charged 
     with violating a federal statute prohibiting individuals 
     under domestic violence restraining orders from carrying 
     guns; the other involves a man convicted of owning machine 
     guns, which is illegal under federal law. In both cases, the 
     defendants cite the Second Amendment as protecting their 
     right to have the firearms. The unsavory facts may explain 
     why Mr. Olson is using these cases as vehicles to announce 
     the administration's constitutional position while urging the 
     Supreme Court not to accept the appeals.
       The court last examined this issue in 1939 in United States 
     v. Miller. There it held that

[[Page S4706]]

     the Second Amendment was designed to ensure the effectiveness 
     of the militia, not to guarantee a private right to possess 
     firearms. The Miller case, though it did not fully explore 
     the entire constitutional history, has guided the 
     government's position on firearm issues for the past six 
     decades.
       If the court were to take up the two cases on appeal, it is 
     far from clear that the Justice Department's new position 
     would prevail. The plain text of the Second Amendment--``A 
     well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a 
     free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
     shall not be infringed''--does not support the unequivocal 
     view that Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Olson have put forth. The 
     amendment refers to the right of the people, rather than the 
     individual person of the Fifth Amendment. And the phrase 
     ``keep and bear arms'' is, as most commentators note, a 
     military reference.
       Nor do the debates surrounding the adoption of the 
     amendment support the idea that the framers were thinking of 
     an individual right to own arms. The relevant proposals 
     offered by the state ratification conventions of 1787-88 all 
     dealt with the need to preserve the militia as an alternative 
     to a standing army. The only recorded discussion of the 
     amendment in the House of Representatives concerned whether 
     religious dissenters should be compelled to serve in the 
     militia. And in 1789, the Senate deleted one clause 
     explicitly defining the militia as ``composed of the body of 
     the people.'' In excising this phrase, the Senate gave 
     ``militia'' a narrower meaning than it otherwise had, thereby 
     making the Ashcroft interpretation harder to sustain.
       Advocates of the individual right respond to these 
     objections in three ways.
       They argue, first that when Americans used the word 
     militia, they ordinarily meant the entire adult male 
     population capable of bearing arms. But Article I of the 
     Constitution defines the militia as an institution under the 
     joint regulation of the national and state governments, and 
     the debates of 1787-89 do not demonstrate that the framers 
     believed that the militia should forever by synonymous with 
     the entire population.
       A second argument revolves around the definition of ``the 
     people.'' Those on the N.R.A. side believe ``the people'' 
     means ``all persons.'' But in Article I we also read that the 
     people will elect the House of Representatives--and the 
     determination of who can vote will be left to state law, in 
     just the way that militia service would remain subject to 
     Congressional and state regulation.
       The third argument addresses the critical phrase deleted in 
     the Senate. Rather than concede that the Senate knew what it 
     was doing, these commentators contend that the deletion was 
     more a matter of careless editing.
       This argument is faulty because legal interpretation 
     generally assumes that lawmakers act with clear purpose. More 
     important, the Senate that made this critical deletion was 
     dominated by Federalists who were skeptical of the milita's 
     performance during the Revolutionary War and opposed to the 
     idea that the future of American defense lay with the militia 
     rather than a regular army. They had sound reasons not to 
     commit the national government to supporting a mass militia, 
     and thus to prefer a phrasing implying that the militia need 
     not embrace the entire adult male population if Congress had 
     good reason to require otherwise. The evidence of text and 
     history makes it very hard to argue for an expansive 
     individual right to keep arms.
       There is one striking curiosity to the Bush 
     administration's advancing its position at this time. 
     Advocates of the individual-right interpretation typically 
     argue that an armed populace is the best defense against the 
     tyranny of our own government. And yet the Bush 
     administration seems quite willing to compromise essential 
     civil liberties in the name of security. It is sobering to 
     think that the constitutional right the administration values 
     so highly is the right to bear arms, that peculiar product of 
     an obsolete debate over the danger of standing armies--and 
     this at a time when our standing army is the most powerful 
     the world has known.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 10, 2002]

                            Guns and Justice

       The U.S. Solicitor General has a duty to defend acts of 
     Congress before the Supreme Court. This week, Solicitor 
     General Ted Olson--and by extension his bosses, Attorney 
     General John Ashcroft and President Bush--took a position 
     regarding guns that will undermine that mission.
       Historically, the Justice Department has adopted a narrow 
     reading of the Constitution's Second Amendment, which states 
     that ``a well regulated militia being necessary to the 
     security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and 
     bear arms shall not be infringed.'' Along with nearly all 
     courts in the past century, it has read that as protecting 
     only the public's collective right to bear arms in the 
     context of militia service. Now the administration has 
     reversed this view. In a pair of appeals, Mr. Olson contends 
     that ``the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights 
     of individuals, including persons who are not members of any 
     militia . . . to possess and bear their own firearms.'' Mr. 
     Ashcroft insists the department remains prepared to defend 
     all federal gun laws. Having given away its strongest 
     argument, however, it will be doing so with its hands tied 
     behind its back.
       Laws will now be defended not as presumptively valid but as 
     narrow exceptions to a broad constitutional right--one 
     subject, as Mr. Olson put it, only to ``reasonable 
     restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons 
     or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are 
     particularly suited to criminal misuse.'' This may sound like 
     a common-sense balancing act. But where exactly does the 
     Second Amendment, if it guarantees individual rights, permit 
     ``reasonable restrictions''? And where does its protection 
     exempt firearms that might be well suited for crime?
       Mr. Ashcroft has compared the gun ownership right with the 
     First Amendment's protection of speech--which can be limited 
     only in a fashion narrowly tailored to accomplish compelling 
     state interests. If that's the model, most federal gun laws 
     would sooner or later fall. After all, it would not be 
     constitutional to subject someone to a background check 
     before permitting him to worship or to make a political 
     speech. If gun ownership is truly a parallel right, why would 
     the Brady background check be constitutional?
       The Justice Department traditionally errs on the other 
     side--arguing for constitutional interpretations that 
     increase congressional flexibility and law enforcement policy 
     options. The great weight of judicial precedent holds that 
     there is no fundamental individual right to own a gun. 
     Staking out a contrary position may help ingratiate the Bush 
     administration to the gun lobby. But it greatly disserves the 
     interests of the United States.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, May 14, 2002]

                   An Ominous Reversal on Gun Rights

       Using a footnote in a set of Supreme Court briefs, Attorney 
     General John Ashcroft announced a radical shift last week in 
     six decades of government policy toward the rights of 
     Americans to own guns. Burying the change in fine print 
     cannot disguise the ominous implications for law enforcement 
     or Mr. Ashcroft's betrayal of his public duty.
       The footnote declares that, contrary to longstanding and 
     bipartisan interpretation of the Second Amendment, the 
     Constitution ``broadly protects the rights of individuals'' 
     to own firearms. This view and the accompanying legal 
     standard Mr. Ashcroft has suggested--equating gun ownership 
     with core free speech rights--could make it extremely 
     difficult for the government to regulate firearms, as it has 
     done for decades. That position comports with Mr. Ashcroft's 
     long-held personal opinion, which he expressed a year ago in 
     a letter to his close allies at the National Rifle 
     Association. But it is a position at odds with both history 
     and the Constitution's text. As the Supreme Court correctly 
     concluded in a 1939 decision that remains the key legal 
     precedent on the subject, the Second Amendment protects only 
     those rights that have ``some reasonable relationship to the 
     preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' By 
     not viewing the amendment as a basic, individual right, this 
     decision left room for broad gun ownership regulation. The 
     footnote is also at odds with Mr. Ashcroft's pledge at his 
     confirmation hearing that his personal ideology would not 
     drive Justice Department legal policies.
       It is hard to take seriously Mr. Ashcroft's assertion that 
     the Bush administration remains committed to the vigorous 
     defense and enforcement of all federal gun laws. Mr. 
     Ashcroft, after all, is an official whose devotion to the gun 
     lobby extends to granting its request to immediately destroy 
     records of gun purchases amassed in the process of conducting 
     Brady law background checks even though they might be useful 
     for tracking weapons purchases by suspected terrorists.
       The immediate effect of the Bush Justice Department's 
     expansive reading of the Second Amendment is to undermine law 
     enforcement by calling into question valuable state and 
     federal gun restrictions on the books, and by handing 
     dangerous criminals a potent new weapon for challenging their 
     convictions. What it all adds up to is a gift to pro-gun 
     extremists, and a shabby deal for everyone else.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 2540. A bill to amend the definition of low-income families for 
purposes of the United States Housing Act of 1937; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to bring the Senate's 
attention to a matter that is slowing Los Alamos County, NM, in its 
efforts to fully recover from the Cerro Grande Fire of May 10, 2000.
  It is an amazing irony to me that Los Alamos National Laboratory, in 
recent years facing declines in personnel, is again in the national 
news for its ability to help with counter-terrorism on many fronts. 
Along with this national attention and the needs of our Homeland 
Security Agency for advanced scientific means to detect and deter 
nuclear and biological attacks, LANL is now in the process of filling 
about 1,000 new positions.
  The irony is that the Cerro Grande fire severely reduced available 
housing in Los Alamos two years before our Nation turns once again to 
Los Alamos for its scientific talents. A major deterrent to new hires 
is the lack of housing

[[Page S4707]]

choices in Los Alamos. The housing market is even tighter because of 
the loss of about 400 housing units through the devastating Cerro 
Grande Fire. Los Alamos has a population of about 18,000 people.
  While we have Federal programs to help low and moderate income 
Americans find good housing, in Los Alamos these programs are 
ineffective due to the current practice of averaging Los Alamos County 
and Santa Fe County incomes into one Metropolitan Statistical Area, 
MSA. This is harmful to Los Alamos residents, where the median income 
is about $82,000 because the Federal programs use the MSA median income 
of about $65,000 to determine participation. Eighty percent of median 
income is a standard measure.
  Santa Fe's median income of about $40,000 thus becomes a significant 
factor for a Los Alamos teacher, fireman, or policeman seeking 
subsidized Federal assistance. Their incomes in Los Alamos are deemed 
to be too high to qualify for housing because 80 percent of $65,000 is 
used as the maximum allowed for assistance. Thus, $52,000 becomes the 
effective ceiling for assistance, when the actual 80 percent ceiling 
figure for Los Alamos incomes is about $65,000. This makes a huge 
difference in a high-priced and competitive market. The result is that 
developers are discouraged from applying for tax credits and other 
assistance programs because their applicants do not qualify to live in 
their new or remodeled housing projects.
  The Los Alamos County Manager reports that not a single County 
employee is eligible for housing created by the Low Income Housing Tax 
Credits. He, like many residents and the LANL recruiting effort, remain 
concerned that the limited housing supply has raised rents and sales 
prices. Los Alamos County is also landlocked by Federal government land 
ownership.
  There is a desperate need for affordable housing at a time when, once 
again, our nation is calling upon LANL for helping to meet its internal 
and international security needs.
  This situation also exists around the New York City area, where 
Westchester County incomes unfairly raise the metropolitan average to 
the detriment of the metropolitan housing market. In that case, 
Congress agreed to separate Westchester County to ease the housing 
market situation. All I am asking in my bill is to accomplish the same 
goal by allowing Los Alamos County to stand on its own in terms of HUD 
median income requirements. My bill does not simultaneously lower the 
Santa Fe County income to its actual median, but, rather, allows Santa 
Fe County to continue to use the higher median, because the Santa Fe 
housing market is also very unusual, and the two-county average helps 
make more Santa Fe residents eligible for Federal assistance on many 
fronts.
  I appreciate my colleagues attention to this matter, and I know the 
residents of Los Alamos County will be grateful for this assistance to 
allow more of them to make use of available HUD and other affordable 
housing assistance programs.
  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. 2540

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

     SECTION 1. LOW-INCOME FAMILIES DEFINITION.

       Section 3(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and for Los Alamos County in the State 
     of New Mexico,'' after ``State of New York,'';
       (2) by inserting ``, Los Alamos,'' after ``does not include 
     Westchester'';
       (3) by inserting ``; Los Alamos,'' after ``portion included 
     Westchester''; and
       (4) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``; and Los Alamos County, New Mexico, in the 
     Santa Fe metropolitan area''.
                                 ______
                                 

    By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. 
                               Grassley):

  S. 2541. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish 
penalties for aggravated identity theft, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Identity Theft 
Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002 along with my colleagues Senators Kyl, 
Sessions, and Grassley.
  This bill is the culmination of efforts by the Department of Justice 
to craft legislation that will crack down on the most serious identity 
thefts in the Nation, and I am pleased to be working with the Justice 
Department on this legislation. In fact, Attorney General Ashcroft and 
I announced this bill together earlier this month.
  This legislation will make it easier for prosecutors to target those 
identity thieves who, as is so often the case, steal an identity for 
the purpose of committing one or more other crimes.
  Many serious crimes, even including terrorism, are aided by stolen 
identifies.
  For instance, According to a January article in the Baltimore Sun, 
``six of the 19 hijackers from September 11 were using Social Security 
numbers illegally. Another man linked to al-Qaida, Lofti Raissi, a 27-
year old Algerian pilot from London who is believed to have trained 
four of the suicide hijackers, was identified in British court papers 
as having used the Social Security number of Dorothy Hansen, a retired 
factory worker from Jersey City, NJ, who died in 1991.''
  Attorney General Ashcroft last week cited the example of an Algerian 
national now facing charges of identity theft who allegedly stole the 
identifies of 21 members of a health club in Cambridge, MA. The 
Algerian national then transferred those stolen identities to one of 
the individuals convicted in the failed plot to bomb Los Angeles 
International Airport in 1999.
  In another case, Michelle Brown of Los Angeles had her Social 
Security number stolen in 1999, and it was used to charge $50,000 in 
her name, including a $32,000 truck, a $5,000 liposuction operation and 
a year-long residential lease. Even worse, while assuming Michelle's 
name, the perpetrator also became the object of an arrest warrant for 
drug smuggling in Texas.
  In another case recently announced by the Justice Department, Joseph 
Kalady of Chicago was charged just last week with trying to fake his 
own death using the identity of another. Kalady, who was awaiting trial 
on charges of counterfeiting birth certificates, Social Security cards 
and driver's licenses last December, allegedly suffocated a homeless 
man and sought to have him cremated under Mr. Kalady's identity in 
order to fake his own death and avoid prosecution.

  The stories go on and on, and it is those stories that make the 
legislation we introduce today so vital.
  Let me just outline what this bill would do.
  First, the bill would create a separate crime of ``aggravated 
identity theft'' for any person who uses the identity of another person 
to commit certain serious, federal crimes.
  Specifically, the legislation would provide for an additional two-
year penalty for any individual convicted of committing one of the 
following serious Federal crimes while using the identity of another 
person: stealing another's identity in order to illegally obtain 
citizenship in the United States; stealing another's identity to obtain 
a passport or visa; using another's identity to remain in the United 
States illegally after a visa has expired or an individual has been 
ordered to depart this country; stealing an individual's identity to 
commit bank, wire or mail fraud, or to steal from employee pension 
funds; and other serious federal crimes, all of them felonies.
  Furthermore, the legislation would provide for an additional five 
year penalty for any individual that uses the stolen identity of 
another person to commit any one of the enumerated Federal terrorism 
crimes found in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B). These crime include: the 
destruction of aircraft; the assassination or kidnapping of high level 
Federal officials; bombings; hostage taking; providing material support 
to terrorism organizations; and other terrorist crimes.
  Aggravated Identity Theft is a separate crime, not just a sentencing 
enhancement. And the two-year and five-year penalties for aggravated 
identity theft must be served consecutively to the sentence for the 
underlying crime.
  This bill also strengthens the ability of law enforcement to go after 
identity thieves and to provide their case.

[[Page S4708]]

  First, the bill adds the word ``possesses'' to current law, in order 
to allow law enforcement to target individuals who possess the identity 
documents of another person with the intent to commit a crime. Current 
Federal law prohibits the transfer or use of false identity documents, 
but does not specifically ban the possession of hose documents with the 
intent to commit a crime. So if law enforcement discovers a stash of 
identity documents with the clear intent to use those documents to 
commit other crimes, the person who possesses those documents will now 
be subject to prosecution.
  Second, the legislation amends current law to make it clear that if a 
person uses a false identity ``in connection with'' another Federal 
crime, and the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, then 
the intent to use the false identity to commitment that crime need not 
be separately proved. This simply makes the job of the prosecutor 
easier when an individual is convicted of a Federal crime and use a 
false identity in collection with that Crime.
  This legislation also increases the maximum penalty for identity 
theft under current law from three years to five years.
  And finally, the legislation we introduce today will clarify that the 
current 25-year maximum sentence for identity theft in facilitation of 
international terrorism also applies to identity theft in facilitation 
of domestic terrorism as well.
  Identity theft is a crime on the rise in America, and it is a crime 
with severe consequences not only for the individual victims of the 
identity theft, but for every consumer and every financial institution 
as well.
  Fraud losses at financial institutions are running well over one 
billion dollars annually. VISA alone reported identity theft related 
fraud losses of more than $114 million in 2000, a 43 percent increase 
in just four years.
  And for victims, the losses can be staggering. The average loss from 
one identity theft now ranges about $18,000. Just imagine, somebody 
takes a credit card receipt out of a trash-can, makes a few calls, and 
before you know it you've lost $18,000.
  And even though an individual victim may not be forced to pay in the 
end, the credit card companies, financial institutions and other 
businesses absorb the loss and pass it on to all consumers, the time 
and effort required to regain your identity can be quite debilitating. 
In fact, on average it takes a full year and a half to regain one's 
identity once stolen. In many instances, it can take many more years 
than that.
  Additionally, some victims are even subject to criminal investigation 
or even arrest because a criminal has taken their identity and used it 
to commit a crime. In fact, the FTC tells us that they have received 
1,300 complaints from victims alleging that they have been subject to 
investigation, arrest or even conviction as a result of their identity 
being stolen.
  Identity theft comes in many forms and can be perpetrated in many 
ways, and that is why I have worked for many years now with Senator Kyl 
and others to put some safeguards into the law that might better 
prevent the fraud from occurring in the first place, and to crack down 
on identity thieves.
  And other legislation I have introduced would put into place certain 
procedural safeguards to protect credit card numbers, personal 
information, and other key data from potential identity thieves.
  The legislation we introduce today is meant to beef up the law in 
terms of what happens after an identity theft takes place. In seriously 
enhancing the penalties for identity thieves who commit other Federal 
crimes, we mean to send a strong signal to all those who would commit 
this increasingly popular crime that the relatively free ride they have 
experienced in recent years is over. No longer will prosecutors decline 
to take identity theft seriously. No longer will identity thieves get 
off with just a slap on the wrist, if they are prosecuted at all. Under 
this legislation, penalties will be severe, prosecution will be more 
likely, and cases against identity thieves will be easier to prove.
  Every day in this country serious criminals and criminal 
organizations are stealing and falsifying identities with the purpose 
of doing serious harm to common citizens, government officials, or even 
our Nation itself. It is time we did something about it, and this bill 
is an important step in that process.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2541

       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 ``Identity Theft Penalty 
     Enhancement Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after section 1028, the following:

     ``Sec. 1028A. Aggravated identity theft

       ``(a) Offenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever, during and in relation to any 
     felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly 
     transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a 
     means of identification of another person shall, in addition 
     to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a 
     term of imprisonment of 2 years.
       ``(2) Terrorism offense.--Whoever, during and in relation 
     to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), 
     knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful 
     authority, a means of identification of another person shall, 
     in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be 
     sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
       ``(b) Consecutive Sentence.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law--
       ``(1) a court shall not place on probation any person 
     convicted of a violation of this section;
       ``(2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of 
     imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run 
     concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on 
     the person under any other provision of law, including any 
     term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the 
     means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used;
       ``(3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed 
     for the felony during which the means of identification was 
     transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way 
     reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to 
     compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate 
     term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation 
     of this section; and
       ``(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a 
     violation of this section may, in the discretion of the 
     court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with 
     another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at 
     the same time on that person for an additional violation of 
     this section, provided that such discretion shall be 
     exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and 
     policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission 
     pursuant to section 994 of title 28.
       ``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)' means any 
     offense that is a felony violation of--
       ``(1) section 664 (relating to theft from employee benefit 
     plans);
       ``(2) section 911 (relating to false personation of 
     citizenship);
       ``(3) section 922(a)(6) (relating to false statements in 
     connection with the acquisition of a firearm);
       ``(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to 
     fraud and false statements), other than this section or 
     section 1028(a)(7);
       ``(5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to 
     mail, bank, and wire fraud);
       ``(6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to 
     nationality and citizenship);
       ``(7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to 
     passports and visas);
       ``(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 
     6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by false 
     pretenses);
       ``(9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1253 and 1306) (relating to willfully failing 
     to leave the United States after deportation and creating a 
     counterfeit alien registration card);
       ``(10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.) 
     (relating to various immigration offenses); or
       ``(11) section 208, 1107(b), or 1128B(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408, 1307(b), and 1320a-7b(a)) 
     (relating to false statements relating to programs under the 
     Act).''.
       (b) Amendment to Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections 
     for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1028 the 
     following new item:

``1028A. Aggravated identity theft.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING IDENTITY THEFT PROHIBITION.

       Section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(7)--
       (A) by striking ``transfers'' and inserting ``transfers, 
     possesses,''; and
       (B) by striking ``abet,'' and inserting ``abet, or in 
     connection with,'';

[[Page S4709]]

       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(D), by striking ``transfer'' and 
     inserting ``transfer, possession,'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``three years'' and 
     inserting ``5 years''; and
       (4) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting after ``facilitate'' 
     the following: ``an act of domestic terrorism (as defined 
     under section 2331(5) of this title) or''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 2542. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
establish a medicare demonstration project under which incentive 
payments are provided in certain areas in order to stabilize, maintain, 
or increase access to primary care services for individuals enrolled 
under part B of such title; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare 
Incentive Access Act of 2002. I am pleased that Congressman Rick Larsen 
will introduce companion legislation in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  As my colleagues may be hearing, Medicare beneficiaries across the 
country are reporting increasing difficulty finding a physician willing 
to accept their Medicare coverage. In fact, according to the American 
Medical Association, nearly 30 percent of family physicians nationwide 
are not accepting new Medicare patients, and 57 percent of Washington 
State physicians are limiting the number or dropping all Medicare 
patients from their practices.
  There is no doubt that we need to reform Medicare, and I am 
particularly concerned with the Medicare physician fee schedule issued 
by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. Although CMS 
insists that physician payment rates will increase more than the 
general rate of inflation, I am extremely concerned that any additional 
physician payment reductions may dramatically affect the quality of 
care offered to beneficiaries and further exacerbate the access 
problems so many of our constituents are now facing.
  Unfortunately, there seems to be a prevailing idea that government 
programs should automatically pay less than private insurers for the 
same quality care. I am especially concerned that providers serving a 
disproportionate number of Medicare and Medicaid patients are facing 
unsustainable fee reductions.
  In its March 2002 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, 
MedPAC, the independent Federal body that advises Congress on Medicare 
payment issues, weighed in on the current Medicare reimbursement rate 
debate. MedPAC observes that ``provider entry and exit data provide 
information regarding adequacy of the current level of payments.''
  Keeping in mind that MedPAC's goal is to ensure that Medicare's 
payment rates cover the costs that efficient providers would incur in 
beneficiaries' care, it is especially important that MedPAC asserts 
that ``evidence of widespread access or quality problems for 
beneficiaries may indicate that Medicare's payment rates are too low.'' 
In fact, MedPAC surveyed physicians nationwide, and found that 45 
percent said that reimbursement levels for their Medicare fee-for-
service patients are a very serious problem.
  Every day I hear from my constituents that they are facing increasing 
difficulty in getting primary care services, and from physicians who 
can no longer afford to take on new Medicare patients.
  One woman in Steilacoom, WA, contacted me about her son, a 
quadriplegic, who was recently informed that the doctor who has been 
treating him for a number of years will no longer be able to take 
Medicare patients.
  Another woman from Lynden, WA, told me that her doctor is leaving his 
practice due to low Medicare reimbursements, her 89-year-old father has 
also been going to this same doctor and now the family cannot find a 
local doctor to take him.
  When another constituent from Tacoma had to move into the city she 
had to call numerous physicians before she found one who would take a 
new Medicare patient.
  One physician in Bellingham wrote me to say that one of his favorite 
patients will no longer see her family practitioner because she has 
Medicare. This doctor writes ``when our seniors feel bad and ashamed 
about going in to see their physicians because their insurance'' 
coverage is Medicare, I think that reflects very poorly on Medicare, 
our government, our government, that runs the program, and, to some 
extent, the caregivers who feel it is a financial burden to take care 
of our seniors. I couldn't agree more.
  In fact, according to the Washington State Department of Health, in 
Clallam and Kittitas counties in my home State, only 20 percent of 
primary care physicians reported that they would take new Medicare 
patients. Yet, at the same time, most practices are accepting new 
patients with private employer-sponsored insurance. This suggests that 
general physician shortages are not the major cause underlying the fact 
that so many physician practices are closing or closed to Medicare 
patients.
  I understand that there are basic fairness issues involved in the 
national debate over Medicare reimbursements. I am not pretending that 
the Senate will comprehensively address geographic differences or 
payment inequities this session. But I do believe we can look at more 
targeted, limited solutions to address the Medicare reimbursement and 
access issues on a demonstration level.
  We already have a public health program in place, the primary care 
health professional shortage area designation, HPSA, to determine 
whether an area has a critical shortage of physicians available to 
serve the people living there. In fact, this is the measurement used in 
placing National Health Service Corps doctors in underserved areas.
  A HPSA can be a distinct geographic area, such as a county, or a 
specific population group within the area, such as the low-income. 
However, in many shortage locations, access to care is a problem for 
only part of the population. For example, while most residents in a 
city may have adequate access to care, the elderly or poor may not. And 
while population HPSA designations measure access problems for Medicaid 
and low-income patients, migrant workers, and the homeless, there is no 
designation that specifically identifies or addresses Medicare-related 
demographics. My bill changes that.
  The bill I am introducing today, the Medicare Incentive Access Act, 
will create a new Medicare Health Professional Shortage Area, HPSA, 
through a three-year, five-state HHS/Medicare demonstration project. 
Primary care doctors in an area designated as a Medicare HPSA will 
receive an automatic 40 percent bonus on all of their Medicare 
billings.
  I believe it is vitally important that the federal government 
systematically examine different provider incentive programs in order 
to stabilize, maintain, and increase quality, efficient primary care 
services for Medicare beneficiaries. I want this demonstration program 
to examine how we can specifically preserve beneficiary access to 
primary care providers. The demonstration project will also examine 
what level of incentive is necessary to prevent future access problems.
  I want to point out that while current law prohibits multiple HPSA 
designations, the demonstration project will not affect current HPSA 
designations needed for other programs, such as Community Health 
Centers. In addition, physicians in states participating in the 
Medicare HPSA demonstration project will not be able also to receive 
payments under the Medicare Incentive Payment program, which bases its 
ten percent bonus on geographic shortage areas. As I mentioned earlier, 
geographic shortage areas actually have nothing to do with measuring 
Medicare-related access issues.
  There is an abundance of excellent research currently underway at the 
six Federal rural health research centers on all Medicare provider 
reimbursement issues. These research centers are already set up for 
demonstration analyses like the one required under my bill. I sincerely 
appreciate the help Gary Hart, Ph.D. has provided me in developing this 
proposal and discussing other, more comprehensive, means by which to 
look at different Medicare payment and access issues. Dr. Hart is the 
director of the WWAMI Rural Health Research Center at the University of 
Washington, which is largely focusing on rural physician payments.
  I also want to thank Vince Schueler and Laura Olexa of the Office of 
Community and Rural Health and the Washington Department of Health, for 
providing invaluable assistance in understanding rural health problems, 
the

[[Page S4710]]

Federal HPSA designation, and access barriers for Medicare 
beneficiaries, especially in rural areas of the State. After we began 
discussing this problem, they went out of their way to do additional 
surveys in rural counties to measure the most current access to primary 
care physicians for both Medicaid and Medicare patients.
  Finally, I want to thank the Washington State Medical Association and 
Len Eddinger for their advice and assistance on this issue. I am 
delighted that the WSMA has endorsed this legislation, and I ask 
unanimous consent that its letter of support be added in the record at 
the end of my statement.
  The fact of the matter is that there is a crisis at hand regarding 
Medicare benefits, and Medicare payments, and as a country, we simply 
have not invested as we should in health care.
  I sincerely believe that all individuals should have access to 
quality and affordable medical care including the ability to visit 
doctors whom they trust. It will do the country little good to provide 
guaranteed health care for the elderly and disabled if physicians are 
unwilling to work with Medicare patients because of inadequate payment 
policies.
  I believe the bill I am introducing today, the Medicare Incentive 
Act, is a good approach to examining these very important issues. I 
encourage my colleagues to take a look at this bill, and to join me in 
cosponsoring it.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                         Washington State Medical Association,

                                                     May 13, 2002.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cantwell: On behalf of the 8,800 members of 
     the Washington State Medical Association (WSMA), please 
     accept my sincere thanks for all the work you are doing to 
     improve the Medicare program.
       The financial condition of the health care delivery system 
     in Washington state is as poor as I have seen in my nearly 25 
     years of practice. As I travel the state and speak with my 
     colleagues, it has become clear that something dramatic and 
     sustainable must be done to ensure the long viability of 
     Medicare and Medicaid.
       At our May Executive Committee meeting, we had an 
     opportunity to discuss the draft of your proposed legislation 
     to develop demonstration projects to enhance physician 
     reimbursement within established Medicare Health Professional 
     Shortage Areas. We view the approach as extremely creative 
     and well worth the time and effort of investigation. Our hope 
     is that successful implementation of this scenario will lead 
     to incentives across the entire physician community.
       Senator, there is no doubt that declining reimbursements in 
     the Medicare and Medicaid programs are putting enormous 
     stress on medical practices and causing physicians to limit 
     patients who are eligible for these programs. We look forward 
     to working with you and your staff to alleviate this pressing 
     social problem.
       Please let us know what we can do to help by contacting Len 
     Eddinger, WSMA's Director of Public Policy, in the Olympia 
     office of the WSMA at (360) 352-4848 or be email: 
     [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                           Samuel W. Cullison, MD,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. Levin (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 2544. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
make grants for remediation of sediment contamination in areas of 
concern, to authorize assistance for research an development of 
innovative technologies for such remediation, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office has recently 
completed a study on the cleanup of Contaminated Areas in the Great 
Lakes. While it is no surprise to those of us who live in the Great 
Lakes region, GAO found that there has been ``slow progress of cleanup 
efforts''.
  For those of you who live outside the Great Lakes region, Areas of 
Concern are sites in the Great Lakes that do not meet the water quality 
goals established by the United States and Canada in the Great Lakes 
Water Quality Agreement. The primary reason that these areas fail to 
meet water quality goals is the result of contaminated sediments, a 
result of the industrialization of the mid-west. In order to meet the 
water quality goals, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement binds us 
to an identified cleanup process focused around Remdial Action Plans, 
RAPs.
  RAPs define the environmental problem, evaluate remedial measures, 
and identify a process for moving forward with cleanup. The RAP process 
relies on State and public involvement, and RAPs need the financial 
support of the Federal Government.
  The GAO reports that the RAP process is often disregarded by the 
states and EPA. The progress that is being made to cleanup the Areas of 
Concern is being made not under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 
but under other laws such as Superfund. EPA has failed to provide 
oversight responsibility for RAPs and does not provide nearly enough 
financial resources for RAPs. In addition to these problems associated 
with EPA, there is no way to implement RAPs because there is no pot of 
money to do so and no established procedure to follow.
  There are 13 areas of concern in the State of Michigan which result 
in fish advisories, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, taste 
and odor problems with drinking water, beach closures, and bird and 
animal deformities or reproductive problems. These environmental 
problems are too grave considering the fact that the Great Lakes holds 
one-fifth of the world's freshwater, supplies drinking water to 33 
million people, and provides a $2 billion fishery.
  So today, with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, I am 
introducing the Great Lakes Legacy Act to authorize $50 million per 
year in grants to States to cleanup Areas of Concern and implement 
RAPs. This legislation will also require EPA to report to Congress 
within 1 year on how it plans to provide the oversight needed to make 
sure that the Areas of Concern will meet water quality goals.
  The problem of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes has been 
known for decades, and I hope that my colleagues will support this 
legislation to hopefully cleanup Areas of Concern.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important 
environmental issue, not just to my home State of Ohio, but to our 
entire Nation, and that issue is the protection of our Great Lakes. 
These lakes are a natural treasure that hold one-fifth of the world's 
freshwater, produce $2 billion per year in fish, and provide drinking 
water to 33 million people.
  Yesterday, the GAO released a report on the progress of cleanup in 
polluted Areas of Concern. These Areas of Concern, or AOCs, are sites 
in the Great Lakes that do not meet water quality goals. Many years 
ago, the United States and Canada identified 44 AOCs in the Great Lakes 
and agreed to a cleanup process.
  In my home State of Ohio, there are four AOCs, the Maumee River, the 
Ashtabula River, the Black River, and the Cuyahoga River. These areas 
suffer fish and wildlife consumption restrictions, fish and wildlife 
reproductive problems and deformities, algal blooms, restrictions on 
drinking water consumption, and beach closings. These environmental 
problems need to be addressed as quickly as possible.
  Unfortunately, cleanup has been very slow. The GAO report found that 
the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has failed to take oversight 
responsibility, Federal funding has declined steadily over the years, 
and States have abandoned the cleanup process.
  These results are disturbing to say the least. This is why Senator 
Levin and I, as Co-Chairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, are 
introducing a bill today that would authorize $50 million per year in 
grants to States for the cleanup of Areas of Concern. Cleanup work 
includes monitoring and evaluating sites, remediating sediment, and 
preventing further contamination. This legislation would authorize the 
EPA to conduct research and development of innovative approaches, 
technologies, and techniques for the remediation of sediment in the 
Great Lakes and would authorize the Great Lakes National Program Office 
to carry out a public information grant program to provide information 
about the contaminated sediments, as well as activities to clean-up the 
site. Finally, as the GAO report recommends, our bill would require the 
EPA to submit a report to

[[Page S4711]]

Congress on the actions, time periods, and resources that are necessary 
for the EPA to oversee the Remedial Action Plans at Areas of Concern.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and honor an 
international commitment to protect a truly great natural resource. We 
must honor our commitment to future generations and do all we can to 
protect the Lakes for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to 
them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lugar, Ms. Landrieu, 
        Mr. Hagel, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Murkowski, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 2545. A bill to extend and improve United States programs on the 
proliferation of nuclear materials, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a new bill, the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002. Senators Biden, Lugar, Landrieu, 
Hagel, Murkowski and Bingaman--the junior Senator from my State--join 
me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.
  The end of the Soviet Union in 1991 started a chain of events, which 
in the long term can lead to vastly improved global stability. Concerns 
about global confrontations were greatly reduced after that event.
  But with that event, the Soviet system of guards, guns, and a highly 
regimented society that had effectively controlled their weapons of 
mass destruction, along with the materials and expertise to create 
them, was significantly weakened. Even today, with Russia's economy 
well on the road to recovery, there's still plenty of room for concerns 
about the security of these Russian assets.
  The tragic events of September 11 brought the United States into the 
world of international terrorism, a world from which we had been very 
sheltered. Even with the successes of the subsequent war on terrorism, 
there's still ample reason for concern that the forces of Al Qaeda and 
other international terrorists are seeking other avenues to disrupt 
peaceful societies around the world.
  In some sense, the events of September 11 set a new gruesome standard 
against which terrorists may measure their future successes. There 
should be no question that these groups would use weapons of mass 
destruction if they could acquire them and deliver them here or to 
countless other international locations.
  One of our strongest allies in the current war on terrorism has been 
the Russian Federation. Assistance from the Russians and other states 
of the former Soviet Union has been vital in many aspects of the 
conflict in Afghanistan.
  President Putin and President Bush have forged a strong working 
relationship, and the current summit meeting is another measure of 
interest in increased cooperation. As this new bill seeks to strengthen 
our nonproliferation programs, it provides many options for actions to 
be conducted through joint partnerships between the Russian Federation 
and the United States that build on this increased cooperative spirit.
  The Nunn-Lugar program of 1991 and the Nunn-Lugar Domenici 
legislation of 1996 provided vital support for cooperative programs to 
reduce the risks that weapons of mass destruction might become 
available to terrorists. They established a framework for cooperative 
progress that has served our nation and the world very well. But 
despite their successes, there remain many actions that should be taken 
to further reduce these threats.
  The report by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler is one of the most 
comprehensive calls for increased attention to these risks. That 
report, which was written well before September 11, and many others 
have suggested additional actions that could and should be taken beyond 
the two original bills.
  One of the most important realizations from September 11 concerns the 
global reach of the forces of terrorism. It's now clear that our 
nuclear nonproliferation programs should extend far beyond the states 
of the former Soviet Union.
  This new bill expands and strengthens many of the programs 
established earlier, to further reduce threats to global peace. It 
expands the scope of several programs to world-wide coverage. It 
focuses on threats of a nuclear or radiological type, which fall within 
the expertise of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the 
Department of Energy.
  It expands programs to include the safety and security of nuclear 
facilities and radioactive materials around the world, wherever 
countries are willing to enter into cooperative arrangements for threat 
reduction. It recognizes that devices that disperse radioactive 
materials, so-called ``dirty bombs,'' can represent a real threat to 
modern societies.
  Dirty bombs could be used as weapons of mass terror, property 
contamination, and economic disaster. We need better detection systems 
for the presence of dirty bombs that are appropriate to the wide range 
of delivery systems for such a weapon, from trucks to boats to 
containers. And we need to be far better prepared to deal with the 
consequences of such an attack.
  The new legislation includes provisions to accelerate and expand 
existing programs for disposition of fissile materials. These 
materials, of course, represent not only a concern with dirty bombs, 
but also the even larger threat of use in crude nuclear weapons.
  It includes a program that should help accelerate the conversion of 
highly enriched uranium into forms unusable for weapons. It addresses 
one of the major concerns associated with this material, that both the 
United States in the Atoms for Peace program as well as the Soviet 
Union, provided highly enriched uranium to many countries as fuel for 
research reactors. That fuel represents a proliferation risk today.
  It authorizes new programs for global management of nuclear 
materials, in cooperation with other nations and with the International 
Atomic Energy Agency. It recognizes that modern societies use 
radioactive materials as essential tools in many ways, and offers 
assistance in providing new controls on the most dangerous of these 
materials.
  It suggests that many of the program elements involve international 
cooperation with the Russian Federation and with other nations. In 
fact, it recognizes that the global nature of the current threats 
requires such cooperation, and provides authorizations for the 
Secretary of Energy and Secretary of State to offer significant help to 
other nations. In many cases, we cannot accomplish these programs 
without such cooperation.
  This new bill includes provisions extending the first responder 
training programs, originally created under Nunn-Lugar-Domenici. These 
programs have already made real contributions. In fact, the training 
provided under this program in New York City helped mitigate the 
catastrophe there on September 11. That program was authorized for only 
5 years in the original legislation. This bill extends that 
authorization for another 10 years for first responder preparation in 
various communities and cities of America.
  The new bill requires annual reports demonstrating that all our 
nonproliferation programs are well coordinated and integrated. 
Countless reports have called for improved coordination of all federal 
nonproliferation programs. The original call for this coordination in 
the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation was completely ignored by the 
Clinton administration.
  The report requires an annual statement of the extent of coordination 
between federally funded and private activities. That is very 
important, because of the important work being done by private 
organizations, like the Nuclear Threat Initiative, that are providing 
critical assistance toward similar nonproliferation goals.
  With this new bill, our programs to counter threats of nuclear and 
radiological terrorism will be significantly strengthened and risks to 
the United States and our international partners can be greatly 
reduced.
  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. 2545

       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 ``Nuclear Nonproliferation Act 
     of 2002''.

[[Page S4712]]

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Whereas the focus on the security of radioactive 
     materials before the events of September 11, 2001, was on 
     fissile materials, it is now widely recognized that the 
     United States must expand its concerns to the safety and 
     security of nuclear facilities, and the radioactive materials 
     in use or stored at such facilities, that may be attractive 
     to terrorists for use in radiological dispersal devices as 
     well as in crude nuclear weapons. Such materials include all 
     radioactive materials in the nuclear fuel cycle (such as 
     nuclear waste and spent fuel) as well as industrial and 
     medical radiation sources. Steps must be taken not only to 
     prevent the acquisition of such materials by terrorists, but 
     also to rapidly mitigate the consequences of the use of such 
     devices and weapons on public health and safety, facilities, 
     and the economy.
       (2) The technical activities of United States efforts to 
     combat radiological terrorism should be centered in the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration because it has the 
     nuclear expertise and specialized facilities and activities 
     needed to develop new and improved protection and consequence 
     mitigation systems and technologies. New technologies and 
     systems should be developed by the Administration in 
     partnership with other agencies and first responders that 
     also have the operational responsibility to deal with the 
     threat of radiological terrorism.
       (3) Fissile materials are a special class of materials that 
     present a range of threats, from utilization in improvised 
     nuclear devices to incorporation in radiological dispersal 
     devices. The Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 
     of 1996 (title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 50 U.S.C. 2301 et 
     seq.) focused on cooperative programs with the former Soviet 
     Union to control such materials. It is critical that these 
     efforts continue and that efforts commence to develop a 
     sustainable system by which improvements in such efforts are 
     retained far into the future. Development of such a 
     sustainable system must occur in partnership with the Russian 
     Federation and the other states of the former Soviet Union.
       (4) The Russian Federation and the other states of the 
     former Soviet Union are not the only locations of fissile 
     materials around the world. Cooperative programs to control 
     potential threats from any of such materials should be 
     expanded to other international partners. Programs, 
     coordinated with the International Atomic Energy Agency and 
     other international partners, should be initiated to optimize 
     control of such materials.
       (5) The Agreement Between the Government of the United 
     States of America and the Government of the Russian 
     Federation Concerning the Disposition of Highly Enriched 
     Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, signed at Washington 
     on February 18, 1993 (the so-called ``HEU deal''), represents 
     an effective approach to reducing the stocks of the Russian 
     Federation of highly enriched uranium (HEU). However, such 
     stocks are much larger than contemplated in the Agreement, 
     and many other nations also possess quantities of highly 
     enriched uranium. Global stability would be enhanced by 
     modification of all available highly enriched uranium into 
     forms not suitable for weapons. Efforts toward such 
     modification of highly enriched uranium should include 
     expansion of programs to deal with research reactors fueled 
     by highly enriched uranium, which were provided by the United 
     States under the Atoms for Peace program and the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 and similarly encouraged by the former 
     Soviet Union.
       (6) Expansion of commercial nuclear power around the world 
     will lead to increasing global stocks of reactor grade 
     plutonium and fission products in spent fuel. If improperly 
     controlled, such materials can contribute to proliferation 
     and represent health and environmental risks. The 
     international safeguards on such materials established 
     through the International Atomic Energy Agency must be 
     strengthened to deal with such concerns. The National Nuclear 
     Security Administration is the appropriate Federal agent for 
     dealing with technical matters relating to the safeguard and 
     management of nuclear materials. The United States, in 
     cooperation with the Russian Federation and the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency, should lead the international community 
     in developing proliferation-resistant nuclear energy 
     technologies and strengthened international safeguards that 
     facilitate global management of all nuclear materials.
       (7) Safety and security at nuclear facilities are 
     inextricably linked. Damage to such facilities by sabotage or 
     accident, or the theft or diversion of nuclear materials at 
     such facilities, will have substantial adverse consequences 
     worldwide. It is in the United States national interest to 
     assist countries that cannot afford proper safety and 
     security for their nuclear plants, facilities, and materials 
     in providing proper safety and security for such plants, 
     facilities, and materials, and in developing the sustainable 
     safety and security cultures that are required for the safe 
     and secure use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The 
     National Nuclear Security Administration is the appropriate 
     Federal agent for dealing with the technical aspects of 
     providing for international nuclear safety that must be 
     coordinated with safeguards of nuclear materials.
       (8) The United States has provided sealed sources of 
     nuclear materials to many countries through the Atoms for 
     Peace program and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. These 
     sources remain property of the United States. A recent report 
     of the Inspector General of the Department of Energy, 
     entitled ``Accounting for Sealed Sources of Nuclear Material 
     Provided to Foreign Countries'', noted that a total of 2-3 
     kilograms of plutonium were in sources provided to 33 nations 
     and that the Department can not account fully for these 
     sources. Many of these sources are small enough to present 
     little risk, but a careful review of sources and recipients 
     could identify concerns requiring special attention. In 
     addition, the former Soviet Union supplied sealed sources of 
     nuclear materials for research and industrial purposes, 
     including some to other countries. These sources contain a 
     variety of radioactive materials and are often uncontrolled, 
     missing, or stolen. The problem of dangerous radiation 
     sources is international, and a solution to the problem will 
     require substantial cooperation between the United States, 
     the Russian Federation, and other countries of the former 
     Soviet Union, as well as international organizations such as 
     the International Atomic Energy Agency. The International 
     Nuclear Safety and Cooperation program and the Materials 
     Protection, Control, and Accounting program of the National 
     Nuclear Security Administration address such matters. However 
     those programs need to be strengthened.
       (9) Authorization for domestic testing of preparedness for 
     emergencies involving nuclear, radiological, chemical, and 
     biological weapons provided by section 1415 of the Defense 
     Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 
     2315) has expired. These tests have been invaluable in 
     preparing first responders for a range of potential threats 
     and should be continued.
       (10) Coordination of all Federal nonproliferation programs 
     should be improved to maximize efficiency and effectiveness 
     of programs in multiple agencies. Congress needs a 
     comprehensive annual report detailing the nonproliferation 
     policies, strategies, and budgets of the Federal Government. 
     Cooperation among Federal and private non-proliferation 
     programs is critical to maximize the benefits of such 
     programs.
       (11) The United States response to terrorism must be as 
     rapid as possible. In carrying out their antiterrorism 
     activities, the departments and agencies of the Federal 
     Government, and State and local governments, need rapid 
     access to the specialized expertise and facilities at the 
     national laboratories and sites of the Department of Energy. 
     Multiple agency sponsorship of these important national 
     assets would help achieve this objective.

     SEC. 3. TESTING OF PREPAREDNESS FOR EMERGENCIES INVOLVING 
                   NUCLEAR, RADIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL 
                   WEAPONS.

       (a) Extension of Testing.--Section 1415 of the Defense 
     Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (title XIV of 
     Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2720; 50 U.S.C. 2315) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``of five successive 
     fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1997'' and inserting 
     ``of fiscal years 1997 through 2013''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``of five successive 
     fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1997'' and inserting 
     ``of fiscal years 1997 through 2013''.
       (b) Construction of Extension with Designation of Attorney 
     General as Lead Official.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) may not be construed as modifying the designation of the 
     President entitled ``Designation of the Attorney General as 
     the Lead Official for the Emergency Response Assistance 
     Program Under Sections 1412 and 1415 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997'', dated April 6, 
     2000, designating the Attorney General to assume programmatic 
     and funding responsibilities for the Emergency Response 
     Assistance Program under sections 1412 and 1415 of the 
     Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996.

     SEC. 4. PROGRAM ON TECHNOLOGY FOR PROTECTION FROM NUCLEAR OR 
                   RADIOLOGICAL TERRORISM.

       (a) Program Required.--(1) The Administrator for Nuclear 
     Security shall carry out a program on technology for 
     protection from nuclear or radiological terrorism, including 
     technology for the detection, identification, assessment, 
     control, disposition, consequence management, and consequence 
     mitigation of the dispersal of radiological materials or of 
     nuclear terrorism.
       (2) The Administrator shall carry out the program as part 
     of the nonproliferation and verification research and 
     development programs of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration.
       (b) Program Elements.--In carrying out the program required 
     by subsection (a), the Administrator shall--
       (1) provide for the development of technologies to respond 
     to threats or incidents involving nuclear or radiological 
     terrorism in the United States;
       (2) demonstrate applications of the technologies developed 
     under paragraph (1), including joint demonstrations with the 
     Office of Homeland Security and other appropriate Federal 
     agencies;
       (3) provide, where feasible, for the development in 
     cooperation with the Russian Federation of technologies to 
     respond to nuclear or radiological terrorism in the former 
     states of the Soviet Union, including the

[[Page S4713]]

     demonstration of technologies so developed; and
       (4) provide, where feasible, assistance to other countries 
     on matters relating to nuclear or radiological terrorism, 
     including--
       (A) the provision of technology and assistance on means of 
     addressing nuclear or radiological incidents;
       (B) the provision of assistance in developing means for the 
     safe disposal of radioactive materials;
       (C) in coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
     the provision of assistance in developing the regulatory 
     framework for licensing and developing programs for the 
     protection and control of radioactive sources; and
       (D) the provision of assistance in evaluating the 
     radiological sources identified as not under current 
     accounting programs in the report of the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Energy entitled ``Accounting for Sealed 
     Sources of Nuclear Material Provided to Foreign Countries'', 
     and in identifying and controlling radiological sources that 
     represent significant risks.
       (c) Requirements for International Elements of Program.--
     (1) In carrying out activities in accordance with paragraphs 
     (3) and (4) of subsection (b), the Administrator shall 
     consult with--
       (A) the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and 
     Secretary of Commerce; and
       (B) the International Atomic Energy Agency.
       (2) The Administrator shall encourage joint leadership 
     between the United States and the Russian Federation of 
     activities on the development of technologies under 
     subsection (b)(4).
       (d) Incorporation of Results in Emergency Response 
     Assistance Program.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     technologies and information developed under the program 
     required by subsection (a) shall be incorporated into the 
     program on responses to emergencies involving nuclear and 
     radiological weapons carried out under section 1415 of the 
     Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 
     (title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 50 U.S.C. 2315).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of Energy for the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration to carry out 
     activities under this section amounts as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 2003, $40,000,000.
       (2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, such sums 
     as may be necessary in such fiscal year.

     SEC. 5. EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, 
                   CONTROL, AND ACCOUNTING PROGRAM.

       (a) Expansion of Program to Additional Countries 
     Authorized.--The Secretary of Energy may expand the 
     International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting 
     (MPC&A) program of the Department of Energy to encompass 
     countries outside the Russian Federation and the independent 
     states of the former Soviet Union.
       (b) Notice to Congress of Use of Funds for Additional 
     Countries.--Not later than 30 days after the Secretary 
     obligates funds for the International Materials Protection, 
     Control, and Accounting program, as expanded under subsection 
     (a), for activities in or with respect to a country outside 
     the Russian Federation and the independent states of the 
     former Soviet Union, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 
     notice of the obligation of such funds for such activities.
       (c) Assistance to Department of State for Nuclear Materials 
     Safeguards Programs.--(1) As part of the International 
     Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting program, the 
     Secretary of Energy may provide technical assistance to the 
     Secretary of State in the efforts of the Secretary of State 
     to assist other nuclear weapons states to review and improve 
     their nuclear materials safeguards programs.
       (2) The technical assistance provided under paragraph (1) 
     may include the sharing of technology or methodologies to the 
     states referred to in that paragraph. Any such sharing 
     shall--
       (A) be consistent with the treaty obligations of the United 
     States; and
       (B) take into account the sovereignty of the state 
     concerned and its weapons programs, as well the sensitivity 
     of any information involved regarding United States weapons 
     or weapons systems.
       (3) The Secretary of Energy may include the Russian 
     Federation in activities under paragraph (1) if the Secretary 
     determines that the experience of the Russian Federation 
     under the International Materials Protection, Control, and 
     Accounting program with the Russian Federation would make the 
     participation of the Russian Federation in such activities 
     useful in providing technical assistance under that 
     paragraph.
       (d) Plan for Accelerated Conversion or Return of Weapons-
     Usable Nuclear Materials.--(1) The Secretary shall build on 
     efforts to accelerate the conversion or return to the country 
     of origin of all weapons-usable nuclear materials located in 
     research reactors and other facilities outside the country of 
     origin.
       (2) The plan under paragraph (1) for nuclear materials of 
     origin in the Soviet Union shall be developed in consultation 
     with the Russian Federation.
       (3) As part of the plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall assist the research reactors and facilities referred to 
     in that paragraph in upgrading their materials protection, 
     control, and accounting procedures until the weapons-usable 
     nuclear materials in such reactors and facilities are 
     converted or returned in accordance with that paragraph.
       (4) The provision of assistance under paragraph (3) shall 
     be closely coordinated with ongoing efforts of the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency for the same purpose.
       (e) Radiological Dispersal Device Protection, Control, and 
     Accounting.--(1) The Secretary shall establish within the 
     International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting 
     program a program on the protection, control, and accounting 
     of materials usable in radiological dispersal devices.
       (2) The program under paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) an identification of vulnerabilities regarding 
     radiological materials worldwide;
       (B) the mitigation of vulnerabilities so identified through 
     appropriate security enhancements; and
       (C) an acceleration of efforts to recover and control so-
     called ``orphaned'' radiological sources.
       (3) The program under paragraph (1) shall be known as the 
     Radiological Dispersal Device Protection, Control, and 
     Accounting program.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of Energy to carry out 
     activities under this section amounts as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 2003, $10,000,000.
       (2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, such sums 
     as may be necessary in such fiscal year.

     SEC. 6. ACCELERATED DISPOSITION OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM 
                   AND PLUTONIUM.

       (a) Program Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of Energy may 
     carry out a program to pursue with the Russian Federation, 
     and any other nation that possesses highly enriched uranium, 
     options for blending such uranium so that the concentration 
     of U-235 in such uranium is below 20 percent.
       (2) The options pursued under paragraph (1) shall include 
     expansion of the Material Consolidation and Conversion 
     program of the Department of Energy to include--
       (A) additional facilities for the blending of highly 
     enriched uranium; and
       (B) additional centralized secure storage facilities for 
     highly enriched uranium, as so blended.
       (b) Incentives Regarding Highly Enriched Uranium in 
     Russia.--As part of the options pursued under subsection (a) 
     with the Russian Federation, the Secretary may provide 
     financial and other incentives for the removal of all highly 
     enriched uranium from any particular facility in the Russian 
     Federation if the Secretary determines that such incentives 
     will facilitate the consolidation of highly enriched uranium 
     in the Russian Federation to the best-secured facilities.
       (c) Construction with HEU Disposition Agreement.--Nothing 
     in this section may be construed as terminating, modifying, 
     or otherwise effecting requirements for the disposition of 
     highly enriched uranium under the Agreement Between the 
     Government of the United States of America and the Government 
     of the Russian Federation Concerning the Disposition of 
     Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, 
     signed at Washington on February 18, 1993.
       (d) Priority in Blending Activities.--In pursuing options 
     under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to the 
     blending of highly enriched uranium from weapons, though 
     highly enriched uranium from sources other than weapons may 
     also be blended.
       (e) Transfer of Highly Enriched Uranium and Plutonium to 
     United States.--(1) As part of the program under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary may, upon the request of any nation--
       (A) purchase highly enriched uranium or weapons grade 
     plutonium from the nation at a price determined by the 
     Secretary;
       (B) transport any uranium or plutonium so purchased to the 
     United States; and
       (C) store any uranium or plutonium so transported in the 
     United States.
       (2) The Secretary is not required to blend any highly 
     enriched uranium purchased under paragraph (1)(A) in order to 
     reduce the concentration of U-235 in such uranium to below 20 
     percent. Amounts authorized to be appropriated by subsection 
     (m) may not be used for purposes of blending such uranium.
       (f) Transfer of Highly Enriched Uranium to Russia.--(1) As 
     part of the program under subsection (a), the Secretary may 
     encourage nations with highly enriched uranium to transfer 
     such uranium to the Russian Federation for disposition under 
     this section.
       (2) The Secretary shall pay any nation that transfers 
     highly enriched uranium to the Russian Federation under this 
     subsection an amount determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       (3) The Secretary shall bear the cost of any blending and 
     storage of uranium transferred to the Russian Federation 
     under this subsection, including any costs of blending and 
     storage under a contract under subsection (g).
       (g) Contracts for Blending and Storage of Highly Enriched 
     Uranium in Russia.--As part of the program under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary may enter into one or more contracts with 
     the Russian Federation--
       (1) to blend in the Russian Federation highly enriched 
     uranium of the Russian Federation and highly enriched uranium 
     transferred to the Russian Federation under subsection (f); 
     or

[[Page S4714]]

       (2) to store the blended material in the Russian 
     Federation.
       (h) Limitation on Release for Sale of Blended Uranium.--
     Uranium blended under this section may not be released for 
     sale until the earlier of--
       (1) January 1, 2014; or
       (2) the date on which the Secretary certifies that such 
     uranium can be absorbed into the global market without undue 
     disruption to the uranium mining industry in the United 
     States.
       (i) Proceeds of Sale of Uranium Blended by Russia.--Upon 
     the sale by the Russian Federation of uranium blended under 
     this section by the Russian Federation, the Secretary may 
     elect to receive from the proceeds of such sale an amount not 
     to exceed 75 percent of the costs incurred by the Department 
     of Energy under subsections (b), (f), and (g).
       (j) Report on Status of Program.--Not later than July 1, 
     2003, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     status of the program carried out under the authority in 
     subsection (a). The report shall include--
       (1) a description of international interest in the program;
       (2) schedules and operational details of the program; and
       (3) recommendations for future funding for the program.
       (k) Disposition of Plutonium in Russia.--(1) The Secretary 
     may assist the Russian Federation in any fiscal year with the 
     plutonium disposition program of the Russian Federation (as 
     established under the agreement referred to in paragraph (2)) 
     if the President certifies to Congress at the beginning of 
     such fiscal year that the United States and the Russian 
     Federation have entered into a binding agreement on the 
     disposition of the weapons grade plutonium of the Russian 
     Federation.
       (2) The agreement referred to in this paragraph is the 
     Agreement Between the Government of the United States of 
     America and the Government of the Russian Federation 
     Concerning the Management and Disposition of Plutonium 
     Designated As No Longer Required For Defense Purposes and 
     Related Cooperation, signed August 29, 2000, and September 1, 
     2000.
       (3) The program under paragraph (1)--
       (A) shall include transparent verifiable steps;
       (B) shall proceed at roughly the rate of the United States 
     program for the disposition of plutonium;
       (C) shall provide for cost-sharing among a variety of 
     countries;
       (D) shall provide for contributions by the Russian 
     Federation;
       (E) shall include steps over the near term to provide high 
     confidence that the schedules for the disposition of 
     plutonium of the Russian Federation will be achieved; and
       (F) may include research on more speculative long-term 
     options for the future disposition of the plutonium of the 
     Russian Federation in addition to the near-term steps under 
     subparagraph (E).
       (l) Highly Enriched Uranium Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``highly enriched uranium'' means uranium with a 
     concentration of U-235 of 20 percent or more.
       (m) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of Energy to carry out 
     activities under this section amounts as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 2003--
       (A) for activities under subsections (a) through (i), 
     $100,000,000; and
       (B) for activities under subsection (k), $200,000,000.
       (2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, such sums 
     as may be necessary in such fiscal year for activities under 
     subsection (a) through (i).

     SEC. 7. STRENGTHENED INTERNATIONAL SAFEGUARDS FOR NUCLEAR 
                   MATERIALS AND SAFETY FOR NUCLEAR OPERATIONS.

       (a) Report on Options for International Program To 
     Strengthen Safeguards and Safety.--(1) Not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator for Nuclear Security shall submit to Congress a 
     report on options for an international program to develop 
     strengthened safeguards for all nuclear materials and safety 
     for nuclear operations.
       (2) Each option for an international program under 
     paragraph (1) may provide that the program is jointly led by 
     the United States, the Russian Federation, and the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency.
       (3) The Administrator shall include with the report on 
     options for an international program under paragraph (1) a 
     description and assessment of various management alternatives 
     for the international program. If any option requires Federal 
     funding or legislation to implement, the report shall also 
     include recommendations for such funding or legislation, as 
     the case may be.
       (b) Joint Programs with Russia on Proliferation Resistant 
     Nuclear Technologies.--The Administrator shall pursue with 
     the Russian Federation joint programs between the United 
     States and the Russian Federation on proliferation resistant 
     nuclear technologies.
       (c) Participation of Office of Nuclear Energy Science.--The 
     Administrator shall consult with the Office of Nuclear Energy 
     Science and Technology of the Department of Energy in the 
     development of options under subsection (a) and joint 
     programs under (b).
       (d) Participation of International Technical Experts.--In 
     developing options under subsection (a), the Administrator 
     shall, in consultation with the Russian Federation and the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency, convene and consult with 
     an appropriate group of international technical experts on 
     the development of various options for technologies to 
     provide strengthened safeguards for nuclear materials and 
     safety for nuclear operations, including the implementation 
     of such options.
       (e) Assistance Regarding Hostile Insiders and Aircraft 
     Impacts.--(1) The Secretary of Energy may, utilizing 
     appropriate expertise of the Department of Energy, provide 
     assistance to nuclear facilities abroad on the interdiction 
     of hostile insiders at such facilities in order to prevent 
     incidents arising from the disablement of the vital systems 
     of such facilities.
       (2) The Secretary may carry out a joint program with the 
     Russian Federation and other countries to address and 
     mitigate concerns on the impact of aircraft with nuclear 
     facilities in such countries.
       (f) Assistance to IAEA in Strengthening International 
     Nuclear Safeguards.--The Secretary may expand and accelerate 
     the programs of the Department of Energy to support the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency in strengthening 
     international nuclear safeguards.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Energy to 
     carry out activities under this section amounts as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 2003--
       (A) for activities under subsections (a) through (e), 
     $20,000,000, of which $5,000,000 shall be available for 
     sabotage protection for nuclear power plants and other 
     nuclear facilities abroad; and
       (B) for activities under subsection (f), $30,000,000.
       (2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, such sums 
     as may be necessary in such fiscal year.

     SEC. 8. EXPORT CONTROL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Authority To Pursue Options for Strengthening Export 
     Control Programs.--The Secretary of Energy may pursue in the 
     former Soviet Union and other regions of concern, principally 
     in South Asia, the Middle East, and the Far East, options for 
     accelerating programs that assist countries in such regions 
     in improving their domestic export control programs for 
     materials, technologies, and expertise relevant to the 
     construction or use of a nuclear or radiological dispersal 
     device.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of Energy to carry out 
     activities under this section amounts as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 2003, $5,000,000.
       (2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, such sums 
     as may be necessary in such fiscal year.

     SEC. 9. IMPROVEMENTS TO NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION, 
                   CONTROL, AND ACCOUNTING PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN 
                   FEDERATION.

       (a) Revised Focus for Program.--(1) The Secretary of Energy 
     shall work cooperatively with the Russian Federation to 
     update and improve the Joint Action Plan for the Materials 
     Protection, Control, and Accounting programs of the 
     Department and the Russian Federation Ministry of Atomic 
     Energy.
       (2) The updated plan shall shift the focus of the upgrades 
     of the nuclear materials protection, control, and accounting 
     program of the Russian Federation in order to assist the 
     Russian Federation in achieving, as soon as practicable but 
     not later than January 1, 2012, a sustainable safeguards 
     system for the nuclear materials of the Russian Federation 
     that is supported solely by the Russian Federation.
       (b) Pace of Program.--The Secretary shall work with the 
     Russian Federation, including applicable institutes in 
     Russia, to pursue acceleration of the nuclear materials 
     protection, control, and accounting programs at nuclear 
     defense facilities in the Russian Federation.
       (c) Transparency of Program.--(1) The Secretary shall work 
     with the Russian Federation to identify various alternatives 
     to provide the United States adequate transparency in the 
     nuclear materials protection, control, and accounting program 
     of the Russian Federation to assure that such program is 
     meeting applicable goals for nuclear materials protection, 
     control, and accounting.
       (2) The alternatives identified under paragraph (1) may not 
     include full intrusive access to sensitive facilities in the 
     Russian Federation.
       (d) Sense of Congress.--In furtherance of the activities 
     required under this section, it is the sense of Congress the 
     Secretary should--
       (1) improve the partnership with the Russian Ministry of 
     Atomic Energy in order to enhance the pace and effectiveness 
     of nuclear materials safeguards at facilities in the Russian 
     Federation, including serial production enterprises; and
       (2) clearly identify the assistance required by the Russian 
     Federation, the contributions anticipated from the Russian 
     Federation, and the transparency milestones that can be used 
     to assess progress in meeting the requirements of this 
     section.

     SEC. 10. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS OF ALL 
                   UNITED STATES NONPROLIFERATION ACTIVITIES.

       Section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2002 (Public

[[Page S4715]]

     Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1247) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Annual Report on Implementation of Plan.--(1) Not 
     later than January 31, 2003, and each year thereafter, the 
     President shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     implementation of the plan required by subsection (a) during 
     the preceding year.
       ``(2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) a discussion of any progress made during the year 
     covered by such report in the matters of the plan required by 
     subsection (a);
       ``(B) a discussion of any consultations with foreign 
     nations, and in particular the Russian Federation, during 
     such year on joint programs to implement the plan;
       ``(C) a discussion of any cooperation and coordination 
     during such year in the implementation of the plan between 
     the United States and private entities that share objectives 
     similar to the objectives of the plan; and
       ``(D) any recommendations that the President considers 
     appropriate regarding modifications to law or regulations, or 
     to the administration or organization of any Federal 
     department or agency, in order to improve the effectiveness 
     of any programs carried out during such year in the 
     implementation of the plan.''.

     SEC. 11. UTILIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 
                   LABORATORIES AND SITES IN SUPPORT OF 
                   ANTITERRORISM ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Agencies as Joint Sponsors of Laboratories for Work on 
     Antiterrorism.--Each department or agency of the Federal 
     Government, or of a State or local government, that carries 
     out work on antiterrorism activities at a Department of 
     Energy national laboratory shall be a joint sponsor, under a 
     multiple agency sponsorship arrangement with the Department, 
     of such laboratory in the performance of such work.
       (b) Agencies as Joint Sponsors of Sites for Work on 
     Antiterrorism.--Each department or agency of the Federal 
     Government, or of a State or local government, that carries 
     out work on antiterrorism activities at a Department site 
     shall be a joint sponsor of such site in the performance of 
     such work as if such site were a federally funded research 
     and development center and such work were performed under a 
     multiple agency sponsorship arrangement with the Department.
       (c) Primary Sponsorship.--The Department of Energy shall be 
     the primary sponsor under a multiple agency sponsorship 
     arrangement required under subsection (a) or (b).
       (d) Work.--(1) The Administrator for Nuclear Security shall 
     act as the lead agent in coordinating the submittal to a 
     Department national laboratory or site of requests for work 
     on antiterrorism matters by departments and agencies that are 
     joint sponsors of such national laboratory or center, as the 
     case may be, under this section.
       (2) A request for work may not be submitted to a national 
     laboratory or site under this section unless approved in 
     advance by the Administrator.
       (3) Any work performed by a national laboratory or site 
     under this section shall comply with the policy on the use of 
     federally funded research and development centers under 
     section 35.017(a)(4) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       (4) The Administrator shall ensure that the work of a 
     national laboratory or site requested under this section is 
     performed expeditiously and to the satisfaction of the head 
     of the department or agency submitting the request.
       (e) Funding.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a joint sponsor 
     of a national laboratory or site under this section shall 
     provide funds for work of such center or site, as the case 
     may be, under this section under the same terms and 
     conditions as apply to the primary sponsor of such center 
     under section 303(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(b)(1)(C)) 
     or of such site to the extent such section applies to such 
     site as a federally funded research and development center by 
     reason of subsection (b).
       (2) The total amount of funds provided a national 
     laboratory or site in a fiscal year under this subsection by 
     joint sponsors other than the Department of Energy shall not 
     exceed an amount equal to 25 percent of the total funds 
     provided such center or site, as the case may be, in such 
     fiscal year from all sources.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the world is a dangerous place, and the 
United States is not immune to those dangers. In just the last few 
days, we have heard warnings that suicide bombers will mount attacks in 
the United States and that terrorist groups will inevitably obtain 
weapons of mass destruction from rogue states.
  My own greatest concern is that rogue states or terrorist groups may 
obtain nuclear weapons, or the means to produce them, from the former 
Soviet Union, where less-than-adequate security and under-employed 
weapons scientists coexist with the world's largest stockpile of excess 
fissile material. We know that both rogues and terrorists are 
attempting to exploit the instability in that region in order to gain 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Some Russians have been caught stealing radioactive, or even fissile, 
material. And witnesses at two Foreign Relations Committee hearings 
warned that even modestly capable terrorists could convert stolen 
highly enriched uranium into enormously destructive improvised nuclear 
devices.
  But I do not share the view that proliferation of nuclear weapons is 
inevitable. The United States has had real successes in nuclear 
nonproliferation and there is every reason to think that we can build 
on that record.
  Thanks to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the 
countries of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear 
weapons.
  Thanks to the Materials Protection, Control and Accounting program, 
many Russian facilities have improved their security for fissile 
materiel.
  Thanks to our fissile material disposition programs, the United 
States and Russia will each demilitarize 34 metric tons of excess 
plutonium, and Russia will downblended 500 metric tons of high-enriched 
uranium into low-enriched fuel for nuclear power reactors.
  Thanks to several U.S. programs, thousands of under-employed weapons 
scientists in the former Soviet Union have obtained at least part-time 
employment in new, socially useful endeavors.
  These programs point the way to how we can speed up the day when 
rogue states and terrorists will find the doors closed to them when 
they seek dangerous materials or technology from the former Soviet 
Union. The administration told many months to review these programs 
last year, but that review led it to the absolutely correct conclusions 
that the programs are vital to our national security and that nearly 
all of them should be expanded. The problem now is that we are still 
not doing nearly enough. The President's budget request for fiscal year 
2003 would maintain our nonproliferation assistance programs, but not 
significantly increase them.
  The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002 takes important steps to 
expand these programs, and I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation. 
Senator Domenici to be both commended and supported for drafting this 
bill. I am also delighted to be joined by Senators Lugar and Hagel from 
the Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Landrieu and Bingaman from 
the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Murkowski, who has paid 
particular attention to Russian nuclear problems.
  The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002 will lead to greater levels 
of effort--and, I believe, greater levels of achievement--in several 
areas. For example, it authorizes $40 million for a new research, 
development, and demonstration program to help respond to nuclear or 
radiological terrorism. Some of these funds would also help other 
nations to better regulate the protection and control of radiological 
sources, to prevent any diversion to terrorists. Some of the funds will 
go to new technologies to detect radioactive and fissile materials 
being smuggled into the United States. And some will support work with 
the International Atomic Energy Agency to improve international 
safeguards for nuclear materials and operations.
  It authorizes up to $300 million to accelerate and expand current 
programs to blend down highly enriched uranium (HEU) into reactorgrade 
material which cannot explode and to dispose of plutonium in Russia. 
This provision also allows for HEU purchases from other countries.
  It authorizes $20 million for work with the international community 
to develop options for a global program for international safeguards, 
nuclear safety and proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies. This 
includes efforts to improve sabotage protection for nuclear power 
plants and other nuclear facilities overseas.
  These are sensible proposals, and very sensibly priced when one 
considers the magnitude of the threat that they address. Former Senator 
Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler called on us 
last year to devote at least $3,000,000,000 dollars a year to this 
effort. Even with last year's congressionally-mandated budget increases 
and even with this fine bill, we will achieve less than two-thirds of 
that objective.
  But these are important steps, ones that have been vetted with 
experts inside and outside our government. They

[[Page S4716]]

deserve the support of all of us, and they will help build a safer 
world for our children and grandchildren.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 2546. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a 
program for Federal flight deck officers, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
disappointment in the decision announced yesterday by the Department of 
Transportation against allowing airline pilots to carry firearms during 
the performance of their duties. Today I am introducing legislation 
which would overturn that decision and require the Transportation 
Security Administration to establish a program to permit pilots to 
defend their aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. 
This legislation will provide a critical last line of defense to secure 
commercial aircraft.
  This bill I am introducing today is identical to a bill in the House 
of Representatives, H.R. 4635, introduced by Mr. Young of Alaska and 
Mr. Mica of Florida. The legislation requires the Under Secretary of 
Transportation for Security to establish a program not later than 90 
days after the date of enactment to deputize qualified volunteer pilots 
as Federal law enforcement officers to defend the cockpits of 
commercial aircraft in flight against acts of criminal violence or air 
piracy. Pilots who are deputized will be known as ``Federal Flight Deck 
Officers'' and will be authorized to carry a firearm and use force, 
including deadly force, against an individual in defense of an 
aircraft.
  Under the bill, a qualified pilot is a pilot that is employed by an 
air carrier, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Under 
Secretary fitness to be a Federal Flight Deck Officer, and has been the 
subject of an employment investigation, including a criminal history 
record check.
  Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment, the Under 
Secretary shall deputize 500 qualified pilots who are former military 
or law enforcement personnel. Not later than 24 months after the date 
of enactment, the Under Secretary shall deputize any qualified pilot. 
The Federal Government will provide training, supervision and equipment 
at no expense to the pilot or air carrier. Pilots participating in this 
program will not be eligible to receive compensation for services. The 
legislation protects volunteer pilots and their employers against 
liability from damages resulting from participation in the program.
  The Department of Transportation has taken important steps to improve 
the security of our airports and protect the flying public. However, 
September 11 demonstrated our enemies will stop at nothing to inflict 
harm on Americans and destroy our way of life. Our response must be 
equally as determined and resolute. We must not take half measures or 
engage in wishful thinking. We must not refrain from utilizing every 
tool we possess. We must enable those who pilot commercial passenger 
aircraft to defend against any threat and protect the safety of their 
aircraft and passengers. And finally, we must do so without further 
delay. I hope the Senate responds quickly to this important matter.
  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. 2546

       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 ``Arming Pilots Against 
     Terrorism Act''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 44921. Federal flight deck officer program

       ``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary of 
     Transportation for Security shall establish a program to 
     deputize qualified volunteer pilots of passenger aircraft as 
     Federal law enforcement officers to defend the flight decks 
     of aircraft of air carriers engaged in air transportation or 
     intrastate air transportation against acts of criminal 
     violence or air piracy. Such officers shall be known as 
     `Federal flight deck officers'. The program shall be 
     administered in connection with the Federal air marshal 
     program.
       ``(b) Qualified Pilot.--Under the program, a qualified 
     pilot is a pilot of an aircraft engaged in air transportation 
     or intrastate air transportation who--
       ``(1) is employed by an air carrier;
       ``(2) has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Under 
     Secretary fitness to be a Federal flight deck officer under 
     the program; and
       ``(3) has been the subject of an employment investigation 
     (including a criminal history record check) under section 
     44936(a)(1).
       ``(c) Training, Supervision, and Equipment.--The Under 
     Secretary of Transportation for Security shall provide 
     training, supervision, and equipment necessary for a 
     qualified pilot to be a Federal flight deck officer under 
     this section at no expense to the pilot or the air carrier 
     employing the pilot.
       ``(d) Deputization.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary shall deputize, as a 
     Federal flight deck officer under this section, any qualified 
     pilot who submits to the Under Secretary a request to be such 
     an officer.
       ``(2) Initial deputization.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary 
     shall deputize not fewer than 500 qualified pilots who are 
     former military or law enforcement personnel as Federal 
     flight deck officers under this section.
       ``(3) Full implementation.--Not later than 24 months after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary 
     shall deputize any qualified pilot as a Federal flight deck 
     officer under this section.
       ``(e) Compensation.--Pilots participating in the program 
     under this section shall not be eligible for compensation 
     from the Federal Government for services provided as a 
     Federal flight deck officer.
       ``(f) Authority To Carry Firearms.--The Under Secretary 
     shall authorize a Federal flight deck officer under this 
     section to carry a firearm while engaged in providing air 
     transportation or intrastate air transportation.
       ``(g) Authority To Use Force.--Notwithstanding section 
     44903(d), a Federal flight deck officer may use force 
     (including lethal force) against an individual in the defense 
     of an aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air 
     transportation if the officer reasonably believes that the 
     security of the aircraft is at risk.
       ``(h) Limitation on Liability.--
       ``(1) Liability of air carriers.--An air carrier shall not 
     be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or 
     State court arising out of the air carrier employing a pilot 
     of an aircraft who is a Federal flight deck officer under 
     this section or out of the acts or omissions of the pilot in 
     defending an aircraft of the air carrier against acts of 
     criminal violence or air piracy.
       ``(2) Liability of federal flight deck officers.--A Federal 
     flight deck officer shall not be liable for damages in any 
     action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the 
     acts or omissions of the officer in defending an aircraft 
     against acts of criminal violence or air piracy unless the 
     officer is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
       ``(i) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Firearms Training Unit of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation, shall issue regulations to carry out 
     this section.
       ``(j) Pilot Defined.--The term `pilot' means an individual 
     responsible for the operation of aircraft.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44920 
     the following:

  ``44921.  Federal flight deck officer program.''.

       (2) Employment investigations.--Section 44936(a)(1)(B) is 
     amended--
       (A) by aligning clause (iii) with clause (ii);
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) qualified pilots who are deputized as Federal flight 
     deck officers under section 44921.''.
       (3) Flight deck security.--Section 128 of the Aviation and 
     Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) is repealed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 2547. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for fair payments under the Medicare hospital outpatient 
department prospective payment system; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Snowe to 
introduce legislation entitled the ``Medicare Hospital Outpatient 
Department Fair Payment Act of 2002'' to improve Medicare payments for 
hospital outpatient department services.
  According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, in 
its report to Congress this past March. ``We estimate that the 
aggregate Medicare margin for outpatient services

[[Page S4717]]

will be -16.3 percent in 2002. Unfortunately, while the Medicare 
outpatient prospective payment system, or OPPS, was created to give 
providers incentives to deliver quality outpatient care and services in 
an efficient manner, OPPS reimbursement rates have been set at a level 
substantially below what is costs hospitals to care for Medicare 
patients. That is an unsustainable burden for our Nation's hospitals.
  This problem is especially acute in rural areas. According to the 
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission's June 2001 report entitled 
``Report to Congress: Medicare in Rural America,'' outpatient costs 
represent 21.8 percent of total Medicare costs in rural hospitals 
compared to 16.1 percent in urban hospitals. As MedPAC concludes, 
``Given their greater reliance on Medicare and on outpatient services 
within Medicare, rural hospitals have more at stake than their urban 
counterparts in the move to the outpatient PPS.''
  In addition, Medicare's payment policy of paying less than cost 
creates inappropriate incentives for providers to provide services in 
the setting that receives the most favorable payment rather than the 
one best suited for the patient. Medicare policy should seek, as best 
as possible, to pay appropriate amounts to ensure access to care for 
Medicare beneficiaries in appropriate settings, whether in inpatient 
hospitals, outpatient care, ambulatory surgical centers, or physician 
offices.
  To provide just one example, the following are the current payment 
rates for mammography in either a outpatient hospital setting of a 
physician's office: for unilateral diagnostic mammography, the OPPS 
payment is $30.54 compared to $38.01 in a physician's office; for 
bilateral diagnostic mammography, the OPPS payment is again $30.54 
compared to an even higher $46.06 in a physician's office; for 
unilateral digital mammography, OPPS payment just increased to $75.00 
compared to $71.31 in a physician's office; and finally, for bilateral 
digital mammography, the OPPS payment is $75.00 compared to $88.33 in a 
physician's office.
  Why does Medicare pay between 24 percent to 54 percent more for a 
diagnostic mammography in a physician's office than in an outpatient 
hospital setting? Such disparities are unjustified and they are even 
worse for other Medicare services.
  To address these problems, the ``Medicare Hospital Outpatient Fair 
Payment Act of 2002'' would: increase extremely underfunded emergency 
room and clinic ambulatory payment classifications, or APC, payment 
rates in the OPPS system by 10 percent and require an increase in 
overall outpatient department payments to be adjusted to 90 percent of 
overall costs, from the current 84 percent; and improve and extend 
transitional corridor or ``hold harmless'' payments to rural hospitals, 
cancer hospitals, and children's hospitals, and extend the transitional 
payments to designated eye and ear speciality hospitals.
  The first provision would increase funding overall through the 
outpatient hospital system from 84 percent of cost to 90 percent of 
cost, still 10 percent less than the hospitals spend in delivering 
necessary outpatient care, with special focus and priority on payments 
for emergency room and clinic payments, prevention services, cancer 
services, and to reduce the disparity between payments in outpatient 
and alternative settings.
  The extension of the transitional corridors or hold harmless payments 
to rural, cancer, and children's hospitals addresses the particular 
problems those hospitals are facing with the OPPS system and adds 
designated eye and ear speciality hospitals. With regard to rural 
hospitals, MedPAC recommended that due to the higher unit costs and a 
greater percentage of care delivered in rural outpatient settings in 
its June 2001 report entitled ``Report to the Congress: Medicare in 
Rural America,'' that the data ``supports the need for the existing 
hold-harmless policy'' for rural hospitals.
  Without the transitional corridor payments to rural hospitals, rural 
hospitals would be expected to be significant losers, according to 
MedPAC data. As MedPAC states, ``Small rural hospitals were protected 
to more negatively affected, with those under 50 beds, about 50 percent 
of rural hospitals, losing 8.5 percent and those with 50-99 beds losing 
2.7 percent.'' Even with the transitional corridor and hold-harmless 
payments, rural hospitals are still projected to have negative margins 
of 13.7 percent with respect to outpatient care.
  The legislation also addresses problems created by the Balanced 
Budget Refinement Act of 1999, or BBRA, which established temporary 
additional Medicare payments, or transitional pass-through payments, 
for certain innovative medical devices, drugs, and biologics. By 
establishing the pass-through payments, Congress ensured Medicare 
beneficiaries would have access to the latest medical technologies. 
These pass-through payments were capped at 2.5 percent of total 
outpatient payments prior to 2004, and the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, or CMS, is required by law to make a proportional 
reduction for all pass-through payments if that cap is exceeded.
  In March 2002, CMS announced a reduction in pass-through payments of 
63.6 percent. This reduction means that a pass-through payment of 
$1,000 is reduced to just $364. Again, hospitals cannot continue to 
provide needed services to beneficiaries with reductions of such a 
magnitude.
  To prevent an event greater reduction in pass-through payments, CMS 
``folded-in'' a significant portion of costs of these new technologies 
into the base APCs. However, because the law requires that these 
changes are made in a budget-neutral manner, this resulted in a 
substantial reduction in payments for standard outpatient services that 
do not rely upon high-tech medical devices. In 2002, incorporating 75 
percent of device costs into the APCs led to a budget-neutrality 
adjustment of -7.2 percent, causing the substantial reduction in the 
OPPS fee schedule amounts.
  As MedPAC notes, ``If pass-through items are overused and overpaid, 
APCs that include these technologies will be relatively overpaid while 
APCs that do not will be underpaid. This process also will have 
inappropriate distributional effects among hospitals if some hospitals 
provide more services that use pass-through technologies than others.'' 
For example, rural hospitals tend to provide a greater proportion of 
more basic Services, emergency care services, and fewer services that 
require advanced technology, according to MedPAC. These are the 
services particularly hard hit by the budget neutrality provision, and 
yet, they are certainly not any less expensive than they were last 
year.
  To address these problems with Medicare's pass-through payment 
system, the bill would: limit the pro-rata reduction in pass-through to 
20 percent; and limit the budget neutrality adjustment to no more than 
2.0 percent annually.
  For New Mexico, the importance of this legislation cannot be 
overstated. In 2000, New Mexico had over 3.1 million outpatient visits 
by Medicare beneficiaries for important health concerns. This includes 
essential services such as diagnostic tests, clinic visits, emergency 
care treatment, chemotherapy, and surgery. In addition, according to 
estimates from the American Hospital Association, the impact of this 
legislation to New Mexico hospitals would be an increase in Medicare 
payments between $48 and $59 million over the next five years.
  For an industry attemtping to survive cuts to payments from the 
private sector, Medicare and Medicaid, while also dealing with the 
Nation's highest percentage of uninsured patients in the country. This 
legislation is both timely and necessary. It is unjustifiable for 
Medicare to continue to pay just 84 percent of the cost of care of 
Medicare beneficiaries.
  The bottom line is that this bipartisan legislation will ensure our 
nation's hospitals a more rationale, fair, and equitable payment system 
for services delivered to Medicare beneficiaries in an outpatient 
setting.
  I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill and a copy of a 
letter to support from AHA to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2457

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

[[Page S4718]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare 
     Hospital Outpatient Department Fair Payment Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Ensuring adequate OPD fee schedule amounts for clinic and 
              emergency visits.
Sec. 3. Limitation of pro rata reductions to pass-through payments.
Sec. 4. Clarifying application of OPD fee schedule increase factor.
Sec. 5. Limitation on budget neutrality adjustment for annual revisions 
              to system components.
Sec. 6. Outlier payments.
Sec. 7. Adjustment to limit decline in payment.
Sec. 8. Special increase in certain relative payment weights.
Sec. 9. Permanent extension of provider-based status.

     SEC. 2. ENSURING ADEQUATE OPD FEE SCHEDULE AMOUNTS FOR CLINIC 
                   AND EMERGENCY VISITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(C)(ii)--
       (A) by striking ``paragraph (8)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (11)(B) and (13)(A)(i)''; and
       (B) by striking ``clause (iii)'' and inserting ``clause 
     (iv)'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(C)(iii), by inserting ``, paragraph 
     (11)(B), or paragraph (13)(B)'' after ``this subparagraph'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)(D)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``conversion factor computed 
     under subparagraph (C) for the year'' and inserting 
     ``applicable conversion factor computed under subparagraph 
     (C), paragraph (11)(B), or paragraph (13)(B) for the year (or 
     portion thereof)''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, paragraph (9)(A), or 
     paragraph (13)(C)'' after ``paragraph (2)(C)'';
       (4) in paragraph (9), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Budget neutrality adjustment.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Secretary makes revisions under 
     subparagraph (A), then the revisions for a year may not cause 
     the estimated amount of expenditures under this part for the 
     year to increase or decrease from the estimated amount of 
     expenditures under this part (including expenditures 
     attributable to the special rules specified in paragraph 
     (13)) that would have been made if the revisions had not been 
     made.
       ``(ii) Exemption from reduction.--The relative payment 
     weights determined under paragraph (13)(C) and the conversion 
     factor computed under paragraph (13)(B) shall not be reduced 
     by any budget neutrality adjustment made pursuant to this 
     subparagraph.''; and
       (5) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (14) and 
     by inserting after paragraph (12) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(13) Special rules for calculating medicare opd fee 
     schedule amount for clinic and emergency visits.--
       ``(A) In general.--In computing the medicare OPD fee 
     schedule amount under paragraph (3)(D) for covered OPD 
     services that are furnished on or after April 1, 2002, and 
     classified within a group established or revised under 
     paragraph (2)(B) or (9)(A), respectively, for clinic or 
     emergency visits (as described in subparagraph (D)), the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(i) substitute for the conversion factor calculated under 
     paragraph (3)(C) the conversion factor calculated under 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) substitute for the relative payment weight 
     established or revised under paragraph (2)(C) or (9)(A), 
     respectively, the relative payment weight determined under 
     subparagraph (C) for such group.
       ``(B) Calculation of conversion factor.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(i), the conversion factor calculated under 
     this subparagraph is--
       ``(i) for services furnished on or after April 1, 2002, and 
     before January 1, 2003, an amount equal to 112.82 percent of 
     the conversion factor specified for such period in the final 
     rule published on March 1, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 9556 et seq.; 
     entitled `Medicare Program; Correction of Certain Calendar 
     Year 2002 Payment Rates Under the Hospital Outpatient 
     Prospective Payment System and the Pro Rata Reduction on 
     Transitional Pass-Through Payments; Correction of Technical 
     and Typographical Errors') and not taking into account any 
     subsequent amendments to such final rule; and
       ``(ii) for services furnished in a year beginning after 
     December 31, 2002, the conversion factor computed under this 
     subparagraph for the previous year (or in the case of 2003, 
     for the previous 9 months) increased by the OPD fee schedule 
     increase factor specified under paragraph (3)(C)(iv) for the 
     year involved.
       ``(C) Determination of relative payment weights.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the relative payment weight 
     determined under this subparagraph for a covered OPD service 
     that is classified within such a group is--
       ``(i) for services furnished on or after April 1, 2002, and 
     before January 1, 2003, the relative payment weight specified 
     for such group for such period in Addendum A of the final 
     rule published on March 1, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 9556 et seq.; 
     entitled `Medicare Program; Correction of Certain Calendar 
     Year 2002 Payment Rates Under the Hospital Outpatient 
     Prospective Payment System and the Pro Rata Reduction on 
     Transitional Pass-Through Payments; Correction of Technical 
     and Typographical Errors') and not taking into account any 
     subsequent amendments to such final rule; and
       ``(ii) for services furnished in a year beginning on or 
     after January 1, 2003--

       ``(I) for ambulatory patient classification group 0601 
     (relating to mid-level clinic visits), or a successor to such 
     group, the relative payment weight specified for such group 
     in the final rule referred to in clause (i); and
       ``(II) other ambulatory patient classification groups 
     described in subparagraph (D), the relative payment weight 
     established or revised under paragraph (2)(C) or (9)(A), 
     respectively, for such group for such year (but without 
     regard to any budget neutrality adjustment under paragraph 
     (9)(B)).

       ``(D) Groups for clinic and emergency visits.--For purposes 
     of this paragraph, the groups established or revised under 
     paragraph (2)(B) or (9)(A), respectively, for clinic and 
     emergency visits are ambulatory patient classification groups 
     0600, 0601, 0602, 0610, 0611, and 0612 as defined for 
     purposes of the final rule referred to in subparagraph (C)(i) 
     (and any successors to such groups).''.
       (b) Limitation on Secretarial Authority.--Notwithstanding 
     section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(t)), the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not 
     make any adjustment under--
       (1) paragraph (2)(F), (3)(C)(iii), (9)(B), or (9)(C) of 
     section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(t)); or
       (2) any other provision of such section;
     to ensure that the amendments made by subsection (a) do not 
     cause the estimated amount of expenditures under part B of 
     title XVIII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.) to exceed 
     the estimated amount of expenditures that would have been 
     made under such part but for such amendments.
       (c) Periodic Lump-Sum Retroactive Payments.--The Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act (and at least every 
     90 days thereafter until the amendments made by subsection 
     (a) are implemented)--
       (1) estimate, for each hospital furnishing services for 
     which payment may be made under section 1833(t) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)) on or after April 1, 2002--
       (A) the total amount of additional payments under such 
     section that would have been made to such hospital as of the 
     date of such estimate if such amendments had been implemented 
     as of such date; and
       (B) the total amount of additional payments under such 
     section that have actually been made to such hospital as of 
     the date of such estimate (including any amounts paid 
     pursuant to this subsection); and
       (2) make a lump-sum payment to such hospital equal to the 
     amount by which the amount estimated under paragraph (1)(A) 
     exceeds the amount estimated under paragraph (1)(B).

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION OF PRO RATA REDUCTIONS TO PASS-THROUGH 
                   PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(6)(E) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(6)(E)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``The total'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to clause (iv), the total'';
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking ``If the Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to clause (iv), if the Secretary''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) Limitation on pro rata reductions.--Notwithstanding 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), the Secretary may not reduce 
     the additional payments that would otherwise be made under 
     this paragraph (but for this subparagraph) for items and 
     services furnished on or after April 1, 2002, by a percentage 
     that exceeds 20.0 percent.''.
       (b) Periodic Lump-Sum Retroactive Payments.--The Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act (and at least every 
     90 days thereafter until clause (iv) of section 1833(t)(6)(E) 
     of the Social Security Act (as added by subsection (a)(3)) is 
     implemented)--
       (1) estimate, for each hospital furnishing services for 
     which payment may be made under section 1833(t) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)) on or after April 1, 2002--
       (A) the total amount of additional payments under paragraph 
     (6) of such section that would have been made to such 
     hospital as of the date of such estimate if such clause had 
     been implemented as of such date; and
       (B) the total amount of additional payments under such 
     paragraph that have actually been made to such hospital as of 
     the date of such estimate (including any amounts paid 
     pursuant to this subsection); and
       (2) make a lump-sum payment to such hospital equal to the 
     amount by which the amount estimated under paragraph (1)(A) 
     exceeds the amount estimated under paragraph (1)(B).

     SEC. 4. CLARIFYING APPLICATION OF OPD FEE SCHEDULE INCREASE 
                   FACTOR.

       Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395l(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``Effective for years beginning

[[Page S4719]]

     with 2002, the OPD fee schedule increase factor for a year 
     shall take effect on January 1 of such year, and nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed as authorizing the 
     Secretary to delay the date on which such increase factor 
     takes effect by reason of any delay in implementing the 
     revisions authorized by paragraph (9)(A) for such year or for 
     any other reason.''.

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON BUDGET NEUTRALITY ADJUSTMENT FOR ANNUAL 
                   REVISIONS TO SYSTEM COMPONENTS.

       Section 1833(t)(9)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(t)(9)(B)), as amended by section 2(a)(4), is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``If the Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to clause (iii), if the Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) Limitation on adjustment.--For years after 2001, 
     the budget neutrality adjustment under this subparagraph may 
     not reduce the payments that would otherwise be made under 
     this part but for this subparagraph by more than 2.0 
     percent.''.

     SEC. 6. OUTLIER PAYMENTS.

       Section 1833(t)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(t)(5)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``exceed the applicable'' 
     and inserting ``exceed a percentage specified by the 
     Secretary that is not less than the applicable minimum 
     percentage or greater than the applicable maximum''; and
       (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following new 
     clause:
       ``(ii) Applicable percentages.--For purposes of clause 
     (i)--

       ``(I) the term `applicable minimum percentage' for a year 
     means zero percent for years before 2003 and 2.0 percent for 
     years after 2002; and
       ``(II) the term `applicable maximum percentage' for a year 
     means 2.5 percent for years before 2003 and 3.0 percent for 
     years after 2002.''; and

       (2) in subparagraph (D)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Transitional authority'' 
     and inserting ``Flexibility''; and
       (B) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``for 
     covered OPD services furnished before January 1, 2002,''.

     SEC. 7. ADJUSTMENT TO LIMIT DECLINE IN PAYMENT.

       Section 1833(t)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(t)(7)) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``Transitional adjustment'' 
     and inserting ``Adjustment'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Before 2002'' and 
     inserting ``In general'';
       (B) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (B)'';
       (ii) by striking ``furnished before January 1, 2002,''; and
       (iii) by striking ``subparagraph (E)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (C)''; and
       (C) in clause (i), by striking ``subparagraph (F)'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraph (D)'';
       (3) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Hold harmless provisions.--
       ``(i) Cancer, children's, and small rural hospitals.--In 
     the case of a hospital that is described in clause (iii) or 
     (v) of section 1886(d)(1)(B) or is located in a rural area 
     and has not more than 100 beds, for covered OPD services--

       ``(I) that are furnished on or after the date on which 
     payment is first made under this subsection; and
       ``(II) for which the PPS amount is less than the pre-BBA 
     amount (or for services furnished on or after January 1, 
     2002, is less than the greater of the pre-BBA amount or the 
     reasonable costs incurred in furnishing such services),

     the amount of payment under this subsection shall be 
     increased by the amount of such difference.
       ``(ii) Eye and ear hospitals.--In the case of a hospital or 
     unit described in subsection (i)(4), for covered OPD 
     services--

       ``(I) that are furnished on or after January 1, 2002; and
       ``(II) for which the PPS amount is less than the greater of 
     the base year amount (which for purposes of this subparagraph 
     shall be determined in the same manner as the pre-BBA amount 
     under subparagraph (D), except that clause (ii)(I) of such 
     subparagraph shall be applied by substituting `2001' for 
     `1996') or the reasonable costs incurred in furnishing such 
     services,

     the amount of payment under this subsection shall be 
     increased by the amount of such difference.'';
       (4) in subparagraph (F)(ii)(I), by striking ``subparagraph 
     (E)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (C)''; and
       (5) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and redesignating 
     subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), and (I) as 
     subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), and (G), respectively.

     SEC. 8. SPECIAL INCREASE IN CERTAIN RELATIVE PAYMENT WEIGHTS.

       Section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(t)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(D)(ii), as amended by section 
     2(a)(3)(B), by striking ``or paragraph (13)(C)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (13)(C), or paragraph (14)'';
       (2) in paragraph (9)(B)(i), as amended by section 2(a)(4), 
     by inserting ``determined without regard to expenditures made 
     by reason of the adjustments required by paragraph (14)'' 
     after ``paragraph (13)'';
       (3) in paragraph (12)(C), by striking ``paragraph (6)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (9) (including adjustments authorized 
     by paragraph (14))''; and
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (14) (as redesignated by 
     section 2(a)(5)) as paragraph (15) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (13) the following new paragraph:
       ``(14) Requirement to increase relative payment weights in 
     certain circumstances.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the methodologies 
     specified for determining relative payment weights described 
     in paragraphs (2)(C) and (9)(A), for years beginning with 
     2002, the Secretary shall, as part of the revisions required 
     by paragraph (9)(A), increase the relative payment weight for 
     any group established or revised under paragraph (2)(C) or 
     (9)(A), respectively, above the weight that would otherwise 
     apply to such group under this subsection if the Secretary 
     determines that such an increase is necessary to ensure that 
     the medicare OPD fee schedule amount for the group for the 
     year is not less than 90 percent of the median costs for 
     services classified within the group.
       ``(B) Priorities.--For purposes of providing for increases 
     under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give priority 
     first to preventive services, second to cancer services, 
     third to services for which the medicare OPD fee schedule 
     amount that would otherwise apply is less the payment level 
     under this title for such services in other settings, and 
     fourth to other services.
       ``(C) Data.--The Secretary may base increases under 
     subparagraph (A) on data from any source and is not limited 
     to data appropriate for estimating the costs incurred by 
     hospitals in furnishing such services.
       ``(D) Aggregate expenditures.--Notwithstanding the 
     application of the percentage specified under subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary shall provide for increases under such 
     subparagraph for each year so that the estimated amount of 
     additional expenditures attributable to adjustments under 
     such subparagraph is not less than $1,000,000,000 in such 
     year.''.

     SEC. 9. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF PROVIDER-BASED STATUS.

       Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 404(a) of the Medicare, 
     Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act 
     of 2000 (113 Stat. 2763A-506), as enacted into law by section 
     1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, are each amended by striking 
     ``until October 1, 2002''.
                                  ____



                                American Hospital Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of our nearly 5,000 
     hospital, health care system, network and other health care 
     provider members, the American Hospital Association is 
     writing to express our strong support for the Medicare 
     Hospital Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002 that you have 
     introduced with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). We believe this 
     bill is an essential component to ensuring that America's 
     Medicare patients receive emergency care and outpatient 
     services, and have equal access to the newest medical 
     technologies.
       As hospital care continues to shift to the outpatient 
     setting, it is imperative that Congress begins to address the 
     complex operational issues and payment inequities created by 
     the outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS). While the 
     OPPS was created to give providers incentives to deliver 
     quality care in an efficient manner, outpatient payment rates 
     were set at a level substantially below the costs hospitals 
     incur caring for Medicare patients. Medicare currently pays 
     hospitals only 84 cents for every dollar of outpatient care 
     provided.
       Your comprehensive legislation would address problems in 
     the OPPS by extending and enhancing provisions that ensure 
     patient care is not disrupted as hospitals transition into 
     OPPS. We applaud your leadership on this important issue and 
     support swift enactment of this legislation. We look forward 
     to working with you further on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rick Pollack,
                                         Executive Vice President.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague and 
good friend Senator Bingaman to introduce the Medicare Hospital 
Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002. We are introducing this bill 
because of the critical importance of outpatient health care services 
and the devastating impact that the substantial reduction in Medicare 
payments for outpatient services will have on the delivery of care. Our 
legislation will increase payment rates for outpatient care to adequate 
levels to ensure appropriate access to outpatient care for our Nation's 
seniors. In addition, since the implementation of the new outpatient 
prospective payment system in August 2000, it has become evident that 
changes are needed, and this legislation proposes important reforms 
that will make the system work better for Medicare and for our Nation's 
seniors.
  Our Nation's seniors rely upon outpatient care delivered through the 
Medicare program. This is the result of trends in medical care that 
will continue to place a greater emphasis on

[[Page S4720]]

the outpatient setting. According to Medpac, the number of outpatient 
visits increased 73 percent during the 1990s and nearly 5 percent in 
2001 alone. New technologies and advances in medicine have made it 
possible for more and more care to be provided on an outpatient basis, 
which eliminates the need for an overnight hospital stay. This reduces 
the cost of care and gets the patient home sooner where recovery can 
begin. This trend will continue and underscores the importance of 
having an appropriate Medicare payment system for outpatient care.

  Without these vitally needed changes in the Medicare outpatient 
payment system, our medical care infrastructure will suffer and patient 
care will be harmed. This March, the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission, Medpac, estimated that the aggregate margin for outpatient 
services would be minus 16.3 percent in 2002.
  Congress created temporary additional payments, or transitional 
``pass-through'' payments, for certain innovative medical devices, 
drugs and biologicals in the Balanced Budget Refinement Act, BBRA, of 
1999. By establishing the pass-through pool, Congress ensured Medicare 
beneficiaries would have access to the latest medical technologies. 
These pass-through payments were capped at 2.5 percent of total 
outpatient payments prior to 2004, and the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, CMS, is required by law to make a proportional 
reduction for all pass-through payments if that cap is exceeded. In 
March 2002, CMS announced a dramatic reduction in pass-through payments 
of 63.6 percent.
  CMS took steps to avoid even greater reductions in the pass through 
payments by incorporating 75 percent of the device costs into the base 
ambulatory payment classifications, APC, amounts. Due to a 
Congressionally-mandated requirement, CMS was required to make this 
adjustment on a budget neutral basis, with no recognition for the 
impact of this shift in payment. As a result, Medicare payments were 
shifted from low-tech services to high-tech services. In addition, 
incorporating 75 percent of device costs into the APCs led to a budget-
neutrality adjustment of minus 7.2 percent, causing a substantial 
reduction in the OPPS fee schedule amounts for 2002.
  These shifts in payments that resulted from actions Congress took in 
the BBRA are greater than intended when it was first enacted. It is 
clear that corrections to the system are needed. Ironically, if these 
problems with outpatient payments are not corrected, hospitals will be 
forced to admit patients into the hospital for treatment that could 
have been provided more efficiently on an outpatient basis.
  To address these problems, we are introducing the Medicare Hospital 
Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002. This comprehensive legislation 
would address problems within the current Medicare hospital outpatient 
payment system. Specifically, it would address the problems outlined 
here by; increasing extremely underfunded emergency room and clinic 
ambulatory payment classifications, APC, rates by 10 percent and 
requiring an increase in overall outpatient payments to 90 percent of 
overall costs, still 10 percent less than hospitals spend in delivering 
necessary outpatient care, but an improvement on the current payment of 
just 84 percent of costs; limiting the pro rata reduction in pass-
through payments to 20 percent; and limiting the budget neutrality 
adjustment to no more than 2.0 percent.
  Furthermore, the bill improves and extends transitional corridor 
payments to rural hospitals, cancer hospitals, and children's 
hospitals, and extends the provision to designated eye and ear 
specialty hospitals.
  We believe these changes are necessary if we are to preserve the 
quality of care in the outpatient setting that seniors deserve. Our 
Nation's seniors rely upon the health care services provided in the 
outpatient setting and we invite our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to join us in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2548. A bill to amend the temporary assistance to needy families 
program under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to improve 
the provision of education and job training under that program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Education 
Works Act.
  In 1996, legislation was passed which made major changes to our 
welfare laws. Since then, we know that the welfare rolls in most States 
have dramatically decreased. But reforming welfare is not just about 
reducing welfare rolls; welfare reform must ultimately be about helping 
poor individuals achieve self-sufficiency. While many have left welfare 
for work during the past several years, too many have been left behind 
because they don't have a high school degree, have little or no work 
history, have health problems, are in abusive relationships, or are 
dealing with other circumstances that make it difficult to work. In 
addition, those who have secured work are working at low wages with 
limited benefits. These parents experience little earning growth over 
time, because there are limited opportunities for mobility for those 
with low skill levels. As we move forward with the reauthorization 
process, we must do more to support state efforts to help these people 
find work and to ensure that all individuals leaving welfare are moving 
to employment that will provide long-term financial independence. The 
Education Works Act will do just that.
  We know that the welfare programs that have been most successful in 
helping parents work and earn more over the long run are those that 
have focused on employment but made substantial use of education and 
training, together with job search and other employment services. In 
addition, studies find that helping low-income parents increase their 
skills pays off in the labor market, particularly through participation 
in vocational training and postsecondary education and training.
  Yet, less than one percent of Federal TANF funds were spent on 
education and training in 2000 and only five percent of TANF recipients 
participated in these activities in the same year. This is due in large 
part to the fact that the '96 law discouraged States from allowing 
welfare recipients to participate in education and training programs. 
Specifically, the law limits the extent to which education activities 
count toward Federal work participation requirements, effectively 
restricting how long individuals can participate in training and 
capping how many individuals can receive these services.
  The Education Works Act would change this by: clarifying that States 
have the flexibility to allow participation in postsecondary, 
vocational English as a Second Language, and basic adult education 
programs by TANF recipients as part of the TANF work requirements; 
giving States the flexibility to determine how long each participant 
may participate in education and training activities while receiving 
benefits; giving States the flexibility to provide childcare and 
transportation supports, but not cash benefits, to parents and not toll 
the 5 year time limit for these individuals if they are participating 
in a full-time education program that will lead to work and long-term 
independence; and eliminating the 30 percent cap on the number of TANF 
recipients that can participate in education and training programs in 
fulfillment of their work requirements
  These are not radical changes. They do not discourage work, but 
rather enable it.
  It is important to note that of the 21 States that have operated 
under TANF waivers since 1996, 18 of them had waivers of the 
requirements we are talking about here. Delaware, Indiana, Montana, 
Tennesee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Oregon to name a few. The other 32 
States should be given the same flexibility.
  In my home State, we have recognized the important role that 
education and training, including postsecondary education, can play in 
helping some welfare recipients to improve their skills so that they 
can get off welfare and stay off welfare. In our State, we already have 
an ``Education Works'' program in place. But this program is limited to 
only 400 participants statewide, because the limitations in the TANF 
program make it impossible to use Federal TANF funds to implement it. 
This just doesn't make sense to me. We should give states the 
flexibility they need to implement the

[[Page S4721]]

types of programs that they believe work best. We should hold them 
accountable for decreasing caseloads over time and, more importantly, 
demonstrating that those leaving welfare are economically self-
sufficient, but we should let them decide how to reach those goals. The 
Education Works Act would allow them to do just that. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  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. 2548

       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 ``Education Works Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC. 2. COUNTING EDUCATION AND TRAINING AS WORK.

       Section 407(d)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     607(d)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) participation in vocational educational training, 
     postsecondary education, an English-as-a-second-language 
     program, or an adult basic education program;''.

     SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF LIMIT ON NUMBER OF TANF RECIPIENTS 
                   ENROLLED IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION OR HIGH SCHOOL 
                   WHO MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE WORK 
                   PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT.

       Section 407(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     607(c)(2)) is amended by striking subparagraph (D).

     SEC. 4. NONAPPLICATION OF TIME LIMIT TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DO 
                   NOT RECEIVE CASH ASSISTANCE AND ARE ENGAGED IN 
                   EDUCATION OR EMPLOYMENT.

       Section 408(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     608(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) Limitation on meaning of `assistance' for certain 
     individuals.--For purposes of this paragraph, child care or 
     transportation benefits provided during a month under the 
     State program funded under this part to an individual who is 
     participating in a full-time educational program or who is 
     employed shall not be considered assistance under the State 
     program.''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October 
     1, 2002, and shall apply to payments made under part A of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act for calendar quarters 
     beginning on or after such date, without regard to whether 
     regulations to implement the amendments are promulgated by 
     such date.
       (b) Delay Permitted if State Legislation Required.--In the 
     case of a State plan under section 402(a) of the Social 
     Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     determines requires State legislation (other than legislation 
     appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the 
     additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by 
     this Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to 
     comply with the requirements of such section 402(a) solely on 
     the basis of the failure of the plan to meet such additional 
     requirements before the 1st day of the 1st calendar quarter 
     beginning after the close of the 1st regular session of the 
     State legislature that begins after the date of enactment of 
     this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case 
     of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year 
     of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular 
     session of the State legislature.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 2550. A bill to amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1966, 
and to establish the United States Boxing Administration; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCain. 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. 2550

       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 
     ``Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Title I--Professional Boxing Safety Act Amendments
Sec. 101. Amendment of professional boxing safety act of 1996.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Purposes.
Sec. 104. Matches in jurisdictions without commissions.
Sec. 105. Safety standards.
Sec. 106. Registration.
Sec. 107. Review.
Sec. 108. Reporting.
Sec. 109. Contract requirements.
Sec. 110. Coercive contracts.
Sec. 111. Sanctioning organizations.
Sec. 112. Required disclosures by sanctioning organizations.
Sec. 113. Required disclosures by promoters.
Sec. 114. Confidentiality.
Sec. 115. Judges and referees.
Sec. 116. Medical registry.
Sec. 117. Recognition of tribal law.
Sec. 118. Establishment of United States Boxing Administration.
Sec. 119. Effective date.

           TITLE I--PROFESSIONAL BOXING SAFETY ACT AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF PROFESSIONAL BOXING SAFETY ACT OF 
                   1996.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 
     (15 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2 (15 U.S.C. 6301) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Bout agreement.--The term `bout agreement' means a 
     contract between a promoter and a boxer which requires the 
     boxer to participate in a professional boxing match with a 
     designated opponent on a particular date.
       ``(2) Boxer.--The term `boxer' means an individual who 
     fights in a professional boxing match.
       ``(3) Boxing commission.--The term `boxing commission' 
     means an entity authorized under State or tribal law to 
     regulate professional boxing matches.
       ``(4) Boxer registry.--The term `boxer registry' means any 
     entity certified by the Association of Boxing Commissions for 
     the purposes of maintaining records and identification of 
     boxers.
       ``(5) Boxing service provider.--The term `boxing service 
     provider' means a promoter, manager, sanctioning body, 
     licensee, or matchmaker.
       ``(6) Contract provision.--The term `contract provision' 
     means any legal obligation between a boxer and a boxing 
     service provider.
       ``(7) Indian lands; indian tribe.--The terms `Indian lands' 
     and `Indian tribe' have the meanings given those terms by 
     paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively, of section 4 of the 
     Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703).
       ``(8) Licensee.--The term `licensee' means an individual 
     who serves as a trainer, second, or cut man for a boxer.
       ``(9) Local boxing authority.--The term `local boxing 
     authority' means--
       ``(A) any agency of a State, or of a political subdivision 
     of a State, that has authority under the laws of the State to 
     regulate professional boxing; and
       ``(B) any agency of an Indian tribe that is authorized by 
     the Indian tribe or the governing body of the Indian tribe to 
     regulate professional boxing on Indian lands.
       ``(10) Manager.--The term `manager' means a person who, 
     under contract, agreement, or other arrangement with a boxer, 
     undertakes to control or administer, directly or indirectly, 
     a boxing-related matter on behalf of that boxer, including a 
     person who is a booking agent for a boxer.
       ``(11) Matchmaker.--The term `matchmaker' means a person 
     that proposes, selects, and arranges the boxers to 
     participate in a professional boxing match.
       ``(12) Physician.--The term `physician' means a doctor of 
     medicine legally authorized to practice medicine by the State 
     in which the physician performs such function or action.
       ``(13) Professional boxing match.--The term `professional 
     boxing match' means a boxing contest held in the United 
     States between individuals for financial compensation. The 
     term `professional boxing match' term does not include a 
     boxing contest that is regulated by a duly recognized amateur 
     sports organization, as approved by the Administration.
       ``(14) Promoter.--The term `promoter' means the person 
     primarily responsible for organizing, promoting, and 
     producing a professional boxing match. The term `promoter' 
     does not include a hotel, casino, resort, or other commercial 
     establishment hosting or sponsoring a professional boxing 
     match unless--
       ``(A) the hotel, casino, resort, or other commercial 
     establishment is primarily responsible for organizing, 
     promoting, and producing the match; and
       ``(B) there is no other person primarily responsible for 
     organizing, promoting, and producing the match.
       ``(15) Promotional agreement.--The term `promotional 
     agreement' means a contract between a promoter and a boxer 
     under which the boxer grants to a promoter the exclusive 
     right to secure and arrange all professional boxing matches 
     requiring the boxer's services for--
       ``(A) a prescribed period of time; or
       ``(B) a prescribed number of professional boxing matches.
       ``(16) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 
     States, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and any 
     territory or possession of

[[Page S4722]]

     the United States, including the Virgin Islands.
       ``(17) Effective date of the contract.--The term `effective 
     date of the contract' means the day upon which a boxer 
     becomes legally bound by the contract.
       ``(18) Sanctioning organization.--The term `sanctioning 
     organization' means an organization, other than a boxing 
     commission, that sanctions professional boxing matches, ranks 
     professional boxers, or charges a sanctioning fee for 
     professional boxing matches in the United States--
       ``(A) between boxers who are residents of different States; 
     or
       ``(B) that are advertised, otherwise promoted, or broadcast 
     (including closed circuit television) in interstate commerce.
       ``(19) Suspension.--The term `suspension' includes within 
     its meaning the revocation of a boxing license.
       ``(20) Tribal organization.--The term `tribal organization' 
     has the same meaning as in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(l)).
       ``(21) United States Boxing Administration.--The terms 
     `United States Boxing Administration' and `Administration' 
     means the United States Boxing Administration established by 
     section 202.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 21 (15 U.S.C. 6312) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 21. PROFESSIONAL BOXING MATCHES CONDUCTED ON INDIAN 
                   LANDS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an Indian tribe shall establish a boxing commission--
       ``(1) to regulate professional boxing matches held within 
     the reservation under the jurisdiction of that tribal 
     organization; and
       ``(2) to carry out that regulation or enter into a contract 
     with a boxing commission to carry out that regulation.
       ``(b) Standards and Licensing.--If a tribal organization 
     regulates professional boxing matches pursuant to subsection 
     (a), the tribal organization shall, by tribal ordinance or 
     resolution, establish and provide for the implementation of 
     health and safety standards, licensing requirements, and 
     other requirements relating to the conduct of professional 
     boxing matches that are at least as restrictive as--
       ``(1) the otherwise applicable standards and requirements 
     of a State in which the Indian lands are located; or
       ``(2) the most recently published version of the 
     recommended regulatory guidelines published by the United 
     States Boxing Administration.''.

     SEC. 103. PURPOSES.

       Section 3(2) (15 U.S.C. 6302(2)) is amended by striking 
     `State'.

     SEC. 104. MATCHES IN JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT COMMISSIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4 (15 U.S.C. 6303) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 4. BOXING MATCHES IN JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT BOXING 
                   COMMISSIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--No person may arrange, promote, 
     organize, produce, or fight in a professional boxing match in 
     a State or on Indian land unless the match--
       ``(1) is approved by the United States Boxing 
     Administration; and
       ``(2) is supervised by a boxing commission that is a member 
     of the Association of Boxing Commissions.
       ``(b) Approval Presumed.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     the Administration shall be presumed to have approved any 
     match other than--
       ``(1) a match with respect to which the Administration has 
     notified the supervising boxing commission that it does not 
     approve;
       ``(2) a match advertised to the public as a championship 
     match; or
       ``(3) a match scheduled for 10 rounds or more.
       ``(c) Notification; Assurances.--Each promoter who intends 
     to hold a professional boxing match in a State that does not 
     have a boxing commission shall, not later than 14 days before 
     the intended date of that match, provide in writing to the 
     Administration and the supervising boxing commission, 
     assurances that all applicable requirements of this Act will 
     be met with respect to that professional boxing match.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 19 (15 U.S.C. 6310) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 105. SAFETY STANDARDS.

       Section 5 (15 U.S.C. 6304) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``requirements or an alternative 
     requirement in effect under regulations of a boxing 
     commission that provides equivalent protection of the health 
     and safety of boxers:'' and inserting ``requirements:'';
       (2) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) ``The examination 
     shall include testing for infectious diseases in accordance 
     with standards established by the Administration.'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) An ambulance continuously present on site.'';
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively, and inserting after paragraph (2) 
     the following:
       ``(3) Emergency medical personnel with appropriate 
     resuscitation equipment continuously present on site.''; and
       (5) by striking ``match.'' in paragraph (5), as 
     redesignated, and inserting ``match in an amount prescribed 
     by Administration.''.

     SEC. 106. REGISTRATION.

       Section 6 (15 U.S.C. 6305) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``State'' the 
     second place it appears in subsection (a)(2);
       (2) by striking the first sentence of subsection (c) and 
     inserting ``A boxing commission shall, in accordance with 
     requirements established by the United States Boxing 
     Administration, make a health and safety disclosure to a 
     boxer when issuing an identification card to that boxer.'';
       (3) by striking ``should'' in the second sentence of 
     subsection (c) and inserting ``shall, at a minimum,''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Copy of Registration To Be Sent to USBA.--A boxing 
     commission shall furnish a copy of each registration received 
     under subsection (a) to the United States Boxing 
     Administration.''.

     SEC. 107. REVIEW.

       Section 7 (15 U.S.C. 6306) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (a) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Procedures to review a summary suspension when a 
     hearing before the boxing commission is requested by a boxer, 
     licensee, manager, matchmaker, promoter, or other boxing 
     service provider which provides an opportunity for that 
     person to present evidence.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b); and
       (3) by striking ``(a) Procedures.--''..

     SEC. 108. REPORTING.

       Section 8 (15 U.S.C. 6307) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``48 business hours'' and inserting ``2 
     business days''; and
       (2) by striking ``each boxer registry.'' and inserting 
     ``the United States Boxing Administration.''.

     SEC. 109. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 9 (15 U.S.C. 6307a) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 9. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The United States Boxing Administration, 
     in consultation with the Association of Boxing Commissions, 
     shall develop guidelines for minimum contractual provisions 
     that should be included in bout agreements and boxer-manager 
     contracts. Each boxing commission shall ensure that these 
     minimal contractual provisions are present in any such 
     agreement or contract submitted to it.
       ``(b) Filing Requirement.--A boxing commission may not 
     approve a professional boxing match unless a copy of the bout 
     agreement related to that match has been filed with it.
       ``(c) Bond or Other Surety.--A boxing commission may not 
     approve a professional boxing match unless the promoter of 
     that match has posted a surety bond, cashier's check, letter 
     of credit, cash, or other security with the boxing commission 
     in an amount acceptable to the boxing commission and the 
     Administration.''.

     SEC. 110. COERCIVE CONTRACTS.

       Section 10 (15 U.S.C. 6307b) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (3) of subsection (a);
       (2) by inserting ``or elimination'' after ``mandatory'' in 
     subsection (b).

     SEC. 111. SANCTIONING ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 11 (15 U.S.C. 6307c) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Objective Criteria.--Within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2002, 
     the United States Boxing Administration, in consultation with 
     the Association of Boxing Commissions, shall develop 
     guidelines for objective and consistent written criteria for 
     the rating of professional boxers which shall include the 
     athletic merits of the boxers. Within 90 days after the 
     Administration's promulgation of the guidelines, each 
     sanctioning organization shall adopt the guidelines and 
     follow them.'';
       (2) by striking so much of subsection (b) as precedes 
     paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Appeals Process.--If a sanctioning organization 
     receives a request from a boxer questioning that 
     organization's rating of the boxer, it shall (except to the 
     extent otherwise required by the United States Boxing 
     Administration), within 7 days after receiving the request--
     '';
       (3) by inserting ``rating'' before ``criteria'' in 
     subsection (b)(1);
       (4) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subsection 
     (c)(1);
       (5) by striking ``an association to which at least a 
     majority of the State boxing commissions belong.'' in 
     subsection (c)(2) and inserting ``the boxer and the 
     Administration.;'';
       (6) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following:
       ``(3) provides the boxer an opportunity to appeal the 
     ratings change; and
       ``(4) applies the objective criteria for ratings required 
     under subsection (a) in considering any such appeal.''; and
       (7) by striking ``rating;'' in subsection (d)(1)(C) and 
     inserting ``rating, which incorporates the objective criteria 
     for ratings required under subsection (a);''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 11(d)(1) (15 U.S.C. 
     6307c(d)(1)) is amended by striking ``ABC--'' and inserting 
     ``Association of Boxing Commissions--''.

     SEC. 112. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES BY SANCTIONING ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 12 (15 U.S.C. 6307d) is amended--
       (1) by striking the matter preceding paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``Within 7 days after a professional boxing match 
     of 10 rounds or more, the sanctioning organization for that 
     match shall provide to the boxing commission in the State or 
     on the Indian lands responsible for regulating the match a 
     statement of--'';

[[Page S4723]]

       (2) by striking ``will assess'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``has assessed, or will assess,''; and
       (3) by striking ``will receive'' in paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``has received, or will receive,''.

     SEC. 113. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES BY PROMOTERS.

       Section 13 (15 U.S.C. 6307e) is amended--
       (1) by striking the matter in subsection (a) preceding 
     paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Disclosures to the Boxing Commissions.--Within 7 days 
     after a professional boxing match of 10 rounds or more, the 
     promoter of any boxer participating in that match shall 
     provide to the boxing commission in the State responsible for 
     regulating the match and the Administration--'';
       (2) by striking ``writing,'' in subsection (a)(1) and 
     inserting ``writing, other than a bout agreement previously 
     provided to the commission,'';
       (3) by striking ``all fees, charges, and expenses that will 
     be'' in subsection (a)(3)(A) and inserting ``a statement of 
     all fees, charges, and expenses that have been, or will 
     be,'';
       (4) by striking the matter in subsection (b) following 
     ``Boxer.--'' and preceding paragraph (1) and inserting 
     ``Within 7 days after a professional boxing match of 10 
     rounds or more, the promoter of any boxer participating in 
     that match with whom the promoter has a promotional agreement 
     shall provide to each boxer participating in the match--''; 
     and
       (5) by striking ``match;'' in subsection (b)(1) and 
     inserting ``match, or that the promoter has paid, or agreed 
     to pay, to any other person in connection with the match;''.

     SEC. 114. CONFIDENTIALITY.

       Section 15 (15 U.S.C. 6307g) is repealed.

     SEC. 115. JUDGES AND REFEREES.

       (a) In General.--Section 16 (15 U.S.C. 6307h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Licensing and Assignment 
     Requirement.--'' before ``No person'';
       (2) by inserting ``or Indian lands'' after ``State''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Championship and 10-round Bouts.--In addition to the 
     requirements of subsection (a), no person may arrange, 
     promote, organize, produce, or fight in a professional boxing 
     match advertised to the public as a championship match or in 
     a professional boxing match scheduled for 10 rounds or more 
     unless all referees and judges participating in the match 
     have been licensed by the United States Boxing 
     Administration.
       ``(c) Sanctioning Organization To Provide List.--A 
     sanctioning organization--
       ``(1) shall provide a list of judges and referees deemed 
     qualified by that organization to a boxing commission; but
       ``(2) may not influence, or attempt to influence, a boxing 
     commission's selection of a judge or referee for a 
     professional boxing match except by providing such a list.
       ``(d) Assignment of Nonresident Judges and Referees.--A 
     boxing commission may assign judges and referees who reside 
     outside that commission's State or tribal land if the judge 
     or referee is licensed by a boxing commission.
       ``(e) Required Disclosure.--A judge or referee shall 
     provide to the boxing commission responsible for regulating a 
     professional boxing match in a State or on Indian lands a 
     statement of all consideration, including reimbursement for 
     expenses, that the judge or referee has received, or will 
     receive, from any source for participation in the match. If 
     the match is scheduled for 10 rounds or more, the judge or 
     referee shall also provide such a statement to the 
     Administration.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 14 (15 U.S.C. 6307f) is repealed.
       (2) Section 18(b)(2) (15 U.S.C. 6309(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``14,''.

     SEC. 116. MEDICAL REGISTRY.

       The Act is amended by inserting after section 13 (15 U.S.C. 
     6307e) the following:

     ``SEC. 14. MEDICAL REGISTRY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administration , in consultation 
     with the Association of Boxing Commissions, shall establish 
     and maintain, or certify a third party entity to establish 
     and maintain, a medical registry that contains comprehensive 
     medical records and medical suspensions for every licensed 
     boxer.
       ``(b) Content; Submission.--The Administration shall 
     determine--
       ``(1) the nature of medical records and medical suspensions 
     of a boxer that are to be forwarded to the medical registry; 
     and
       ``(2) the time within which the medical records and medical 
     suspensions are to be submitted to the medical registry.
       ``(c) Confidentiality.--The Administration shall establish 
     confidentiality standards for the disclosure of personally 
     identifiable information to sanctioning organizations that 
     will--
       ``(1) protect the health and safety of boxers by making 
     relevant information available to the organizations for use 
     but not public disclosure; and
       ``(2) ensure that the privacy of the boxers is 
     protected.''.

     SEC. 117. RECOGNITION OF TRIBAL LAW.

       Section 22 (15 U.S.C. 6313) is amended--
       (1) by insert ``OR TRIBAL'' in the section heading after 
     ``STATE''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``State''.

     SEC. 118. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITED STATES BOXING 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       The Act is amended by adding at the end the following:

            ``TITLE II--UNITED STATES BOXING ADMINISTRATION

``Sec. 201. Purpose.
``Sec. 202. Establishment of United States Boxing Administration.
``Sec. 203. Functions.
``Sec. 204. Licensing and registration of boxing personnel.
``Sec. 205. National registry of boxing personnel.
``Sec. 206. Consultation requirements.
``Sec. 207. Misconduct.
``Sec. 208. Noninterference with local boxing authorities.
``Sec. 209. Assistance from other agencies.
``Sec. 210. Reports.
``Sec. 211. Initial implementation.
``Sec. 212. Authorization of appropriations.

     ``SEC. 201. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this title is to protect the health and 
     safety of boxers and to ensure fairness in the sport.

     ``SEC. 202. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITED STATES BOXING 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       ``The United States Boxing Administration is established as 
     an administration of the Department of Labor.
       ``(b) Administrator.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--The Administration shall be headed by 
     an Administrator, appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate.
       ``(2) Qualifications.--The Administrator shall be--
       ``(A) an individual with experience in a field directly 
     related to professional sports; and
       ``(B) selected on the basis of the individual's training, 
     experience, and qualifications and without regard to party 
     affiliation.
       ``(3) Compensation.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``The Administrator of the United States Boxing 
     Administration.''.
       ``(c) Assistant Administrator; General Counsel.--The 
     Administration shall have an Assistant Administrator and a 
     General Counsel, who shall be appointed by the Administrator. 
     The Assistant Administrator shall--
       ``(1) serve as Administrator in the absence of the 
     Administrator or in the event of a vacancy in that office; 
     and
       ``(2) carry out such duties as the Administrator may 
     assign.
       ``(d) Staff.--The Administration shall have such additional 
     staff as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     Administration.

     ``SEC. 203. FUNCTIONS.

       ``(a) Primary Function.--The primary function of the 
     Administration is to protect the health, safety, and general 
     interests of boxers consistent with the provisions of this 
     Act.
       ``(b) Specific Functions.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(1) administer title I of this Act;
       ``(2) except as otherwise determined by the Administration, 
     oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States;
       ``(3) work with sanctioning organizations, the Association 
     of Boxing Commissions, and the boxing commissions of the 
     several States and tribal organizations--
       ``(A) to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism 
     of professional boxing in the United States;
       ``(B) to enhance physical, medical, financial, and other 
     safeguards established for the protection of professional 
     boxers; and
       ``(C) to improve the status and standards of professional 
     boxing in the United States;
       ``(4) ensure, through the Attorney General, the Federal 
     Trade Commission, and other appropriate officers and agencies 
     of the Federal government, that Federal and State laws 
     applicable to professional boxing matches in the United 
     States are vigorously, effectively, and fairly enforced;
       ``(5) review local boxing authority regulations for 
     professional boxing and provide assistance to such 
     authorities in meeting minimum standards prescribed by the 
     Administration under this title;
       ``(6) serve as the coordinating body for all efforts in the 
     United States to establish and maintain uniform minimum 
     health and safety standards for professional boxing;
       ``(7) if the Administrator determines it to be appropriate, 
     publish a newspaper, magazine, or other publication 
     consistent with the purposes of the Administration;
       ``(8) procure the temporary and intermittent services of 
     experts and consultants to the extent authorized by section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates the 
     Administration determines to be reasonable; and
       ``(9) take any other action that is necessary and proper to 
     accomplish the purpose of this title consistent with the 
     provisions of this title.
       ``(c) Prohibitions.--The Administration may not--
       ``(1) promote boxing events or rank professional boxers; or
       ``(2) provide technical assistance to, or authorize the use 
     of the name of the Administration by, States and Indian 
     tribes that do not comply with requirements of the 
     Administration.
       ``(d) Use of Name.--The Administration shall have the 
     exclusive right to use the name `United States Boxing 
     Administration'. Any person who, without the permission of 
     the Administration, uses that name or any other exclusive 
     name, trademark, emblem, symbol, or insignia of the 
     Administration for the purpose of inducing the sale of

[[Page S4724]]

     any goods or services, or to promote any exhibition, 
     performance, or sporting event, shall be subject to suit in a 
     civil action by the Administration for the remedies provided 
     in the Act of July 5, 1946 (commonly known as the `Trademark 
     Act of 1946'; 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).

     ``SEC. 204. LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF BOXING PERSONNEL.

       ``(a) Licensing.--
       ``(1) Requirement for license.--No person may compete in a 
     professional boxing match, serve as a boxing manager, boxing 
     promoter, sanctioning organization, or broadcast a 
     professional boxing match except as provided in a license 
     granted to that person under this subsection.
       ``(2) Application and Term.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administration shall--
       ``(i) establish an application procedure, form, and fee;
       ``(ii) establish appropriate standards for licenses granted 
     under this section; and
       ``(iii) issue a license to any person who, as determined by 
     the Administration, meets the standards established by the 
     Administration under this title.
       ``(B) Duration.--A license issued under this section shall 
     be for a renewable--
       ``(i) 4-year term for a boxer; and
       ``(ii) 2-year term for any other person.
       ``(C) Procedure.--The Administration may issue a license 
     under this paragraph through local boxing authorities or in a 
     manner determined by the Administration.
       ``(b) Licensing Fees.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Administration may prescribe and 
     charge fees for the licensing of persons under this title. 
     The Administration may set, charge, and adjust varying fees 
     on the basis of classifications of persons, functions, and 
     events determined appropriate by the Administration.
       ``(2) Amounts.--The amounts of fees prescribed for a fiscal 
     year under this subsection shall be set at levels estimated, 
     when set, to yield collections in any total amount that is 
     not more than 10 percent of the total budget of the 
     Administration for that fiscal year.
       ``(3) Limitations.--In setting and charging fees under 
     paragraph (1), the Administration shall ensure that, to the 
     maximum extent practicable--
       ``(A) club boxing is not adversely effected;
       ``(B) sanctioning organizations and promoters pay the 
     largest portion of the fees; and
       ``(C) boxers pay as small a portion of the fees as is 
     possible.
       ``(4) Collection.--Fees established under this subsection 
     may be collected through local boxing authorities or by any 
     other means determined appropriate by the Administration. 
     Fees paid by boxing promoters may be derived from gross 
     receipts from professional boxing matches.
       ``(5) Deposit of collections.--Moneys received from fees 
     established under this section shall be deposited as an 
     offsetting collection in, and credited to, the account 
     providing appropriations to carry out the functions of the 
     Administration.

     ``SEC. 205. NATIONAL REGISTRY OF BOXING PERSONNEL.

       ``(a) Requirement for Registry.--The Administration shall 
     maintain a unified national computerized registry for the 
     collection, storage, and retrieval of information related to 
     the performance of its duties.
       ``(b) Contents.--The information in the registry shall 
     include the following:
       ``(1) Boxers.--A list of professional boxers and data in 
     the medical registry established under section 14 of this 
     Act, which the Administration shall secure from disclosure in 
     accordance with the confidentiality requirements of section 
     14(c).
       ``(2) Other personnel.--Information (pertinent to the sport 
     of professional boxing) on boxing promoters, boxing 
     matchmakers, boxing managers, trainers, cut men, referees, 
     boxing judges, physicians, and any other personnel determined 
     by the Administration as performing a professional activity 
     for professional boxing matches.

     ``SEC. 206. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS.

       ``The Administration shall consult with local boxing 
     authorities--
       ``(1) before prescribing any regulation or establishing any 
     standard under the provisions of this title; and
       ``(2) not less than once each year regarding matters 
     relating to professional boxing.

     ``SEC. 207. MISCONDUCT.

       ``(a) Suspension and Revocation of License or 
     Registration.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Administration may, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, suspend or revoke any license 
     issued under this title if the Administration finds that--
       ``(A) the suspension or revocation is necessary for the 
     protection of health and safety or is otherwise in the public 
     interest; or
       ``(B) there are reasonable grounds for belief that a 
     standard prescribed by the Administration under this title is 
     not being met, or that bribery, collusion, intentional 
     losing, racketeering, extortion, or the use of unlawful 
     threats, coercion, or intimidation have occurred in 
     connection with a license.
       ``(2) Period of suspension.--
       ``(A) In general.--A suspension of a license under this 
     section shall be effective for a period determined 
     appropriate by the Administration except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Suspension for medical reasons.--In the case of a 
     suspension of the license of a boxer for medical reasons, the 
     Administration may terminate the suspension at any time that 
     a physician certifies that the boxer is fit to participate in 
     a professional boxing match. The Administration shall 
     prescribe the standards and procedures for accepting 
     certifications under this subparagraph.
       ``(b) Investigations and Injunctions.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Administration may--
       ``(A) conduct any investigation that it considers necessary 
     to determine whether any person has violated, or is about to 
     violate, any provision of this title or any regulation 
     prescribed under this title;
       ``(B) require or permit any person to file with it a 
     statement in writing, under oath or otherwise as the 
     Administration shall determine, as to all the facts and 
     circumstances concerning the matter to be investigated;
       ``(C) in its discretion, publish information concerning any 
     violations; and
       ``(D) investigate any facts, conditions, practices, or 
     matters to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this 
     title, in the prescribing of regulations under this title, or 
     in securing information to serve as a basis for recommending 
     legislation concerning the matters to which this title 
     relates.
       ``(2) Powers.--
       ``(A) In general.--For the purpose of any investigation 
     under paragraph (1), or any other proceeding under this 
     title, any officer designated by the Administration may 
     administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena or otherwise 
     compel the attendance of witnesses, take evidence, and 
     require the production of any books, papers, correspondence, 
     memorandums, or other records which the Administration 
     considers relevant or material to the inquiry.
       ``(B) Witnesses and evidence.--The attendance of witnesses 
     and the production of any documents under subparagraph (A) 
     may be required from any place in the United States or any 
     State at any designated place of hearing.
       ``(3) Enforcement of subpoenas.--
       ``(A) Civil action.--In case of contumacy by, or refusal to 
     obey a subpoena issued to, any person, the Administration may 
     file an action in any court of the United States within the 
     jurisdiction of which an investigation or proceeding is 
     carried out, or where that person resides or carries on 
     business, to enforce the attendance and testimony of 
     witnesses and the production of books, papers, 
     correspondence, memorandums, and other records. The court may 
     issue an order requiring the person to appear before the 
     Administration to produce records, if so ordered, or to give 
     testimony concerning the matter under investigation or in 
     question.
       ``(B) Failure to obey.--Any failure to obey an order issued 
     by a court under subparagraph (A) may be punished as contempt 
     of that Court.
       ``(C) Process.--All process in any contempt case under 
     subparagraph (A) may be served in the judicial district in 
     which the person is an inhabitant or in which the person may 
     be found.
       ``(4) Evidence of criminal misconduct.--
       ``(A) In general.--No person may be excused from attending 
     and testifying or from producing books, papers, contracts, 
     agreements, and other records and documents before the 
     Administration, in obedience to the subpoena of the 
     Administration, or in any cause or proceeding instituted by 
     the Administration, on the ground that the testimony or 
     evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of that person 
     may tend to incriminate the person or subject the person to a 
     penalty or forfeiture.
       ``(B) Limited immunity.--No individual may be prosecuted or 
     subject to any penalty or forfeiture for, or on account of, 
     any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which that 
     individual is compelled, after having claimed a privilege 
     against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, 
     documentary or otherwise, except that the individual so 
     testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and 
     punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.
       ``(5) Injunctive relief.--If the Administration determines 
     that any person is engaged or about to engage in any act or 
     practice that constitutes a violation of any provision of 
     this title, or of any regulation prescribed under this title, 
     the Administration may bring an action in the appropriate 
     district court of the United States, the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia, or the United 
     States courts of any territory or other place subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States, to enjoin the act or 
     practice, and upon a proper showing, the court shall grant 
     without bond a permanent or temporary injunction or 
     restraining order.
       ``(6) Mandamus.--Upon application of the Administration, 
     the district courts of the United States, the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia, and the United 
     States courts of any territory or other place subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States, shall have jurisdiction to 
     issue writs of mandamus commanding any person to comply with 
     the provisions of this title or any order of the 
     Administration.
       ``(d) Intervention in Civil Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administration, on behalf of the 
     public interest, may intervene of right as provided under 
     rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in any 
     civil action relating to professional boxing filed in a 
     United States district court.
       ``(2) Amicus filing.--The Administration may file a brief 
     in any action filed in a court

[[Page S4725]]

     of the United States on behalf of the public interest in any 
     case relating to professional boxing.
       ``(e) Hearings by Administration.--Hearings conducted by 
     the Administration under this title may be public and may be 
     held before any officer of the Administration or before a 
     State boxing commission. The Administration shall keep 
     appropriate records of the hearings.

     ``SEC. 208. NONINTERFERENCE WITH LOCAL BOXING AUTHORITIES.

       ``(a) Noninterference.--Nothing in this title prohibits any 
     local boxing authority from exercising any of its powers, 
     duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or 
     supervision of professional boxing or professional boxing 
     matches to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of 
     this title.
       ``(b) Minimum Standards.--Nothing in this title prohibits 
     any local boxing authority from enforcing local standards or 
     requirements that exceed the minimum standards or 
     requirements promulgated by the Administration under this 
     title.

     ``SEC. 209. ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER AGENCIES.

       ``Any employee of any executive department, agency, bureau, 
     board, commission, office, independent establishment, or 
     instrumentality may be detailed to the Administration, upon 
     the request of the Administration, on a reimbursable or 
     nonreimbursable basis, with the consent of the appropriate 
     authority having jurisdiction over the employee. While so 
     detailed, an employee shall continue to receive the 
     compensation provided pursuant to law for the employee's 
     regular position of employment and shall retain, without 
     interruption, the rights and privileges of that employment.

     ``SEC. 210. REPORTS.

       ``(a) Annual Report.--The Administration shall submit a 
     report on its activities to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Commerce each year. The annual report shall 
     include the following:
       ``(1) A detailed discussion of the activities of the 
     Administration for the year covered by the report.
       ``(2) A description of the local boxing authority of each 
     State and Indian tribe.
       ``(b) Public Report.--The Administration shall annually 
     issue and publicize a report of the Administration on the 
     progress made at Federal and State levels and on Indian lands 
     in the reform of professional boxing and commenting on 
     issues of continuing concern to the Administration.
       ``(c) First Annual Report on the Administration.--The first 
     annual report under this title shall be submitted not later 
     than 2 years after the effective date of this title.

     ``SEC. 211. INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION.

       ``(a) Temporary exemption.--The requirements for licensing 
     under this title do not apply to a person for the performance 
     of an activity as a boxer, boxing judge, or referee, or the 
     performance of any other professional activity in relation to 
     a professional boxing match, if the person is licensed by a 
     State or Indian tribe to perform that activity as of the 
     effective date of this title.
       ``(b) Expiration.--The exemption under subsection (a) with 
     respect to a license issued by a State or Indian tribe 
     expires on the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date on which the license expires; or
       ``(B) the date that is 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     ``SEC. 212. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Administration for each fiscal year such sums as may 
     be necessary for the Administration to perform its functions 
     for that fiscal year.
       ``(b) Receipts Credited as Offsetting Collections.--
     Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, 
     any fee collected under this title--
       ``(1) shall be credited as offsetting collections to the 
     account that finances the activities and services for which 
     the fee is imposed;
       ``(2) shall be available for expenditure only to pay the 
     costs of activities and services for which the fee is 
     imposed; and
       ``(3) shall remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 119. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that the provisions of sections 202, 203, and 204 of 
     title II of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, as 
     added by section 118 of this Act, shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 2552. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security 
Act to give States the option to create a program that allows 
individuals receiving temporary assistance to needy families to obtain 
post-secondary or longer duration vocational education; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pathways to 
Self-Sufficiency Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined in introducing 
this important legislation by my colleagues Senators Baucus and 
Bingaman.
  This legislation is based upon the highly esteemed Maine program 
called Parents as Scholars. This program, which uses State Maintenance 
of Effort, (MOE), dollars to pay TANF-like benefits to those 
participating in post-secondary education, is a proven success in my 
State and is a wonderful foundation for a national effort.
  We all agree that the 1996 welfare reform effort changed the face of 
this Nation's welfare system to focus it on work. To that end, I 
believe that this legislation bolsters the emphasis on ``work first.'' 
Like many of my colleagues, I agree that the shift in the focus from 
welfare to work was the right decision, and that work should be the top 
priority. However, for those TANF recipients who cannot find a good job 
that will put them on the road toward financial independence, education 
might well be the key to a successful future of self-sufficiency.
  As we have seen in Maine that education has played a significant role 
in breaking the cycle of welfare and giving parents the skills 
necessary to find better paying jobs. And we all know that higher wages 
are the light at the end of the tunnel of public assistance.
  The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2002 provides State with the 
option to allow individuals receiving Federal TANF assistance to obtain 
post-secondary or vocational education. This legislation would give 
States the ability to use Federal TANF dollars to give those who are 
participating in vocational or post-secondary education the same 
assistance as they would receive if they were working.
  We all know that supports like income supplements, child care 
subsidies, and transportation assistance among others, are essential to 
a TANF recipient's ability to make a successful transition to work. The 
same is true for those engaged in longer term educational endeavors. 
This assistance is especially necessary for those who are undertaking 
the challenge and the financial responsibility of post-secondary 
education, in the hopes of increasing their earning potential and 
employability. The goal of this program is to give participants the 
tools necessary to succeed into the future so that they can become, and 
remain, self-sufficient.
  Choosing to go to college requires motivation, and graduating from 
college requires a great deal of commitment and work, even for someone 
who isn't raising children and sustaining a family. These are 
significant challenges, and that's even before taking into 
consideration the cost associated with obtaining a bachelor's degree, 
with a four year program at the University of Maine currently costing 
almost $25,000. This legislation would provide those TANF recipients 
who have the ability and the will to go to college the assistance they 
need to sustain their families while they get a degree.
  The value of promoting access to education in this manner to get 
people off public assistance is proven by the success of Maine's 
Parents as Scholars, PaS, program. Maine's PaS graduates earn a median 
wage of $11.71 per hour after graduation up from a median of $8.00 per 
hour prior to entering college. When compared to the $7.50 median 
hourly wage of welfare leavers in Maine who have not received a post-
secondary degree, PaS graduates are earning, on average, $160 more per 
week. That translates into more than $8,000 per year--a significant 
difference.
  Furthermore, the median grade point average for PaS participants 
while in college was 3.4 percent, and a full 90 percent of PaS 
participants' GPA was over 3.0. These parents are giving their all to 
pull their families out of the cycle of welfare.
  Recognizing that work is a priority under TANF, and building upon the 
successful Maine model, the Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act requires 
that participants in post-secondary and vocational education also 
participate in work. During the first two years of their participation 
in these education programs, students must participate in a combination 
of class time, study time, employment or work experience for at least 
24 hours per week, the same hourly requirement that the President 
proposes in his welfare reauthorization proposal.
  During the second two years, for those enrolled in a four year 
program, the participant must work at least 15 hours in addition to 
class and study time, or engage in a combination of activities, 
including class and study

[[Page S4726]]

time, work or work experience, and training, for an average of 30 hours 
per week. And all the while, participants must maintain satisfactory 
academic progress as defined by their academic institution.
  The bottom line is that if we expect parents to move from welfare to 
work and stay in the work force, we must give them the tools to find 
good jobs. For some people that means job training, for others that 
could mean dealing with a barrier like substance abuse or domestic 
violence, and for others, that might mean access to education that will 
secure them a good job and that will get them off and keep them off of 
welfare.
  The experience of several Parents as Scholars graduates were recently 
captured in a publication published by the Maine Equal Justice 
Partners, and their experiences are testament to the fact that this 
program is a critically important step in moving towards self-
sufficiency. In this report one PaS graduate said of her experience, 
``If it weren't for `Parents as Scholars' I would never have been able 
to attend college, afford child care, or put food on the table. Today, 
I would most likely be stuck in a low-wage job I hated, barely getting 
by . . . I can now give my children the future they deserve.''
  Another said, ``By earning my Bachelor's degree, I have become self 
sufficient. I was a waitress previously and would never have been able 
to support my daughter and I on the tips that I earned. I would 
encourage anyone to better their education if possible.''
  These are but a few comments from those who have benefited from 
access to post-secondary education. And, while these women have been 
able to attend college and pursue good jobs thanks to the good will and 
the support of the people of Maine, PaS has strained the State's 
budget. Giving States the option to use Federal dollars to support 
these participants will make a tremendous difference in their ability 
to sustain these programs which have proven results. In Maine, nearly 
90 percent of working graduates have left TANF permanently, and isn't 
that our ultimate goal?
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this 
legislation in the upcoming welfare reauthorization. It is a critical 
piece of the effort to move people from welfare to work permanently and 
it has been missing from the Federal program for too long.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2553. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to 
provide equitable treatment of Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will finally bring closure to the concerns of many Alaska Native 
veterans who served their country during the Vietnam war.
  When the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, was signed into 
law by President Nixon in 1971, many Alaska Natives were serving in our 
military. Because of their service, many were unable to apply for 
Native land allotments under the Native Allotment Act, a program that 
was ended with the enactment of ANCSA. Alaska Natives who did not serve 
during the Vietnam conflict were able to apply for lands under the 
Native Allotment Act but those who did serve had little chance to apply 
under the circumstances.
  I think everyone here will agree that allowing these veterans the 
same advantages as those who did not serve in the military during the 
Vietnam conflict is only fair. The main problem is that when we first 
addressed this inequity in 1998, the terms we set were so restrictive 
that presently only 60 out of a possible 1,110 veterans who could 
qualify even have the chance of receiving an allotment. That is a 
paltry 5 percent of all that could have otherwise qualified. This is 
simply not acceptable. My legislation addresses the restrictive terms 
we unknowingly set in the 1998 amendment in three ways: First, my 
legislation will expand the military service dates of the program so 
that they coincide with the official dates of the Vietnam conflict. We 
ought not to complicate matters by using any dates other than those 
that the Veteran's Administration has officially determined are within 
the Vietnam conflict era. Those dates are August 5, 1964 through May 7, 
1975.
  Secondly, my legislation will replace the current use and occupancy 
requirements with a simplified approval process, just like the one 
established under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. 
By adopting the same legislative approval process that other allotment 
programs used, this legislation will avoid the lengthy delays, costly 
adjudications and burdensome requirements that Alaska Native veterans 
are currently facing. If we do not correct this particular problem now, 
many Alaska Native veterans will die before they ever have their 
applications approved. We cannot allow this to happen to them.
  Finally, my legislation will extend the application deadline and 
expand the available land choices so that the Alaska Native veterans 
who could qualify for allotments will have the time and allotment 
options they need in order to participate.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in making these simple, common 
sense changes so that this group of veterans can secure the land 
allotments they deserve.

                          ____________________